Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and F-22 'Raptor' : News & Discussion
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
It seems that an F-35 can drop its tanks in Iraq during an attack on Iran from Israel, but that a Rafale in the same situation could not. It will fly at low altitude only during the last 300 km and without drop tank. All the return will be without drop tank. This has not been taken into account in my calculations and more than compensates for the low altitude constraint in the case of an IADS attack.
Ya they do. They have access to them just like Turkey has access to their (Block 30s) F-16 source codes and Belgium. Belgium needed them because instead of buying American they bought French CARAPACE system instead of the American Rapport III (ALQ-178) system.
Without access Israel and Turkey would not be able to use "indigenous" weapon systems, EW/ECM and radar.
Peanuts? Israeli F-15 avionics line has been around for a while now when it comes to the F-35 they need uncle Sams permission and it's barely in its infancy.
That's what someone says when they can't argue anymore. I showed you that the F-15I in any strike on Iran will need aerial refueling killing your claim the reason they are buying more F-15's is because of range. Btw they are only buying a few more while they are buying more F-35's and will soon have more F-35's than F-15I's. Once Israeli F-35's get their drop tanks they won't need tankers to strike Iran. Using F-15I's and F-35's right now to strike Iran is a big deal and is very hard to hide from spies and other nations ISR when you have your strike fighters and big support aircraft taking off. Iran will see F-15's coming but won't see F-35's that is why they are making F-35 drop tanks.
Please tell me what engines are the F-18E block 3 using?Too old to consider the Block III with new engines. 2007.
-If the Navy now determines that the CFTs are more trouble than they're worth, its future Block III F/A-18E/Fs will be stuck with the same range and stores capacity limitations as its existing Super Hornets.
Navy Considers Axing Conformal Fuel Tanks From Its Block III Super Hornet Upgrade Plan (thedrive.com)
You're not good at arguing fighter combat radius are you? You keep making up claims US and Israel are buying 4th gen fighter because of range issues of the F-35 and I just keep shooting down your claims... pun intended.
So now it doesn't matter even though you said Israeli EW on F-35 is superior than US? Lol.
So it was not until the birth of the F-15EX that the "Gen 4+" could become "Gen 5-" on paper...
Before it was invented by the Americans, it didn't exist (in fact if it wasn't invented by americans, it was just impossible).
It is just said by Dassault for years...
Last edited:
Rafale have 5 heavy pylons....For exemple with 3 drop tanks attached it can carry 2 Scalp and 6 AA Missile.
Last edited:
No, they don't. What you are talking about is something else entirely. Even India can do the same sort on American equipment, like the P-8I. You do not need source codes for that, you only need your own hardware.
Nah, both F-35 and F-15 needs tankers depending on the type of mission being performed. Even India needs tankers even though our enemies are right next door. Iran is not very far, but that doesn't mean the F-35 will forgo the use of tankers permanently.
F414-EDE.
So you're saying the US modernised an engine after nearly 15 years, but can't improve the SFC of the engine. It's obvious you haven't understood what the article is talking about.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...-from-its-block-iii-super-hornet-upgrade-plan
You're not good at arguing fighter combat radius are you? You keep making up claims US and Israel are buying 4th gen fighter because of range issues of the F-35 and I just keep shooting down your claims... pun intended.
Considering your argument is the Israelis want the inferior F-15s so they can pour less money into their defence industry than buying more of the superior F-35s, I wouldn't say you have any ground to stand on. At least you have to admit the Israelis are a whole lot smarter than you are.
The USN want a 1000nm fighter; the F-15E does 1050nm, the Su-35S is a 1200nm fighter. The Su-30MK should manage 1000nm too once plumbed for 2 tanks. Obviously the F-35A is going to do lesser than that, ie, 770nm. In order to match the F-15E, the F-35A's going to need enough external fuel that will help it add 280nm to its combat radius. In order to do that, with a 50% reduction in efficiency for drop tanks, the F-35A will need 5-6T of external fuel. It's impossible for the F-35A to match the F-15E's range with just 2 drop tanks.
The efficiency of the airframe matters a lot. Which is also why at 2900 Km the Typhoon with a mere fuel fraction of 0.31 compared to the F-35A's nearly 0.39 matches or exceeds its basic range.
I am not saying the F-35 is a bad aircraft for its range-payload performance, neither are the Israelis. But you can bet the Israelis know what they are doing when they decided to choose the F-15 over the F-35. Just because it goes against what you believe doesn't mean you need to make dumb excuses to make yourself feel better.
While French fanboys have overestimated the Rafale, the American fanboys are clearly overestimating the F-35 as well.
You have comprehension issues.
The F-35 can carry 2x2000lb bombs internally with 4 AMRAAMs (longer range than MICA). A Rafale would be a sitting duck with that load and a huge RCS.
