Blah, blah, blah & more blah that DOES NOT support the claim that drop tanks are better than internal fuel carrige…

Sorry but there is just WAY too much difference in design & manufacturing between the F-15 & the Su-27. The Su-27 is not larger & heavier than the F-15 just because it carries more internal fuel. If it were not for the fact that the F-15 carries 4 MRAAMs conformally & that the wing-mounted tanks mount UNDER the wing-mounted AAMs… Of course if the mission requires a loadout OTHER THAN the F-15’s specifically designed 8 AAMs, the NEED to carry 2 drop tanks leaves it with just 1 centerline weapon station. 🙂 Note that the F-15E got around this through the use of CFTs, adding 1500 gal of esentially internal fuel capacity AND additional weapon stations.

A more accurate comparison would be Mig-29 vs Su-27 (although the size & mission differences make even that a stretch).

Best comparision is probably the F/A-18E/F vs F/A-18C/D. Why is it when tasked with the job of turning the F/A-18C/D into an A-6 replacement they made it bigger (SPECIFICALLY IN ORDER TO CARRY MORE INTERNAL FUEL) rather than just redesign it to carry more/bigger drop tanks?

And why is it in the “search” for greater range from the F-15 & F-16 (soon the Typhoon & Rafale as well) they went with CFTs rather than just redesign it to carry more/bigger drop tanks?

You design an aircraft for a specific mission or set of missions with a specific performance target. A balanced design later has exactly the fuel it needs to have. But as the standard missions sometimes do not reflect the changed environment fuel is added.

EXACTLY! The “problem” is far to often it has been found that MORE range is needed more often than not than was ‘specified/designed’. So the NEED to carry external tanks just to get the range needed most of the time. External tanks add MUCH more drag than a equal amount of (increased) internal fuel & they take up hardpoints that are no longer available for weapons.

Anyways, adding external conformal tanks afterwards will have a significant performance penalty. Less in subsonic operations, but in supersonic operations.

Again, internal fuel is the best BY FAR but conformal tanks are WAY better than external ‘drop tanks’ & in fact generate comparatively little performance penalty [more than the equivalent internal fuel but less than external ‘drop tanks’].

If a design should not use drop tanks, you need to design for volume from the beginning, with all resulting disadvantages (primarily weight, but also size).

Which are small potatos compared to the resulting disadvantages of external tanks.

As I said, F-15A and Su-27P have basically similar performance envelopes, range, speed and maneuver. One weights 13.5t empty with 56.5sqm wing area, the other 17t with 62sqm wing area.

Which says absolutely NOTHING about the relative merit of internal, conformal & external fuel.

With two drop tanks an F-15A has exactly the same range or radius, with 3 drop tanks (all 600gal, yielding ~1850kg of fuel) it actually has more.

BINGO! The F-15A NEEDS 2 external tanks (1220 gal) which add ~10,000 lbs (weight of fuel & tanks combined) in order to match the range or radius of the Su-27.

You know, Scooter, I just don’t get it. You are told by multiple informed Australians that JSF was not part of AIR 6000, who provide sources referencing pre-2002 AIR 6000, clearly showing a complete dearth of any mention of JSF, to back up their case. AIR 6000 was the RAAF’s plan. You then claim that the RAAF has been in and involved with JSF, from the start, as fact, without providing one – not even one single source that references the relevant decision – to back up your point. Would you like us to provide a source which has active RAAF staff speaking out against their governmental leadership? If you do, the only words that come to mind are ‘get real’. The only reason the RAAF hasn’t come out guns blazing is that they don’t want to get fired and have come to realise the plane in question is actually fairly well suited for them after all. This source should show you just how much RAAF leadership were concerned with the way in which the decision was made.
So, my point is this. Provide ONE SINGLE SOURCE that mentions JSF as part of AIR 6000 – which I reiterate was the RAAF’s plan – or otherwise has RAAF figures talking about their plans for the aircraft pre-2002 (as this was the point the Australian Government made the decision) and I WILL believe you. Fail to do so and I will not.

I do not contest that the RAAF has been involved with F-35 post 2002. Pretty bloody obvious that that’s the case. Nor do I contest that the RAAF do not want or have problems with the F-35. What I contend is this and only this; that the 2002 decision was made with minimal consultation with the RAAF leadership.

Join the real world please.

WHO CARES IF THE F-35 WAS A PART OF AIR 6000 PRE-2002? IT HAS BEEN POST-2002.

