I'm waiting for your idea!As I said, you really have no idea.
I'm waiting for your idea!As I said, you really have no idea.
In pre-Red Flag exercises,
But I already explain you it was impossible:As I said, you really have no idea.
I did the F-35 with 2x 2k and 2 tanks, it was .434.
The maximum ordnance capacity is 18,000 lbs and the sum of the ordnance weights shown on this graph is 22,300 lbs, so we will have to remove 4,300 lbs from the description of what the F-35 can carry.
As the aim is to demonstrate that the F-35 has more range than the Rafale, we cannot remove fuel. You can't take out the air-to-air missiles either, because they are not profitable for the imagination and are too light to fulfill the contract. You can't take out the cannon either, because it's integrated into the structure, so you have to take out two bombs.
How much these exercises be taken as an efficient and sufficient scale to measure the tactics and performances? If I am correct no military in the world shows their actual tactics in such exercises.
I agree. It is just one of the pointless Rafale talking points. Normally they use 5 ferry tanks in their numbers. I'm trying to get it to at least, in a standard mission fit out. Some missiles and bombs.This argument is meaningless.
Rafale's standard mission loadout includes tanks. The F-35 can't carry tanks without compromising stealth.
The F-35 has plenty of range as a tactical fighter without needing extra tanks anyway. For greater range, the US has bombers, the French don't.
I agree. It is just one of the pointless Rafale talking points. Normally they use 5 ferry tanks in their numbers. I'm trying to get it to at least, in a standard mission fit out. Some missiles and bombs.
The Israeli are looking at 2x 4k external fuel tanks. Everyone else is looking at tankers.
When we allow for drag, engine efficiency. It will come out that the F-35 without external tanks and 2x 2k bombs. Will have a better range than the Rafale with 3 tanks, with 2x 2k bombs and missiles. The Rafale will be 5g and subsonic. The F-35 will be 9g and M1.6, with internal and 2x 2k bombs and missiles.
Pic-oil, The chart is of the 3 varieties. A, B and C. You will note that when you add the weight of the B, you get 18,300. A smaller number than when you add the weight of the A and C. The A has an internal gun, I don't know if it also has the software for the gun pod. so it can have 2 guns.
it says OVER 18,000 lb. because B is in the chart. It doesn't say max 18,000 lb. The A has a 70k class, max take off weight
Air Force F-35A Lightning IIHardpoints: 4 × internal stations, 6 × external stations on wings with a capacity of 5,700 pounds (2,600 kg) internal, 15,000 pounds (6,800 kg) external, 18,000 pounds (8,200 kg) total weapons payload
Payload: 18,000 pounds (8,160 kilograms)
So my configuration describe here:On the weapons side, there is also the addition of a third under-wing hard point to put the MICA NG air-to-air missile with its famous dual impulse booster as well as the 1000 kg modular air-to-ground bomb
is valid with F4 with a fuel fraction of 0.4465.Rafale C
Empty weight 9850 Kg
Internal fuel 4700 Kg
External fuel: 4 tanks of 1250l => 4000 Kg + 320kg for the tanks and 1 ventral tank of 2000l => 1600 Kg + 100 kg for the tank i.e. a total of 6020Kg including 5600 kg of fuel
Bomb 2000Kg
Missile 500kg
Total External Load: 8520 Below the Maximum of 9500
With the Norwegian budget figures having raised more questions than the Swiss decision answered for the F-35, and the US Navy trying to kill off the Super Hornet production line faster than you can get a hornets nest fully cleaned out from a redcurrant shrub (which for me is approximately two weeks of time based on empirical testing), the Finnish skies are perhaps looking ready to accept a non-US fighter again.
Just keeps getting heavier with no engine/thrust upgrade. The F1, lighter version, in clean configuration top speed is mach 1.8 F3 is very likely less and the F4 will likely be much less, huh frenchy?
In this video a journalist from Air et Cosmos, which is the weekly aeronautical reference newspaper in France, gives us news about the F4 and F5 standards of the Rafale.
From 1:51 he says about the new F4 standard weapons:
"Du coté des armements il y a également l'ajout d'un troisième point d'emport sous voilure pour mettre le missile Air-Air MICA NG avec son fameux propulseur à double impulsion ainsi que la bombe Air Sol modulaire de 1000 kg."
Translation:
So my configuration describe here:
is valid with F4 with a fuel fraction of 0.4465.
Duh.German mechanical engineering design is superior and is much more expensive than a Tata car. It's like comparing the jf-17 to the f-35 and say the f-35 is superior. That's just basic common sense.
