eagleProduction F-23s would have had redesigned intakes:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/YF-23%204%20View.gif
Not sure if that would have been enough to completely hide the engine face, or if that was even the target.
eagleBe in dogfight, both of F-18C and Rafale got total 14.5 ton thrust, weight of Rafale M is 10.5 ton for empty and half internal fuel 2250kg, weight of F-18C is 10.5 ton for empty and half internal fuel for air combat is also 2250kg, why and where did you get underpower?
10.5t empty and 14.5t thrust (2x 16,000lbs) is correct for the F-18A. For the F-18C, it is 11.3t and 16t thrust (2x 17,700lbs). See here: http://www.lw.admin.ch/internet/luftwaffe/en/home/dokumentation/assets/aircraft/fa18.html
The Rafale M is a little bit less than 10.5, 10.3 or so I think. Internal fuel is 4700kg, and 5000kg for the F-18.
eagleHi Eagle, i’m sorry but the stuff posted by the jessmo and pfcem chaps doesn’t cut it for me.
It smacks far too much of recycled LM marketing gobbaldy goop with no independant thought applied.As to the comments above, i think you have to be careful with the passive stealth stuff being somehow a panacea that will be effective for a sustained period. Advances in tech will negate the passive level of stealth, whether that can be developed further to counter those tech developments remains to be seen, however the chances of being able to update a platfrom such as the F35 to take advantages of those developements are i believe limited. Thus to put all your eggs in one basket with a platform that could potentially become obsolete overnight is rather too risky for my liking. In my opinion the potential customers should be looking to buy a limited number of F35’s for specialised missions and other platforms to perform the majority of taskings.
So we have established that the F-35 enjoys a passive stealth advantage.
I agree that counter stealth technology will advance reducing that advantage.
But all the so called active stealth features (previously known as ECM) the Rafale and others have can be stuffed into the F-35 aswell. What is left then are the allegedly better aerodynamics and lower cost. I think the F-35 offers enough performance for a strike fighter, whether its good enough for a fighter remains to be seen. Cost of course is a big issue. Mind you, its supposed to be affordable…
eagleFine. As you state it is your opinion. Thus you must accept that it is your interpretation of what is written?
Do you futher accept that if you are having to interpret what is written it cannot be claimed to be fact?
See the point now?
Yeah, it’s no fact until it has been demonstrated. But my interpretation is pretty solid methinks. 😉
Plenty of people post things as facts when in reality it is their own interpretation, not fact.
A simple acknowledgment that it is an interpretation rather than fact would surffice, as you have done here, and may be even lead to a decent discussion rather than the mines better than yours rubbish.Unfortunately we too often have people posting their interpretations as if they are undisputed fact, then getting heated when people gently challenge them. 😉
You’re absolutely right, but quite often its unclear what can be considered a fact. Press releases? Statements from company pilots? Fact is, most of us don’t know many facts. 😉
eagleJessmo24 :
Wrong . Check how big the system is , then take into account the ejection system within the bay .
Cheers .
wrong. You should check how big the weapon bay is 😉 (pic posted somewhere in this thread).
GBU-31 JDAM dimensions are 3.8m * 46cm, BRU-61 3.63m * 36cm.
Besides, it fits into the smaller F-22 bay.
eagle“AF-2 will be used to verify the F-35A’s ability to carry both internal and external weapons throughout the required flight envelope.”
“Supersonic launch of internal weapons, including maximum-speed (Mach 1.6) launch of internal air-to-air missiles, is a feature of all F-35s.”
Neither of these sentances confirm or deny the ability to launch a2g weapons at supersonic speed.
It may be possible, it may not. This document doesn’t tell us. It is as simple as that.
Why somebody has a problem with that is interesting and suggests that they would like it to provide the answer they wish for.
IMHO, it simply means A/G stores will be released at supersonic speeds below M1.6. Like f.e. M1.5 for SDBs for the F-22, which is less than max. speed.
