Just to post it here once again incase we would have to discuss it as we seems to do periodically.*

[ATTACH=CONFIG]252268[/ATTACH]

*Someone should pair this chart with the official range number. 😉
B/w the open rotor/large lifting surface pairing sounds really good (see above post).

187 F-22? The two that went down cause of HOBS problems has been not written off?

+1. Very good post!

The Jihadi coalition figures have different figures for the cruise missiles.
– 60 launched, 1 fell into the sea
– 58 of the 59 hit the targets.

Regarding the a/c
– muricans claim, they destroyed 20 a/c
– Russian militar says 6 x MIG-23 were destroyed.
(Also, all information is based on translated version of what the Russian spokesperson said. So whatever he meant and said in that statements when reporting in English will also depend on the accuracy of the translation.)

– Syrians (unofficial) say, a total of 9 aircraft’s were lost in the strike.

SAA losses in Shaa’yrat AFB : 5 x Su-22M3, 1 x Su-22M4, 3 x Mig-23ML, 1 x Sa-6 radar, M600 missile launcher and some artillery pieces.
https://twitter.com/SyrianMilitary/status/850675336815796224

So, in the end both Americans and Russians said something uncorrect.

Swerve is smarter than a hundred sintras and has been a valuable member of this forum for years, so back off.

Another proof of world devolving itself ?

That assuming 2 things :
1/ you don’t get an attack on the way to target.
2/Your EFTs doesn’t make you a massive target that can be detected from hundreds miles ( because intercepter, missiles will be send after you)
Moreover, the different in combat radius further illustrate the fact that it is a flaw comparision to compare something like F-35 with F-16 when they carry similar fuel load such as 50%. In your example, when they reached the target area , aircraft rely on EFTs will have 100% internal fuel while things like F-35 will sit at around 50-60%

You are assuming instead just one, that is completely not-existent:
I was not making there any comparison there between two different fuel carring systems or even less between two specific planes.

I was just replying to a statement on why even AD planes on scramble i.e. the ones apparently less eager to accept a lessening in performances, used still to carry almost a centreline tank (our own mental reference ones carried instead two of them, on wingtips).

So , exactly what MY EXAMPLE are you referring to?
Because n the same post I have cited a lot of planes truly: Su-27, Su-30,Su-35, F-15D, F-15E, F-15C, MiG-29A, Mig-29M2, MiG-35 .
At the contrary, there is absolutely not a world about F 35 and F-16…:eagerness:

Anyway, if you really want to talk about F-16 and F-35 you are always welcome, also considering that you are giving me the best possible servings: the 100% inner fuel of a Viper is actually less than the 50% of a Lighting II…

Whether or not there is a drag penalty at all will depend greatly on the mission. Ironically perhaps given the numerous range discussions we have had here it is at long range that the F-35’s advantages are the greatest relative to an F-16.

Look at it this way, in a very short range mission an F-16 could operate clean… or perhaps with a single centerline tank.

When we start talking about these sorts of extreme range missions where an F-16 would need both conformal fuel tanks and large wing tanks it is paying a huge drag penalty. The F-35 meanwhile remains clean… the scenario gets worse if you add a targeting pod, etc into the mix.

Basically in comparison to a clean F-16 the F-35 obviously pays a substantial drag penalty. Compared to an F-16 carrying enough fuel to fly a long distance mission, plus a couple bombs and a targeting pod… the advantage goes to the F-35 by a wide margin.

The same is true of course for the Su-27/30/35 family. By going with a large internal fuel capacity the design actually pays a penalty in short range flight profiles relative to what a similar design might have achieved with less internal fuel included… but in longer range missions it has an advantage.

Two things, even the most specialized A2A planes and interceptor used to carry a centreline tank when in AD role because they used this fuel to take off at full afterburner, climb to the operative quote as soon as possible and regain velocity, after it they dropped it and kept on with their full internal fuel.
Same with drop tanks on long range attack mission: once the planes would get near to the combat zone they would have dropped the now empty tanks and would have continued in a way more comfortable configuration.

In the case of the Flankers (but also in the one of F-15 or MiG-29/35) we can instead make a much more easier comparation.
How many more fuel and consequently range has a Su-30 when compared to the original Su-27? And what is instead the loss in terms of speed and agility?
And when they are compared to Su-35 instead?

What are the performances of a F-15E with CFT when compared with an F-15D clean? And how much payed in terms of performances Iceland based F-15C once equipped with CFT?

Same we can do with MiG-29A, MiG-29SMT and MiG-35 ? How much was lost in terms of performances between the different models and how much more range was gained instead?

Let’us just hope is an April fool’s.

For real?
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-pushes-back-on-f-15-retirement-435721/

Ok. USAF is sinking in the absurd from decades already but this one will be the top.

Naturally not even a though into buying F-35 for this mission: the Mach 1,6+ interceptor is clearly too much, even for them.

Oooh , finally some proposals smelling common sense and realism coming from the other side of Atlantic.

Well, FBW, seems you only missed those 60 planes for National Guard/Reserve.

I appreciate also the suggestion of buying more Growler instead of acquiring new, (quite chimerical) advanced SH.