er, he was speaking about the F-35, read again

No, the Raptor. Read my previous post carefully.

The only logical thread allowing Obligatory to pull in the other quote and claim that the F-35 needs to engage min afterburner to sustain a speed above Mach 1.0 is that “without using fuel-gulping afterburners” is not a rhetorical detail to help the reader understand the significance, but that it is saying the F-35 needs a bit of afterburner (i.e. more efficient than full afterburner and hence not “fuel-gulping”). Otherwise, the other quote simply doesn’t matter. I pointed out that the similar phrase “without using fuel-guzzling afterburners” has been used to describe the Raptor’s supercruise hundreds of times. Therefore, to be logically consistent, if this phrase refers to min afterburner for the F-35, then it refers to min afterburner for the Raptor as well. The alternative is to recognize that the phrase was indeed just for the benefit of the reader, not a technical detail, and neither aircraft needs to engage their afterburners to sustain a speed above Mach 1.0. It’s either both or neither.

i dont know why you bring up nonsense, everyone, as in L.M & pilots, has stated that F-35 does not fly supersonic in level flight without afterburner, , except one pilot that brought in a disclaimer as to not get caught red handed.
why would you pick the disclaimer version over all others ?

Sigh. If you want to embarrass yourself, then fine.

1. It’s easy to show that some in the aviation industry, Lockheed Martin in particular, hold “supercruise” to mean more than just supersonic (> Mach 1.0), but Mach 1.5 or higher. For example:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-22-fights-back-with-supercruise-success-54326/

Five days later the F-22 test aircraft, 4001, demonstrated supercruise capability, or sustained speeds of more than Mach 1.5 without afterburner, in tests at Edwards AFB, California, and this key milestone was seized upon by the USAF as an opportunity to rally support for the air superiority fighter.

Lockheed Martin’s Code One Magazine article written by Paul Metz: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/C1_2000_V15N04_1271449318_6844.pdf (page 14)

Supercruise, or the ability to travel at high supersonic speeds without afterburner, is one trick in a bag of tricks offered by the F-22.

Note that this is Paul Metz giving this definition.

Lockheed Martin’s Code One Magazine article: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/C1_Vol20_No4_1271449318_1059.pdf (page 12)

Among all fighters — current as well as future, including the F-35 — the F/A-22’s ability to supercruise (fly at greater than Mach 1.5 without the use of afterburner) adds to the kinetic energy imparted to its missiles at launch while simultaneously denying the enemy time in which to respond.

Granted, that definition has fallen out of favor, as anyone and everybody has now started calling their fighters “supercruising” if they could sustain Mach 1.1-1.2 without afterburners. Granted, setting the bar of Mach 1.5 was an arbitrary number anyway; it was just because that’s the bar the F-22 was supposed to beat as its KPP, as shown in its SAR, and one that Lockheed hoped other fighter manufacturers wouldn’t be able to achieve. Note that these citations are purposely taken from a long time ago, i.e. to show that they are not recent citations to try to “reinvent the past” on supercruise definitions regarding the more recent F-35 quote.

2. That there is this difference in “supercruise” definitions (“any supersonic speed” versus “> Mach 1.5”), particularly by Lockheed Martin versus the rest of the major fighter manufacturers, has been acknowledged for a long time, even on this forum. For example:

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?12423-does-the-f-35-have-supercruise-capability (from 2003)
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?48193-Exact-definition-of-supercruise (from 2005)

3. The quote in question about whether or not the F-35 supercruises was from Lockheed Martin’s Vice President Stephen O’Bryan, being quoted in the Air Force Magazine (Nov 2012):

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2012/November%202012/1112fighter.pdf
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/November%202012/1112fighter.aspx (text version)

The F-35, while not technically a “supercruising” aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.

“Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots,” O’Bryan said.

The high speed also allows the F-35 to impart more energy to a weapon such as a bomb or missile, meaning the aircraft will be able to “throw” such munitions farther than they could go on their own energy alone.

There is a major extension of the fighter’s range if speed is kept around Mach .9, O’Bryan went on, but he asserted that F-35 transonic performance is exceptional and goes “through the [Mach 1] number fairly easily.” The transonic area is “where you really operate.”

It’s easy to see that this is because O’Bryan, being from Lockheed Martin, holds sustained supersonic speeds above Mach 1.5 without afterburners as the technical definition of supercruise. Hence the “while not technically” since the F-35 only sustains Mach 1.2.

4. Obligatory has repeatedly claimed ad nauseum that “without using fuel-gulping afterburners” means that the F-35 has to use the more fuel-efficient partial afterburners (or to occasionally “tap” the afterburners) on this forum. Hence that this is why Lockheed Martin says it doesn’t really supercruise (note that the definition here has changed — now “supercruise” simply refers to “any speed above Mach 1.0” compared with Lockheed Martin’s definition of “> Mach 1.5”). This is because modern afterburners have stages, so you can activate the afterburner in levels, rather than older afterburners which were “all or nothing”. See for example the most recent in the F-35 thread from June 2016:

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?137788-F-35-News-and-discussion-(2016)-take-III&p=2319539#post2319539 (claiming it was just “some kid” who came up with the Mach 1.5 explanation — now we know that Obligatory considers Paul Metz “some kid”)
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?137788-F-35-News-and-discussion-(2016)-take-III&p=2319755#post2319755 (claiming the 150 miles is because the F-35 starts at max altitude and has to do a shallow dive for the whole distance to stay supersonic)

This despite people telling him over and over again that he’s misinterpreting the quote, and that he’s conflating Lockheed Martin’s definition of “> Mach 1.5” with the more common definition of “any supersonic speed” as why LM says the F-35 doesn’t supercruise.