And an F-35 has 6 heavy pylons, 2 internally, 4 externally and Israel is developing 600 US gal (2400L) drop tanks in addition to the US 480 US gal ones.Rafale have 5 heavy pylons....For exemple with 3 drop tanks attached it can carry 2 Scalp and 6 AA Missile.
Israel Continues Development Of New External Fuel Tanks For Its F-35I Adir Jets
A local newspaper reported that the development of external fuel tanks for the F-35 is still ongoing and will possibly be complete in two years. It is no
theaviationist.com
Lockheed Eyes Giving F-35s More Gas With Drop Tanks And That's A Very Good Thing
The external tanks could give F-35s significantly valuable extra range and loiter time for certain key missions and circumstances.
www.thedrive.com
JSM and JSOW-ER can be carried internally or externally, so how many tanks does a Rafale need to match the range of an F-35A with 39% internal fuel fraction, 2 JSOW-ER/JSMs and 2 Meteors internally and 2x2400L drop tanks?
Indeed, a Rafale flying penetration with that much load will have to fly below 200ft, and aside from the fact it will be vulnerable to AAA and undecoyable IIR SAMs at that altitude, the range will be cut by roughly 3-fold relative to altitude flying.
It can but it'll be flying at ground level to avoid radar, so divide range by 3.
Why so, Flanker carries its load externally and I wouldn't bet on Soviet engines being very efficient.
0.29 with 20-25% reserve. Empty weight of F-15C is 28,000lb, loaded in 45,000lb. That's how we're calculating fuel for the Rafale and Flanker, gross weight - empty weight.
Dassault Rafale - Wikipedia
Sukhoi Su-35 - Wikipedia
So if full fuel on an F-15C were only 13,000lb, where is the other 4,000lb, or equally the Rafale and Flanker must really have gross weights over that stated or carry less fuel than imagined.
Yes, true.
But as the constructor, Dassault faces the suspicion/charge for being partial.
Conversely, one can’t suspect a U.S. Air Force Gen. for being pro-Rafale.
Why so, Flanker carries its load externally and I wouldn't bet on Soviet engines being very efficient.
0.29 with 20-25% reserve. Empty weight of F-15C is 28,000lb, loaded in 45,000lb. That's how we're calculating fuel for the Rafale and Flanker, gross weight - empty weight.
Dassault Rafale - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Sukhoi Su-35 - Wikipedia
So if full fuel on an F-15C were only 13,000lb, where is the other 4,000lb, or equally the Rafale and Flanker must really have gross weights over that stated or carry less fuel than imagined.
Why did F-15C come into the picture? It's a dedicated air superiority fighter. Not a pound for air-to-ground. The heavier two-seat F-15E is the strike version.
Gross weight isn't a fixed figure, so it's best to stick to empty, MTOW and full internal fuel 'cause those are fixed figures.
Isn't it funny? The Typhoon has an FF of 0.31, the Rafale has an FF of 0.35, but the Typhoon practically matches the F-35A's FF in terms of basic range. However at the same time, the Rafale's range is "far too low", even though even the Su-30 with an FF of 0.35 exceeds the F-35A's range. The problem is the F-35, not the other jets, when it comes to range. The F-35 likely faces far too much drag due to the large IWBs, hence the lower range compared to its fuel fraction. Which is evident by the fact that the F-35 failed to meet its acceleration goals while also being G limited for sustained performance.
Pentagon Downgrades Specs for Its Premier Stealth Jet — Again
The Pentagon's future jet fighter is getting steadily worse.
I'm sure one can argue that the F-35 still accelerates faster than the F-16, but that's not the aircraft it's being compared with, nor is it the aircraft that it will eventually fight. So there's no point in getting hung up over the F-35's "amazing" FF, if other features make it irrelevant to the point it can't compare itself with jets designed 20 years before it.
What the Brazilians discovered for both the Rafale F3 and SH B2.
Warplanes: Turkey Gets F-16 Source Code
November 4, 2011: The U.S. has agreed to supply Turkey with source code for F-16 fire control and flight system software, so that Turkey can modify F-16 software to use Turkish made weapons and equipment. This will be part of a Turkish refurbishment of 213 of their F-16s. This will cost about $5.2 million per aircraft, and include a lot of Turkish made equipment. Over the last decade, Turkey has been producing more military gear locally, and now produces over half its military equipment needs.Warplanes: Turkey Gets F-16 Source Code (strategypage.com)
Like Turkey Israel has access to F-15I source codes which enables them to use Israeli electronics/avionics and weapons which is why they are buying F-15I's which will be their last F-15 purchase as they go all in on the F-35. They don't have access to F-35 codes yet any change requires US personnel to be there but that will change in future. It's not because of range that is a dumb claim on your part and I think you're starting to realize that.
