Thread 63865119

i dont think there's a single mission IDF flies without external tanks

Thats because to get to the place they are currently bombing, they have to fly over minimum two other countries, and Iraq is pretty large. They also don't own their airspace to quite the extent that inflight refueling would be safe, its unlikely the Iranians could touch an F35 but a KC130 or Pegasus would be a little too vulnerable.

>>63865119 (OP)
They're usually bombing the completely defenceless concentration camp about a 5 minute drive down the road. They're not exactly set up for a real war, because they can just start shit and then shout for the big dumb golem to finish it.

>>63865119 (OP)
god i can just tell the maintainer at 9 seconds is hot as shit

fuel is heavy so you only carry what you need. if you have a mission that doesnt need range, you can save even more weight by not carrying an empty tank.

>>63865119 (OP)
The F-16 was originally designed as lightweight air fighter. Turns out it evolved into a capable multirole aircraft beautifully.

>>63865513
> Turns out it evolved into a capable multirole aircraft beautifully.
[Screeches in reformer]

>>63865513
>>63866274
it just seems dumb to me that its designed to fight ~600km from it's airbase when in a real war anything that close to the front will be leveled so you'd want more range

>>63865119 (OP)
The IAF really loves its fuel tanks for some reason. even its AH-64s are flying with 2 bags permanently attached.

There are also claims that F-35Is were modified to reach Iran without preforming AAR.
https://theaviationist.com/2025/06/15/israeli-f-35-modifications/

>>63867205
apaches fly with fuel tanks so they can provide CAS for longer, same with F16s over gaza. and F16 F15 F35 were all refueled in their iran strikes. there was talk of adding stealthy drop tanks to F35 which i havent seen but they havent published footage of those taking off like they did with F15 F16. my guess is theyre just flying in with regular external drop tanks and bombs and doing the same jobs as the other planes because the airforce just needs as many planes as possible right now

Yes it was dumb idea and yes the reformers that came up with the idea were retarded contrarians.

>>63865119 (OP)
F-16s internal tanks are too small, even with the conformal fuel tanks it's very range limited.
F-15 has plenty of fuel and conformal tanks extended it nicely.

Iran is a decent distance away and tankers over Iraq is risky.

>>63867184
How the fuck is the enemy going to be hitting 600km behind the front in the 1970s?
Remember these planes are old and were designed in a time when the enemy could only hit ~50km behind the lines without air superiority. Sure SRBMs existed but they were so expensive they weren't going to be fired on tactical targets.

>>63865119 (OP)
Who cares about the IDF

>>63867306
I want them to fail but it's still interesting to talk capabilites.

>>63867275
i wouldnt be surprised if mossad has airfields in iran and iraq for refueling/emergency landings

>>63867306
I do, it's neat watching a competent air campaign play out. It's a real shame we aren't getting good footage out of iran of the teeth kicking from their end.

>>63867310
They would be able to use Al-Harir Air Base & Al Asad Airbase which are still controlled by the US.

>>63865119 (OP)
Drop tanks are just a way for fighters to be able to trade weapons load out space for extra range/loiter time instead. It's not new.

>>63867316
What is new is they are so epensive the brass doesn't like them being dropped these days.
In WW2 they were built so cheap they couldn't be reused more than a few times and were expected to be dropped on ingress.

>>63867251
I'm confident the IAF has gotten drop tanks to work on the F35. Logistically, it helps explain some of the strikes they've pulled off.

>>63867275
Syria has no air defenses at the moment. Israel removed those a while ago. So I'd expect the Israeli tankers to be doing their laps over there.

>>63867306
I do lol

>>63867315
i dont think even US uses those, i think they have secret runways too that they switch to during war. there's been a few sat pictures of US airfields in the area being emptied
>>63867333
probably the same regular tanks they use on all the other planes

>>63867350
Al-Harir would be high risk with how close it is to Iran but Al Asad would be viable.

>>63865174
>They also don't own their airspace to quite the extent that inflight refueling would be safe, i
They're refueling in and over Erbil. The Kurds have been helping Israel in this the entire time and the Kurds are unironically more powerful than the Iraqi government. Even if the Iraqi government wanted to do shit about it they couldn't.

>>63867363
I concure.