Correct. The internal fuel of a F-16B is ~2600 kg only. A chase-plane is in need to have enough fuel to stay airborne long enough with a safety-margin. Just to fly in a formation does rise the fuel consumption of that “wing-man” by ~10% in general.
Even in the USA it is common knowledge to judge the fuel consumption by miles per galone. To find out the best behavior of every fighter, it is shown in the ferry range claimed for every fighter.
Fuel Capacity: Internal: 18,000 pounds (8,200 kilograms); with 2 external wing fuel tanks: 26,000 pounds (11,900 kilograms) does generate a ferry range of more than 1,850 miles ferry range with 2 external wing fuel tanks (1,600 nautical miles).

1850 miles are 2977 km and 1600 nm are 2963 km, to achieve that the F-22A is in need of 11,900 kg fuel.

Fuel Capacity: 36,200 pounds (three external plus conformal fuel tanks) does generate a 3,450 miles (3,000 nautical miles) ferry range with conformal fuel tanks and three external fuel tanks.

3450 miles are 5551 km and 3000 nm are 5556 km, to achieve that the F-15C is in need of 16,434 kg of fuel.

Under optimum ferry conditions the F-22A is in need to carry 4 kg of fuel per km.
Under optimum ferry conditions the F-15C is in need to carry 3 kg of fuel per km.

9.400 kg generates a maximum flight range (with rockets 2xR-27R1, 2xR-73E launched at half distance) of 3.530 km for a Su-27P.
Under max range conditions the Su-27P is in need to carry 2,66 kg of fuel per km.

A similar clean F-35A does need 8.382 kg of fuel for 2.225 km of range. That gives 3,77 kg of fuel per km. Adding ETs will rise range but will rise kg of fuel per km too. All that with the best available engine technology. 😮

The question we must ask though is are the ranges listed for the F-22 and F-35 accurate, or are they conservative? In order to do an apples to apples comparison, we’d need to know that info.

where you get this impression that Ruaf hasnt ordered Su-35? when factory directly is saying they have orders. and Su-35 will be in production untill 2020.
Su-27 fleet is older than F-15E and they dont have Multirole capability. Sorry Su-27SM does not have the range, payload, radar power, Supercruise, Supermanevourability of Su-35. and U cannot upgrade 20 years old aircraft. Show me where USAF is upgrading 20 years old aircraft? The airframe life is not suitable for demanding fighter duties.
And PAK-FA is superduper aircraft combining capabilities of F-22/F-35. So it will be expesnive to procure in numbers per year. So Su-35 will still be needed for Strike missions with its long legs and long range weopons.

The aircraft in the RuAF don’t have nearly the airframe hours as the F-15C/F-16C/F-18Cs have though(even the peacetime OPTEMPO hours on the US planes is far higher, not to mention several wars). They could upgrade the Su-27s to 80-90% of the Su-35 capabilities for significantly less, and put that money towards the PAK FA, Su-24 mods, and Su-34s.

There is nothing wrong with that. It’s the way it should be. Did not Hitler and Japan have plans to attack the US with dirty bombs; and if we would’ve allowed them enough time fission bombs. During the Cuban missile crisis Castro was having a hissy fit trying to get the Soviet commander in Cuba to launch his tactical nuclear missiles.

A missile does not have to hit the mainland US to be an attack on the US. An attack on our embassies; overseas military bases and craft and our allies and our interests; any of those can be considered an attack on the US.

For people that are too narrow minded to accept that; and insist an attack on the mainland North America or Europe is necessary for threat to be worthy of confronting.: take for instance Iran that many shallow minded people think cannot threaten Europe or American soil with their missiles, therefore like fools they scoff at any threat from Iran. Iran has practiced launching ballistic missiles from barges; therefore a country like Iran or North Korea can threaten any nation that is coastal or near the coast of any ocean.

People need to start thinking with more depth and start thinking outside of the box; the enemy is not going always going to be so stupid or ignorant. Using the shallow minded logic; Al Qaeda was no threat to the twin towers. Cast aside the shallow minded rhetoric: think deeper, take an honest look at history; think outside of the box. The threat is real. There is more threats and more danger than most can comprehend.

Even poor technologically primitive countries/organizations can be a threat. Here is an animation that may help some of you understand.

THAAD Interception of Ship-Launched SCUD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz1-qAjWIm8

There was over 500 WMDs documented in Iraq. There was enough highly refined uranium to make a nuclear bomb. They had and concealed centrifuge(s) for enrichment (we even have them on tape trying to hide a centrifuge from inspectors). They had hundreds of tons of raw uranium. They concealed and hidden components, information, materials and programs to be revived at later dates. The Iraqis even fired so-called “SCUDs” at the coalition. There was even one cruise missile that struck a shopping mall. There was even coalition soldiers that got sick from chemical weapons that were being used as IEDs. Yet some people are such pathological liars that they say that there wasn’t any WMDs. Some people completely ignore what the experts have told us and the UN findings and instead choose to believe the incompetent biased fascist liberal media.

