pfcempfcem. I do not wish to be unnecessarly confrontational but…
So how about not being confrontational by ignoring my comments & addressing me with comments that in fact come accross as accusatory of my saying something that I did not say?
TRY ADDRESSING MY COMMENTS INSTEAD!
In MY effort to not be unnecessarly confrontational, I will ignore comments you have addressed to me that have NOTHING to do with what I have posted.
pfcemA lot of empty words to distract from proven wrong.
No, words to restate my comments since you & Schorsch continue to argue about something other than what I have said.
PLEASE TRY ADDRESSING MY COMMENTS INSTEAD OF MUDDING THE WATERS WITH MORE & MORE BS!
It is about versatility.
EXACTLY, & carrying enough fuel internally so you don’t HAVE to carry external fuel is not only WAY more versatile but more efficient.
CFTs are just a further option to enhance that and nothing more.
Yes. A better option than MUCH draggier drop tanks that take up weapons stations but not as good as having enough internal fuel to begin with.
pfcemA lot of empty words to distract from proven wrong.
No, words to restate my comments since you & Schorsch continue to argue about something other than what I have said.
PLEASE TRY ADDRESSING MY COMMENTS INSTEAD OF MUDDING THE WATERS WITH MORE & MORE BS!
It is about versatility.
EXACTLY, & carrying enough fuel internally so you don’t HAVE to carry external fuel is not only WAY more versatile but more efficient.
CFTs are just a further option to enhance that and nothing more.
Yes. A better option than MUCH draggier drop tanks that take up weapons stations but not as good as having enough internal fuel to begin with.
pfcemI have an idea – people that want to talk about fighting Flankers and Eagles, start a new thread about it.
This thread is about DROP TANKS!!!!
The talk about Flankers & Eagles IS about drop tanks.
More specifically how the Eagle can (with 2 external DROP TANKS) obtain the same range as the Flanker can with internal fuel. Their convaluted argument is that since the F-15 is smaller & lighter but CAN obtain the same range as the Flanker that drop tanks are a better way of obtaining a required range than carrying enough internally to do so.
pfcemI have an idea – people that want to talk about fighting Flankers and Eagles, start a new thread about it.
This thread is about DROP TANKS!!!!
The talk about Flankers & Eagles IS about drop tanks.
More specifically how the Eagle can (with 2 external DROP TANKS) obtain the same range as the Flanker can with internal fuel. Their convaluted argument is that since the F-15 is smaller & lighter but CAN obtain the same range as the Flanker that drop tanks are a better way of obtaining a required range than carrying enough internally to do so.
pfcemThe difference is some extra weight of ~3 tons, when it comes to empty equipped. Nothing is for free. Every fighter is a compromise. Rise capability at one end will lower that at the other end. The prime mission does show the direction. The F-15E is a striker at first with good secondary fighter capability. By your claim “wing-load” is no issue, when it comes to lift and range.
What ARE you talking about?
I will try again since BOTH you & Schorsch are so clueless.
The design & manufacturing differences are FAR too great to make a BS claim that since the F-15 can (with 2 external tanks) match the range of the Su-27 on internal fuel & that is an indication that designing/building an aircraft (for ANY mission) with insufficient internal fuel thus REQUIRING external tanks to obtain the required range is better than designing/building an aircraft with sufficient internal fuel to obtain the required range.
The design & manufacturing of the Mig-29 & Su-27 are MUCH closer but the disparity in size (due to being designed & built for different roles/missions) makes even THAT comparision a stretch (though not as much as the F-15 vs Su-27). Although I seriously doubt anyone would prefer Mig-29s to fulfill the roles/missions of Su-27s even IF they could obtain the required range with external tanks.
The closest that you are going to get to two modern combat aircraft of generally the same design & manufacturing is the F/A-18E/F vs the F/A-18C/D. SO why is it when tasked to build an F/A-18 with greater range/payload (ie capability), the designers chose to make a bigger F/A-18 rather than redesign the F/A-18C to utilize more/bigger external tanks? And why is it when greater range is/was desired/needed for the F-15 & F-16 (and soon the Typhoon & Rafale as well) CFTs are/were used instead of more/bigger external tanks?
And just what capability is lost with the F-15E vs the F-15C OR the F-16E (block 60) vs F-16C (block 50/52) OR the F/A-18E/F vs the F/A-18C/D? The capability GAINED is obvious! Also note that in all three of those cases while the newer models are heavier, not all of the weight gain is due to carrying more fuel…
pfcemThe difference is some extra weight of ~3 tons, when it comes to empty equipped. Nothing is for free. Every fighter is a compromise. Rise capability at one end will lower that at the other end. The prime mission does show the direction. The F-15E is a striker at first with good secondary fighter capability. By your claim “wing-load” is no issue, when it comes to lift and range.
