A fully fuelled F-35A has a fuel fraction of 0.63.

That’s not fuel fraction.
13.170 kg empty plus 8.278 kg fuel = 21.448 kg weigth –> fuel fraction thereof is 0.386

The Gripen E packs ~3.1 tons of fuel internally and carries upto 3.8 tons externally (3 x 450 gal @ 0.75 kg/L). For a 8.5 ton empty aircraft (incl. EFT wt) that equates to a fuel fraction of 0.81. Lets (generously) assume it loses 15% of the fuel load to drag – resulting fuel fraction: 0.69.

Just a few posts before there’s a chart showing internal fuel to be 3.4 tons.
The centerline afaik can’t carry the 450 gal / 1700 l tank, just the smaller 1100 l tank. I don’t know if the 1400 l tank works, or if it even exists for that matter.
So that makes 8.5 + 3.4 + 3.6 tons [(2*1700 + 1100 l)*0.8] = 15.5 tons. Total fuel 7 tons, fuel fraction 0.45.
With just the underwing tanks: let’s say 8.4 + 3.4 + 2.72 = 14.62 tons. Total fuel 6.12 tons, fuel fraction 0.42.

Drag does not affect fuel fraction.

Leonardo-Finmeccanica: successful first flight for the new Aermacchi M-345

http://www.leonardocompany.com/en/-/leonardo-m346-primo-volo-first-flight

Operational here. (2*2000L + 2* 1250L + buddy refueling+ 5900L inner) about 12000L. Will be enhanced with new Narang buddy refueler (1900L).

Afaik Mig 29 droptanks are around 1400L, (correction welcome).

Edit : droptanks : 800 Kgs (1000L), ferry tanks 1500Kgs (1900L)

Number i found for Mig 29K empty weight : 12.7T

MiG-29 tanks are 1150 liter afaik. The MiG-29K can carry four of them plus the buddy pod. But I don’t know if that contains any fuel. So that’s at least 4600 l of external fuel vs. the Rafales 6500 l.

Do you have any more information on that Narang buddy pod? 1900 l capacity sounds nice, the current buddy pod sans fuel seems like a waste on the centerline station.

Vietnam was roughly 50 years ago though so it doesn’t have a lot of relevance to what we are talking about.

Yes but Vietnam was also the last time western air power was seriously challenged. Exceptions are some engagements here and there like in Desert Storm were tanks were immediately dropped when needed. But thats what WRM tanks are there for.
Also, there were some stories iirc of Israeli drop tanks claimed to be remnants of shot down jets. Getting rid of everything that can be jettisoned is stil standard practice when in trouble, I guess.

I hate to break it to you, but the F-16 isn’t a particularly long-ranged fighter either, certainly not on internal fuel.

It’s pretty impressive. Go to f-16.net and read posts by Gums et al.
Granted, the C model with its higher weight and more drag is less impressive but the Viper still has good range.
Obviously loading it down with all kinds of pods and A/G stores is bad. But not an issue with a light A/A load.

Btw. standard loadout for Canadion Hornets used to be 3 tanks, 4 Sparrows and 2 Sidewinders. In that configuration, you’d struggle to reach supersonic speeds I guess ( I can’t be bothered to check the numbers). Gripen E with two of the large tanks is probably around the same performance and range wise.

Also, given the Gripen’s extremely limited internal fuel once it dropped its tanks it would have to return to base almost immediately. (especially if one imagines it operating at long range)

Extremely limited? It carries a bit more fuel than an F-16 in a smaller airframe. That’s not what I call extremely limited. The F-16 is known for its good range and I expect the Gripen E to perform similarly.

No because it’s an F-15A :very_drunk:

Nope, those are ANG C Eagles from California, Portland and Klamath Falls Oregon and 2 Strike Eagles in the background. I guess they’re in Palmdale for upgrades or as test birds for coming upgrades?