By: FBW
- 3rd April 2015 at 04:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Many countries don't do much beyond intercept missions. I briefly remember that some Gripen users don't even have A-G modes installed, for example.
True, they are those nations unlikely to see combat as well. The last 30 years has shown that most aircraft flying in harms way are not loaded with 4 aams. Look at the typhoons that have been scrambled to intercept Russian bears, they are not flying clean in any sense of the word.
Yet I agree with the premise of your post, for a nation like Switzerland, which is extremely unlikely to ever fly combat fighters in anything other than a short, fast air policing mission, the Gripen on a cost basis makes perfect sense. Sadly, the voters disagreed.
By: eagle
- 3rd April 2015 at 21:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
True, they are those nations unlikely to see combat as well. The last 30 years has shown that most aircraft flying in harms way are not loaded with 4 aams. Look at the typhoons that have been scrambled to intercept Russian bears, they are not flying clean in any sense of the word.
Actually, NATO's QRA jets fly with 4 AAMs quite often, 6-8 in some cases. The RAF likes to fly with 8 AAMs it seems.
If you're thinking about tanks, those can be dropped should the need arise. So yes, in an air to air scenario, and that's not just interceptions, you need to compare flight performance with 6-8 missiles.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 4th April 2015 at 00:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Here a Hellenic Mirage 2000-5EG Mk2 and French Rafale C armed on QRA duty - 2x ARH MICA, 2x IR guided MICA, one drop tank (to be jettisoned).
I have serious doubts the max speed or acceleration after climb is imparted by this loadout in any significant way.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 4th April 2015 at 00:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Actually, NATO's QRA jets fly with 4 AAMs quite often, 6-8 in some cases. The RAF likes to fly with 8 AAMs it seems.
By: FBW
- 4th April 2015 at 05:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Here a Hellenic Mirage 2000-5EG Mk2 and French Rafale C armed on QRA duty - 2x ARH MICA, 2x IR guided MICA, one drop tank (to be jettisoned).
I have serious doubts the max speed or acceleration after climb is imparted by this loadout in any significant way.
In terms of acceleration, the impact is not negligible:
For an F-15E with the -229 engines, with a massive static T/W ratio at 45,000lbs of 1.296 here are the numbers clean and with 4 aam:
10,000 feet clean mach .8 to mach 1.2: under 16 seconds
10,000 feet with four aam: 17 seconds- not much difference
40,000 feet clean: 40 seconds
40,000 feet with 4 aam 45 seconds
a 12.5% decrease in acceleration
max speed difference is negligible for the F-15 because it is time limited but roughly .1 mach.
For the F-16C which is much lighter fighter, at a gross weight of 24,000lbs ( which means it is low on fuel because the aircraft actually weighs 20,000lbs+ (not 19,000lbs as often quoted) with pilot and all lubricants and unusable fuel etc, it will touch mach 1.95 clean.
With a DI of 50, reasonable if not low for 4 aam and pylons it's under mach 1.8
The acceleration also takes a hit:
at 10,000 feet 24,000lbs clean mach .8 to mach 1.23 takes 24 seconds
at 10,000 feet 24,DI of 50 mach .8 to mach 1.23 takes 39 seconds
clean at 40,000 feet mach .82 to mach 1.24 takes 61 seconds
with a DI of 50 mach .82 to mach 1.24 takes 77 seconds
Saying that 4 missiles and the associated pylons does not have an impact on acceleration is obviously wrong. Top speed is a little deceptive since both of the fighters are time limited on fuel so top speed is hypothetical anyway, the F-15E will not go above much above mach 2.3 clean or with missiles as it runs out of fuel (and the four aams are semi recessed so very little drag there). The F-16 looses about .15 mach with a DI of 50 ( the F-16 is also listed as a mach 2 fighter but the flight manual tops it out below mach 2, so I don't know)
The point is: a smaller fighter is impacted by even the addition of pylons and missiles. The F-15E comes off better because the drag impacts it less, and frankly 4 semi-recessed missiles are not going to add a ton of drag (good news for the Typhoon).
