The headlight/flashlight(torch) analogy loses something of Yimmy's point. He is talking about reflection not emitted light. It is harder to make out a white plate than a mirror at distance using a torch. This is more about a grey plate and a black plate. Putting light grey dots on either of them will make them easier to see. I don't think that the hardpoints are all that reflective Yimmy. They certainly stop the F35 from being a black plate though.

>>>'except in the real world...' and 'Accept the facts PG.' have no purpose within your reply. Unless you intend to suggest that I don't live in the real world and that I can't face facts. Insult given and accepted.<<< ---Its not an insult. Rather its to let you know that the conditions you described dont exist in tactical application. Manufacturers quote the often meaningless V_Max to draw attention. As you can see in the FBR board the unschooled often run amok with it as if they discovered something. For example, I have read it quoted that V_max is somehow an indicator of how well a certain type accelerates. Thats just not the case as it is more complicated than that. When you say that a legacy fighter carrying bombs and fuel under wing is going to fly, not to mention release, at M2.0. I have to call BS. >>>The Eurofighter/Typhoon is 'probably limited', but whether it is limited to mach 1.5 I have no way of establishing from open source.<<< ---OK if you want to quibble then suit yourself. But trust me that the laws of physics, yes I have taken it at the college level, are the most open source you can get. >>>Your point seems to be one on relative drag. I'm sure you are the relative expert on this, but that doesn't inform nor educate me.<<< ---OK well if you wont take my word for it then feel free to spend $55 dollars an hour, what it cost at the time for me, learning to fly light aircraft and it wil all start to make sense. Of course that wasnt a Typhoon but the physics are the same. If you dont want to spend that kind of money, probably $80-$100 an hour these days, then buy a decent flight sim and try the following. If its modeled even near accurately this should work. Take off clean up the aircraft, raise the gear trim flaps ect., and apply maximum power/thrust and go as fast as the sim lets you. Then do it again except dont clean up the aircraft. Again if the sim is accurate you will notice drastic difference in airspeed. For $hits and giggles you can lower the gear at V_max and rip it off(depending on what aircraft) to see it the sim is worth anything but I digress! But still its more complicated than that. The Eurofighter is after all a relatively small plane and doesnt carry an enourmous amount of fuel. So if you load it up with bombs making it heavy. You will have to fly at a higher throttle setting to cruise because you still have to contend with gravity. Now pay attention because thats will be important later. In addition to the weight vs lift consideration, you will have to add drag to your equation. Drag forces are exponetial. So you will have to use even more thrust to overcome that to reach a desired speed. The moral of the story? Remember all that hoopla in my Eurofrauder thread about specific fuel consumption? Well if you do that math even for maximum military power the Eurofighter has got a very limited window to operate at maximum thrust before running dry. Factor in actually traveling to the target with a load like this and the Eurofighter even if it could do M2.0 while bomb laden would become a glider over the target area. So not only is it not possible to do M2.0 bomb laden for the EF2000 due to physics. EVen if it was it would not be practical. >>>I must say I was suprised by the F-35 'carrying a similar or better load internally'. More than ten SDB? Well yes more than one on each hard point is practical, they are small and light. The eurofighter can only carry about six paveway at present, but it is a work in progress. It will never be a true bomb truck. This thread is aimed more at the mission than the aircraft. In that I question whether euro nations have the need for a stealth strike mission.<<< ---Similar meaning a load appropriate for the same target or targets. Remember that the Eurofighter lacks the avionics to be in the same class as the F-35 in strike capability. The F-35 could release all its ordinance at the same or widely spaced individual targets in a single pass. In practical terms this is the equivilent of "several Eurofighters" doing the same thing or one Eurofighter making several passes at different targets. Also consider the survivability rate of a legacy fighter making multiple passes through an alerted defense. Its not a question of if Euronations "need stealth". The real question is do you have it when you "need it". If the answer is no then you pay in men ans materials. At current exchange rates thats about 2 to 3 F-35s for each Eurofighter lost. Of course the cost in lives is not measurable but again I think the point has been made. >>>My second post tries to ask the question whether it is easier to eat a cake from the middle or from the edge?<<< ---Why not eat the cake from anywhere you want and at lower cost? Thats the real question.

Is the drag the eurofighter is suffering the same drag that seemingly is unimportant to the FA-18E in the other thread?

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=50739 - I know, hardly a source. Quote: with a payload that draggy and only 3000L of external fuel, how far can it fly Well according to a guy in an Austrian forum who is very well informed [works for Janes] the pilot said that they flew 1 hour [fuel consumption was apparently nearly the same] and then returned to Manching not due to fuel shortage but because Manching closes at night quite early. Totally third hand gossip, but I thought it informative. Of course drag has greater effect at greater speeds, so add salt to taste.

No because nobody ignored that in regard to the F-18E in any thread that I know of. If you can find an example please post it so the trolling isnt so obvious.

Interesting stuff, even the wrangling. Does anyone know the price difference between the two? From a laymans point of view the F-35 is probably better as its technology is that much later. In that case we have to ask can you get more bang for your buck buying a greater number of the cheaper older aircraft. An example. The UK bought Apache at great expense and by all accounts its pretty good. I hear the french use a flight of 3 or 4 Gazelles armed with different weapons to carry out a mission that 1 Apache could do. (My source is a RM Captain who flies Lynx) Now its a question of philosphy and doctrine as to which is better. Against the rebels in Sierra Leone the Apache was not used as it would have been extreme overkill when compared with the cost of getting it there and the risk of its loss. A couple of Gazelles would have been handy at this stage. To conclude, against a lower tech enemy such as Iran, would a smaller number of F35's pack a bigger punch than a larger number of Tiffs?

>>>To conclude, against a lower tech enemy such as Iran, would a smaller number of F35's pack a bigger punch than a larger number of Tiffs?<<< ---Yes. F-35s are the equivilent of 4 or more Typhoons depending on the mission. Say for example you had a target with 8 aim points, defended by SAMs and had a CAP. For the Typhoons to take on this mission you would need 2 to 8 Tiffs to drop the bombs and/or designate the targets. Depending on the enemy CAP you would need about 2 to 8 escorting Tiffs and possibly a SEAD element which could be 2 to 4 more. Then depending on the location of the target you could need a tanker or two AND you most definately need basing rights. So we are looking at a low number of about 6 and a high number of but not limited to 20 plus support aircraft like tankers. Depending on the what the actual targets are a Single F-35 could do this by snealing in undetected from a carrier and deploying 8 SDB depending on the target from outside the range of Iranian point defenses and using stealth to evade long range detection and CAP. But for redundancy and mutual support it would be 2 to 4 F-35s. That is quite a bit of difference. Not to mention that the cost of one Typhoon is at least 2 times the F-35. If this mission happened before 2020 the HArrier carriers could do it as the CVF wont be ready until some time AFTER 2015 and most likely 2020ish.

Here come the F-35 price speculation... I have wondered if an order for 200 Typhoons would have much impact on the price per unit on subsequent orders?

Darth, when F35 is used in stealth mode with internal ammunition its capacity is rather limited even with future small bombs, knowing you take two AMRAAM for self defense internally . I deny you that F35 efficiency is better on ground targets.Only survivability could be better.But if ECM are sufficients and air dominance easy to gain, there is no difference. You are greatly overestimating stealth in some scenarii.

"You are greatly overestimating stealth in some scenarii." And you are ignoring its qualities in all scenarios. I'll take the plane that's gonna survive over the cheap earlier generation one that will have the Squadron writing condolence letters.