The F-35A only gets an extra ~30% fuel from 2x EFTs. Once empty, it then has to deal with the additional drag while it burns the remaining 18,400lbs. The additional drag is almost enough to overcome the small increase in fuel.

For an extreme example, lets pretend a super hornet had 21,760lb internal fuel so that 2x 480gal tanks with a combined 6,528lb capacity would add exactly 30%.
…

Exactly… carrying an external tank once empty imposes drag on an aircraft. Depending on the ratio of the aircraft’s internal fuel to that in the tanks carrying external tanks can add negligible additional range, or in some extreme cases decrease range. (which makes perfect sense if you take a moment to think through the problem, which naturally isn’t on the agenda of the F-35’s various hysterical critics who would much rather invent scenarios where the F-35 suffers from mysterious aerodynamic issues that prevent it from benefiting from external fuel…)

Increasing the size of the drop tanks would result in a more substantial range increase for the F-35. (which is doubtless what Israel has in mind in pursuing 600 gallon external tanks for the F-35)

Hopsy, dont talk about “lets check reality” and post pictures of models and CGI. Its very cute. I stated clearly that I ignored twin pylons. Rafale has no problem incorporating it. In real life, not only CGI. Here is triple pylons for guided AGM.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]226045[/ATTACH]

Or this one
[ATTACH=CONFIG]226046[/ATTACH]

These are actual flights. When will the F35 fly with full load?

On the Rafale C you could swap centerline tank for 2 AAM.

This is what it can fly with in reality.

The Rafale first flew in 1986. :stupid: Of course it has flown in more configurations than the F-35.

That doesn’t change the reality of what each aircraft will be capable of carrying when operational.

Triple pylons for AASM, nice, but nothing amazing. The F-35 will be able to carry SDB or Spear on quadruple launchers, internal or external. (meaning 6 sets of four, plus 18,000lbs of fuel, 4 AAM, and a targeting pod)

That is 6 vs 24. :eagerness:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pictures-mbda-sharpens-spear-missile-design-for-f-35-373453/

So what is your point anyway? That a Rafale can carry 6 AASM plus a large fuel load? An F-35 can do the same thing with 2,000 bombs. Note that this is not a CGI:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]226052[/ATTACH]

Or 6 GBU-12 (Not CGI):

[ATTACH=CONFIG]226053[/ATTACH]

Facts are facts. The F-35 has a substantially greater useful carrying capacity than a Rafale. There is no use in further humiliating yourself on this one.

But if needed one could compare CGI to CGI. How about this one?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]226047[/ATTACH]
What do you estimate will fit in the boxes?

Can you explain it with the very drunk and stupid smileys you always use? Oh, and keep up the insults. Its very professional of you.

Given then load limits on the Rafale’s weapon stations, not all that much could be in those boxes. :very_drunk:

Try to think, seriously.

The limiting factor for the Rafale is that it only has 5 stations that are rated to carry a heavy weapon and it needs to devote one or more of those to fuel. Even with conformal fuel tanks the Rafale would need to devote one or two stations to fuel to come close to the F-35’s fuel load… leaving it with only 3-4 stations with enough capacity to carry an air to great weapon. The F-35 has six.

Getting it yet?

I did not forget drag, i mentioned it. And i doubt a 2 tons heavier F35 will react like without. Weight means lift aka drag. And initial formula of F35 is draggier than so called “4th gen”.

You may not have left it out, but you clearly don’t fully appreciate it. External carriage is extremely inefficient. As posted earlier in this thread the rough rule of thumb is that 50% of the fuel in a drop tank goes to extending range, while the other 50% is lost to the tank’s extra drag… and that is in a more or less pure cruise scenario. (and without adding the penalty the bombs themselves will impose)

When you start talking about combat performance (acceleration, speed, sustained turn performance) the impact is huge.

The outstanding handling, acceleration, and the maximum speed of the aircraft is useable in a combat configuration unlike in legacy fighters. Beesley said that recently he flew an F-35 test flight with a full internal load of two 2000 lbs JDAMs, and two AIM-120 missiles. The aircraft “felt like it had a few thousand pounds of extra fuel” but otherwise Beesley said there was practically no degradation in the aircrafts’ performance.

http://www.livescience.com/3032-fighter-jet-controversial-future-fleet.html

I still agree there would be more drag on Rafale, but clean differences are so huge that i’m not sure in this very config F35 will have superior kinematics.