Edit- The DI 50 is the lowest listed, for a reason. Yes, the F-16 with two pylons+ missiles and two wingtip missiles can have a DI around 20, but how often does any air force remove all the other weapon pylons to clean the aircraft off? The DI of 50 about as low as they are going to fly with weapons.
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 4th April 2015 at 07:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, the F-16 with two pylons+ missiles and two wingtip missiles can have a DI around 20, but how often does any air force remove all the other weapon pylons to clean the aircraft off?
looks like 2+2 AAM is the most common loadout after all
By: FBW
- 4th April 2015 at 16:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
looks like 2+2 AAM is the most common loadout after all
Seriously ignorant comment, do better. The point was it's the LOWEST DI from the flight manual on the F-16C. They go: DI 0, 50, 150, 200 as a point of comparison.
So no, it is not, its just the lowest listed. If that's the only comment you could make about my post, you completey missed the point.
By: eagle
- 4th April 2015 at 17:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That would make the lowest drag index listed zero, wouldn't it.
Steps of 50 doesn't mean less than 50 is impossible. Data for some drag indexes is provided, you have to interpolate for the exact drag index of your configuration.
btw, drag index with 4 AAMs and centerline pylon is 36. That is a realistic loadout.
6 AAMs or 4 AAMs with centerline tank is 51, so yes, 50 happens to be a good reference point too.
By: JSR
- 4th April 2015 at 17:38Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well they're fortunate that Egyptian military junta decided to splurge on arms during an economic crunch, else that 'strategic decision' might have landed Dassault Aviation with the first clean-sheet design to fail to get a single export order. As it is, production has been squeezed down to a trickle to make the annual intake affordable to the French state. With the basic French fighter industry wrapping up by 2020 or so (though allied segments will persevere, similar to Israel), closely followed by the remainder of the European industry by 2023 (when the Gripen E transits out of production), the question of how justified that decision to preserve 'national capabilities' was, may have a disheartening answer.
Actually Egypt is not in economic crunch as far as Rafale purchase is concerned. why they only order 24 that's more relevant. if it so advanced and without restriction they should build airforce around Rafale. You wont find biggest supporter of arabs than france.
EF is also not doing better only 44 delivered to RSAF in 8 years.
By: FBW
- 4th April 2015 at 17:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
. They go: DI 0, 50, 150, 200 as a point of comparison.
@Eagle, read the above again a starting point DI of 0 would be a clean airframe. Also, read the note at the bottom of first post. I'm well aware that you can add up the various drag numbers from the stores list. There are, however, no acceleration numbers for those. DI of 50 is a good starting point as you calculated yourself for an aircraft with centerline and wing pylons with 4 aams.
By: FBW
- 4th April 2015 at 18:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In terms of acceleration, the impact is not negligible:
For an F-15E with the -229 engines, with a massive static T/W ratio at 45,000lbs of 1.296 here are the numbers clean and with 4 aam:
10,000 feet clean mach .8 to mach 1.2: under 16 seconds
10,000 feet with four aam: 17 seconds- not much difference
40,000 feet clean: 40 seconds
40,000 feet with 4 aam 45 seconds
a 12.5% decrease in acceleration
max speed difference is negligible for the F-15 because it is time limited but roughly .1 mach.
For the F-16C which is much lighter fighter, at a gross weight of 24,000lbs ( which means it is low on fuel because the aircraft actually weighs 20,000lbs+ (not 19,000lbs as often quoted) with pilot and all lubricants and unusable fuel etc, it will touch mach 1.95 clean.
