To my knowledge there were 3 prototypes converted from Su-27s and 3 new built ones, plus 6 pre-production aircraft and three serials, plus two static test frames. The website states that the 704 was a static airframe and that there were just 5 prototypes all of which have been converted from Su-27s. :confused:

May Ken has some more info on that!? Ken where are you!?:D

I don’t think the 712 was ever fitted with the AL-31FU, it were just rumours. Afaik the aircraft was mainly used for testing the N-011M Bars.

I never heard of (from an official source, not forum folklore); however, even if true, an EF/Rafale with one EFT still has less than 2-2,5 tons less fuel than the F 35. this means that the F 35 can go in “min. AB” as much as the mentioned fighters in SC.

That’s nonsense! More fuel doesn’t automatically translate in greater persistence! The combat radius of the Typhoon for a strike mission with hi-lo-hi profile is given with 750 nm and that’s for a dirty aircraft carrying external fuel, 6 AAMs and some AG munitions (IIRC 4 x 1000 lb bombs was the stated loadout). Typhoon’s external fuel load is 3 x 1000 l. In total the aircraft would carry 9215 l of fuel and that’s 7372 kg!

The F-35 has a combat radius of 600 nm (rounded figure) with 2 x 2000 lb bombs, 2 x AMRAAM and 8.3 t of internal fuel!

To cut it short the F-35 has a 25% shorter combat radius with 1 t more fuel and in clean configuration vs a dirty aircraft!

You can do the math yourself!

But it is not the missile load that kills the performances: there are the EFTs.

The fact that those ECDs cruises with at least one tank plus AAMs whereas the F-35 doesn’t even make it clean! It’s not the F-35 which is the yardstick here! Bring_it_on is spot on here. The F-35 wasn’t designed to supercruise so no One blames the F-35 for failing to do so.

Personally , I think that the Captor-E will have a better range than the RBE2-AA (maybe a 20-35km advantage) .

You just recently stated the RBE2AA’s detection range with 165 km against a 5 sqm target. The current Captor-M is already exceeding this performance! If the 50% more range with an AESA turns out to be true you will look at 3-4 times the figure you stated.

Also , since GaN is using less power than GaAs for the same task(s) , the software running the whole thing should be able to do more at the same time (like SAR + TF + AA search) more discretly .

Whether GaA or GaN the software must be right anyway and it doesn’t matter that much which TRM you use.

What needs to be done on the Typhoon is to implement the EMCON concept . This way , the top of the line Radar , IRST , RWRs , Link16 , etc , will work together and the defense system (software hard work) will be able to manage the different emissions to get the best out of very little in a discrete manner .

Really? It already does this! :rolleyes:

The F-22 and the Rafale are very good at it 😎
The F-35 also look very promissing .
We often talk about “sensor fusion” and some think that displaying 3 different sensors on 3 different screens is “sensor fusion” (Eurofighter) , no it is not .

You have no clue about the Typhoon that’s your problem, add your utter bias towards the Rafale and it becomes clear that there is not the slightest interest in figuring out the truth about the Typhoon’s capabilities. A pity that your lame wishful thinking and unreasoned bashing doesn’t change reality. The F-22 uses three different sensor formats on separate screens as well.:eek: All sensor displays are in fact fused, but provide a different level of information depending on the task and situation at hand. The attack format provides more detailed information for target sorting, assignment and attack, the DASS format provides a clear picture of threat environment if required, while the PA format provides the overall picture with AA, AG targets, navigation information etc. All onboard and offboard sensor data are fed into the AIS which fuses these data, correlating sensor information, assigning joint tracks and priorities.

The Typhoon ‘s driver has to check the various screens , understand the situation at hand and think about a possible solution . If he needs or ask the Typhoon ‘s sytems to rely primarely on one sensor or two (radar , IRST , Praetorian) because the situation needs it , he has some work to do in the pit by using button push and switches .

Nonsense! DASS requires not any input at all if not required, the IRST-attack format is only of relevance if the radar is on standby or off and data from the operational sensors are still fused. Btw the Rafale features dedicated Spectra and OSF-display formats as well and probably RBE2 formats either!:eek::rolleyes: So you are either lying on purpose or you have no clue about your very own frog fighter!

With the Rafale , the defense system is running the show . It presents on the main screen all the findings RELEVANT to the situation at hand , recording and filtering out the rest for immediat or futur use. The mission AND the pilot decide the EMCON level (same with the F-22) . To make it short , when the Rafale detects something , everything is done to track the target with the most discret sensor at hand and use the other sensors only to fullproof the tracking if it is needed .
This is NOT done by the pilot but by the aircraft itself .

DASS presents threat cues on the PA as well and ESM data are fed into the joint tracks as well, it doesn’t need the DASS display format unless you want to get a clearer and more detailed picture of the threat situation beyond the standard indications. DASS actually manages the active emissions of the aircraft as well and active systems can be programmed with mission data to automatically start or cease radiating and the pilot can manually command the systems to cease radiating by pressing to buttons which takes about 2-3 seconds.

There is no other reasons behind the Rafale ‘s edge on the Typhoon wrt BVR fighting . The French said so and so many times than some should understand the concept at hand .

Yeah Rafale pilots commenting on Typhoon’s MMI when they have not even flown the aircraft themselves. Very convincing, let me tell you a MiG-21s MMI is much superior to that of the Rafale! Believe me, I haven’t flown the aircraft, I’m not qualified to judge about it, but hey I tell you so I have a military background so I must be trusted and what I say is true!:rolleyes::dev2:

Can a conventional fighter fly in supersonic with 8 tons of fuel and 2.5 ton of weapons in min. AB? Guess not…

LMAO and what exactly do you want to proof with this? Other fighters are accelerating to and sustain supersonic speeds on dry thrust only with an external load of AAMs and one or two drop tanks, the F-35 can’t even do this CLEAN! And who said that this was done with 8t of internal fuel and weapons at all? Does the F-35 start mid-air with full fuel?:rolleyes::p

Edit:
Anyone want to make a guess when we’ll see first F-35 fanboy posts stating the Lightning II supercruises based on this comment? Just like Raptor like performance based on matching it in few portions of the flight envelope or like F-16’s brief afterburner input (a dirty one I might add) translated into full afterburner to keep up with the F-35 on dry thrust…

Edit2:
The only way it could somewhat qualify as supercruise (funny that the fans don’t come up with that M1.5+ only is supercruise claims anymore…) is if the claim is read this way “we are cruising, lightening up the burners to pass the transsonic region and then throttle back to dry thrust and sustain that supersonic speed”. However, it doesn’t read like this in the first place.

Hinting at supercruise

Redefining “supercruise”?

“What we can do in our airplane is get above the Mach with afterburner, and once you get it going … you can definitely pull the throttle back quite a bit and still maintain supersonic, so technically you’re pretty much at very, very min[imum] afterburner while you’re cruising,”

Sounds more like it remains at supersonic speeds with minimum afterburning setting. Wow.:eek::dev2: