In this photo weight 8000 kg bombs. Fuel weight in this configuration 6400 kg.

Are you talking about F-15 or that Su-27 pic?
What I meant was for the F-15, practical, real life bomb load doesn’t exceed 5000kg.
What I was asking about the Flanker is if those are really 250kg bombs. And what a typical combat load might look like.

Flight range of the F-15E with no load, external fuel tanks and empty CFT. Note CFT is always empty when it hang bombs. 😉

Not quite.

Nicolas, a Strike Eagle with CFTs is quite heavy, so its fuel fraction (while good) isn’t as sensational as one might assume – only slightly better than a Su-27 on internal fuel. If you compare to the Su-35S, you have an aircraft that can carry 4 Harpoon or HARM equivalents plus two 2000 litre tanks as well as 4 self-defence AAMs, currently the F-15K and F-15SG cannot match that.

True, the F-15E pretty much NEEDS those CFTs just to match a Flanker on internal fuel only – they should really be seen as an integral part of the airframe. Much is talked about what a rocket ship it becomes when you take them off (better T/W ratio than even the Typhoon, F-15C and Su-35S!) but the range penalty is probably so severe as to make the MiG-29 comparison quite apt. It ends up having less internal fuel than an F/A-18F in an airframe that is both heavier and has 30% (!) more engine power to feed – not a recipe for stellar range 😉

If we want to compare the F-15E to the Flanker, then yes, they’re about even when the F-15 is equipped with CFTs. Both 16t+ empty and around 10t of fuel. But with slight advantages for the Eagle. 😉
I wouldn’t say the F-15 absolutely needs the CFTs though. On A/G missions, yes, but for A/A missions leaving the tanks behind and loading up 3 drop tanks would be my choice. So you have the rocket ship performance available at the push of a button. Clean, the F-15E has after all almost the same range as the A-D model, a jet not usually known for its short legs.
Compared to the F-18F, the F-15E is not that bad, even though its heavier and carries less fuel (without CFTs). Its not as draggy, and as you begin to add weapons, the gap widens.

I hadn’t even considered tandem carriage on the CFT rails – the mind boggles! IMHO even the forward missile pair alone is PLENTY, just so you can carry two without being reduced to just a single drop tank (as pointed out above, the CFTs are a practical necessity rather than a bonus, one tank isn’t that generous). That would already be of great use to customers like Singapore and South Korea, I’d say.

All in all, it’s a remarkable aircraft for hauling bombs and potentially also AGMs – no matter how good (and pretty) the F-16XL was, I’m starting to see why that competition panned out the way it did 🙂

It would be a great modification, but no customer seems to have an interest, also not for the outer wing pylons. Maybe they are satisfied with range as it is.

The F-16XL is in another class. 😉

Indian Navy Freezes Flat-Top Configuration

We all know the F-15 is always the best option, but on a carrier? Not sure if developing a new F-15IN-N is the most viable choice. 😮

Interestingly the picture seems to change completely when carrying lighter but bulkier payloads, such as specialised AGMs like the HARM, Harpoon and JASSM. Now it is the F-15E which suffers from a fuel/weapons conflict, as loads this unwieldy can apparently be mounted only on the wet pylons. This is fine from the USAF’s point of view, as it can (& has) basically delegate(d) SEAD to the F-16 fleet, cruise missile strike to its strategic bombers and anti-ship to the US Navy, but other countries are obviously not so lucky. Because of the smaller size of their forces they lack such diversity in aircraft types and the F-15 has to take on the aforementioned missions as well, as in South Korea, Singapore and (soonish) Saudi Arabia.

So, here comes the question – can the Strike Eagle really carry stores like the Harpoon, HARM or JASSM only on stations STA-8/5/2 or is it possible to also fit them on RCT/LCT-2 (see schematic below)? This would improve things considerably.

http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/images/stories/illustrations/weapons/weapons_stores/external_stores_ag.jpg

I suppose an adapter would be required (think Tornado GR.1 or Tornado ECR with Sea Eagle and HARM on the underfuselage rails, respectively), is the problem merely that none exists so far?

http://www.deagel.com/library1/medium/2006/m02006120200279.jpg

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/german-tornado-ecr-fairford-91.jpg

Such loadouts definately would give the mighty Strike Eagle more punch. And look pretty cool. But who needs it? Oh, and there’s also the forgotten/never used outer wing pylon should anyone want to carry more. The F-15G would have used those to carry HARMs.

Anyway, I’ve painted some possible configurations – see attached pics.
Scale shoule be about right.