“Supersonic launch of internal weapons” –> all weapons
“including maximum-speed (Mach 1.6) launch of internal air-to-air missiles” –> AAMs
eagleLOL. Please. “this has already been covered” That’s your response? You fail to acknowledge that you had not understood the initial starting point of the discussion and post that. If you’ve got nothing to say…
I didn’t feel like repeating what has already been said:
You keep trying to make this a point.
A F-35 with 8 SDB in the bay can Hit more CAS targets, or more SEAD,DEAD targets than a Raf with 6 laser guided bombs on pylons. Further more hit Hits them flying at Mach 1.6 to give the weapons more range. Further more they are fire and forget. When the IADs are down I can put a crap ton of SDB on the wing stations.
and:
Wrong. The F-35 carries a decent load internally. Two ‘2000 lb’ guided munitions are commonplace these days for all western fighters (four ‘1000 lb’ guided munitions or six ‘500 lb’ guided munitions are also common for which the F-35 has eight ‘250 lb’ SDB) & of course with the F-35’s MUCH lower detectability, it does not need 6 AAMs to self escort. It is the F-35 which gives you the greater flexibility. It already carries the most common weapons load plus enough fuel internally & with VLO. Of course when you don’t need VLO or you need a greater payload (weapons &/or fuel) the F-35 can carry additional payload (weapons &/or fuel) externally & while not as stealthy as in its all internal payload configuration, still stealthier than any 4th/4.5 generation fighter carrying an equivalent load.
It’s interesting that the more pro F35 than not posters don’t seem capable of the old “agree to disagree” maxim, they have to “win” everytime…
Disagreed.:D But I can only speak for myself.
“The F35 offers more flexability without question” Ho ho ho. Where’s your evidence? Repeating marketing mantras means sod all.
Because it can be used in VLO mode with a reasonable load and in not so LO mode carrying tons of weapons.
I’m a pretty reasonable chap, show me the facts that support your position and i may well go with it, try and batter me into submission with endless repeats of unprovable, vague marketing sound bites and i get a wee bit suspicious.
Facts:
– VLO: 2 internal A/G stations, 2 internal A/A stations vs n.a.
– Non-VLO: 6 A/G stations, 4 A/A stations vs. 5 A/G stations, 6 A/A stations.
Now, I’m reasonable too:
Advantage Rafale: more AAMs, or the ability to carry 2 pods with laser guided rockets without using those 5 other stations.
🙂
“We’re not easily frightened…… So don’t threaten or dictate to us until you’re marching up Whitehall… and even then we won’t listen.” Apparently said in Switzerland old chap…;)
In movies maybe. 😉
eagleYes , those are rough figures . What you didn ‘t take into account is the total distance made by both aircraft during this time .
To give you an example , the ferry range (clean and empty , no weapons) of both aircraft on internal fuel only are :
– Rafale : 2100km
– F-35 : 2222km
That would mean the F-35 uses roughly twice as much fuel so frankly, I think the F-35 has more range. It might be draggier than the Rafale, but not by that much.
In fact , a Rafale flying at Mach 0.9 has a lower fuel consumption than a F-35 flying at Mach 0.7 . 😀
If both aircraft fly at Mach 1.2 clean , the F-35 will use AB when the Rafale will supercruise in dry thrust :diablo:
In this scenario , the fuel consumption of the F-35 will be enormous .
You don’t know that. The F-35 looking fat isn’t proof enough. 😉
If both aircraft are heavily loaded , I believe that the Rafale has a better range then the F-35 . A Rafale with three 2000l fuel tanks , 2 Scalps and 4 Micas can fly 3600km , the Scalp also has a 400km range .
Can the F-35 match this ? (Keep in mind that the total external load is 9.350kg)
My guess: yes, carrying two cruise missiles on externals, the F-35 has about the same range.