Once the Australian government “got the goods” on the F-35 it realized how much better it was than anything else they were looking at & could REALISTICALLY get (sorry Australia is/was not going to get the F-22 so give up that dream & STOP REFERENCING PEOPLE WHO SAY THAT THE F-35 IS WRONG FOR AUSTRALIA BECAUSE THE F-22 IS BETTER) joined the JSF program & chose it to fulfill its Air 6000 requirements. And the RAAF has been supportive of the decision. You should be thankful that Australia (unlike say Norway) did not waist any time & money on a stupid ‘competition’ where EVERYONE with any sense knows in advance what the outcome would be.

F-35A: 38.9%（Empty weight: 13,170 kg，Internal fuel: 8,382 kg）

F-35C: 38.5%（Empty weight: 14,548 kg，Internal fuel: 9,111 kg）

F-35B: 30.3%（Empty weight: 14,588 kg，Internal fuel: 6,352 kg）

Why do people continue to use PRE-WEIGHT REDUCTION numbers for the F-35?

PRODUCTION aircraft benefit from a 2+year weight reduction program…

F-35A
40.7%
Empty weight: 26,664 lbs (12,095kg)
Internal fuel: 18,307 lbs (8,304kg)

F-35B
31.1%
Empty weight: 29,695 lbs (13,470kg)
Internal fuel: 13,400 lbs (6,078kg)

F-35C
39.0%
Empty weight: 29,996 lbs (13,606kg)
Internal fuel: 19,145 lbs (8,684kg)

Lets remember U.S “Help” is seen in many quarters of the world as U.S exploitation. Alot of nations would very much like to avoid U.S “help” which is often sen as self serving with an eye towards resource aquisition. ( Iraq, Iran 1950s-1970s, much of South America). The recent “war on oil” opps I mean “war on terror” has helped to largely bankrupt the U.S further whilst making the U.S no safer when simple diplomacy like leaving the Middle East alone would have achieved far more (but how could the U.S control oil? ). Iraq has really exposed American interests in a very very ugly way. The notion that the U.S will be missed sits nicely with the notion that the IMF (U.S controlled) helps nations as well. Having said that, someone needs to keep Putin in check and I don’t see China doing that.

You OBVIOUSLY have no idea what you are talking about.

Everywhere the US is there are those who are INCREDIBLY thankful that it is & those who wish it not to be there.

Where is all the oil the US is supposed to be getting from this so called “war on oil”? In case you hadn’t noticed the price of gasoline more than TRIPPLED in the US…

The US budget is over $3 TRILLION dollars a year, the cost of the “war on terror” (obviously depending on who’s number you use & what all you include as a ‘cost’) has been on the order of ~$100 billion a year or ~3.0-3.5% of the yearly budget. To put it into a perspective you may understand, that is like someone who has an annual budget (not income, spending budget) of $100,000 spending ~$3,000-3,500 a year.

You’d think wouldn’t you? But when someone says they think a fighter aircraft isn’t needed because it hasn’t been used to bomb camels though the stupidity pretty much speaks for itself.

Even more so given the fact that the reason why the F-22 “hasn’t been used to bomb camels” is because GATES refused to allow the USAF to send any.

Load of crap. Even if Typhoon pilots were used to besting all opposition, they surely would not expect to fare identically against F-22s.

Just turning your BS statement around. I should have used a smilie…

USAF will never get 381 Raptors, there is no role even for 200 of them..

BS, 381 is how many the USAF needs in order to have JUST 1 SQUADRON for each of its 10 AEF plus those needed for training, periodic maintenance & attrition reserves.

Which Typhoon pilot was it? I have neither read not heard any comment like that from a British pilot. This sounds like a typical American dream to me..

As far as I know, the exact name & rank of the RAF Typhoon pilot who made the remark is not public knowledge…It is also possible that the exact quote is/was a paraphrasing of the sentiments a group of RAF Typhoon pilots rather than a single individual.

BUT add to that the PUBLIC (can be found on youtube & has been linked to here) comments of a RAF exchange pilot lucky enough to actually fly the F-22 for himself & the wet dreams of Typhoon fanatics that it is better than the F-22 look to be just that, wet dreams.

I absolutely agree here. The tales about decisive supremacy of Typhoon over Rafale or [future] Su-35s sound laughable to me, as well.

🙂

Basically it’s just more structurally efficient to carry external fuel. You use ET’s to get to the fight and then have internal fuel for the fight and get back home again.

No, it is more structurally efficient to carry internal fuel. GENERAL rule-of-thumb is for every gal/lb of external fuel you carry, you need ANOTHER gal/lb of external fuel to obtain the range improvement desired.

The same principle applies to space travel, there is a reason multi stage rockets were developed.

No, it is not the same principle. Getting a rocket (or whatever) into space requires SO much fuel that the weight of the fuel is MANY TIMES MORE than the weight of the vehicle. put another way, every pound that you want to get into space requires MANY more pounds of fuel to get it there…