As you can see, the AGM-84 Harpoon should fit easily under the forward CFT. The rear missile isn’t such a good fit. The wings and tails are really close to the upper CFT station and CFT itself. Maybe reducing the angle at which the missile is mounted would do the trick. If that’s not enough, insert some piece of metal.
If anyone should request such a configuration, I’m sure it’s possible.

AGM-88 HARM: well it’s a rail launched missile, so either a new version is or some adapter is needed. Just mounting the missile on its launcher rail probably won’t work as the engines might not like inhaling exhaust fumes.
Anyway, the forward missile seems to fit just fine. Rearward missile not without adapter, but that would be needed anyway.

Might do some other, more desired munitions.

Yep, and notice the gun is removed on that side for weight purposes. The GR1B may have had the gun removed and the flash guard kept in place. The guns leave huge burn marks that are very pronounced on the left side. I don’t expressly see the burn marks on the probe side of GR1B. I do not know why they used this probe location, but it may have to do with the different nose between variants.

But why would they remove 1 gun for the GR1B? They are the same as their GR1 cousins except they carried the Sea Eagle. Note that other Tornados still have 2 guns whether they carry the refuelling probe or not.

As for visible burn marks, that depends when the pic has been taken I guess. Since the residue gets cleaned after the gun has been fired I would imagine.

And buying the F-35 is a mistake, IMHO. Maybe not for a country which has enormous supporting structure of force multipliers, AWACS, jammers, ECM or F-22 cover but definitely a mistake for a country which places its bets on the F-35 as a mainstay of their future fleet because it can’t do much on its own.

Are you suggesting F-35 only works as advertised with backup from numerous force multipliers? That maybe so, as it depends on the capabilities of your enemy.
But what about Typhoon and the lot? Do they work in a high threat environment without any support? I would say 4+ gen or whatever you want to call it needs even more support, not less.
And btw, nothing stops you from hanging those nice shiny cruise missiles under your F-35. But once the couple of hundred, 1 million a piece missiles are depleted, what next?

In my opinion, the F-35 should have been a different concept – carefully shaped for frontal aspect RCS but otherwise fast, sleek and agile. Most likely twin engined, capable of flying around at M1.6+ supercruise, with weapon bay large enough to accomodate two-four 300+nm stand-off weapons. Stealth features reduced to optimum cost/performance ratio. Forget serrated edges on every inch if they increase the airframe cost two-fold and shrink your fleet to half due to budget constraints. Frontal RCS is extremely important, but then comes performance and only after that we can speak about rear or lateral aspect RCS reduction.

Few problems there. First, such a jet would not fit on the amphibious ships. Yes that was a political requirement, but it was there nevertheless.
But more important, M1.6 supercruise, twin engined sound very much like an F-22. Add to that deeper weapons bay for an A/G variant and your’re looking at a 20tons plus jet. To replace F-16! Such a project wouldn’t have survived, and in fact, it hasn’t sorts of because it reminds of the NATF.
But who knows, FA-xx might be what you have in mind, along PAK-FA and Chinese stuff. But thats not the plane thats going to replace hundreds of F-16s or F-35s by then in European air forces.

The problem that I mentioned is mainly for Typhoon’s range when it carries two cruise missiles that will make it lose two out of three wet pylons for carrying external fuel tanks, not mainly for the replacement of ALARM ~ Although I do think a SEAD/DEAD variant of JASSM-ER (or Storm Shadow MLU with increasing range) shall be a uselful tool for an unstealthy Typhoon when facing the long range SAM threats like S-300 PMU2, S-300VM “Antey-2500”, S-400 etc. in the near future regional conflict, until RAF can get enough number of stealthy F-35 or UCAV one day.

Sure, a long range missile is a nice thing for Typhoon to attack known sites.
But it’s no replacement for a dedicated ARM, i.e. you would probably not flying SEAD missions with JASSM or Storm Shadow.

Another good and practical choice I think for this problem:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/137617/jassm_er-nears-operational-employment.html

JASSM-ER:

Doubtful either the JASSM-ER or the Storm Shadow are considered as ALARM replacement, because
1. There is no anti-radiation seeker, so you would have to develop a new version. Better invest into a Meteor version instead.
2. Why would you want to replace a 270kg missile with 1000+ kg monsters? Typhoon could carry 6 ALARMs easily, but only 2 of the heavies, without fuel tanks that is.
3. Why do you need a range of several hundred miles for an ARM?
4. Or a 450kg warhead?
5. You would want speed though. The cruise missiles are subsonic, ARMs are supersonic.
Bottom line, cruise missiles are no replacement for dedicated ARMs.