ok this could be possible?! But it would seems impossible to get a source of it..
theres a lot of sources saying 3750km, so i sticking by it.
I will checkout some of my paper stuff at home, meaning on saturday if I have time and will then turn back to that.
Feel free to believe what you want, but “Wiki” is certainly not an overly good source. BTW the Typhoon’s ferry range was given with 3700 km with 2 x 1500 l tanks (deleted from the real aircraft). So if we add up the ~6125 l + 3000 l we get some 9125 l and achieve a range of 3700 km. Now you want to tell me that a Rafale with some 14000 l wouldn’t fly even further?
Well, I thought Collins wasn’t a reliable source neither, is he ? lol
Anyway, my aim here was to show how easy it’s to discredit anyone. Hopefully we all agree that such behavior is pointless anyway, so don’t forget my last line :
And yes I think Peter Collins knows as well what he’s speaking of, even if I disagree with part of his article. No one is perfect isn’t it, no even a damn plane 😉
Well the point is that some people were quiet quick in seeing that article as an evidence about the Rafale’s superiority as it came from a british guy. Something I had predicted very early and for what I was attacked by a certain banned member. Jacko pointed out some quite valid points which put things into a perspective, but was merely attacked by the virtue of his person. If people had actually bothered with comprehending what was said we could have saved a lot of bandwith, time, offenses and nerves by that and probably even some bannings. But no people did exactly what I expected from the very beginning and here we go.
Edit:
@StevoJH
At the end of the article he said:
If I had to go into combat, on any mission, against anyone, I would, without question, choose the Rafale.
of which plane are you speaking here ?
If it’s the Rafale as said supposed by OPIT, then I’m surprised asI thought the rafale had only 3 wet points… ?
I’m speaking about the Rafale and it has 5 wet points. But it can just carry three 2000 l tanks or five 1250 l tanks or 3 x 2000 l + 2 x 1250 l.;)
Here is an image with an equal configuration. The buddy-buddy refueling pod can be replaced by another 2000 l tank.
Well, you know, it could easily be said that we don’t know what this pilot has flown on before. Maybe he’s coming from a Tornado or some Harrier, so yeah the jump is terrific. Obviously, had he flown a Typhoon he would explicitly speak of it for the sake of comparison, but he doesn’t, so obviously he hasn’t.
In the end, it’s a nice comment from this guy but, come on, he isn’t really qualified enough to discuss the matter of which airplane really is the best overall. So we should not take his words too seriously.
I could come up with another conclusion as well : we’ve heard similar comments from RAF pilot switching from Jaguar to Typhoon, so clearly Typhoon and F22 are quite close one from the other.
LOL
See what I mean ?
Seriously speaking this time, for record’s sake, I really think this guy knows what he’s speaking of !
He is indeed a Tornado F.3 driver. But hey don’t we know that the Rafale is much better than the F-22 because Peter Collins said he would take it anytime over any other aircraft?
Sure the question is when. Until the end of the year was the claim IIRC.
Official now : rafale F1 to be retrofitted to F3 standard. Cost 300 millions euros.
http://secretdefense.blogs.liberation.fr/defense/2009/11/quand-les-rafale-sortent-de-leur-cocon.html
with the 60 rafale ordered this is a nice news !
Good news. But is a contract for batch 4 already signed. To my understanding it has been approved, but a contract is yet to be signed.
Gripen still have a better ferry range, and no source presented that tells us otherwise..
I have seen a claim about 5600 km many years ago, though this would apply to a 5 tanks configuration totaling in 8500 l of external fuel or close to 14000 l in total.
I will try to imprve this time:D:)
http://www.ainonline.com/news/single…le-production/
For me that article is very interesting and that talk to me directly. As an auditor in one of the big four (mainly for aeronautic industry) I know these problematics quite well !
Hmm I gathered a total programme cost of 31.9 bln € some years ago and now it’s up to 39.6 bln €, that’s ~20% more.
I never get tired of posting this link
First five seconds says it all and he certainly knows more than a biased journalist.
What has this to do with the previous discussion here at all?
Seriously, Scorpion…How about actually reading a link from the post you’re quoting?
Where does the link state that there are F-15As which reached a service life of 14k h? Have I missed something in there? I asked for a possible source confirming the 14k h claim for the F-15A and what you came up with 16k h for the E and that link.
I don’t get it. Did you even red post #253 (bottom line)?
Flew over it, as it wasn’t addressed at me. Got the links thanks. I’ll provide a source for the MKI 6000 h claims as soon as I get it. My current internet connection isn’t really fast and my paper stuff is all at home some 700 km away from my current location.
How about 16,000 hours, for F-15E.
Where did you get 6000 hours for Su-30MK, when Sukhoi’s official site states 3000?
I asked for the F-15A. And where did you get the 3000 h figure for the Su-30MK on the original website? It indeed states 2000 h for the Su-27SK.
For the 6000 h claim for the MK (or at least MKI with regards to which that number was claimed) it comes from aviation magazines years ago. It would need some time to get the direct source.
Funny, people seem to forget that when talking of the F-35. 😉
May have to do with the fact that we still don’t know what we really get for our money here. So far we merely have a lot of promises which have yet to become true.
Has the typhoon been tested for the cruel arctic conditions? Would seem some minimal level of certification would be mandatory. The F-35 is getting certified for operating within the worst of arctic conditions, as was the F-22 previously. Can’t imagine it was in the original program as none of the member states probably required it.
There was a several weeks long trial in northern Sweden between december 2004 and march 2005.
Well, we were talking about structural integrity and there are(were) F15A with over 14,000 flight hours.
Su27SK has SLL of 2000 hours and Su-30Mk has 3000 hours.
Was the F-15A designed for 14k h? I doubt so. You compare some very specific examples kept in service with a design life span. Su-27s upgraded to SM standard will provide a much greater life than the original Su-27, if it comes close to the F-15 is another question. I would yet like to see any F-15A with so much flight hours. The Su-30MKI has a reported service life of 6000 h as has the Su-35.
Jepp, all good.
Thats one of the comprimises you make for an wing on the Su-27.
Remember Sukhoi did infact enlargen the Wing Area on the later Su-30/Su-35/Su-35BM from the older Flanker A(Su-27SK).
And they also did a better work(better design) on internal strength on the wing/fuselage as history enfolded.
I have never seen a newer Flanker with an enlarged wing area, except those naval variants Su-27K/KUB. BTW Flanker A was the T-10, the significantly reworked production variant which was then designated Su-27 was the T-10S (Flanker B). The initial variant fielded was the Su-27P for the IA-PVO, followed by the slightly modified Su-27S for the VVS on which the Su-27SK is based. Earlier Su-27 production variants had some wing structure weaknesses and square tipped fins. These issues were quickly solved and all Su-27s we see in service today are those examples with stronger wings and canted fin tips. Btw more than 200 Su-27SK/UBK were sold to China, Vietnam and Indonesia (including the chinese license built J-11A).
Its an older bird. I think i read somewhere the later Flankers have improved life time hours airframe..
Thanks
6000 h to be exactly for the Su-30MK and Su-35. I was of the impression that the original Su-27 had a life time of about 3000 h.