et, no, they both flew from Italy to Azores and from there they flew for the USA.

it is a 4000+nm trip

if you wanted to go from Italy to the USA, after 2445nm you’d just end somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic

You are right the distance of 2442 nm applies to the route flown from Lajes to Patuxent River. Doesn’t change anything wrt the statement however.

Gentlemen perhaps you read what is written…

During the 2,442 nautical mile flight to the US

With flight coordination handled by NATO controllers in Ramstein, Germany, the F-35 and the Eurofighters refueled three times during the 2,105 nautical mile first leg flight to the Azores.

and

An hour before the F-35 was due to land at Patuxent River, the Eurofighter and one of the tankers headed to Pease Air National Guard Base in New Hampshire…

So the trip for the F-35 was 2442 nm, the Typhoon and a tanker diverted ~1 h prior the F-35 landed at Patuxent River, both flew the “first leg” for 2105 nm that leaves an additional 337 nm for the F-35 on the final leg which was probably the last time both aircraft refuelled jointly before splitting to head towards different destinations.

That appart we are here talking about a clean F-35A with an internal fuel capacity of ~8.3t and a twinseat Typhoon, which even with 3 x 1000 l tanks, has a capacity of ~6.5t!

Leave Christ where he is, before Seahawk took that quote as signature, it was an interview of a german pilot published in a paper magazine (combat aircraft, or air forces monthly, as I said, can’t dig it right now). It was an interview after germans made their few months aur policing over baltic states, and, while the “under the snow picture of the Typhoon is nice, nothing tells you it can do it for long time and remain fully operational.

In any case, we agree that it is very likely that Canada takes the Boeing offer regardless of qualities of other aircraft proposed

Possibly sentiments towards the retirement of the F-4 back then. Typhoons are flying in winter as they do in summer.

Not sure I get you with the jamming, Rafale jams “much better”, The Typhoon has front and rear hemisphere jammer in one wing tip and a couple of TRD’s in the other tip, one thing I have not looked into is the Typhoons “last ditch maneuver”, I haven’t got a clue as to how effective it could be, it must be somewhat effective as its been provisioned, love to know if anyone knows any details.

DASS provides three types of maneuvers. Support maneuver are designed to maximise the effectivness of the counter measures. Escape maneuvers are designed to deplete a threat missiles energy state to outrun them, if counter measures ressources are constraint to defeat the threat. Last ditch maneuvers are simply cues to a missile on finals.

A bit later than indicated and not yet a contract, but it’s finally a first step in the right direction!
https://www.eurofighter.com/news-and-events/2015/09/eurofighter-welcomes-the-agreement-between-italy-and-kuwait-for-the-supply-of-28-eurofighter-typhoons

While not a customer funded program yet, UTAS has at least studied repackaging the RAPTOR sensors into a smaller pod that would fit Typhoon.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/utas-sets-sights-on-raptor-integration-with-typhoon-415108/

Fighters’ designs account for a range of Cgs. I’m sure minor tweaks to ballast and FBW would suffice, as has been the case with all the prototypes to varying degrees since the first flight of T-50-1.

You aren’t messing around with FCS all times the weight changes, hence ballast is the way to go in such cases, unless you have changes that in sum may suffice FCS amendment. And what we were talking about here were changes on the tail sting. I just don’t think they have removed KS-U to make room for a rearwards facing array. It’s nonetheless interesting to see how the OEIS arrangement has changed with virtually all prototypes thus far.

It will be interesting to see how the final arrangement will look like.