What ARE you talking about?
I will try again since BOTH you & Schorsch are so clueless.
The design & manufacturing differences are FAR too great to make a BS claim that since the F-15 can (with 2 external tanks) match the range of the Su-27 on internal fuel & that is an indication that designing/building an aircraft (for ANY mission) with insufficient internal fuel thus REQUIRING external tanks to obtain the required range is better than designing/building an aircraft with sufficient internal fuel to obtain the required range.
The design & manufacturing of the Mig-29 & Su-27 are MUCH closer but the disparity in size (due to being designed & built for different roles/missions) makes even THAT comparision a stretch (though not as much as the F-15 vs Su-27). Although I seriously doubt anyone would prefer Mig-29s to fulfill the roles/missions of Su-27s even IF they could obtain the required range with external tanks.
The closest that you are going to get to two modern combat aircraft of generally the same design & manufacturing is the F/A-18E/F vs the F/A-18C/D. SO why is it when tasked to build an F/A-18 with greater range/payload (ie capability), the designers chose to make a bigger F/A-18 rather than redesign the F/A-18C to utilize more/bigger external tanks? And why is it when greater range is/was desired/needed for the F-15 & F-16 (and soon the Typhoon & Rafale as well) CFTs are/were used instead of more/bigger external tanks?
And just what capability is lost with the F-15E vs the F-15C OR the F-16E (block 60) vs F-16C (block 50/52) OR the F/A-18E/F vs the F/A-18C/D? The capability GAINED is obvious! Also note that in all three of those cases while the newer models are heavier, not all of the weight gain is due to carrying more fuel…
pfcemAW&ST
JSF News 2 – Stealth Questions Raised
Posted by Bill Sweetman at 1/7/2009 7:30 AM CST
The Air Power Australia team have produced an unprecedented report which asserts that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is much less stealthy than the F-22…
Who ever said that the F-35 was stealthy as the F-22?
The ‘official’ RCS quoted by the US DOD shows the RCS of the F-35 being on the order of an order of magnitude greater than the F-22.
And more realistic than the claims of total invisibility made on JSF’s behalf…
Who ever said that the F-35 was totally invisible?
***
Only a**holes who have an axe to grind against the F35 simply because it is not the F-22 would would make such nonsensical statements.
pfcemAW&ST
JSF News 2 – Stealth Questions Raised
Posted by Bill Sweetman at 1/7/2009 7:30 AM CST
The Air Power Australia team have produced an unprecedented report which asserts that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is much less stealthy than the F-22…
Who ever said that the F-35 was stealthy as the F-22?
The ‘official’ RCS quoted by the US DOD shows the RCS of the F-35 being on the order of an order of magnitude greater than the F-22.
And more realistic than the claims of total invisibility made on JSF’s behalf…
Who ever said that the F-35 was totally invisible?
***
Only a**holes who have an axe to grind against the F35 simply because it is not the F-22 would would make such nonsensical statements.
pfcemYes, I do.
No you don’t.
Still I can’t see your argument, just your claim.
Post #147.
Staying consistent, like not selling me the F-15E as a fighter, would help your case.
The F-15E loses NO fighter capabilities vs the F-15C but does gain VERY SIGNIFICANT range/payload for use in its PRIMARY role as an attack aircraft.
Same goes for the F/A-18E/F vs the F/A-18C/D.
pfcemYes, I do.
No you don’t.
Still I can’t see your argument, just your claim.
Post #147.
Staying consistent, like not selling me the F-15E as a fighter, would help your case.
The F-15E loses NO fighter capabilities vs the F-15C but does gain VERY SIGNIFICANT range/payload for use in its PRIMARY role as an attack aircraft.
Same goes for the F/A-18E/F vs the F/A-18C/D.
pfcemHe has for sure. 😀 Ever asked yourself that question for the benefit of all?
I am not the one relying on “just some Google snapshots”, nor am I mixing purpose designed fighter-bombers with real fighters.
pfcemHe has for sure. 😀 Ever asked yourself that question for the benefit of all?
I am not the one relying on “just some Google snapshots”, nor am I mixing purpose designed fighter-bombers with real fighters.
pfcemHow about looking into fuel fractions and trying to back-up your claim with more than just some Google snapshots?
Don’t mix purpose designed fighter-bombers with real fighters. Try to stay serious.
Do you even have ANY idea what you are talking about?
pfcemHow about looking into fuel fractions and trying to back-up your claim with more than just some Google snapshots?
Don’t mix purpose designed fighter-bombers with real fighters. Try to stay serious.
Do you even have ANY idea what you are talking about?
Sign In
