Question about the Rafale M:
Is the maximum catapult take off weight really 21000kg? And the empty weight is 9800kg?
Minus the internal fuel of 4700kg, that would leave a payload of 6500kg which isnt that impressive.
A general question: max. payload is said to be 9500kg, and there are 5 wet stations. So in theory, the Rafale can carry 5 2000l fuel tanks for a maximum of 8000kg external fuel. But I have seen 7500kg or 6800kg, not 8000kg. Whats the real number?

Eurofighter is still primarily a fighter. Low internal fuel (OK, it is not low, it is normal) is mandatory to have low weight in a2a combat. CFT make sense when the Eurofighter emerges into a strike aircraft, which will happen when nations like Germany or Spain need to replace their strike aircraft.

I agree, CFTs make much more sense for strike fighters.

Although the Eurofighter cannot match the Tornado’s low strike ability, it can evolve into a strike aircraft superior to the Tornado. Pretty much like the Strike Eagle.

What I dont like here is the lack of heavy stations. Only 3 for the EF. That makes use of CFTs much more attractive.

No they are ‘generally optimised’ for strike operations rather than fighter operations but optimal does not mean ‘exclusive to’. CFTs are also very useful for fighter operations and wouldn’t strictly speaking be removed if the only weapons being carried are air to air missiles. In fact if CFTs are being used then more air to air missiles can be loaded and there will be more fuel to make best use of them.

I know this only addresses one of your concerns as I haven’t heard any more about the CFTs either. Its all about time and money and priorities. If it happens it will happen in its own good time but thats not the same as saying ‘its never going to happen’. 🙂

The EF can carry 10 AAMs with 3 fuel tanks which should be enough.
CFTs cannot be jettisoned in flight, but they add weight and drag esp. at higher speeds. For a fighter, drop tanks are therefore the better option imho. Instead of CFTs, I’d rather carry huge 3000l or so tanks and drop them when needed.

But I agree, if a customer demands and pays for it, EF will come with any of those features.

The potential is there to turn the Typhoon into a real flying fuel tank, with the proposed 1500l CFT’s and 1500l under wing tanks as well as the already existing 1000l tank for the centreline it could realy haul some gas. But as with everything else it comes down to someone volunteering to cough up the cash for it.

Yes, but I havent heard anything new related to integration of larger fuel tanks or CFTs. Also, CFTs are not really optimal for fighter ops.

F-111 can keep going till 2020. The idea that they are going to fall out of the sky by catastrophic failure is… given the support infrastructure in place… wrong. Setting them up with JASSM and JDAM equals a huge contempt of engagement ability…. all by themselves.

Funny thing is its the F-18 fleet thats going to fall out of the sky by catastrophic failure unless they do the CBR program. I think this has already been mentioned.
The F-111 on the other hand is good to go until atleast 2020 without major structural rework afaik…
So ideally the SH should replace part of the legacy Hornet fleet 😀

The F-15 variant ordered by Singapore will have AESA fitted from delivery and I believe one of the requirements for South Koreas birds was Anti-ship.

Notice the :rolleyes:
😉

Combat radius with weapons (a2a) and some burner-time is about 300nm. With 3 external tanks (still leaves 10 AAM slots) the combat radius is about 600nm. Unrefueled range without weapons is 1200-1500km clean and about 4000km with full external tanks. The last two figures are “all-in” numbers, means no reserves and hardy operational.

Internal fuel is 4500kg, so at a standard a2a mission TOW of 15,000kg the fuel fraction is about .28-.29. That is better than most F-Teens. The low drag of the Eurofighter will allow a few nm more than on other fighters will comparable fuel fraction.

Internal fuel is 5000kg as others have already mentioned. But you have to explain me how 3* 1000l fuel tanks will double the range. Thats 2400kg of external fuel, or about 1500kg of fuel that translates into range. If we allow 500kg reserve on internal fuel, the external fuel will increase range by ~33% (1500kg / 4500kg).

Not all “medium twin-engined fighters” are the same. F-18E is larger and heavier than Typhoon.

As far as I can see (Typhoon internal fuel volume has not been officially disclosed, AFAIK), SH has a slightly larger fuel capacity in proportion to size, but only slightly.

The SH has a slightly larger fuel fraction (0.49 vs 0.45 according to my numbers) but more drag. I’d be surprised if the Typhoon which is equipped with classic aligned pylons doesnt outrange the SH.