dark light

Nicolas10

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,561 through 1,575 (of 4,147 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Will many NATO air forces be mainly obsolete by 2030? #2347712
    Nicolas10
    Participant

    These are inaccurate estimation of weights.
    Su-35 cannot have 3600km range with 4AAM on internal fuel if it weighs 18.4 tons.
    F-18E has 2300km range on internal fuel. that is 15ton aircraft.
    so if 6.5tons fuel provide 2300km range. 11.5 tons should provide 4050km range. that is 10% more efficient.
    You come into 16.5tons empty weight figure for Su-35.
    It will be too optimistic for 18.4tons aircraft having 3600km range on internal fuel.

    Extra 2300 litres of CFT fuel provide 20 to 25% range improvement. Assuming Rafale internal fuel capacity of 5800L. that is 39% of internal fuel but only 20 to 25% range improvement.

    Su-35 2*2000L ET provide 900km of extra range. that 900km is 25% of 3600km. but 4000L is 27.8% of internal fuel.
    So even Su-35 ET are more efficient than Rafale CFT.

    You cannot compare Su35S & Super hornet in terms of drag & fuel consumption per kilo so your calculation is flawed.

    You want us to believe that the Su35S is just as draggy as the SH? That’s not a nice compliment to make. And basing your calculations on an aircraft that flies around with draggy canted pylons is quite dishonest.

    Secondly There is nothing to back up your own calculation of the Su35S weight, and lastly, even if you change a couple hundred kilos here and there, both fighters’ TWR remain in the same ballpark.

    Third, you compare range of Rafale with CFTs and w/o CFTs, but what you don’t say is if the other payload is similar or not, and we don’t know either if the mission profile is the same. One could be Hi Hi Hi and the other Hi Lo Lo Hi or whatever. So again such calculations are meaningless.

    Fourth: what have those got to do with TWR anyway?

    Nic

    in reply to: F-35 News thread. Part Deux #2347718
    Nicolas10
    Participant

    Don’t read too much into it. The UK would buy the US plane even if their industry had a better option in the pipes.

    Nic

    in reply to: Will many NATO air forces be mainly obsolete by 2030? #2349815
    Nicolas10
    Participant

    for Rafale it can settle for less even with underpowered engines.

    As per wiki:

    Type – Empty weight – Dry thrust – Wet thrust – Dry TWR – Wet TWR
    Su35 – 18400 kg – 172.6 kn – 284 kn – 0.94 – 1.54
    Rafale C – 9500 kg – 100.08 kn – 151,24 kn – 1.05 – 1.59

    Su35S is underpowered?

    Interesting 😮

    in reply to: TAI pimped up F-16 v HAF pimped up F-16 #2349819
    Nicolas10
    Participant

    Greece should default, get out of the EU, devaluate, and give the finger to the banksters.

    Matter of fact most european countries would be well inspired to do the same before it’s too late.

    Nic

    in reply to: Post-Assad Syrian Air Force, what will it be like? #2352657
    Nicolas10
    Participant

    18-24 F16s
    Some Texan II and whatever the US want to sell them.

    And as an extra: installation of a central bank linked to the FMI & islamists in power. Whoopdeedoo those lucky syrians.

    Nic

    in reply to: Tornados – Now and the future #2352728
    Nicolas10
    Participant

    already exists
    http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=42402

    according to the replies
    A2A Mirage 2000-5/9 kicks the Tornado ADV in the groin
    A2G Tornado GR.4 rips the spine out of the Mirage 2000D

    I say, they should’ve kept the ADV airframe and made it multi-role

    Holy crap there’s my first post on this forum on the first page! 😎

    Nic

    in reply to: Tornados – Now and the future #2353050
    Nicolas10
    Participant

    Every time I read about the Tornado I want to make a Tornado vs Mirage 2000D post 🙁

    Nic

    in reply to: Military Aviation News-2012 #2354324
    Nicolas10
    Participant

    U.S. talking to Israel and others about Syria’s chemical weapons

    Oh for God’s sake can’t they at least be original when they make up excuses for once. They already pulled that one for Iraq!

    Nic

    in reply to: bye bye stealth? #2354392
    Nicolas10
    Participant

    I’ll believe it when they can track an F-35 at tactically useful ranges.

    Might take a while because there is no operational F35 for the time being 😀

    Nic

    in reply to: Future UK MPA/ASW aircraft #2355675
    Nicolas10
    Participant

    Basically a mixture of bad management, machiavellian scheming and general incompetence.

    This is usually called politics.

    Nic

    in reply to: Future UK MPA/ASW aircraft #2355776
    Nicolas10
    Participant

    Should have fit all the electronics from the MR4 into an airbus A310/320/330.

    Nic

    in reply to: Rafale Thread #13 #2356869
    Nicolas10
    Participant

    They flew right over the place where I work on their way to Paris. Nice sighting.

    Nic

    in reply to: F-35 News thread. Part Deux #2358783
    Nicolas10
    Participant

    They claim the costs don’t include depot maintenance but only airbase level maintenance. So if a plane doesn’t require depot maintenance and the other does, then the ration will change quite a bit.

    That’s just one discrepancy. I bet there are others.

    Nic

    in reply to: Rafale Thread #13 #2287892
    Nicolas10
    Participant

    I’m sure you’d have say “RIP” if the whole thing ended up in a CFIT :rolleyes:

    tsss

    in reply to: Rafale Thread #13 #2287919
    Nicolas10
    Participant

    Wrt flying an aircraft it means one thing, the aircraft stalled and in the case wasn’t recoverable possibly due to altitude or something else.

    Enlighten us how losing control of an aircraft can be interpreted any differently…

    G-lock, but unlike the unfortunate pilot of that Rafale B he could have recovered early enough to bail out in time.

    I’m not saying it’s what happened, but that’s one possibility amongst many.

    Nic

Viewing 15 posts - 1,561 through 1,575 (of 4,147 total)