eagle@amiga500:
Well you’d drop heavy fuel tanks, but center line or supersonic ones..not sure.. but well yes that’s possible. dropping missiles is unlikely though.
Irrelevant in this case as both Typhoon and F-22 carry only one type of fuel tank. And I bet you would drop every tank possible if your life depends on it. 😉
A question regarding EFs fuel tanks came to my mind: is it possible to drop wing tanks? Those pylons look like they are permanently bolted in place.
eagle“The Typhoons were stripped of their external fuel tanks and slicked off as much as possible before the encounter with the Raptors.” -Lt. Col. Marc Grüne, Luftwaffe Ops Group Commander
There is really no need to emphasize the slick part. It is common practice to do dedicated dogfight training in a slick configuration for the reasons Scorpion stated.
Besides, the F-22 was clean too, wasn’t it 😉
The Typhoon beating the F-22 in a dogfight isn’t that shocking anyway. It’s smaller for about the same T/W ratio and wing loading. That surely is an advantage.
In terms of weapons, the Typhoon is clearly ahead. M Sidewinder vs IRIS-T, pretty one-sided. BK-27 is also the better gun.
eagleHere, Bulgarian pilot is talking about F-16 block50 thrust to weight advantage compared to block30/40 but he claims that this doesn`t translate to better maneuverability.
The F-16 is a good example. Despite substantial thrust increase over the years, the most manoeuvrable version is still the old F-16A Block 1 with small stabs, even though thrust increased about twice as much as weight.
The quoted article is strange because the Block 30 (big intake) is the hottest C/D version if I’m not mistaken because its lighter than the Block 50.
So if the Su-35 weighs 2 tons more and thrust was increased by 4 tons, my money is on the old Flanker. Of course, without considering better flight controls.
eagleI’ve never seen one carrying a Maverick. They fire off the rail so they couldn’t be carried on the belly and I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Tornado carry anything but tanks on the wing hard point. For the RAF the overlap between the Maverick and the Brimstone would mean there is no real need for it.
Not quite. Brimstone is rail launched aswell, as is HARM, ALARM and I think Kormoran too, so that woudn’t rule out the carriage of Mavericks under the belly.
Tornados do carry stuff other than tanks under the wing, though not operationally most of the time. One of those rare occasions can be seen here, Italian Tornado ECR. I guess the advantage of carrying 2 HARMs under the wing and 2 tanks under the fuselage is you can do a nice belly landing. 😀
eagle1) How can LM possible have space aviable in the fuselage of the F-35A, never mind the B model..
It sounds more like this: We can get more internal space if we reduce the Internal fuel storage. Also if they did have such trouble with getting the Internal W-bays large enough, how can they still have free space inside the fuselage elsewere..?
When they discovered range might not be up to specs, there were proposals to install some additional fuel tanks. So it can be assumed there’s still some space available.
When did LM have troubles with weapon bay size? It’s not that difficult if USAF says it must fit Mk-84 JDAM or whatever, even LM can do that. 😀
2) Its not a simple matter of just craming in additional systems after all the weight and CG have been dealt with..
More weight in the aft section fuselage, means adding more weight somewhere in the forward fuselage..
I assume avionics bays are located in the front fuselage section mostly. Add the empty space in the rear and you should be fine.
Also, if I understand the attached graph, CG is/was too far forward anyway. Funny, they seem to have forgotten about EOTS drag (range) and weight completely…
eagleSaudi shells out US$3bn for BAE Hawks
May I emphasise that the deal also includes 55 PC-21 trainers 🙂
edit: plus another 25 primary training aircraft, yet to be chosen.
another link: Saudi Arabia signs 102-aircraft military training deal
eagleDoubtful. The CFT itself has weapons stores. I have never see an F-15E or its variants flying without CFT but with weapons. I guess it could but what would the penalty be?
It would be possible. As you can see in the pics, the AAM stations are still there so in a pure A/A config you could remove the CFTs and carry 8 AAMs like any Eagle.
But who uses Strike Eagles for A/A missions? In USAF service, they fly without CFTs only on check flights after maintenance.
btw, do smokewinders count as weapons? 😀
F-15E clean demo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OQqH4t3e2s
eagleWho knows whats included in the $10,000 per hour figure?
What I find far more interesting is the Gripen/Hawk comparison. The Hawk costing $6,000 per hour means Gripen is only 2/3 more expensive to run than a trainer.
eagleEdit: Does anyone have some comparison charts of F-15 and Su-27?
I have seen several somewhere, but don’t remember where.
