It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Red Troske, welcome along.
Of course that is all way too simplistic to be entirely accurate but I cannot see how Lockheed are contacting Russia for help in improving the F-35?
English is not your first language.
Right, and good luck with that.
If to say about Su-35 - its something like "unnecessary" plane in Russian Air Force. Of course, Su-35 are really awesome fighter, and serious possible opponent to most of NATO fighters, but its not that fighter what Russian pilots wants to have. Everybody waits here for "this new plane".
Soviet Union built this "absolute agressor" in the end of 1980th - it was MiG-31, but (thanks God, at last!) commies was kicked and MiG-31 becamed another unnecessary plane too. Of course, its really outstanding interceptor, nobody untill now didnt created nothing like it, but in modern Russian Air Force it has no place.
I'm alfraid - but russian fighter of 5th generation will be "new MiG-31", but it will be "invisible" (i suspect minimum RCS as 0.0005m2 (meters quadrant), and much more fast than F-22. I really dont know why hell Russia need plane like this.
If to say about JSF F-35 - we dont need to do a much to "answer" on this plane. Its really funny story for all russians, but all engine-power structure of F-35 was copied from russian seal fighter Yak-141 (Yak-43, Yak-41).
Nice to meet you, I'm Darkpr0.
You'll probably find out soon that I love Russian aircraft
I might randomly ask how you say something in Russian for no reason, it's mostly because I'm a great fan of the Russian language.
In my mind, the Su-35 901-series is to PAK-FA what the F-18 E/F Super Hornets are to F-35.
The mass of hardware (which isn't getting any younger) in the RuAF is pretty darned old.
This is one that has always ground the millstones in my head, and I've not quite agreed with. If Russia has a defensive strategy, let us consider the following: If someone does not like Russia, and deploys airborne weapons against her, I'd say that the first plan of action would be to intercept them. Possibly with something large, fast, and nasty. Do we know any aircraft like that? I'd say that it makes an excellent compliment to Russia's already impressive (and I'm tempted to say superior) ground-air defense strategy. If there's a hole in that strategy, a fast aircraft might be a good idea to fill the gap as they move through it. Anyway, enough of my rants. I've probably misconstrued the idea of "Interception" altogether.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Originally posted by C0bzz
...many other sources told me F-22 had Eleven tons...
As I said before the F-22 has an internal fuel capacity of 20,650 lb (3,082 gallons), or roughly 10.3 tons. So far with the external fuel tanks certified for it is has a total fuel capacity of 36,515 lb (5,450 gallons) or roughly 18.2 tons.
Remember the F-22 carries it's weapons load internally and therefore sacrifices nothing if it initially launches with external fuel tanks. The tanks are all designed to be jettisoned along with the pylon. Meaning there is no adverse adverse on the VLO characteristics of the F-22. I hope that settles it...
Originally posted by C0bzz
...the F-15 which has something like ten tons of fuel...
The F-15C has an internal fuel capacity of 11,792 lb (1,760 gallons), or roughly 5.9 tons. The F-15E with conformal tanks (see internal) has a fuel capacity of 21,842 lb (3,260 gallons), roughly 10.9 tons.
Originally posted by emile
You said the F-22 contains internal fuel 3082 gallons? May I request source? what is the fuel specific gravity?