F-15 on the other hand is dated airframe although reliable with aesa it's good but against a flanker equipped with aesa it loses its advantage.
There's a reason USAF isn't showing any real interest in the F-15EX even though it's superior to the f-35 in some avionics.
The airframe is just not made for modern air warfare, it will be taken down by a j-16. The J-11 and su30mkk's are the only planes the F-15 can reliably takeout.
It's just a bomb truck now.
When you're done bullshitting, let me know.Just keeps getting heavier with no engine/thrust upgrade. The F1, lighter version, in clean configuration top speed is mach 1.8 F3 is very likely less and the F4 will likely be much less, huh frenchy?
It's a flying brick unlike the F-35.
It's a 1970's airframe. The flanker in the other hand has been constantly updated when it comes to airframe the su-35 has an RCS of 1 sqm while the f-15 EX has 20-25 sqm RCS not different to the original f-15C or E. The thing will be seen from miles away. Boeing put in the new mission computer,EPAWSS which they claim is superior to the f-35's equivalents. Problem is the fatass airframe still remains even though it's quite sturdy and has 20k hours of life. The thing will be seen by shitty pesa's on old J-11's.Exactly how the hell do you know this? Would you like to go into details and explain instead of just giving us your delusional opinion?
How long has it been since the US put its first AESA on a fighter? How many different AESA since then have the US developed? How many Russian fighters, Mig-29s and their Flanker fleet have AESA radars? Get where I'm going, Bub?
American education in full display. I have clearly written airframe here.What the hell are you talking about? Are you talking about AIRFRAME, DESIGN or the avionics inside? Because there's a HUGE difference
It's clearly meant to be used as a platform for deploying standoff weapons, that's what USAF seems to keep it for and airspace-patrolling. The mki's are also slowly being converted to bomb truck roles with brahmos integration but they are still more manoeuvrable,agile than the average teen fighter. Our MKI's still have lesser RCS than the f-15EX by a huge magnitude, something Boeing didn't fix even though they had plans for it.F-15EX is a 9G fighter chump. If the F-15EX is a bomb truck thn so is all of the IAF's flanker fleet since the SU-30's role was as a bomber.
But I already explain you it was impossible:
Sum of the ordnance weights on the graphRafale DH/EH of Indian Air Force : News and Discussions
I'd quit while you are behind. The F-35 would be 26,500 lb of fuel with 4x 2,000 lb and missiles. Most would also have A2A refueling available.www.strategicfront.org
Bombs: 4 * 2500 = 10000
Missiles: 4 * 300 = 1200
Fuel: 2 * 5000 = 10000
Gun : 1000
TOTAL = 22200 Lbs
Maximum ordnance capacity is 18,000 lbs
At least the configuration I made for the Rafale did not exceed its total payload capacity. And you absolutely want me to calculate a configuration that has no operational interest, with 4 heavy bombs because it suits the F-35 better in your imagination.
Lol. SU-35 rcs is MUUUCH smaller than SU-27 even though they haven't changed?It's a 1970's airframe. The flanker in the other hand has been constantly updated when it comes to airframe the su-35 has an RCS of 1 sqm while the f-15 EX has 20-25 sqm RCS not different to the original f-15C or E. The thing will be seen from miles away. Boeing put in the new mission computer,EPAWSS which they claim is superior to the f-35's equivalents. Problem is the fatass airframe still remains even though it's quite sturdy and has 20k hours of life. The thing will be seen by shitty pesa's on old J-11's.
American education in full display. I have clearly written airframe here.
It's clearly meant to be used as a platform for deploying standoff weapons, that's what USAF seems to keep it for and airspace-patrolling. The mki's are also slowly being converted to bomb truck roles with brahmos integration but they are still more manoeuvrable,agile than the average teen fighter. Our MKI's still have lesser RCS than the f-15EX by a huge magnitude, something Boeing didn't fix even though they had plans for it.
Also stop seething
Because RCS of F35 due to RAM is basically better at the front but now other areas of fuselage? And electronic stealth is required for this?For example, they may go into greater complexity with other F-35 users than with France or other non-F-35 users. With India, the F-22 and F-35 will carry RCS enhancers and act as 4th gen jets.
Can't handle the truth, eh?When you're done bullshitting, let me know.
You're talking about Pakistani airspace right? Because no way a 4th gen french plane carrying pylons and weapons hanging off them is going to survive that long penetrating chicom air space.If Rafales are to be used for penetrating the enemy air space to conduct air raid , I don't think they will be fitted with more than:
2x 2500 ground attack payload
2x300 AAM.
1x5000 fuel
1000 gun
I didn't think that was your diseaseCan't handle the truth, eh?