So you’re saying that RAND assuming 50% internal fuel capacity for the F-35 is wrong?

it’s not ‘wrong’, it’s just misleading

Its common to assume 50% or 60% internal fuel capacity as the dogfight weight of the aircraft.

that might have been a fine assumption in the past when fighters had similar fuel fractions

but using it to compare old generation fighters to new fuel fraction monsters is perhaps not the best policy

Yes Scooter, if you have a higher empty weight, you should assume a higher burn rate to deliver that energy to transport that mass, otherwise go home and start learning basic physics.

F-35 weighs 2350 lbs more than the EF yet it carries 8400 lbs more fuel

do you think the 2350 extra pounds of weight require 8400 more lbs of fuel to transport?

well do you?

please tell me, because that sure seems to be what you’re saying

Lets add to that, with larger engines you do have to assume a higher burn rate due to the increased internal surface friction between moving parts.

no, larger engines are more efficient

larger fan allows for higher bypass ratio = more efficiency

1 bigger engine is more efficient than 2 smaller engines, hence why airlines have jumped from 4 engines (A-340) to 2 engines (B777) when possible (A-380 wasn’t possible)

if smaller engines were more efficient, all airliners would look like B-52s with dual pods under each pylon 😀

Add to that, a plane with a large internal volume is going to have surely a larger surface area as well, and that means increased surface drag.

not that much

you know what really increases drag? external stores

all those targeting pods, tanks and missiles are very draggy

the F-35 will fly very aerodynamically clean

But if you have an enormous fuel capacity, you cannot rid of the fuel that quickly, can’t leak it off and can’t burn it fast enough. It’s a problem if you planned a long ranged mission, set the fuel accordingly, then suddenly finds opposition along the way much sooner than you anticipated.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-10601.html

if this thread is to be believed, it has the ability

to dump 1 ton of fuel in about 5 seconds and the ability to lose the entire 8.4 tons (18,500 lbs) of fuel in about 45 seconds. Practically though it is the ability to replicate the effects of dropping the equivalent of two 600 gallon external tanks in the span of about 20 seconds if needed.

The RAND chart is saying 50% internal fuel plus full load of AAMs.

50% internal fuel on the F-35 is a LOT more fuel than most of the other fighters in the comparison, especially for its weight class

if you compared with an equal amount of fuel (say 6000 lbs) the numbers would look very different

besides the fact that chart metrics tell you nothing about aerodynamic performance, they penalize the F-35 for being able to carry more internal fuel

I Know what you mean, but your calculations (if any) are wrong.

feel free to demonstrate any time you feel like

Patience for time.
Performance of both aircraft, will be revealed sooner or later.

perhaps you should take your own advice then?

you seem very confident as to what the performance of the F-35 will (or won’t) be

For a2g? I thought we are talking about a2a.
I don not dough the 35 as a bomb carrier.

well internal fuel tanks on the Gripen-NG and Su-35 can’t be ejected, so draw your own conclusion . . .

You sound very sure. Of course you are wrong.

nope

I wont try to explain you the kinematics of the problem, but try to think simply.

you’re the one that’s thinking too simply

yes a higher speed results in a higher turning radius

what you aren’t accounting for is a higher speed also results in a smaller reaction period

it’s like trying to dodge a bullet

Neo only exists in the movies . . .

If a M5 missile was that deadly , why most missiles fly around M3.5-4?
Is it because they cant? Or something else?

Mach 5 is harder to build and more expensive and bigger and heavier and most of the time 3.5-4 does ‘good enough’

let’s look at the most advanced air-defense systems in the world
PAC-3
S-400
SM-3

notice something? all M5+

Apart from that:

During nearly all these simulated combat sorties, the F-15s protect ground targets against advancing Indian aircraft — the two will swap roles during one series

1. they only swap roles ONCE during the entire exercise, not once per day
2. even when they swap, it only says that the F-15s would be attacking ground targets instead of defending them. It says nothing about them not being outnumbered while attacking ground targets

Funny how that little detail dropped off the radar after the fact, isn’t it?

the USAF has every incentive to make the F-15 come off as bad as possible (more F-22s and F-35s)

Even the AWST article admits that the BVR range restrictions were mutual

yes, but the point is that WVR, numbers trump everything else

being outnumbered WVR is a good way to get beat down

and to be honest I’m wary about its claims regarding Indian active missiles. Their early model Mirage2000s are not able to fire active Mica missiles and India does not even have the missile in its inventory

it says they were ‘simulating’ missiles

while the only participating aircraft that could fire the R-77 is the MiG-21 Bison. The Su-30Ks (no MKIs!) are alleged to have used them although they actually cannot.

the article reference AA-12, not R-77

Frankly if, as the article seems to suggest, the USAF depends on having AESA radars in their 21st century F-15s to take on well-flown late 1980s standard Flankers that doesn’t bode well for an engagement with a Su-30MKI or a -35. Which was the original point.

the actual point is that getting into a knife fight against superior numbers is stupid

I highly suspect those (likely US 😉 ) sources are basing their assertions on the same article, which claimed that fire-and-forget missiles were simulated by Indian aircraft that cannot actually fire them? That piece was so riddled with questionable statements that I’d be careful to give it any credibility. AFAIK the 3-1 number came to pass by counting the total number of attacking and defending aircraft, including the strike package on the offensive side (nevermind that, if the roles were swapped as I think they were, the Eagles would be outnumbering the IAF defenders next time around…).

here’s the AvLeak article as quoted in another forum

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=362

> (nevermind that, if the roles were swapped as I think they were

do you have ANY evidence that the roles were swapped besides your ‘feeling’?

To the best of my knowledge, the assertions that ROE for the F-15s were different to those for the Indian participants and that they were outnumbered are rubbish. Roles were switched during the excercise.

every source i have seen says that they were outnumbered (3-1 is the usual number), no BVR combat was allowed, and the Indians had fire-and-forget missiles while the F-15s were using semi-active radar guided missiles that required them to keep the target illuminated throughout the missile’s flight

True, So what?
If you dont have a 500km range missile you are not good.

directing fighters to where you are? hello?

And AFAIK there is no western missile under development with range better than 100 k? Do you know something more?

1. there are several (such as RIM-67C)

2. good thing we only go against western systems :rolleyes: (the S-400 already has ranges of 400+km)

3. the 500km isn’t the point, it was just a made-up number (obviously), the point is that the F-35 will ALWAYS be better at penetrating an IADS than the EF or equivalent

Because they fly faster! Good enough?

1. no they don’t
2. no it’s not good enough, because even if it was 0.1 mach faster (which it isn’t), that makes squat all of difference to a Mach 5 SAM

Better than a slow flying Lightning with virginity lost…:diablo:

1. how many slow-flying B-2s have been lost in combat?
2. the F-35 is faster than you think . . .

you talk about radar advances, what about speed and range and maneuverability advances in SAMs that make them impossible to outfly?

what then?
Dont understand what you mean.

you keep claiming the EF and Gripen (haha) are better because they can outfly (haha) SAMs

your argument against the F-35 is that future advances will render stealth obsolete (not likely)

yet what about future advances in SAMS that make them faster, longer ranged, more maneuverable and IMPOSSIBLE to out-run?

what good will your EF be then?

i’ll tell you what, you’ll want to stay undetected as long as possible

Of course. That is always the ideal tactic. But will not be always possible.

so i convinced you?
here i thought you’ve been claiming that the ideal tactic is to outrun the SAM