ty. That is .84lb or kg/kn/h ? i guess kg. Could you repost rand link plz? i do not find it.

It’s .84 lbs/h/lb thrust (mil power) though looking at it again, they give intermediate thrust as kg/s [but that doesn’t make much sense given the numbers] rest of measures appear to be in US units) seen it listed as .84 lbs in other places too. chart is toward the middle. Rather large document.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR1596.pdf

The range numbers for the Gripen NG seem pretty comparable with the ones for the good old Mirage 2000, 800 NM with two externals and four 250 kg bombs, and that M53P has a lousy SFC…

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/mirage-2000.htm

It was a bit of hyperbole. The point was obvious. People can play the manufacturer claims of max combat radius all day. The reality is very different when loading a 16,000lb fighter with 15,000lbs of fuel (more than half external), then making absurd statements. But the reality of the F414, which Saab pointed out the poor SFC when trying to sell the Gripen C vs the SH, coupled with the weight and drag of 1700L EFT strain the credulity of the term “combat radius”.

@Vnomad: somehow the leafs and branches makes you miss out on the entire forest: fuel consumption

Your right of course! Saab’s brochure range of a paper plane that hasn’t flown yet is inaccurate!
The F414 has the highest SFC of any fighter turbofan the US produces, add to that the fact that the Gripen NG will be flying near MTOW with even two EFT and weapons. That little fighter will have to use a very high throttle setting to cruise with the massive weight and drag of that load. The F-35? Throttled back nicely well below mil power.
Saab and their propaganda, crazy.

F-16 370 gal tanks with pylon are 531 lbs, pylon and tank are one piece. The 600 gal tank is 399 + 304 for the pylon. Anyway, I think that’s quite heavy, maybe Gripen tanks are lighter? 😉
But OK, 500 kg are probaly not enough to account for 3 tanks… except maybe if pylons are part of the empty weight. Empty weight is 8 tons btw.

17,630lbs ~ 8,000kg according to latest Saab presentation. I think someone linked to it on this or previous page if you want to look.

I had just under 700lbs for the 370gallon tank pylon. Where did you get weight?

That’s not fuel fraction.
13.170 kg empty plus 8.278 kg fuel = 21.448 kg weigth –> fuel fraction thereof is 0.386

Just a few posts before there’s a chart showing internal fuel to be 3.4 tons.
The centerline afaik can’t carry the 450 gal / 1700 l tank, just the smaller 1100 l tank. I don’t know if the 1400 l tank works, or if it even exists for that matter.
So that makes 8.5 + 3.4 + 3.6 tons [(2*1700 + 1100 l)*0.8] = 15.5 tons. Total fuel 7 tons, fuel fraction 0.45.
With just the underwing tanks: let’s say 8.4 + 3.4 + 2.72 = 14.62 tons. Total fuel 6.12 tons, fuel fraction 0.42.
.

A Gripen E carrying 2x 1700+ 1×1100 eft is going to weigh 9.5 tons empty. Without fuel, those EFT and pylons add at least 1 ton to the 8.5 ton empty weight (a US 370 gallon tank weighs ~700lbs with pylon).

That gives a fuel fraction of .42 with three EFT, or .39 with two 1700L EFT.

you could say that again, several times actually, and reflect on the fact that fuel consumption is anything but equal,
F-35 consumes twice as much, so it would need twice the amount of fuel fraction to keep up,
but instead it got less, while at the same time consume twice as much.

Enlighten us with the TSFC of the F414 and the F135. You’ve claimed that the F135 consumes twice as much fuel, so I dont think it is too much to ask that you provide the forum with some specific details.

Ah, wait this is Obligatory posting. Actual information isn’t important for someone who’s had a long a illustrous career of being spectacularly wrong, repeatedly.