Yes, but if you read again, you’ll see that this x-band AESA radar was made specifically to detect LO objects.
There is apparently a huge leap forward in detecting LO objects that came with AESA.

No obligatory – the x-band radar was not specifically made to detect and tract VLO/LO objects. It’s brute power means its more effective against VLO/LO targets as it can detect them at a greater range. This noise coming out of LM/Boeing/NG is nothing but PR nonsense. The reality is that while an AN/APG-63V(3) can detect an arbitrary VLO/LO platform 30% further than AN/APG-63 for example, it still is limited to very restricted detection ranges.

In addition to that Captor in its current form out performs most operational AESAs when detecting VLO/LO – AESA isn’t magical.

http://yfrog.com/mx58338601p

Scorp’s that is why I compared jets at empty weight – it becomes too time consuming to start factoring in fuel and weapons. The empty weight TWR is ideal for comparing pure kinematic efficiency from an engineering standpoint.

Additionally, it is not a matter of ‘actual drag’. This method calculates the drag required to equate the acceleration of both jets. Therefore in straight and level flight – IF the reference aircraft undergoes X drag, the competitor needs to undergo exactly Y drag to have the same acceleration. The only thing that is variable and based on public data is the thrust produced by each jet. With that thrust, an engineer, analyst or observer can get a Y drag to compare to X drag – enabling them to make an assessment on kinematic performance combined with their judgement or if available – additional data.

With regard to thrust – it varies with speed and altitude – but it does so in a fairly similar trend for each jet compared here. There will be differences in the numbers – perhaps enough to alter the relative position of those lines significantly. The reality is however that these graphs are fairly good guidelines and can be computed at different altitudes with exact data, parametric data or data derived from parametrics. See this website for some basics:

http://www.aircraftenginedesign.com/custom.html4.html

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/703/acceleration2.png/

I have a feeling it doesn’t produce that much thrust nor does it have such big mass savings. From the source you listed, you have added 2 tons of extra thrust? Is that correct?

I’ll compute it but i have a feeling you are being overly optimistic – especially since the engines which are upgrades are likely to be heavier?

Where did you get your data ? 😎

The data is publicly available. The method is based on the straight line acceleration equation:

a = (T-D)/M, which is derived from F = ma, where F is the net forward force or Thrust minus Drag, which is then divided by mass to produce acceleration. Forming a simultaneous equation of the aircraft compared (e.g. the Rafale) vs. the reference aircraft (Typhoon).

a(Typhoon) = (Tt – Dt)/Mt
a(Rafale) = (Tr – Dr)/Mr

Therefore for equal acceleration:

(Tt – Dt)/Mt = (Tr – Dr)/Mr

where for a given drag state – which corresponds to a thrust state for the Typhoon, one can work out the drag at which the Rafale needs to be flying with to match the Typhoon for acceleration. Then a % of the Typhoons drag can be calculated with the Rafale drag calculated. The chart shows for the Rafale to be as kinematic as a Typhoon, it requires approximately 80% of the drag through the full performance envelope from the low drag states to the point where T = D and no further acceleration can take place.

Obviously this isn’t high fidelity analysis. One would need much more accurate engine data vs. altitude and speed. One would need to compute it with fuel added into the mix and weapons. But what it does give you is an easy tool for comparison given the publicly released data – where you can use your own judgment to decide whether one aircraft has X % of drag more or less – with that you can decide which has better performance.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/10/unled2oo.png/

Straight line acceleration comparison of Typhoon vs. F-16blk50, F/A-18C, F-35A. Typhoon is the reference aircraft in the graph, which shows at each drag state – so effectively at each thrust state – what the required drag of the each jet would be to match the Typhoon’s acceleration. F-35 in red needs over a 100% (negative drag) less drag in the energy recovery states (the low drag states) to match a Typhoon. The Typhoon will as a result, rocket away from an F-35, after say they had both avoided cannon fire by pulling 9+ G turn and dramatically dropped airspeed. In the middle drag states – the states before you’d stop accelerating – the F-35 requires between 60% and 90% of the drag of a Typhoon to achieve the same acceleration. At the higher drag states the F-35 can be 7% more draggy than a Typhoon and match it for acceleration. Think about this in an AtA context, with the Typhoon armed with say 4 conformal BVRAAMs compared to the F-35s 4 BVRAAMs. In this state do you think an F-35 is only 7% more draggy with its bulky higher aspect ratio wing, its low sweep and bulbous airframe that carries huge amounts of fuel per nm it achieves in range? I think this graph shows the Typhoon in every single state is vastly superior kinematically to an F-35. The energy recovery of the two platforms is dramatically different and even the higher drag states favour the Typhoon.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/34/accleration2.png/

This is the same graph, but for acceleration in the vertical, showing an even greater gap of performance. There is no point where an F-35 would be 36% or less draggy for a given thrust setting. The Typhoon as a result would club an F-35 like a baby seal.