Not a chance, none. You are trying to compare a nearly ideal loadout for the F-35. That is almost -exactly- the load the entire aircraft was designed around. The only way to make it even more favorable for the F-35 would be to require a targeting pod and a couple missiles.

at hops : (from AWST ref i gave you)

with a clean Rafale, using afterburner, you can enter a turn at 500 kt. and 10,000 ft., pull the maximum 9g and still accelerate

about the sustained G you were right, not exactly sustaine and in full AB (i tend to foget the exact content of 14 years old article) but… I doubt in a similar configuration (which F35 cant reach anyway as far as talking about fuel fraction) F35 can do that

Frankly you don’t have any clue what the F-35 can do. You didn’t even read the original article correctly.

All your article is saying is that a totally clean Rafale can sustain a 9g+ turn at 10,000 and 500kt. (meaning it was accelerating while pulling 9gs under those conditions) That is impressive, but we don’t have a basis for comparison with the F-35 in any case, especially not with a useful load.

For the next maneuver, I selected afterburner, banked some 75 deg. and pulled to the maximum allowable gs of 5.5, in the heavy configuration. Starting at 420 kt., the speed was 330 kt. after completing a 360-deg. turn.

Again from DAvid M North flight test.

Yes, that shows that the Rafale was not able to sustain 5.5gs under those conditions. (and was thus losing speed)

These types of anecdotes seem to be very impressive to you but I am really not sure what the point of posting them. They aren’t by themselves all that notewothy.

Only F35 pilots can use tactics to their advantage. Didnt you know that?

I see you are back… are you ready to retract your erroneous claims about the Rafale’s carrying capacity relative to the F-35?

Oh wait, I just remembered that you are immune to education and will instead just cook up a new argument when proven wrong. :eagerness:

Well you brought up Libya so i respond how many DT was dropped ( 0 )
It does not matter at what time any encounter will come, most fuel is internal,
there will always be fuel to go back assuming fuel in DT are being used first, and it is.

Again, it isn’t simply a question of “fuel to get back.” It is a question of whether the aircraft has any endurance in combat once it drops its tanks.

If an aircraft drops all of its external fuel at the first sign of the enemy then every drop of fuel for both combat and its return trip home needs to come from its internal tanks.

If the trip home is long, then endurance in combat will be shortened.

Simple really, if you think about it. :stupid:

I think you totally misunderstand things here @FBW
In Libya, not a single a/c was shot at, and as such not a single drop tank would have been dropped -there was no need to dodge.
Secondly fuel is drawn from a drop tank before internal tank, so there is no problem in landing in the nation you took off from,
rather the other way around with the now light load.

As usual, FBW is correct.

It is possible to load a 4th generation fighter with a large fuel load via external tanks, but if that aircraft wishes to return home it must retain sufficient fuel to make that return flight. If it flies out XXX miles, and then drops its tanks because it anticipates combat, its endurance in combat is limited by the amount of fuel it needs to retain in order to return home.

So sure, you could put 3-5 huge tanks on your 4th generation plane of choice, and naturally drop them at the first sign of a threat… but if you are a long way from home you just lost any endurance you might have had.

That is why Russia designed the Su-27 with the huge internal fuel capacity that it has. Their calculations/assumptions indicated that carrying the fuel internally and avoiding drop-tanks was the better solution.

With 5th generation fighters the debate has ended and all aircraft will typically operate without external tanks.

Well… Not counting weapons…
F35A : 13300 Kgs + 8280 Kgs (fuel) five a fuel fraction of 0,37 no?
Rafale C 9500 kgs + 4800 Kgs fuel fraction 0.34 (internal fuel)
Add one supersonic tank, and Rafale fuel fraction get better than clean F35 (0.41) i didnt count the tank weight i agree.
That’s without weapon.
Now lets add 2000 kgs of bombs (for the sake of simplicity) fuel fraction 0.34 for F35 similar for Rafale.

Yes, there will be induced drag from the two bombs and the supersonic tank one should take into account.
However, Noone here counted the proposed add of CFTs on Rafale.

So which will have the best kinematics between clean F35 and Rafale + 2x1000L bombs + 1 centerline supersonic tank?

You are forgetting drag. A Rafale with two 1,000kg bombs and a fuel tank hanging out in the wind isn’t going to be able to come close to the performance or efficiency of an F-35 with an all internal load.

Testimony from pilots that have flown the F-35 have already confirmed that even with a full internal load it flies almost identically to a clean F-35.

In general when comparing the F-35 to 4th generation aircraft the F-35 will look the worst when the aircraft are compared absolutely clean, and will look its best when the F-35 is carrying its maximum internal load. (and so your comparison comes close to that optimal scenario for the F-35)