You purposely don't get it. Once F-35 gets their drop tanks they won't need tankers for a strike on Iran which will reduce Israel's signature making it much harder for Iran to detect an upcoming attack.
Those engines don't exist, bud. Try again.
I'm pointing out that you think currently block 3 F-18E's fly with EDE engines but they don't. Article points out for you that without CFT the block 3's combat radius is the same as block 2. If block 3 had EDE their radius wouldn't be the same as block 2... You get it now?
Israeli's are already committed to a certain number of F-35's and your argument is that politicians, MIC and special interest are somehow interested in honesty and what is good for the nations defense and not corporate bottom line? Lol. You must live in la la land.
USN has never had a 1000nm fighter not even the F-14 ever came close to those numbers the F-35c will be the Navy's longest combat radius fighter. Btw how quickly you forget that the USN 6th gen fighter will not be used for deep penetration that will be the F-35C's job while USN 6th gen will used standoff weapons.
F-35c can strike deep in China and won't be seen.
Rafail or any flanker will be long dead before reaching its target or forced to egress.
They didn't choose the F-15 over the F-35 that is your claim done out of stupidity or ignorance which is basically the same. Israel will have more F-35's than F-15I's but you choose to ignore this fact.
Not according to the 15+ nations. How many nations fly Rafail and what are the names of these nations? Lol.
Not necessarily, some fuel figures are useable fuel, some aren't. The Rafale does not have 0.35, more like 0.33-0.34, Typhoon about 0.315. All that about F-35 drag is speculative BS, which is completely unfounded. The acceleration goal issues are down to weight, 43,000lbf on a 48,000lb aircraft. But then how fast does a Rafale accelerate with 3x2000L drop tanks adding an extra 11,000lbs, giving 34,000lbf with 44,000lb weight?Why did F-15C come into the picture? It's a dedicated air superiority fighter. Not a pound for air-to-ground. The heavier two-seat F-15E is the strike version.
Gross weight isn't a fixed figure, so it's best to stick to empty, MTOW and full internal fuel 'cause those are fixed figures.
Isn't it funny? The Typhoon has an FF of 0.31, the Rafale has an FF of 0.35, but the Typhoon practically matches the F-35A's FF in terms of basic range. However at the same time, the Rafale's range is "far too low", even though even the Su-30 with an FF of 0.35 exceeds the F-35A's range. The problem is the F-35, not the other jets, when it comes to range. The F-35 likely faces far too much drag due to the large IWBs, hence the lower range compared to its fuel fraction. Which is evident by the fact that the F-35 failed to meet its acceleration goals while also being G limited for sustained performance.
"The program announced an intention to change performance specifications for the F-35A, reducing turn performance from 5.3 to 4.6 sustained g’s and extending the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by eight seconds," Gilmore's report stated. The F-35B and F-35C also had their turn rates and acceleration time eased. The B-model jet's max turn went from 5.0 to 4.5 g's and its acceleration time to Mach 1.2 was extended by 16 seconds. The F-35C lost 0.1 g off its turn spec and added a whopping 43 seconds to its acceleration.Pentagon Downgrades Specs for Its Premier Stealth Jet — Again
The Pentagon's future jet fighter is getting steadily worse.www.wired.com
I'm sure one can argue that the F-35 still accelerates faster than the F-16, but that's not the aircraft it's being compared with, nor is it the aircraft that it will eventually fight. So there's no point in getting hung up over the F-35's "amazing" FF, if other features make it irrelevant to the point it can't compare itself with jets designed 20 years before it.
On A and C it can. A plane isn't going to carry 6 AAMs on a strike mission, especially when it's a stealth aircraft and not a Rafale, which alerts the enemy's entire AF of its presence.
I can also make the point that effective radar coverage areas are smaller with an F-35, so it can take a more direct route, a Rafale with 3 DTs would have to zig-zag over and back at low altitude. So whatever the ideal range, the reality range for the Rafale is far lower.
That's pretty generic amounts of ToT. Pretty much everybody interested in getting their own weapons for the F-35 will get that much as long as they have a license production deal for a large enough number to make it feasible. Like the Japanese.
That's the case with all aircraft.
Google F414 Enhanced Engine.
I'm sure anybody would rather have 75 F-35s over 50 F-35s + 25 F-15s. Unless...
Er... no. The USAF is designing the NGAD for deep penetration missions.
The USN is not planning on using either the F-335C or their version of NGAD for deep penetration. They simply want the USAF to take over this domain completely.
That's not deep strike, that's more like the range needed for CAS. Google Chengdu and check if the F-35 can reach that place.
Actually, the Israelis will end up with pretty much equal numbers. But again, based on what you say, the Israelis should be chosing the F-35 over the F-15. But of course, the IAF wants to make money, right?
That still doesn't explain how the Typhoon matches the range of the F-35A.