Conformal Fuel Tanks

>>31375395
They don't attack countries that don't share a land border with them so they haven't yet discovered long range tactical air power.

fuel isn't free

File: su-27 with a conformal fuel tank.jpg (141KB, 808x1000px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 808x1000px

>>31375395
It's pretty simple: they have enough range on their own and do not require to compromise aerodynamics for range increase.

File: tu-95ms with kh-55sm.jpg (83KB, 899x674px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 899x674px

There are cruise missiles with CFTs though.

>>31375800
If you're going to use drop tanks anyways though you might as well use CFTs.

They don't fly nearly as much as US pilots do. Can't afford it, like most other countries. So there's no widespread use of CFT's on older jets, like in most other countries.

Listen, every time you want to open of a thread about Russia's military stuff compared to the US, google their military expenses, think, and if it's just an economical reason you've got your answer - that's 90% of the questions we get here.

>>31375959
You tell them children!

>>31375935
With that shitload of range Flankers got they don't really require drop tanks for most missions. Fullbacks only needed one to fly from Syria back to Russia.
>>31375959
F-22 range sucks ass. Is the reason behind the US no fitting it with CFTs that American military is too poor and out of budget?

File: CCZg484UgAILxw9.jpg (22KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 1024x683px

>>31375395
Because they are fuck huge fighters that already have massive 1500km combat radius with internal fuel alone

File: mix_f16_su37-1.jpg (74KB, 554x600px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 554x600px

>>31376179

File: 1455902013158.jpg (229KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 1600x1067px

>>31376188

>>31376138
>Is the reason behind...
...the fact that it's a special purpose stealth fighter and adding CFT's would require billions of effort to redesign its stealth characteristics, making it worse in the process.
F-22's are fine with in flight refueling.

Because Su-27, for instance, carries almost twice more fuel in internal tanks than F-15. Su-34 carries even more - 12 tonnes, actually twice more than F-15.

>>31375395
The have something better called RLIFT - Really Large Internal Fuel Tanks.

>>31376446
And Flankers are fine even without inflight refueling. What does it have to do with military expenses again?

File: 1440593499464.jpg (204KB, 1333x1000px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 1333x1000px

So what I'm getting from all this is Russian jets make up for the lack of CFTs by being fuckhuge while Western jets are smaller to have a better RCS but need CFTs to compensate.

>>31377005
>make up for the lack of CFTs
CFTs are a literal compensation for the lack of internal fuel capacity, not vice versa.

>>31376718
If Russia had as much flight distance necessities as the US, they'd too start using CFT's because it would be more economical.

They don't because they cannot affort to mantain a big fleet flying around all the time. So the few planes they have are fine with either making stops or in flight refueling.

What's hard to understand?

>>31377157
They don't because their country is not positioned behind two oceans and also because having enough internal fuel is even more economical than having to use CFTs. What does it have to do with military expenses again?