With a DI of 50, reasonable if not low for 4 aam and pylons it's under mach 1.8
The acceleration also takes a hit:
at 10,000 feet 24,000lbs clean mach .8 to mach 1.23 takes 24 seconds
at 10,000 feet 24,DI of 50 mach .8 to mach 1.23 takes 39 seconds
clean at 40,000 feet mach .82 to mach 1.24 takes 61 seconds
with a DI of 50 mach .82 to mach 1.24 takes 77 seconds
Saying that 4 missiles and the associated pylons does not have an impact on acceleration is obviously wrong. Top speed is a little deceptive since both of the fighters are time limited on fuel so top speed is hypothetical anyway, the F-15E will not go above much above mach 2.3 clean or with missiles as it runs out of fuel (and the four aams are semi recessed so very little drag there). The F-16 looses about .15 mach with a DI of 50 ( the F-16 is also listed as a mach 2 fighter but the flight manual tops it out below mach 2, so I don't know)
The point is: a smaller fighter is impacted by even the addition of pylons and missiles. The F-15E comes off better because the drag impacts it less, and frankly 4 semi-recessed missiles are not going to add a ton of drag (good news for the Typhoon).
Edit- The DI 50 is the lowest listed, for a reason. Yes, the F-16 with two pylons+ missiles and two wingtip missiles can have a DI around 20, but how often does any air force remove all the other weapon pylons to clean the aircraft off? The DI of 50 about as low as they are going to fly with weapons.
The point of the above seems to have been missed, carrying weapons and pylons has an impact. An impact that is greater on a smaller fighter.
We can parse various DI configurations all day: two wingtip aam or two wingtip and aam on wings with pylons and adapters, or whatever. Even in the QRA pictures, the aircraft are carrying five pylons. Even when empty most will carry a min of centerline and four wing pylons. Most of the time the pylons stay on no?
New
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot
- 4th April 2015 at 18:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It seems we need to revisit these every month or so.
If we took the same simplistic approach someone on this board did recently we would simply look at the stat sheet, see that the F-18C and Super Hornet's max speed is M1.8. They are therefor just as fast as each other. They are also both faster than the M1.6 F-35. :eagerness:
Of course the reality is somewhat more complicated. With the same loadout the F-18C is marginally faster than the Super Hornet, and in a realistic air policing loadout with 4-6 AAM and at least one drop tank the F-35 will be significantly faster than either of them. :confused:
By: eagle
- 5th April 2015 at 16:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@Eagle, read the above again a starting point DI of 0 would be a clean airframe. Also, read the note at the bottom of first post. I'm well aware that you can add up the various drag numbers from the stores list. There are, however, no acceleration numbers for those. DI of 50 is a good starting point as you calculated yourself for an aircraft with centerline and wing pylons with 4 aams.
Actually, a clean F-16C airframe has a drag index of 7 ;)
I agree that DI 50 is a good starting point. Less than that is also possible, though unlikely in a real loadout. So at DI 50, top speed is Mach 1.85 vs 1.6 for the F-35. That, imho, is a valid comparison. Now, since the F-35 is not thrust/drag limited at Mach 1.6, it will still have some reserves at that speed. The question is: more than the F-16 at Mach 1.6? I think not, I bet an F-16C @ DI 50 will out accelerate an F-35 from lets say M 0.8 to M 1.6.
It takes an F-16C-52 ~110 seconds @ 30.000 feet, the F-16C-50 needs ~85 seconds if I'm not mistaken. Unfortunately, we probably won't have solid F-35 numbers for some time.
@ hopsalot: great, some data for the -402 engined Hornet. Do you have more?
By: FBW
- 5th April 2015 at 18:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Actually, a clean F-16C airframe has a drag index of 7 ;)
I agree that DI 50 is a good starting point. Less than that is also possible, though unlikely in a real loadout. So at DI 50, top speed is Mach 1.85 vs 1.6 for the F-35. That, imho, is a valid comparison. Now, since the F-35 is not thrust/drag limited at Mach 1.6, it will still have some reserves at that speed. The question is: more than the F-16 at Mach 1.6? I think not, I bet an F-16C @ DI 50 will out accelerate an F-35 from lets say M 0.8 to M 1.6.
It takes an F-16C-52 ~110 seconds @ 30.000 feet, the F-16C-50 needs ~85 seconds if I'm not mistaken. Unfortunately, we probably won't have solid F-35 numbers for some time.
@ hopsalot: great, some data for the -402 engined Hornet. Do you have more?
