I read your post quite a few times in an attempt to understand what you were saying but alas I still misunderstood
It is clear now though. It seems like you are talking about interception of the cruise missile fired by Tu-160. Well, in order to intercept the cruise missile fired by Tu-160, the F-35 will approach it from an opposite general direction; it will not wait for the Tu-160 to pass it by and fire a cruise missile, and then chase it. This is why it is called an interception not a chase.
I dont think F35 requires drop tanks other than for extended ferry range while moving between bases.
The F-35A with max internal fuel is only 2200km range, combat radius only 1100km, Russian cruise missiles drop at over 3000km from their target. Without drop tanks it will never be able to intercept the Tu-160 much less chase it down. Once the missiles are dropped, the chances of stopping them drops to zero. The bomber must be intercepted before the launch point.I read your post quite a few times in an attempt to understand what you were saying but alas I still misunderstood
As far as handling the drag of a drop tank is concerned, if F-35 has more thrust than F-16 then it is quite obvious that F-35 will be able to handle the drag better than F-16. Same logic will apply when comparing against Rafale. And of course, aerodynamic design of the drop tank will also play a vital role in overcoming the drag.
Yeah, when Lockheed designed the F-35 to be an interceptor, I'm sure they were disappointed. Especially against mach 3 RafalesThe F-35A with max internal fuel is only 2200km range, combat radius only 1100km, Russian cruise missiles drop at over 3000km from their target. Without drop tanks it will never be able to intercept the Tu-160 much less chase it down. Once the missiles are dropped, the chances of stopping them drops to zero. The bomber must be intercepted before the launch point.
This is yet another reason why the F-35 cannot replace the F-22. It doesn't have the range, the supercruise speed or the ability to get there without drop tanks to make it an effective interceptor. In this mission it is a complete and total failure. Speaking of the UK's F-35Bs, that is the biggest joke of all.
Neither the F-22 nor Rafale with 3 EFTs nor any of the current 4th gen fighters with EFTs can intercept Tu-160 lunching Kh-55SM as that missile has a range of 3,000 km range if a TU-160 is able to find and out-of-reach launching position.The F-35A with max internal fuel is only 2200km range, combat radius only 1100km, Russian cruise missiles drop at over 3000km from their target. Without drop tanks it will never be able to intercept the Tu-160 much less chase it down. Once the missiles are dropped, the chances of stopping them drops to zero. The bomber must be intercepted before the launch point.
This is yet another reason why the F-35 cannot replace the F-22. It doesn't have the range, the supercruise speed or the ability to get there without drop tanks to make it an effective interceptor. In this mission it is a complete and total failure. Speaking of the UK's F-35Bs, that is the biggest joke of all.
UK's F-35Bs, that is the biggest joke of all.
The British lost 7 ships and 35 aircraft... I hardly call that a successful defence especially when they were protected by a picket of SAMs. If France hadn't cut off Exocet the entire RN would have been at the bottom of the ocean.
24 out of those 35 aircraft were MR helicopters.
You perfectly know that a fighter purchase is mainly a political choice. See in Switzerland, with the leaked eval report : Politics choose the worst competitor !It's funny that in every fighter tender competition in Europe that pits super duper Spectra-super powered Rafale against non-FOC F-35 the F-35 always wins. Sometimes France even offers Billions in money-back guarantees like in Belgium, where EU's capital Brussels is located, yet Rafale still lost. It gets to a point now that whenever F-35 joins in the competition France would make sure to withdraw Rafale and then cry all the way.
Surely, all these very able, professional, experienced Air Forces can't be wrong in always finding super duper Rafale to be always short against "FUCK" F-35...
Just facts.Another very cheap anti F-35 propaganda, perhaps the cheapest of them all!
What is not being mentioned is the fact that despite being slightly faster than F-35s, no Tu-160 can outrun F-35 sensors from EOTS, DAS and radar (I'm 100% sure though that none of the 2 F-35s turned on their radars in that intercept). So while probably the F-35s did not give chase, (why would they they're just there to make known their presence?) the TU-160 remained in their HMDs and thus within the F-35 pilots' visions perhaps all the time it was airborne.
Ah, Russian cheapness! They're better at concocting fantasies than engineering and fixing their planes that routinely crashes!
Actually the Royal Navy high command took a blesk view on the prospects of Harrier. Initially, they thought Harrers squadton will loose 1 fighter a day to much superior Argentinian fighyers.
Just a fact - neither can Mach 1.7 Rafale catch a Mach 2 bomber if it comes to a chase.
