Well, there is the Super Hornet.

*Slinks away from this thread.*

Obviously the X-32! Huehuehue

(where’s that picture when you need it)

BTW depending on how you define it, the P-51 could be a contender as well. Though some might say that the underside intake is sufficiently far back that it doesn’t look like a chin, but…something else.

I have never heard Rafale associated with a claimed Mach 1.4 supercruise. Mach 1.4 for Typhoon, yes. I do recall reading of Mach 1.2 for Rafale.

So this was apparently taken at the 2011 Bourget Air Show:

http://rafalefan.e-monsite.com/medias/files/fiche-rafale-le-bourget-2011.jpg

It basically says the Rafale can supercruise at an unspecified Mach for an unspecified distance with 4 missiles and a 1250 L belly drop tank, and that the Rafale M can supercruise at Mach 1.4 for an unspecified distance while carrying 6 air-to-air (MICA) missiles.

At the risk of re-railing this thread, it does seem interesting that the Rafale has significantly longer range than the F-35 (896 Nmi compared with 751 Nmi in air-to-air configuration).

On the other hand, that’s with the Rafale using 3 external fuel tanks. The source doesn’t actually say what type of fuel tank was used, but it’s likely either the 2000 L tank or the 1250 L supersonic tank. I’m guessing the former is more likely. You can see what they look like here. The link says that the three fuel tanks weigh an additional 14,700 lb, which seems kind of high to me since 3×524 gallons (at 6.8 lb per gallon) means 10,690 lb of fuel, so it’s saying there’s an additional 4000 lb of weight for the fuel tanks and their associated pylons. Not sure if that’s accurate, or if something’s wrong with my assumptions. The Rafale carries 10,300 lb of fuel internally according to the link. By comparison, the F-35 gets its 751 Nmi range from 18,250 lb of internal fuel.

However, nothing in life is free; assuming about 1500 lb of missiles (since it’s air-to-air config) and pilot, this means the Rafale weighs about 48,000 lb at takeoff, with a max thrust of 34,000 lb, for a thrust/weight ratio of 0.71, compared to the F-35 which would be at a weight of about 49,000 lb but a thrust of 43,000 lb so a higher thrust/weight ratio of 0.88. Their wing loadings would also be similar, the Rafale at 98 lb/ft^2 compared with the F-35 at 106 lb/ft^2. The Rafale also presumably won’t be supercruising or pulling 9 G’s with those fuel tanks.

And of course to give you an idea of the F-35’s range, the Typhoon with 3 fuel tanks (presumably 1000 L each) had pretty close to the same combat radius as the F-35 does on internal fuel: 747 Nmi versus 751 Nmi.

It would’ve been interesting to compare the Rafale using 2 fuel tanks instead, since that would probably give a range similar to the F-35’s on internal fuel, but of course Lockheed did the comparison so it was their choice.

they sell the thing. the further it goes the better. you claim their numbers include “hidden routing”.. up to you to prove it. If you can find a reliable source to support your claim, fine, if not, stop polluting this thread with your imaginary nonsense

Actually routing factor is a fairly common thing when they consider the combat radius, or at least for the USAF anyway. For example, the source for the F-22’s combat radius on wikipedia includes a -6% routing factor.

I guess since they didn’t explain the combat profile in detail for the F-35 in the SAR, it’s hard to know how much of a routing factor it includes. Looking at the JSM infographic, an additional factor is that the combat profile may include a leg at a non-optimal altitude for cruise, which is less fuel-efficient. I guess so the given range is really just a minimum range available, i.e. the actual max range may be somewhat farther if it is allowed to fly at optimal altitude or there are fewer SAM’s in the way (and thus less routing) or whatever.

Actually I’m surprised the Super Hornet can hit 816 Nmi in air-to-air, since in its SAR, with 3 fuel tanks, 4 1000-lb bombs and 2 Sidewinders, on an interdiction mission its combat radius was given as 489 Nmi. Those bombs must be pretty draggy.

(By comparison, F-35 carrying 2 2000-lb bombs and 2 AMRAAMs have a combat radius of 625 Nmi according to its latest SAR.)

Oh I’ve missed this post:

Thanks. Yeah I knew that shockwaves (and thus drag) are caused by an increase in curvature, which is why supersonic aircraft tends to have bigger fineness ratios. As far as I can tell, the overall argument was that the plane’s overall lift was proportional to the plane’s overall planform area (total airplane area when viewed from the top, i.e. not just the wings), while the plane’s overall drag was proportional to the plane’s overall frontal area (area when viewed from front), and those proportions were roughly the same. I’m guessing the logic was that fighter planes cruise near the transonic regime, and thus wave drag dominates, and that you can use the ratio of areas as a proxy for the plane’s fineness ratio, which determines how much drag it has, and thus how efficiently it cruises at these speeds. Perhaps there’s also a confusion in translation of the terms fineness (ratio of length to maximum width) and finesse (glide ratio, which is also the lift/drag ratio).

This is me speculating on the logic, the guy never gave the logic when asked, just said that you could do this. It was used to claim that Russian planes (which tend to be long and flat) have very good lift/drag ratios and thus good range, while U.S. planes like the F-35 tend to be stubby and thus bad lift/drag ratios and thus bad range. (Their performance graphs have not been released so this is used as an estimate.) I would have thought that, since these planes cruise in the subsonic region, a long and flat plane actually has quite a bit of drag due to skin friction drag. IIRC the lift/drag ratio of PAK FA was claimed to be close to twice that of the F-35 on the basis of a plane planform area vs frontal area comparison. I asked you because I didn’t know if there was some branch of aeronautical theory that I didn’t know about that could allow someone to make this claim (ratio of areas as proxy for lift/drag ratio for determining cruise and thus range).

The SR-71 certainly had design features intended to reduce its radar signature, including chines, canted tails, RAM at leading/trailing edges, and a number of others.

That radar systems could still detect it doesn’t mean it wasn’t stealthy — stealth just reduces the range at which you can be detected, tracked, shot at, etc. Given that the SR-71 was never shot down, I guess you can say the stealth was successful, although it’s more due to a combination of stealth, height, and speed, not stealth alone. It really depends on what you mean by “stealth aircraft”. You might call it first generation stealth if you want.