Most likely, I was responding to a misguided idea that external weapons have a negligible impact on performance. Not specific to any discussion about F-35.
Trying to keep F-35 out of this thread as it evokes too many arguments, in too many threads.
New
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot
- 6th April 2015 at 03:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Actually, a clean F-16C airframe has a drag index of 7 ;)
I agree that DI 50 is a good starting point. Less than that is also possible, though unlikely in a real loadout. So at DI 50, top speed is Mach 1.85 vs 1.6 for the F-35. That, imho, is a valid comparison. Now, since the F-35 is not thrust/drag limited at Mach 1.6, it will still have some reserves at that speed. The question is: more than the F-16 at Mach 1.6? I think not, I bet an F-16C @ DI 50 will out accelerate an F-35 from lets say M 0.8 to M 1.6.
It takes an F-16C-52 ~110 seconds @ 30.000 feet, the F-16C-50 needs ~85 seconds if I'm not mistaken. Unfortunately, we probably won't have solid F-35 numbers for some time.
@ hopsalot: great, some data for the -402 engined Hornet. Do you have more?
Sorry, I can't remember where the Hornet/Super Hornet chart came from and I don't have any more like it.
I wish we had a more complete set for other fighters. Until then people will no doubt continue to make up whatever they want.
New
Posts: 4,472
By: Nicolas10
- 6th April 2015 at 10:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Here a Hellenic Mirage 2000-5EG Mk2 and French Rafale C armed on QRA duty - 2x ARH MICA, 2x IR guided MICA, one drop tank (to be jettisoned).
I have serious doubts the max speed or acceleration after climb is imparted by this loadout in any significant way.
I think that this Rafale is actually carrying 6 AAMs, two Mica EM on the fuselage stations, two Mica IR on the wing tips & the two you can see on the pic on the wing pylons.
Have to say I'm rooting for NG. Don't think that investing all of the U.S. defense aerospace industries' aircraft design and production in Boeing/LM's mitts for the long term is in the best interest of the taxpayer.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 6th April 2015 at 22:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think that this Rafale is actually carrying 6 AAMs, two Mica EM on the fuselage stations, two Mica IR on the wing tips & the two you can see on the pic on the wing pylons.
AFAIK, Rafales on QRA do not have missiles on fuselage stations.
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 6th April 2015 at 23:38Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Most likely, I was responding to a misguided idea that external weapons have a negligible impact on performance. Not specific to any discussion about F-35.
as a matter of fact a drop from M2 to M1.85 is a negligible effect on performance,
below 10% which is universally considered threshold between significant/insignificant
...and that was while carrying a drop-tank too
By: FBW
- 7th April 2015 at 00:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
as a matter of fact a drop from M2 to M1.85 is a negligible effect on performance,
below 10% which is universally considered threshold between significant/insignificant
...and that was while carrying a drop-tank too
Wrong again my befuddled friend. That's with ( 4 aam) + pylons no DT, and the speed drops from aroud Mach 1.95 to under Mach 1.8, and I explained why top speed is impacted less than acceleration which was impacted markedly.
Taken right from flight manual, your assumption does not hold up to facts, drop it. External stores have a negative impact on performance, one that has been explained with real examples over and over by many different posters. If you fail to grasp this perhaps you should change your sign in name to " oblivious".
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 3rd April 2015 at 04:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
True, they are those nations unlikely to see combat as well. The last 30 years has shown that most aircraft flying in harms way are not loaded with 4 aams. Look at the typhoons that have been scrambled to intercept Russian bears, they are not flying clean in any sense of the word.
Yet I agree with the premise of your post, for a nation like Switzerland, which is extremely unlikely to ever fly combat fighters in anything other than a short, fast air policing mission, the Gripen on a cost basis makes perfect sense. Sadly, the voters disagreed.
Posts: 2,271
By: eagle - 3rd April 2015 at 21:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Actually, NATO's QRA jets fly with 4 AAMs quite often, 6-8 in some cases. The RAF likes to fly with 8 AAMs it seems.
