Silver. You dont need to wash the car often when you´ve bought a silver one…
Cheers
You don’t need to wash your car often regardless of color unless you’re German :very_drunk:
Oh and the best 4.whatever gen. fighter is of course the F-15.
On F-16.net serials we see numerous squadrons receiving Blk 10 aircraft but I don’t see the 4th TFS there at all for any deliveries of F-16 blks (although there are blank entries). http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-16/serials-and-inventory/airforce/USAF/136/
Try page 8, the first Block 10 aircraft went to the 4th FS. Like this one http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-16/airframe-profile/469/
It did say someplace the 4th received these jets directly from the production line – May 17 1980 for this one.
Anyway, it’s not like Block 10 was that different. Just details. Block 15 was the first major upgrade.
You think a squadron can be set up with a full trained quota of deployment-ready ground and air crew within four months? Despite the fact that this squadron received its first B-model Blk 10 only in Nov.
Is that more likely than the other explanation i.e. IOC was declared with Blk 1/Blk 5 equipped squadrons (of which there were some 300 units in service)?
Training can be done on older types just as it’s done today. Like the non-combat coded F-22 fleet used for training.
The 4th FS received its first Block 10 jets in May/June 1980 so they were on strength when they declared IOC. Whether or not IOC was declared only with Block 10 jets I can’t say but wouldn’t rule it out.
The first Block 10 was delivered to the USAF in May 1980. IOC was declared in Oct 1980.
So according to your theory GD must have all delivered 312 aircraft in just four months.
One squadron is enough to declare IOC – F-35A IOC was declared with 15 jets. May to October seems like plenty of time for that.
The simple inarguable fact is the F-35 can do more now, farther, and with less supporting assets than the Superhornet.
That’s a bit rich.
F-35 weapons capability @ IOC: 2 GBU-31 or 2 GBU-12 plus 2 AIM-120.
I think the Super Hornet or other fighters to be replaced have a bit more to offer right now. Could be a problem as USAF/USMC have now begun to replace legacy jets that can do many things with F-35s that can do a few things. The Navy approach is less risky.
So you are saying that they willing to spend extra money and willing to put extra weight on land version of Rafale just so that they can have the exact same production chain for all versions ? I doubt that.Also, it is still nothing more than your own opinion.The problem is your opinion here contradict with public available information. Unless you got very strong evidence that there is no airframe structure strengthen on Rafale M , i dont see why your speculation should be any credible than what written by Flightglobal ( which is fairly decent pulication )
I was also under the impression the airframe for all variants is basically the same.
Why would they need to spend extra money? The whole point of the exercise is to save money, otherwise they would not have done it but rather made the Rafale C/B lighter. What they have now is a common airframe, where they just stick naval landing gear and hook on M models at the end of the line. Cheaper and simpler than the F-35 approach obviously.
I was looking for info like this. Here is all I found. It looks a little smaller than quoted, in my view.
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=1647
Lol at those specs. Those are just T-38 specs with a bit more wingspan. In reality, no one knows much about Boeing’s T-X.
One thing though, no way Boeing’s T-X is anywhere close to 3250 kg empty.
and I am a little surprised the Polish Grot-2 hasn’t got in too.
Maybe because it’s a paper plane. Even more of an outsider than the Turkish proposal. Poland has chosen the the M-346 whereas the Turkish jet might actually be built.
They aren’t just dropped like on a WW2 fighter to my knowledge, but recycled back into the magazine for retrieval back on the ground. In fact I can’t think of a single post-1970’s plane that just drops them like that, but I might be ignorant.
Gripen 🙂
Not the E model though, the new Gripen retains the shells aswell.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]250644[/ATTACH]
The objective of the highly efficient intake is to create uniform and high pressure recovery flow into the engine face. The PAK-FA’s engine duct is certainly not straight (see patent), and incorporates super & subsonic flow diffusers incorporated into the design. Because the duct is relatively short and varies in cross-sectional area, it will be susceptible to large separated flows, this problem is mitigated by the Gaussian bump/vortices generator type wedge in the inner-intake wall (called the ‘fixed wedge brake’ in the patent), which serves a similar function to the DSI. Combined with the ‘trough’ in the intake mouth, they minimise vortices, wake and boundary layer ingestion by the inlet- especially emanating from external transonic flow of the aerodynamic structure.
If you quote Jō Asakura, add the quote tags.
Not that it says anything about boundary layer spill ducts.
Ok , but there are on the second picture
As a configuration with 2 Super 530 missiles plus 2 tanks is impossible, I’d consider the comparison useless.
Seem to contradict with this
They probably mistaken nm and km ?
There is no information about range in this graphic.
Distancia de aterrizaje y decolaje = landing and take-off distance.
You aren’t counting the weight of pylons, tanks, TGP, weapons, ect.
There’s 500 kg for tanks and pylons, which is arguably not enough.
No weapons and pods since the comparison was just empty weight and fuel.
I’m well aware the smaller Gripen is going to suffer much more if all the stuff is added.
17,630lbs ~ 8,000kg according to latest Saab presentation. I think someone linked to it on this or previous page if you want to look.
I had just under 700lbs for the 370gallon tank pylon. Where did you get weight?
Yes, 8000 kg or 8 tons… or do you have another “ton” in mind? For me, 1000 kg = 1 ton
The weights are from the HAF F-16 flight manual. Pages A1-7 for the NJETT pylon and A1-12 for the tanks.
That’s an awful lot of drag induced by all those external tanks – and that’s before we even mention the drag created by the weapons load. Does the Gripen NG still have the combat radius of the F-35 when both are carrying a pair of 2000 Ib bombs and 2 AMRAAMs?
Who knows, but that configuration is already well over the MTOW of 16.5 tons when fully fueled… I hope empty weight either goes down or (more realistically) MTOW goes up.
A Gripen E carrying 2x 1700+ 1×1100 eft is going to weigh 9.5 tons empty. Without fuel, those EFT and pylons add at least 1 ton to the 8.5 ton empty weight (a US 370 gallon tank weighs ~700lbs with pylon).
That gives a fuel fraction of .42 with three EFT, or .39 with two 1700L EFT.
F-16 370 gal tanks with pylon are 531 lbs, pylon and tank are one piece. The 600 gal tank is 399 + 304 for the pylon. Anyway, I think that’s quite heavy, maybe Gripen tanks are lighter? 😉
But OK, 500 kg are probaly not enough to account for 3 tanks… except maybe if pylons are part of the empty weight. Empty weight is 8 tons btw.