When a fighter is forced into the transonic region all surplus external loads like ETs will be dropped.

Yes, but until then, an A/C with EFTs is slower than a clean one = the time to travel from A-B is bigger.

I classify them as ‘nominal BVR’
i.e entirely dependent on aspect & relative speed

Still not IR but radar guided, agreee?

You don’t even believe this yourself, do you ?
or did LM re-write the definition of “dash” too ?

An F 22 also “dash” for 50-100 Nmiles, if it wants to conserve a 300-400 Nmiles of SC cruise. Of course, it can SC for 600 Nmiles, but if it can land/refuel at the end of this “superdash”

On WVR/BVR, nearly all hits are WVR, regardless if the missile is classified as a ‘BVR’ missile.
It is only situational that any missile are actually ‘BVR’ missile,
i think a better description would be ‘potentially BVR’

An AMRAAM can hit a target, let’s say at 50 km at 10,000 m and if the two opponents are facing. The same AMRAAM would barely hit at 10 km in pursuite at medium/low level. If some of the Sparrow/AMRAAM kills where in pursuite, how would you classify them: WVR or BVR? Also the poster I answered, said that most of the kills were WVR with IR AAMs. Or, they were not with IR.

@aurcov
Yes, i tend to believe @signatory exaggerated on the standard gripen,
but not as much as LM exaggerated in the opposite direction.

If the NG manages to reach 715 Nmiles +30 min. “on station” with almost twice the fuel of a C (60 % more fuel in EFTs and 40 % more fuel internal), why is the LM claim exagerated?

This is a good example on how false marketing can backfire.

O’Bryan will want us to believe that F-35 can supercruise,
with the disclaimer that it isn’t actually supercruise,
by saying that it is possible for 150 miles.

Yes, it’s a LM employee, so it must lie… 150 Nmiles can be in-out, so there could be 300 in total; or they limit it to 150, in order to still has some subsonic time.

But this immediately contradict another claim: that F-35 has a better range, than for example Gripen NG

If the NG is on internal fuel, you can bet that the F 35 will outrange it.

The he finish it of by saying that

Where F-35 suffer more than any contemporary fighter, save F-18

On the contrary, he says that it’s a good speed for the F 35 to be at. If this is false marketing, soon pilots from 10 countries and 3 US services will know…wait, pilots from 3 US services and UK are already flying the thing. I guess that any of them could call AFA Magazine and contradict the damn’ LM liar.

There is nothing like fair or unfair. The F-35 will spend most of its lifetime in the offensive role. More than often it will find itself in a situation where it needs considerably more range than the defending aircraft. Not speaking about the possibility that the targets will be defended by Flankers which 1. do not carry external fuel tanks, at all.. 2. outrange the F-35, anyway.
What do you want your F-35 pilot to do? Complain on the intercom in style “hey, you don’t have a fuel tank attached like our simulation has shown, that does not count !!”?

It does not outrange the F 35:

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.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=88277&highlight=35+TAC+Brawler

Neglect the fuel load – its influence on overall drag is negligible at this operating condition.

Not so fast! In the AFA article they say that the F 35 has a combat radius at least 25 % longer than conventional planes. That why I insisted on 1/2(or more?) internal fuel. Because in real life, an F 16/16, Eurofighter, etc would need at least 1 EFT to match the F 35 combat radius, and this make any acceleration comparation with F 35 unfair.

You should read Jon Lake article from AI
carefully , Maj. Grune explains that “sleeked” means remove EFTs. Where did You get this info ? Nobody said that Eurofighter had half internal fuel , and the chance was probably really fair. You speculate without any confirmation to provide that F-22 were in disadvantages RoE in WVR , but they didn’t.
In real fight Eurofighter go to WVR without any EFTs like F-15C . If you think that Eurofighter were sleeked to get it any chance in WVR against F-22A – you are wrong!
Col. A.Pfeiffer said :
“In the dogfight The Eurofighter is at least as capable as the F-22 ,with some advantages in some aspects.”
This is profesional fighter pilot opinion and you should note that no one USAF pilot ( official sources , pilot name ) denied that.

They denied the outcome of the WVR encounters.