First it was 8 AAM and secondly the 6 AAM plus centreline drop tank was confirmed by Eurofighter. The quotes about the Gripen Demo and Rafale are both with a centreline Tank and 4 AAMs.

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.

I’m good thanks. You?

They are “your comments” in that you chose to post them as support for your case. The fact that they appear to date from 2009 and, despite my best googling, solely appear on aged forum threads without any links to the original may or may not make people consider the validity of those comments.

That’s without mentioning that the world has moved on from 2009; there have been recent facts revealed on the actual range versus any 2009 predictions,.

The range mentioned in the 2009 thread was in a particular profile (for all the aircrafts compared) flying in subsonic firing a missile and go back; the 600 nmiles offten quoted involved 15 min. dogfighting, including the use of AB

oh and that the whole point of this discussion is that the F35 cannot sustain supersonic flight without being in ab.

Supercruise 101: The idea of not being in ab is that you burn less fuel, burning less fuel for a given speed equals more range or persistance alongside the enhanced facility of flying fast.For an a2a mission other platforms can do this.

I repeat it-I never said the F 35 can SC.

It throws the claims of “almost equal to the F22” into a rather poor light

When I said that?

You took the snippets out of context, (and then invented a comparison to F-15). Here is the full sentence:

What he was really happy about was that F-35 could maintain supersonic speed so it can engage in BVR,
even though it comes at the price of being lit up on a/b for every IR sensor to see.

I did not took it out of context, but Spud posted the rest of it;I posted the paragraph he did not posted.

As about he comparing with F 165, I clearly said “probably” becouse no one really thought that an F 35 can’t fly in supersonic with AB.

Correct, you didn’t put any of them down; you tried and failed 😀

So you’re tootling along in min ab in your F35, how’s your range remaining figure looking there?

The combat radius will be bigger for F 35, even if the other planes are with 3 EFTs (2 in case of Rafale).

In summary you are short legged with a light weapon load, neatly adding up to a stunning lack of persistance.

Short legged?

Discussing maximum mission radius, Mazanowski presented an air-to-air mission profile in which all the aircraft took off with a weapon load, remained at high altitude and returned after about a minute of combat. All but the F-35 and Su-30MKI were carrying three external fuel tanks.

Under this scenario, the Rafale had a maximum mission radius of 896 n miles, the F/A-18 816 n miles, the F-35 751 n miles, the Eurofighter 747 n miles, the Su-30MKI 728 n miles and the Gripen 502 n miles.

Because Spud did not quote the entire article, it worth to post some other paragraphs:

Once the aircraft achieves its maximum airspeed, the pilots will begin testing g-loading at high airspeeds and various altitudes. Most of the envelope will be rated to 9 G, Griffiths said.

The F-35’s ability to carry weapons and a large fuel load inside its own skin makes the plane far less draggy on a combat mission than the F-16 or F/A-18, which sling missiles, bombs and fuel tanks below their wings and fuselage, Griffiths said . Moreover, a combat-laden F-16 loses much maneuverability, whereas the F-35 is barely affected by carrying 18,000 pounds of internal fuel and 5,000 of internal weaponry

Retired Lt. Gen. David Deptula, formerly the Air Force intelligence chief and a veteran F-15 pilot, said having that kind of capability is a huge advantage.

“I’m real happy to hear that in fact is the case, because speed gives you a variety of advantages,” he said. “It allows you to employ your air-to-air missiles from a range much greater than otherwise would be the case.”

Though the F-35’s maximum speed is Mach 1.6, the F-35 test program will eventually push the jet a little beyond that limit to make sure operational pilots have a margin of safety, Griffiths said.

As of May 31, Griffiths said, the Edwards F-35s had flown a total of 2,513 test points against a plan of 1,995. As of that date, the F-35A was hitting all of its key performance parameters, and radar cross-section testing is exceeding specifications.

What I found interesting is:

-that a former F 15 pilot (gen. Deptula) is very pleased with the speed of the F 35 in combat configuration (probably compared with the F15);

-the 1.6 M will be pushed “a little beyond”. this is consistent with AF simulations that gives 1.8 M as max. speed;

-radar cross-section testing is exceeding specifications

Gripen Demo, Su-35S and Rafale reportedly demonstrated this as well.

Correct but not in the same configuration as the F 35. With a couple of tons of fuel and 6 AAM, I’m sure an EF or a Rafale can supercruise at ~ 1.2M. But that’s not the operational configuration of either.

Really?!
The F-35A testbed will hardly be at 39 kft with 8 tons of fuel and 2,5 tons of weapons. 😉
By the way something the “Super Phantom” with PW1120 engines and semi-attached weapons offered in the 80s and some others too.

To stay fair the F-35 comes closer to its predictions and none serious one claimed a super-cruise capability of the F-35 except of some fan-boys proven wrong by that official data released. 😎

I never claimed the F 35 can supercruise, at least not in the sense the F 22 does.

I don’t know why it wouldn’t.

Rafale does M0,9 at 50% throttle with 2 2000L tanks, 6 AASM and 4+ Mica. (that’s 2,5 tons of weapons and 8700L of fuel).

Nic

It’s not what i asked. Can a rafale fly >1 M with min. AB?