Those are probably used F-16s and thus not comparable to brand new Rafales.
Of course, an F-16A is in another league. 😀
The rafale takes off in 17 seconds, with a similar loudout, and certainly does not go straight up into the vertical after takeoff. I admit he does not accelerate down the runway as much as the typhoon, 😉 but the typhoon seems a hell of alot more impressive 😀
As TMor mentioned, the Rafale carries 3 tanks à 1250l versus the EFs 2 à 1000l. Not what I would call a similar loadout.
Plus its the M version which adds a few hundred kg.
But whe dont even know if those tanks were full (probably not). Just some nice videos. 🙂
Btw, does anyone else think flying QRA with 8 missiles is bit of an overkill?
Not that I dont like overkill. 😀
Question about the F-16: will it still be in production when India has selected the MMRCA winner?
I’d say the best way is looking for shop that makes posters out of your ordinary photos.
The interesting question is if Saudi got overcharged or if Austria got a massive discount as the first export costumer. Perhaps somewhere in between.
The Austrian EFs are barely configured to take off and land, while the Saudi EF deal probably includes every extra you can get.
With the introduction of missiles capable of 30-50G maneuvers, it doesn’t make sense to spend money trying to squeeze another half G out of an airplane whose pilot is limited to 10-11Gs during an instantaneous maneuver.
Like the F-22 with its 9.5G limit. :diablo:
(At least thats the G limit I know about)
The greater irony is in the rumours now circulating that the RAF are trying to press for a re-evaluation of the FJCA decision to allow a split buy of F-35C for them in a land-based BAI/Strike capacity in conjunction with the F-35B variant for the token replacement of ‘Joint Force Harrier’.
So why dont they just go ahead and split the deal.That doesnt sound like a big problem to me.
Of course, it would have to include F-35Cs for the RN and forget about the Joint Force Harrier idea.
http://www.rimpeace.or.jp/jrp/okinawa/070911tobomb.html
Seems the USMC F/A-18Cs bombing in or near Okinawa Prefecture, Japan, have a digital mosaic-like camo paint scheme.
I don’t know whether this is common or not.
I think its just the commanders airplane – see the number “00” on the nose. The others have standard camo.
If it’s true, where the bondry layer goes?
Exactly why it looks fake.
I think not only the CFT is fake, but the whole plane is a model.
The plane itself is quite real imho.
As Schorsch mentioned, the F-5 doesnt suffer from a lack of range. It can be loaded with so much external fuel that its barely able to get off the ground.
If the centre pylon is the right place why is it not used by other aircraft such as the F15E, Grippen or Rafale?
Because those aircraft have dedicated stations for targeting pods.
You cant mount weapons or fuel tanks there.
“The pain of it is that now – with CVF and JSF committed and locked together – the Govt now announces that it can’t afford JSF and Typhoon, and the UK gets JSF, which is slower, shorter-legged and less versatile.”
LOL.
Did anyone whine about the Harriers low speed, shorter range and lacking versatileness compared to the Tornado for example? Some people like to forget that the F-35B is a Harrier replacement. If you dont want STOVL, dont get it and compare the F-35A or C to the EF. Its neither slower when loaded, shorter legged nor less versatile.
I think its a fake, doesnt look real.
Also, the F-5 has more than enough power, so to equip it with CFTs would hardly hurt its performance. :diablo:
Aurcov,
The B has a nominal 450 nm standard profile. It can carry 2 x 425 USG tanks which will help to some extent.
A fully tricked F-16 can do 630 nm with bigger bombs.
I think they cancelled the external tanks since they dont really offer any meaningful range advantage. Not suprising considering the huge internal fuel load so you would be dragging around the empty tanks most of the time.
Though the -B could probably need them.
Singapore.
Plus Switzerland. The Swiss AF ordered 6, the RSAF 19.
The PC-21 beats them all.
Probably the closest thing to a jet.
That’s a load of platitudes. Is there anything in there that qualifies as information?
The EF has better acceleration than the Su-30. Which isnt very surprising considering the latters raised twin canopy, canards and LERX.
So actually, theres really no info. 😀