Though the Gripen E can in theory travel very far, having to load up on fuel tanks to do so means it's not going to carry much of a punch when it gets there. Lockheed Martin also gave a subsequent Request for Binding Information Response in 2008 here. If what's required for a long-range mission is simply some missiles, then even the Gripen E will be fine for the job, as long as you don't mind the maneuvering penalty from putting almost 90% of its payload into external fuel tanks. I believe they referred to the loiter time over the target CAP area, but I may be wrong. But hey're being phased out in 2019. Assuming 1500 lb of missiles, the thrust-to-weight ratio and wing loading at 100% fuel (i.e. That's not to say that the F-35 doesn't have very strong range, and payload at range capability. It gave the following: In 2011, Dassault's presentation to Brazil compared the Super Hornet, Rafale, and Gripen E in AtA and AtS missions. In the Typhoon presentation, the chart for the mission radii were partially cut off on the very right, thus I could see numbers but not what they were referring to. (Let me know if I erred in them.) It states the following: Note that the wingtip Sidewinders basically act as winglets to help improve lift on these planes. The others are somewhere in between. An aircraft with drop tanks will have a greater combat radius than the same one without, due to the extra amount of fuel carried. The last one is more similar to an AtS mission than an AtA mission, since it involves traveling a significant distance (i.e. The others are somewhere in between. It can be found here. In it, Saab provides a few details about the Gripen E's range: In 2016, Gary North (Lockheed Martin) gave a presentation to Israel. Additionally, the thrust figure used is uninstalled thrust at sea level, the actual thrust varies based on factors such as speed and altitude.). High thrust-to-weight ratio is better, while low wing loading is better. Notice that even if the other planes drop their external fuel tanks upon entering combat, only the Typhoon has a better thrust-to-weight ratio than the F-35. The Rafale carries 3 2000 L tanks, while the Typhoon carries 3 1000 L tanks, and the Gripen E carries 2 450 gal tanks and a 300 gal tank. The others (Super Hornet, Typhoon, F-35, Gripen E) all have an air-to-air combat radius of around 750-800 nm. A good illustration of comparable range for these various planes. In military aviation, the combat radius of an aircraft is often given with its mission profile (without in-air refueling). From all of these sources, a clear picture emerges: The Rafale has a somewhat longer air-to-air combat radius, at around 900 nm. What would you recommend I change to make it clearer about payload vs range? The others (Super Hornet, Typhoon, F-35, Gripen E) all have an air-to-air combat radius of around 750-800 nm. Except for the F-35, the others use up a significant amount of their payload capacity to do so however, so their "usable payload" for weapons is significantly less than what's typically reported. I couldn't think of a simple word for "planes currently being considered for purchase by countries like Canada, Finland, Switzerland, and others". Or just convert them all to one set (i.e. Maybe I should have said "export" instead? What is the difference between range and combat radius of fighter plane? The Typhoon presentation can be found here, and the F-35 presentation can be found here. Be great if you standardized on units instead of having gallons/pounds/miles there in a paragraph with liters/kilograms/kilometers. For a given aircraft, its combat radius varies according to whether or not it carries external drop tanks, the level (altitude) of the combat mission, and the amount and weight of ordnance it is carrying: Thus unlike many planes, where the horizontal tail produces a downward force resulting in the wing needing to produce more upward force resulting in drag ("trim drag"), the horizontal stabilizers on the F-35 may instead help generate lift -- or at least, less drag than previous planes. All that theoretical remaining payload doesn't mean as much when you're limited to ~3,000lbs on 4 stations internally. For a given aircraft, its combat radius varies according to whether or not it carries external drop tanks, the level (altitude) of the combat mission, and the amount and weight of ordnance it is carrying: The combat radius of an aircraft is often given with its mission profile (without in-air refueling). Is it the radius after having launched and refueled and factoring in a return refueling or two? Up until now the UK hasn't really been interested in using the Eurofighter in the air to ground role as it still has the Tornado GR4A for the attack role. Though the Gripen E can in theory travel very far, having to load up on fuel tanks to do so means it's not going to carry much of a punch when it gets there. These figures are only approximate anyway, as a "first order" analysis. So for example it doesn't account for how the chines and intake shaping may help to increase lift at higher angles of attack. Extrapolating from the given distances and loiter times, it's likely that the Typhoon, for a "go there and back, no loiter" mission, can reach around 750 nm. It would fit with the rule of thumb that about 60% of the external fuel goes toward extending the range (the rest goes into accounting for the extra drag the fuel tank produces). The second caveat is the amount of payload remaining after the fighters have loaded up on external fuel tanks. Do you think I should do something like "528 gal (2000 L)" instead? For example, for the Super Hornet, those 3 480-gallon external fuel tanks enable it to carry an additional 9792 lb of fuel to augment its 14,000 lb of internal fuel, but they weigh an additional 1143 lb for the tanks themselves and an additional 883 lb for the pylons according to the flight manual, so roughly 20% of the fuel weight. Granted the Rafale can travel farther than the others, but even if I substitute supersonic 1250 L tanks for its decidedly subsonic 2000 L tanks, it would still have a lower thrust-to-weight ratio than the F-35 at 45% fuel with tanks dropped. The weapons load was not specified. 10 top features of Rafale that make it the deadliest fighter jet - The Indian Army were already capable of a nuclear attack, but now the Indian Air Force's … The US Navy fact sheet, last updated in 2009, can be found here. Well the F-35 actually carries around 5000 lb internally. For example: Combat radius is always smaller than maximum range, the distance which the aircraft can fly the farthest with maximum payload and without refueling, or ferry range, the distance the aircraft can fly the farthest with drop tanks, no ordnance and without refueling. For information about how to add references, see Template:Citation. So this may be useful to keep in mind the next time you come across a War is Boring article claiming yet again that the F-35 is short-ranged, by comparing it to the size of the Pacific Ocean (this really is David Axe's justification), or when people claim that fighters can travel farther than the F-35 (by using external fuel tanks). An aircraft with more and heavier ordnance will have a smaller combat radius than the same one with less and lighter ordnance, due to higher fuel consumption at heavier weights. from official reports or presentations) is welcome. The rule of thumb is that the radius of action is one-third the distance an aircraft can fly in a straight line on a full load of fuel. So, what does combat radius refer to? This article does not contain any citations or references. The internal carriage has major benefits aerodynamically that help the F-35 achieve it's range capability, but that also comes with some trade-off in limited quantity of stations and volume of payload if you want to maintain that full advantage. An aspect which is often unnoticed that contributes to the F-35's lift is that it seems to be designed to be more aerodynamically unstable (farther back center of gravity) than previous fighters. It gave the following: Saab released a brochure about the Gripen E in 2015. However, it's useful to compare it with the other F-35 variants. My speculation is that using 1250 L tanks would give them an air-to-air combat radius of 750-800 nm, but that's my speculation only, based on the three comparison of ranges with and without fuel tanks above (Hornet ferry range, Super Hornet ferry range, and Super Hornet interdiction combat radius).