5. Any ordinary non-Obligatory interpretation of the quote is obvious: the writer is simply telling the reader the significance of this to orient the reader, namely that the airplane does not have to use afterburners, which consume a lot of fuel, thus the plane can save a lot of fuel. It is easy enough to google the phrase “without using fuel-guzzling afterburners” to see that there are hundreds of articles about supercruising without using fuel-guzzling afterburners…about the F-22. So, under Obligatory’s interpretation, the F-22 also has to either use the min afterburner or occasionally tap the afterburner in order to reach its Mach 1.7 “supercruise” or whatever speed it can reach.

So this is really a pretty simple choice for Obligatory:

1. Either your interpretation is correct, and the Raptor actually has to use min afterburner or occasionally tap them to sustain its supercruise of > Mach 1.5, or
2. Your interpretation is incorrect, the F-35 does not need to use afterburner to maintain > Mach 1.0 in level flight (for 150 miles), and the writer is simply providing a rhetorical detail to help the reader, or
3. There is a semantic difference between the “fuel-gulping afterburners” that the F-35 is described to not need, and the “fuel-guzzling afterburners” that the F-22 is described to not need.

So which is it?

If the Gripen E can do a mission with 1,300 km radius with 30 minutes on-station I think that is pretty impressive for such a tiny bird.

Not sure if it’s actually be all that surprising. It gives the Gripen E a fuel fraction of around 0.43 by using up most of the available payload, leaving just enough for 4 missiles (and a recce pod if desired), putting it at its MTOW. It’s almost like the Rafale carrying 3 2000 L tanks, except the Rafale can still carry thousands of pounds of weapons still.

Pretty sure the two tanks on the belly idea was shelved.

I’m guessing it would exceed the MTOW anyway.

And with 4 BVR and 2 WVR missiles, it could be a problem of using 3 tanks. Since 2 BVR needs to be next to centre tank. In fact its hard to find an image were Gripen has 3 tanks with weapons. Its always 2 tanks for NG.

Where does it say it was with 4 BVR and 2 WVR missiles?

Edit: Regarding images of the NG with tanks, the snark in me wants to say “that’s because it hasn’t flown yet”. But it’s really because Saab knows how unattractive it’d be to computer-generate an image of their max range configuration, i.e. all loaded up with fuel tanks leaving only the wingtip and outboard pylons for weapons. So they don’t. And guess what, the configurations they do generate are not going to reach the max ranges they talk about.

optimal alt for F-35 is ~27k

Hanche (F-35 pilot) has said that the F-35 cruises 10000-15000 feet higher and 50-80 knots faster than the F-16 (link has google translate). So if you get your aviation information from F-35 pilots and Obligatory, the F-16’s optimum cruise altitude is 12000-17000 feet.

8,000kg empty weight
7,000kg of fuel
+weapons
16,500kg maximum takeoff weight.

They are proposing operating the jet just below its maximum takeoff weight for a “combat air patrol.”

Additionally, typically the weight of the fuel tank and pylon is roughly 15-20% of the weight of the fuel. I don’t know what fuel tanks/pylons they’re using for the Gripen NG, but if it holds 3600 kg of external fuel then this is about 540 kg to 720 kg of pylon/fuel tank weight for that fuel. So you’re looking at:

8000 kg empty weight
3400 kg internal fuel
3600 kg external fuel
540 kg to 720 kg pylon/fuel tank weight
———-
15540 to 15720 kg used

With a MTOW of 16500 kg, you’re looking at a weapons payload of 780 kg to 960 kg or so max, or roughly 2000 lb of total ordnance. This also includes any potential self-defense missiles if they’re carried, plus the weight of the outboard wing pylons (I assume wingtip pylons are part of the empty weight) needed to hold the air-to-surface weapons. This is probably why Saab had the disclaimer “The actual combat radius depends on the configuration of the aircraft’s external stores, its profiles and the availability of reserve fuel tanks” — basically that if you want to drop anything more than a couple of 500-lb bombs the radius will decrease. Usually the available payload is so large that you may not care to include the weight of the pylons and fuel tanks, but in this case the remaining available payload capacity is so small that they make a sizable difference.

Edit: Just a follow-up point, this is what makes the payload figures somewhat deceptive. Sure, the Rafale can carry more (21,000 lb) than the F-35 (18,000 lb), but in order to match the F-35’s range it’s going to be using multiple external fuel tanks, which cuts into that payload. In this case, the Gripen NG has roughly 2000 lb left for missiles and bombs (and pylons), while the F-35 is carrying ~5000 lb of ordnance internally. The F-35, however, has an additional 13,000 lb of external payload capacity should the operator wish to trade off between capacity and range, or simply carry more per mission (thus needing fewer planes). The Gripen NG is completely tapped out. Same goes for the other planes (Rafale, Typhoon, Super Hornet).