If you're thinking about tanks, those can be dropped should the need arise. So yes, in an air to air scenario, and that's not just interceptions, you need to compare flight performance with 6-8 missiles.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 4th April 2015 at 00:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Here a Hellenic Mirage 2000-5EG Mk2 and French Rafale C armed on QRA duty - 2x ARH MICA, 2x IR guided MICA, one drop tank (to be jettisoned).
I have serious doubts the max speed or acceleration after climb is imparted by this loadout in any significant way.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 4th April 2015 at 00:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sounds about right
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 4th April 2015 at 05:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In terms of acceleration, the impact is not negligible:
For an F-15E with the -229 engines, with a massive static T/W ratio at 45,000lbs of 1.296 here are the numbers clean and with 4 aam:
10,000 feet clean mach .8 to mach 1.2: under 16 seconds
10,000 feet with four aam: 17 seconds- not much difference
40,000 feet clean: 40 seconds
40,000 feet with 4 aam 45 seconds
a 12.5% decrease in acceleration
max speed difference is negligible for the F-15 because it is time limited but roughly .1 mach.
For the F-16C which is much lighter fighter, at a gross weight of 24,000lbs ( which means it is low on fuel because the aircraft actually weighs 20,000lbs+ (not 19,000lbs as often quoted) with pilot and all lubricants and unusable fuel etc, it will touch mach 1.95 clean.
With a DI of 50, reasonable if not low for 4 aam and pylons it's under mach 1.8
The acceleration also takes a hit:
at 10,000 feet 24,000lbs clean mach .8 to mach 1.23 takes 24 seconds
at 10,000 feet 24,DI of 50 mach .8 to mach 1.23 takes 39 seconds
clean at 40,000 feet mach .82 to mach 1.24 takes 61 seconds
with a DI of 50 mach .82 to mach 1.24 takes 77 seconds
Saying that 4 missiles and the associated pylons does not have an impact on acceleration is obviously wrong. Top speed is a little deceptive since both of the fighters are time limited on fuel so top speed is hypothetical anyway, the F-15E will not go above much above mach 2.3 clean or with missiles as it runs out of fuel (and the four aams are semi recessed so very little drag there). The F-16 looses about .15 mach with a DI of 50 ( the F-16 is also listed as a mach 2 fighter but the flight manual tops it out below mach 2, so I don't know)
The point is: a smaller fighter is impacted by even the addition of pylons and missiles. The F-15E comes off better because the drag impacts it less, and frankly 4 semi-recessed missiles are not going to add a ton of drag (good news for the Typhoon).
Edit- The DI 50 is the lowest listed, for a reason. Yes, the F-16 with two pylons+ missiles and two wingtip missiles can have a DI around 20, but how often does any air force remove all the other weapon pylons to clean the aircraft off? The DI of 50 about as low as they are going to fly with weapons.
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 4th April 2015 at 07:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
looks like 2+2 AAM is the most common loadout after all
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 4th April 2015 at 16:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Seriously ignorant comment, do better. The point was it's the LOWEST DI from the flight manual on the F-16C. They go: DI 0, 50, 150, 200 as a point of comparison.
So no, it is not, its just the lowest listed. If that's the only comment you could make about my post, you completey missed the point.
Posts: 2,271
By: eagle - 4th April 2015 at 17:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That would make the lowest drag index listed zero, wouldn't it.
Steps of 50 doesn't mean less than 50 is impossible. Data for some drag indexes is provided, you have to interpolate for the exact drag index of your configuration.
btw, drag index with 4 AAMs and centerline pylon is 36. That is a realistic loadout.
6 AAMs or 4 AAMs with centerline tank is 51, so yes, 50 happens to be a good reference point too.
Posts: 4,731
By: JSR - 4th April 2015 at 17:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Actually Egypt is not in economic crunch as far as Rafale purchase is concerned. why they only order 24 that's more relevant. if it so advanced and without restriction they should build airforce around Rafale. You wont find biggest supporter of arabs than france.
EF is also not doing better only 44 delivered to RSAF in 8 years.
