Notwithstanding mixing supersonic cruise and subsonic cruise does enlarge the combat radius of the F-22, but no evidence to prove that mixed combat radius is longer than MiG-31, furthermore the speed of MiG-31 is faster than F-22 under this condition, regardless other supercruise range of MiG-31 is true or not, if we say “without a/b used” is for extense combat radius, then MiG-31 offer a combat radius longer, if not, what the condition we shall give to the definition of supercruise?

I think that information can be inferred from my previous posts. You however haven’t provided a source for the 463km figure. Even the most vanilla estimates are in the 600-800nm combat radius range. 463km isn’t even a 300nm radius- do you really think that’s anywhere near being accurate?:rolleyes:

Here are some “semi-official” figures ( http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2005/January%202005/0105raptor.pdf ): 405 Nmiles, including 100 Nmiles 1.5 dash, or 600 Nmile only subsonic. Aside those, ~20 min are spent over combat zone in supercruise.

Don’t you see, combat radius of the F-22 under supersonic condition would be much shorter than we can conceived.:D

Super sonic cruise and supercruise are different. For practicality these are MARKETING DEFINTIONS which have now been globally accepted by most arms manuf. and users. Super sonic cruise might be classified as cruising at super sonic speeds . Supercruise as per most definition is the ability to cruise super sonically in dry power without the use of AB to either acheive superson cruise or maintain it.

Thanks so much for your bring me on.:p
May I understand your explanation as the attributed definition of supercruise merely is whether the afterburner is used.
afterburner used is not supercruise
afterburner not used is supercruise no matter how fast the speed runs or/and how long the range will be.
Does these presentation above I comprehended rightly?

I’m curious, is MIG-31 a supercruising interceptor? Why it is and why not.

The PAKFA will fly in 20009 not 2009

Since it is said that eurofighter could reach the ferry range of 2,600 km with 4,996 kg internal fuel. I think it should be more reasonable for Eurofighter to reach the ferry range of 3,706 km (42.5% more than 2,600 km) with 3,000 L (1,500 L fuel tank*2 or 1,000 L fuel tank*3) external fuel (4,996 + 3,000*0.8 = 7,396 kg, which is 48% more than 4,996 kg) instead of with 2,000 L (1,000 L fuel tank*2) external fuel (4,996 + 2,000*0.8 = 6,596 kg, which is 32% more than 4,996 kg).

Would you mind give the original source of where the 2,600 km range was taken from?
On the other hand, the max external fuel the EF Typhoon could carry is 4000L, so even if the two dropped tanks beside main wheel we mentioned really is 1500L, there is 1000L external fuel to be additional still, although your analyze is believable.
The three 1000L does not exist in the condition we discussed because the datum show us is two.

the F-2’s were able to fly the 1,700 miles from northern Japan to Guam without refueling a “straight shot,” as the Japanese said with unconcealed pride.

According to some information, the ferry range F-2 gained almost approach 2200nm but no weapon loading.
Which means 3000 or 3300km as combat range is reliable, considerably shorter than EFtyphoon.

Factually, Japanese wants the EurofighterTyphoon as total replacement of Mitsubishi F-2.
If the weapon load as what you said, the Typhoon is suited as Fighter-bomber also.