Why would the drop tank add less percentage of range if the aircraft has more drag? It wouldn’t, thus the implication of the 55nm figure would be: F-35 drop tank is imposed with a huge drag penalty.
Which is unlikely. It’s more likely the F-35 tanks add 55nm if not dropped whereas the Gripen tank add 1000km/540nm if dropped when empty.

OK, I did not express myself clearly.

It is actually the combination of F-35 and a drop tank that seems to be very draggy here (unless another explanation is found, of course.)

You have a good point though; perhaps the funny numbers can in part be explained by the F-35 not dropping the tanks, still the discrepancy looks much too big to me.

Gripen NG has a ferry range of 2500 km w. internal fuel only; 4075 km with drop tanks; that’s 63% increase in range. AFAIK, it is not common practice to drop the tanks when you are out “ferrying”. Also it is quite common for 3. gen and 4. gen fighter jets to use drop tanks when training. If a 30% increase in fuel adds just an 8% increase in range, do you really think they would regularly use drop tanks when training?

Nah, there is someting funny here, and still I wonder what it is. Where are the true F-35 experts when you need them? I mean a person that can contribute with more than just :rolleyes: and 😉 and 😀 with the occational 😮 and :diablo: ….

L

Well, to be honest, that Kopp guy is…Whats the saying?…Full of sh*t! I mean, he thinks the RAF would be better off with F-16’s rather than those inferior but more expensive Typhoons. Pretty much says it all about him really.

Yes, but please notice that it was Scooter who brought up Kopp in this discussion — Scooter probably tried to draw attention away from the real discussion by mentioning Dr. K’s name…

L

I don’t think you want to quote Mr. Sweetman on this site……….;)

Those figures have not been refuted by anybody yet, look at the comments on that same blog… “Energo”, a very well known and well connected F-35 fan boy said he would look into this but never came back with an answer, I wonder why? :rolleyes:

L

How will the pilot use the DAS system to see what is behind him? The last time I tried to sit in a chair and look behind me by twisting my neck, I run into some anatomical problems…

Will there be virtual “mirrors”? Or will the pilot seat be a swivel chair? Or is there another solution to this?

I suggest they should do some genetic work, come up with some mutated pilots that have an extra pair of eyes on the back side of the head… 🙂

L

Also, as I said before GE would act the same if the rolls were reversed……;)

And as I said before you are wrong. :rolleyes:

And do you base that on……..:confused:

Well, that should be obvious… 😉

L

Here’s an interesting site: http://www.f135engine.com/

Interesting — P&W seems a bit worried since it seems they sponsor this “F136 killer” site… I wonder why? Is there a reason for P&W to be worried about something ? :diablo:

I guess the reason is clear: They don’t want competition like they have on F-16, they want all the F-35s for themselves. Can’t blame them, but P&Ws extensive lobbying on this site makes me wonder if having an extra engine may actually be a good idea after all… And P&W have themselves to thank, if they did not screw up on F16 this may never have happened.

L

Any aircraft that will cost above $50 million fly away cost , minus weapons , spares and training will immediately raise eyebrow in Ministry of Finance.

…

So the eventual question one will ask the IAF will be why do you need such an expensive fighter when Mig-35 offer the best cost , logistics , weapons and rationalisation advantage.

According to Wikipedia Gripen C has fly-away of 30 million USD; NG is actually not more expensive (e.g., F414 cost 20% less than RM12); in addition, it cost less than 3000 USD pr. hour to operate.

L