Since 2 Storm shadows weight 2.700kg , only 3.200kg left for the EFTs and possible AtoA missiles . That ‘s not much …
In fact , an heavily loaded F-35 will barely make 3000km .
I don’t think 2 cruise missiles and 2 tanks are possible… inner pylons are wet and outer pylons are rated for 2500lbs/1135kg which might not be enough depending on which missile you use.
eaglePlease go back and read the original starting point of this discussion before lumbering in with your unnecessary observations.
Yes the F35 has both internal and external pylons, the point is that to get anywhere a decent load on the F35 you have to use the externals. Using the externals negates the passive stealth to a degree, the same passive stealth that supposedly gives the F35 such advantages over other platforms…at the same time the externals don’t give as much flexability as the other platforms already provide.
Thus in conclusion you spend a chunk more cash to get a platform that doesn’t give you the flexability or the ability (in terms of munition type and carriage) of cheaper platforms.
Clear now?
This has already been covered.
The only problem I see are 500 and 1000 pound bombs as they’re limited to 2 each. But the F-35 offers more flexibility without question.
eagle. At least , we have the fuel consumption of the 2 aircraft 😎
And it tells us the F-35 can fly at full dry thrust over 60 minutes vs. the Rafales slightly less than 30 minutes. 😉
With 3 2000l tanks, the Rafale is still under 60 minutes not considering any drag penalty.
Yeah I know those are just rough ballpark figures.
4 Meteors , 2 EM Micas , 2 IR Micas , 6,000l of external fuel + 4,800l of internal fuel .
Could the Rafale carry another pair of Meteors on the outboard wing stations?
eaglePlease read and understand the point i have been making. I am talking of external loads. See post #164.
Usable external loads, anything other than a short range aam, can be carried on four (4) external pylons.
See post #160 for the loads both external and external and the following which addresses your comment re seeing the difference:“”Expect the F35 can’t carry the same payload, internally, externally or believe it or not in your dreams. Four pylons isn’t it?”
Meaning that the range of payload (as in type and number of munitions) the aircraft can carry at the same time and thus it’s flexability is not as great as a platform with more than four usable hardpoints.
“The point and advantage is that you do have the flexability. With the F35 you do not.
In other words, the Rafale with 5 “usable” pylons offers more flexibility than the F-35 with 6* “usable” pylons, all that while the Rafale has to carry fuel tanks? Let me think about it… no.
* Yeah, I know you’re talking about external pylons. But FYI, the F-35 can use the internal and external stations at the same time.
Or are you suggesting the F-35 is forbidden to use the internals? :rolleyes:
eagleOne of those 3 being exclusively for an aam. So 4 usable. As i already stated.
Usable = A/G? If so, the F-35 has 6 (4 external, 2internal), possibly 7 if the gun pylon will be cleared for other loads.
The Rafale has 5 heavy stations with 1-2 usually occupied with tanks… can’t see the advantage here.
eagleRafales load would be 2 Rafales with 1 ASMP-A Nuclear missile , 3 external fuel tanks (conformals could be used if needed) , 2 EM Micas (or 2 Meteors) , 2 IR Micas and 2 Rafales acting as “nounou” , flying gas stations : 5 external fuel tanks , 4 Micas , to refuel the Nuclear Rafales on the way after the tankers .
Isn’t the ASMP only cleared for the center line station? Would mean 2 or 4 external fuel tanks.
Also, wiki says range depends on flight profile – just 80km at low altitude.
To nitpick some more, the nounou Rafale carries only 4 fuel tanks plus pod. 😀
eagleB-1B
Rafale C
F-16A Block 5/10 with small horizontal tailplanes
Mirage 2000C
PAK-FA
eagleWhat i also find interesting is the paintscheme on the Shaw F-16… It looks much lighter than usual. Also, on larger pics, you can see it is a bit “metallic” looking. Any ideas, or am I just dreaming ?
It’s called Have Glass.
google found more info here: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-9561.html
Sign In
