Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Lets start off with a post from APA Embarassed

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-060409-1.html
The latest complaint is range.

I understand that range will likely always be a limiting factor. Also in severe threat environments, aerial refueling may be risky. So lets take a page from Boeing and be creative with our tanking.

So in an F-15SE + F/A-18EF mishmash lets:

Fill the F-35 bomb bays with fuel instead of ordinance and synthesize a stealthy drogue attachment.

(Im sure Gates would like this better than crossing the 2018 bomber with the tanker rebid fiasco)

Have they already nixed this, or do you have any thoughts? Israel?

F-16.net Sponsor

Kopp is bound to criticize every little bit of this program that he can. Its seems he has nothing else to write about. There are simple reasons to rebuff his arguement. For one, AA-1 is not a "weight optimized" airframe and therefore the test would have been useless since it is not a production representitive vehicle. Further, there simply was not a requirement for testing range at this time. When LM is ready to test it, I am sure it will. Considering Gates recent suggestion to ramp up production of the F-35, who I guarantee knows more about the program than Kopp, it can't be doing that bad. APA is a tabloid (Enquirer anyone?) website at best that draws up controversy to keep readers coming back. Two Cents

Also, buddy refueling by the Navy is done due to carrier ops and its limitations vs. land based ops. Tankers can stay well outside an engagement zone and do not have the range limitations of fighters, hence their use. I'm pretty sure F-35C's could just use the buddy refueling systems already in place if it were necessary.

Elite 1K Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM Posts: 1496

Ugh. I'm getting awfully tired of listening to people parroting what some Australian thinks the U.S. should do in regards to defense strategy and procurement.

Guysmiley wrote:

Ugh. I'm getting awfully tired of listening to people parroting what some Australian thinks the U.S. should do in regards to defense strategy and procurement.

Indeed, I tend not to even bother reading the screed that APA pump out but always enjoy seeing thier 'articles' (to use the term loosely) pulled apart and exposed for nonsense.

riser wrote:

Lets start off with a post from APA Embarassed

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-060409-1.html
The latest complaint is range.

"The fuel reserves should also be defined – perhaps 30 minutes of useable fuel, that being in excess of the fuel required to cool the JSF’s systems."

And so endeth the lesson…

B. Bolsøy
Oslo

I suppose I should come clean, since I'm afraid I colored this thread with the APA post. I didn't really read it, just kinda skimmed it, and enjoyed the pictures. Yeah, uh, I also take his articles with a grain of salt. It's just what got me thinking of this topic, though. So for that misguided inspiration, I do visit the site.

While we could go line by line and eviscerate the article, let's pretend (in APA fashion) that I didn't even post it. ...

cywolf, I think you are right on target with regard to how the US air forces currently employ their assets and why. I'm just thinking about the feasability and desireability of fusing buddy tank refueling with the F-35 'go-anywhere' package. IF Sec. Gates is as worried about the survivability of legacy platforms to focus the entire US fighter force to 5th gen figs, then would it not be useful to have a stealthy platform for aerial refueling to enable deeper incursions into a severe SAM threat environment?

[quote="energo"]

riser wrote:

"The fuel reserves should also be defined – perhaps 30 minutes of useable fuel, that being in excess of the fuel required to cool the JSF’s systems."

And so endeth the lesson…

B. Bolsøy
Oslo

Fuel reserves of any amount is not required for cooling the aircraft once its in the air. The issue with heat build up applies to the specific scenario of extended ground idling in really hot weather.

Isn't the radar liquid cooled indirectly by the on board fuel? I would guess you can squeeze out more power that way compared with air cooling (heat exchanger).

C.

Edit: I meant liquid/liquid in the first sentence.

I for one am looking forward to the training I will be receiving at the Plant next month (in Fort Worth, Texas), I am kind of excited.

It's been 17 years since I have been involved with a new weapons system or such training (the last time, it was the F-15E Strike Eagle (I was one of the RAF Lakenheath, F-15E Conversion Team Chiefs back in 1992) that was (is) a hell of an aircraft (still) in my opinion.

You know (no offense meant) but no matter what folks in general say or the articles they copy and paste (for or against the aircraft), I am excited to learn about it first hand myself but I wont be sharing any of that information...sorry...have a nice evening all

Last edited by energo on Apr 09, 2009 - 01:42 PM; edited 1 time in total

dwightlooi wrote:

energo wrote:

"The fuel reserves should also be defined – perhaps 30 minutes of useable fuel, that being in excess of the fuel required to cool the JSF’s systems."

And so endeth the lesson…

B. Bolsøy
Oslo

Fuel reserves of any amount is not required for cooling the aircraft once its in the air. The issue with heat build up applies to the specific scenario of extended ground idling in really hot weather.

Indeed, what appears to be a short term problem, as publizised by Aviation Week a couple of weeks ago.
One is left to wonder where APA got their information. How did they arrive at the "30 minute" claim?

Consider that the F-22 had similar issues well into its operational service, which have been resolved with some clever software and procedural changes. Speaking of COTS hardware in general, there are a host of non-intrusional techniques which may be used to manage power, that is: heat.

B. Bolsøy
Oslo

riser wrote:

I suppose I should come clean, since I'm afraid I colored this thread with the APA post. I didn't really read it, just kinda skimmed it, and enjoyed the pictures. Yeah, uh, I also take his articles with a grain of salt. It's just what got me thinking of this topic, though. So for that misguided inspiration, I do visit the site.

While we could go line by line and eviscerate the article, let's pretend (in APA fashion) that I didn't even post it. ...

cywolf, I think you are right on target with regard to how the US air forces currently employ their assets and why. I'm just thinking about the feasability and desireability of fusing buddy tank refueling with the F-35 'go-anywhere' package. IF Sec. Gates is as worried about the survivability of legacy platforms to focus the entire US fighter force to 5th gen figs, then would it not be useful to have a stealthy platform for aerial refueling to enable deeper incursions into a severe SAM threat environment?

Welcome to the forum, riser! My appolgies for letting some time constrains come in the way of a reply to your question. Smile

I don't think the requirement is there today, but if I was to speculate longer term I think it's logical that some operators which do not have a tanker capability will be interested in ways to extend range. Buddy refueling seems like a natural approach (for the F-35B/C).

B. Bolsøy
Oslo

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

F-35 Buddy Tanking?