and fuel weight is how much of total weigh?

That part I can answer. Partly.

20,650 pounds of fuel internally (3082 gallons), from USAF TO 00-105E-9. Lockheed’s website and the USAF website give 18,000 pounds, this may be a rounded-off figure or an old number. The USAF document lists each fuel tank and gives capacity for each, as well as the four externals, whose capacity and weights match the USAF website. The document is likely more accurate than the publicly-available website, which doesn’t give precise figures for thrust, speed, or ceiling anyway.

Lockheed (and the USAF) also gives an empty weight of 43,340 pounds. Add the fuel to that, as well as probably around 3,000 pounds for the eight AAMs, and you get a typical takeoff weight of around 68,000 pounds. That’s a rough guess, but it should be relatively accurate. The fuel number is dead on, and the weapons weights should be no higher than that figure (even including 20mm shells). This also gives you a thrust-to-weight ratio above 1 even when fully loaded with internal weapons and fuel.

A 5th Gen airplane is to be better in “ALL ASPECTS” from previous Gen warplanes thats why, ESPECIALLY if your asking for $100+Mill for each one, (and on top of that your only getting 187 of ’em!!) HAHAHA

Really? Then the MiG-31 and MiG-25 are still a generation behind the YF-12A, having less speed, less range, and less altitude, right?

The far more important weapons will be the internal large anti-radiation missiles and perhaps Klub type series weapons.

The folding-fin Kh-58 that has been seen may have been developed with a Skat-type UCAV in mind. I’m not sure we know precisely what weapons are to be employed by the PAK-FA at any rate.

The Su-34 is meant for low level bombing and flight like the Su-24.

This would make the PAK-FA’s stealth useless. Not an out of this world logic eh?

Yes, because low RCS aircraft never operate at low level :rolleyes:

The J-10B appears to still be using the AL-31F.

“kick ass the eurostuff”…”outperforme the euromess”…yup, this thread will be getting a lot more attention. Feel free to have a sensible discussion and disagree, but all of this pointless nationalism and flame baiting will no longer be tolerated. Infractions will be handed out if we can’t all be mature. And yes, if somebody mouths off and you type a witty and pointless comeback of your own, you will BOTH be dealt with. Just so we’re clear.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

I have heard exactly the opposite.. that the AIM-7s were restricted for WVR use. That would mean, no AIM-7s were fired outside the missile’s effective envelope.

“Effective envelope” could mean a lot of things unrelated to maximum range. Early AIM-7s weren’t configured to deal with high-speed turning dogfights at WVR ranges, making any shots taken in those environments within their technical range but outside their effective envelope.

Airplanes flying in exercises carry an ACMI pod and a captive inert AIM-9M (Google aggressor pics and you’ll see the AIM-9). The AIM-9M automatically searches a conical area defined by +/- 15 degrees off the nose, but the seeker can also be slewed by the pilot to 30 degrees off the nose using a “coolie hat” switch on the stick (Google “Sidewinder Expanded Acquisition Mode”). When the Squadron Leader says he cannot “put weapons on it”, that would include the MWIR AIM-9M seeker.

I was referring to specific on-board IRST systems, not weapon seekers. The F-15C has a radar and nothing else. The only optical system is the Mk. 1 Eyeball, and there is no IRST.

If you study Rus Mill R&D you’ll see most of the time they always go to far lengths to make thier developments seem like it’s a failure this is If believe the U.S. can’t win a war against them.

Yeah, like the N-1. There’s really a Soviet lunar colony on the Moon right now. Tu-95MS and Tu-160 bombers also actually carry the Meteorit cruise missile and not the Kh-55. Of course, they are secondary to the T-4 and T-54 units that represent the real front-line bomber force.