Fuel fraction is not about how far you can fly on a given amount of fuel.
It’s the percentage of fuel weight compared to total weight. I.e. Su-35: 11500kg fuel, 17000kg empty (?), 28500kg t/o weight –> fuel fraction 0.4. Which is a lot, most fighters are usually around 0.3
But you’re probably right regarding the T-50 design. Being smaller and lighter, it requires less fuel to achieve the same range.

Thanks for the link, as it turns out, manual is also available at http://publicintelligence.net ^^
Note the data is for 404-GE-400 engines. Newer -402 equipped Hornets have much more thrust.

Are you sure the F-16/F-35 comparison is with a clean F-16? Considering the reportedly poor transsonic acceleration figures, 8 seconds more than a clean Viper would still be pretty good.

from my (somewhat tired after new years eve…) memory the F-15 was denied to export except a few particular cases… japan for being pretty much alone on the frontline facing China, Israel for its particular status (and strong lobbies) with the US, and Saudi Arabia for facing Iran or something along these lines..

basically, that’s one “theory” I’ve read.. another one was simply that it was just too costly to be considered by anyone except a few who, either benefited from US help (Israel and Japan) or had the bucks to afford it (Saudi Arabia), but it was proposed elsewhere, like in France (as shows this pic, of the F-15 in French colors:

, where Dassault produced a local version of a heavy fighter (Mirage 4000) which, inb the end, proved to be too costly for them as well and lead to a smaller version which is the Mirage 2000

The F-15 was offered to quite a few countries. In 1974 and 1976 (in famous bicentennial colours), F-15B 71-0291 as seen in your pic, went on sales tour around the globe. Note the flags on the fuselage: Iran, UK, Denmark, Norway, Israel, Korea, Canada, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Australia, France, Japan. Better seen here. There were probably others, the F-15 was demonstrated to the Italians f.e.

Notice I said dimensions and thrust class. The point was the Rafale and Typhoon were very similar in dimensions and both are in the similar thrust class, Typhoon being roughly equal and Rafale being less.Don’t worry, i’m not playing on the technicalities…you should also check on the dimensions and thrust class, and weight (just to keep this up) for the F22 as compared to others of its supposedly contemporary. Notice something? To me this reflects different design philosophy and requirements, of which I believe and others can disagree. Another case in point, some Rafale proponents point to how much heavier the supposedly similarly-roled and sized Typhoonwhich was reasoned, at least claimed, to must be due to inferior design. One should ask the reverse, assuming their designers are equally competent…what is the Rafale missing in the trade-offs? If the dimensional limits of the LHDs were to be an issue engineering-wise per the specifications during the design phase, nothing stops the A and C version to be longer without changing much of the center section. In fact the C had a much bigger wing and heavier, but no length increases? Why couldn’t the A, being the most numerous, also warrant some simple changes in features that’s not known to increase cost of manufacturing, like a lengthened nose section? Could it be that the specifications were met at the design phase? By the way, the Rafale isn’t exactly slim either. The devil in the aircraft design is in the details, general observations will only get you so far.

Yes Rafale and Typhoon are similar but they are not fat, thats my point. The F-22 is very heavy aswell, but at least it isn’t fat. Obviously this reflects different philosophy namely to carry everything internally. That was fine until LM stated the F-35 would not be as quick as hoped and required.
And yes, it would have been better imho if the A and B versions used a different airframe. But then the whole idea of jointness goes out of the window. LM had to reduce the number of identical parts already. I’m no engineer, but if you increase the length, you have to reduce the width or weight will increase, no? And that’s a no-go as the A and esp. the C are not underweight.

REALLY? Go check the dimensions and thrust-class of all three versions of the F35 and your so call equivalent fighters that some are championing as better of the same class…they all must be pretty bad too.

By weight, the F-15 is comparable to the F-35.
Length: 19.43m vs 15.67m
Span: 13.05m vs 10.7m

By length/span, Rafale and Typhoon are close.
But they are 9600kg and 11000kg respectively, F-35A is 13300kg.

As you can see, the F-35 tries to fit too much weight and volume into a too small box. Hence its chubby looks. No problem if the F-35A would have kept its promise of delivering F-16 like performance, but a promise LM could not keep since they had to adjust the performance figures.

No more wing tip tanks on the new wings?
I like the L-159, it’s pretty loud for such a small jet. I wish Austria would get some to replace the old Saab 105 fleet.

I noticed that on the Lincoln when they launched F-14Ds most of the time they had so much power that they didnt even use afterburner on take off. That and the statement by some on the ship that D model 14s could super cruise made sense. That of course would seem to depend on how much junk that had hanging from the wings.

It was more a safety issue the Tomcat B and D launched without afterburners. Should one engine quit during take-off, the Tomcat couldn’t compensate for asymmetrical thrust. The increase in dry thrust was enough to launch without burners, so they did. If you think about it, the B/D had less dry thrust than the A had in burners, and the newer models were heavier meaning take-off performance dry B/D model versus wet A model is worse.

Re supercruise, my guess is the B was the fastest. Compared to the D, its lighter and less draggy due to the added IRST sensor.