In the first Gulf War Saddam Hussein used a scorched earth policy with the Kuwaiti oil fields; he did that using conventional weapons. It decimated much of the Kuwaiti industry and disrupted the world oil supply.

Now imagine that with oil shortage there is nowadays; if Saddam Hussein attacked other Arab countries and decimated the oil fields using much more powerful WMDs, that have a much longer lifespan. What do you think would happen to the world’s economy and to the state of peace if all of the Arab oil fields were put out of production for several decades? Do you think there might be worldwide starvation, that might trigger instability and even more war? I think it’s guaranteed, if something like that was to happen.

Saddam’s scorched earth policy was one of the biggest financial and environmental disasters in history.
.
Why would one assume that only conventional ballistic missiles would be used. That would even more reckless than assuming OBL couldn’t threaten the twin towers.

If someone is threatening you with ballistic missiles; I think it’s wiser to assume or plan for the worst; rather than being weak and idealistic. I would rather overestimate a threat then underestimate it.

It may have done much more; it may have prevented a nuclear war that may have escalated into the Apocalypse.

That’s clearly not true. Actually they have been threatening the United States for decades; you just haven’t woke up and smelled the coffee. Whether it be ignorance or denial.

Using your logic someone like OBL is/was even less of a threat and couldn’t possibly threaten the continental United States. Never forget 9/11. Never forget Pearl Harbor. Be careful not to underestimate a potential enemy.

Another issue that BMD opponents never mention is that MAD only works if one’s opponent has a strong sense of self-preservation. If you’re dealing with some radical extremist regime, that doesn’t place a lot of value on life(including their fellow countrymen), its deterrent value is marginalized. There’s also the possibility that a missile may be fired by an group/organization, rather than a state, that doesn’t have to worry about retaliation.

When one considers that the Raptor will serve for the next 30 years or more as the US’ frontline air dominance fighter, somehow 183 planes don’t seem that many.

That’s how I see it. How many will still be flying before their replacements come online? As it stands we’re still gonna need to keep some F-15Cs around, to augment the Raptors. How many Raptors will be around to augment their replacement in 30-40yrs? You need more airframes to keep the # hours per airframe down(and the number of flyable airframes up).

The F-35 isn’t even in the class of the PAK-FA, so how is that relevant?

Mission and size are irrelevant to the point I was making which is- more mature stealth and more mature/sophisticated avionics.

You also do realize that if the PAK-FA costs 70 – 80 million / unit – it’s basically superior to the F-22 no matter where its technical specs are “short”? If they are, which is going to be debatable.

I agree that the PAK FA will be far more affordable, but Sukhoi faces the same problems every other aviation firm does(missing deadlines, redesigns, cost overruns, etc…), so it might not be as cheap as you think.

LM has MARGINAL – literally hardly any REAL experience over Sukhoi! What non-sense is that? The F-22/F-35 were the first stealth fighters they built, or first and second, depending if you count weight class. Stealth isn’t magic, or some patented wonder technology. Why isn’t everyone doing it then right? R&D money – which the Russians have plenty of now. And the right development bureaus, which are plenty. You see the trend here?

LM started on reduced RCS designs/materials as far back as the SR-71, and has the benefit of the knowledge of several generations of prototype and production stealth aircraft(and drones/missiles/etc…).
We shall see how much money Russia has as they’re not immune to the world wide economic problems going on right now. Why do you slam stealth technology, but then espouse it when it comes to the PAK FA? Obviously Russia thinks it’s pretty important.

But since you are stealth fan boy you will whine and whine about how the LO advantage of LM from the F-117 must be uber, though the aircraft in question in this thread are not even comparable to the F-117. Disregarding actual aircraft specs in other aspects, the ECM systems, the countermeasure systems, the weapons, etc.

Who’s the one whining? I said the PAK FA was most likely going to be an excellent aircraft, but apparently since I didn’t say it was going to be the best, that struck a nerve with you. You’re right about them(F-22/35) not being comparable to the F-117 though. They’re superior in every way.

Yes, “Usually” is the case but not always. They get the TIALD or similar Pod up there out of the way, designating from a safe distance…or a little bit safer than the weapon platform. Also, from up high they can easily swith to the next target without so much mileage being eaten.
As not many platforms are stable enough to use the Disignating Pod, the higher altitude is likely to have less lumps in the air. Acceptable wobble is a 6mm laser generating a 1 metre diameter “Field” from 30something thousand feet….and this is actually hard to achieve. Anecdotally, the most stable platform around is the Canberra. By sheer fluke, as it wasn’t designed to be vibration free…but it is still used today for the high def camera shots. Apparently, no other platform comes close to it for that purpose.

A bird carrying JDAMs can attack multiple targets simultaneously though, and without regard for smoke/clouds/etc….
The new Laser/JDAM models can even engage moving targets as well.

Yes, they are questionable sources. Or do you want to take seriously everything Kvochur, Frolov or Pugachev ever said about the Flankers? 🙂

Trust me, you don’t.. 😎

So………..should I refer to Carlo Kopp as an unbiased source then? 😎

I suppose we’ll never know what these planes are capable of if none of the pilots are credible sources.