Noone denied F35 has a longer range then a clean Rafale. But to reach Rafale range, it will have to compromise its stealth using EFTs (when they are ready and integrated, open flight domain etc.).The limitation in payload , dynamics and range is inherent to stealth.

Ferry range is a lot different from combat radius…In a ferry profile you are usually not armed and are flying a economical profile to get from Point A to Point B in the most efficient fashion….combat radius usually involves a much more stressing profile..

I know, but it is hard to find combat radius for Rafale without tanks. One could extrapolate from Brazilian values with three tanks. If i use Scooter’s rule of calculation (50% of the fuel in a tank is useless), that’s gonna give nice values 😉 . Doese he realize he is shooting in his own feet?

As for radius the CTOL will do about 750nm on a max range air-to-air combat profile on internal. LM did a comparison some time ago (printed in JanesDW), all except Flanker with three droptanks:

* F-35A 751nm
* Super Hornet 816nm
* GripenC 502nm
* Eurofighter 747nm
* Rafale 896nm
* Su-30MKI 728nm

Bear in mind that these were estimates. Also consider that all performance metrics on the F-35 is based on combat weight, and end-of-life engine performance with 5 percent degradation in fuel economy and 2 percent in thrust.

From http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-14154-start-30.html

Case closed 😉

If, you burn half of your external fuel. Just to make up for the added weight and drag of the tank. Then what’s left is usable………..NOT HARD.

Not hard, true, i love fantasy pictures also. Added fuel weight obeus to the same laws be it internal or external.

Can you read? I a actually replied to scooter’s claim and said that the claims of Dassault are CORRECT and 800 nm with 3-4 EFT’s and a load is not wrong.

3×2000 L “subsonic” tanks (although they were tested up to mach 1.3, i guess it cant last long before too high temp) in this precise condif. Rafale also use 1000 L supersonic tanks.

Yet, my point was the Rafale has much less usable fuel

Once again, what is “usable” fuel??? Generally speaking in A2G configs, Rafale uses 6000 L of external fuel. + 4.7 T of internal fuel i let you calculate and decide what (or who) is laughable here.

PS CFT WERE flown many years ago on Rafale(2x 1000L) and are offered to export. But 14 hardpoints seem to be enough generally speaking. Oh and btw, A belly ammo tank was studied for Korea FX1 years ago.

Bah France can still sell some Rafales at a “friendly” price… (kidding)

Me either (about Vanity Fair). No doubt F35 will be a potent force projection asset. A nice bird? Doubtful. And tbh its program is far more interesting then most soap operas… Consequently ppl tend to troll it a bit, but kindly only!

blah blah blah ;))))