I mean like acceleration and climb charts/graphs.
Here’s two.
If you know what they say, please elaborate 😮
One thing is sure, there isn’t much difference and each jet has its advantages.
eagleHow about real ferry range on internal fuel for the F-35 variants?!
A ~2750 km or 1500 nm
B ~2000 km or 1100 nm
C ~3000 km or 1600 nm
We keep in mind that the SH does not differ much from that in general. Be it the internal fuel-load, installed thrust, weight or size. 😉
I would say it differs much.
Thrust and weight are comparable, but not internal fuel. F-35C carries almost 9 tons, SH a little more than 6.5 tons. That’s about the difference from 2 external 480 gal tanks plus associated drag.
A clean F-35 surely outranges a clean F-18E by a wide margin.
eagleYou are absolutely right i forgot that 😮 , in 2002 i was told that RP´s was integrated and kept in storage ( there most probably was large warstocks from the Viggen era with usefull shelflife left ) but never trained with as its usefullnes against modern threats was not good enought . At the time the saying was that no freefall bombs where integrated of the same reason but if anyone can correct me on that please do.
I dont’ know when the bombs were integrated, but they are now. Mk80 series.
eagleGripen development is no faster than EF/Rafale/F-22. These aircraft were far more developed at IOC. otherwise there was no need for JAS-39C.
second JAS-39C make use of resuable components to great extent like radar and engine. JF-17 and JAS-39C are in same boat. As i mention Sweden ability to improve Gripen will decline with time with increasing costs of lower production rates and higher prices of F414 engines.http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/03/28/ford-sends-volvo-to-chinas-geely-for-1-8-billion/
Really? EF: limited to AIM-9L/M and probably AIM-120 at IOC.
Rafale: MICA-EM and Magic 2
F-22: AIM-9L/M and AIM-120
eagleNO WAY do you have a link to back that up 😀
Slow development of gripen ? Slower then say EF , Rafale or F-22 ? You know the cold war ended that kind of slowed things down . JAS39A/B had RB-15F , AGM-65 and BK-90 from the get go , no freefall bombs or rocketpods as SwAF was to fight stormakt röd with latest AA threat not strafe some internal uprising in say Tibet . And there is nothing wrong with Gripens kraschrecord / flighthour
Are you sure? I was under the impression the 6 shooter rocket pod was integrated from the start.
This one: http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/gripen/gripen6.html
eagleSome facts need to be put straight as some wants to self convince themselves with false argument and turn a blind eye at several aspect of the evaluation.
The test pilots who tested the 3 aircrafts in competition in switzerland clearly preferred the rafale and were pretty disappointed that other factors lead toward opting for the least performant aircrafts. As a consequence they leaked part of the evaluation to the press.
Facts? Is it a fact that they (the test pilots) leaked part of the reports? Is it a fact that they were disappointed?
Frankly, this is BS. No active test publicly expressed his/her disappointment. And you even accuse them of leaking the reports. 😡
The gripen indeed latter met the minimum requirements which led to a controversy and an inquiry but it was still the worst performer on a purely technical standpoint as Mauer stated himself that you “can’t always afford the best”.
Controversy yes, but please, do you want to accuse Maurer and VBS/MoD of cheating? It is also obvious certain political parties raised questions about the selection process but that does in no way mean there was fraud involved. They question everything to do with military.
But trying to dissimulate the fact that the test pilots did not prefer the rafale is simply wrong. Just that other factors like price and the fact that switzerland is not under immediate threat to say the least played in favor of the gripen.
Prefering one thing doesn’t mean hating the other.
It is the swiss media and swiss poitics themselves who stated that those leaks come within the swiss military. The latest controversy about the sudden change of weighting so that the gripen could meet the minimum requirements were considered serious and detailed enough to launch an inquiry. When those leaks occurred swiss politics themselves stated that such information can only come from the swiss military.
Swiss military is not equal to test pilots. Besides, the source is obviously within the military, but who knows who finally gave the leaks to the press. ie my guess is someone higher up the chain.
Again, the alleged change of weighting is an inquiry from the left parties and has no substance.
Then when swiss media reports about the “feeling of disgust” of the pilots about such a choice and when Mauer tells that they can’t always afford the best it is clear that the gripen was not the best technically. You can also mention Fernand Carrel former swiss air force chief just a couple days before the results who stated that the pilots preferred the rafale. He reported this in the press, radio and TV.
Again, prefering the Rafale is not equal to feeling of disgust. Is there any pilot who openly stated his feeling of disgust? Bet there isn’t.
Sign In