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 4th April 2015 at 17:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@Eagle, read the above again a starting point DI of 0 would be a clean airframe. Also, read the note at the bottom of first post. I'm well aware that you can add up the various drag numbers from the stores list. There are, however, no acceleration numbers for those. DI of 50 is a good starting point as you calculated yourself for an aircraft with centerline and wing pylons with 4 aams.
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 4th April 2015 at 18:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The point of the above seems to have been missed, carrying weapons and pylons has an impact. An impact that is greater on a smaller fighter.
We can parse various DI configurations all day: two wingtip aam or two wingtip and aam on wings with pylons and adapters, or whatever. Even in the QRA pictures, the aircraft are carrying five pylons. Even when empty most will carry a min of centerline and four wing pylons. Most of the time the pylons stay on no?
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot - 4th April 2015 at 18:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
[ATTACH=CONFIG]236511[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]236512[/ATTACH]
It seems we need to revisit these every month or so.
If we took the same simplistic approach someone on this board did recently we would simply look at the stat sheet, see that the F-18C and Super Hornet's max speed is M1.8. They are therefor just as fast as each other. They are also both faster than the M1.6 F-35. :eagerness:
Of course the reality is somewhat more complicated. With the same loadout the F-18C is marginally faster than the Super Hornet, and in a realistic air policing loadout with 4-6 AAM and at least one drop tank the F-35 will be significantly faster than either of them. :confused:
Posts: 2,271
By: eagle - 5th April 2015 at 16:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Actually, a clean F-16C airframe has a drag index of 7 ;)
I agree that DI 50 is a good starting point. Less than that is also possible, though unlikely in a real loadout. So at DI 50, top speed is Mach 1.85 vs 1.6 for the F-35. That, imho, is a valid comparison. Now, since the F-35 is not thrust/drag limited at Mach 1.6, it will still have some reserves at that speed. The question is: more than the F-16 at Mach 1.6? I think not, I bet an F-16C @ DI 50 will out accelerate an F-35 from lets say M 0.8 to M 1.6.
It takes an F-16C-52 ~110 seconds @ 30.000 feet, the F-16C-50 needs ~85 seconds if I'm not mistaken. Unfortunately, we probably won't have solid F-35 numbers for some time.
@ hopsalot: great, some data for the -402 engined Hornet. Do you have more?
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 5th April 2015 at 18:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Most likely, I was responding to a misguided idea that external weapons have a negligible impact on performance. Not specific to any discussion about F-35.
Trying to keep F-35 out of this thread as it evokes too many arguments, in too many threads.
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot - 6th April 2015 at 03:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sorry, I can't remember where the Hornet/Super Hornet chart came from and I don't have any more like it.
I wish we had a more complete set for other fighters. Until then people will no doubt continue to make up whatever they want.
Posts: 4,472
By: Nicolas10 - 6th April 2015 at 10:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think that this Rafale is actually carrying 6 AAMs, two Mica EM on the fuselage stations, two Mica IR on the wing tips & the two you can see on the pic on the wing pylons.
Nic
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 6th April 2015 at 21:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/04/tough-choices-for-dod-on-long-range-strike-bomber/
Have to say I'm rooting for NG. Don't think that investing all of the U.S. defense aerospace industries' aircraft design and production in Boeing/LM's mitts for the long term is in the best interest of the taxpayer.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 6th April 2015 at 22:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
AFAIK, Rafales on QRA do not have missiles on fuselage stations.Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 6th April 2015 at 23:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
as a matter of fact a drop from M2 to M1.85 is a negligible effect on performance,
below 10% which is universally considered threshold between significant/insignificant
...and that was while carrying a drop-tank too
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 7th April 2015 at 00:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wrong again my befuddled friend. That's with ( 4 aam) + pylons no DT, and the speed drops from aroud Mach 1.95 to under Mach 1.8, and I explained why top speed is impacted less than acceleration which was impacted markedly.
Taken right from flight manual, your assumption does not hold up to facts, drop it. External stores have a negative impact on performance, one that has been explained with real examples over and over by many different posters. If you fail to grasp this perhaps you should change your sign in name to " oblivious".