Forum: General F-35 Forum

The B-2 can also fly from Guam and (IIRC) Diego Garcia.

On the mapping issue, I think this tool does it right.

http://www.daftlogic.com/projects-googl ... ulator.htm

F-16.net Sponsor

Last edited by avxva on Apr 06, 2012 - 04:38 AM; edited 1 time in total

This is what I mean about the complexity involved while even discussing the F-35. According to the article below:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... 35-369577/

“The [combat radius] of F-35A model aircraft that Canada wants to buy is projected to be around 1,092km (590nm) without external tanks but with full internal weapons bays.”

The circles on the slide are dependent on the mission profile—so the 660 nm circle for the F-35A must represent its combat radius without external tanks but with empty internal weapons bays.

This just gets more and more confusing.

Al

Um no.

Recent revelations about the F-35's range (and performance in general) is based on an artificially hobbled F135 and reserving 5% fuel for SDD.

In other words, look at the specs as advertised and add 5% fuel, 5% fuel flow, and 2% thrust and you will get to the most accurate range possible.

Why not adapt the Speed Agile concept as a tanker?

I raised the question if the B2 could be used as a stealth tanker last summer. Received a lot of criticism for even asking the question, but some support also. The consensus was that the refueling process would be difficult to do in a stealthy way.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... vious.html

Doesn't have to be that "stealthy," but the B-2 is a very bad choice as it in no way configured to ever work as a tanker. Transports on the other hand...

Why should a stealthy tanker be so expensive? It would not need cutting edge stealth as it would stand off from the thickess defenses and could use that which has already been developed. Engines, the refueling boom and subsystems could be taken from existing programs. That leaves airframe development, testing and development. The long pole in the tent of late seems to be software. Certainly it would not need as much as the F-35?

What is needed is an approach like that used by Bert Rutan. A small job shop approach with minimal overhead. The largest manufacturing cost would be the tooling. If the production rate is kept low then few tools would be required.

L-M had a proposal for such an aircraft named MACK, a multi roll Special Ops, Gunship, and Tanker. What became ot it?

Prinz_Eugn wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

There is no need as the F-35's range allows it to strike deep in enemy territory without the need of close tanker support.

This should help you visualize it's Combat Radius:

In case you missed it, that's Denver to Barstow and back on one tank of gas. That does not even count standoff ranges for weapons. Add the JSOW into the mix and you're hitting the Catalina Islands.

Circles on that map projection are wrong wrong wrong since that type of projection distorts distance between points on the map. This'll happen when people who don't know what they're doing try to make maps.

If they made circles, but using a Azimuthal Equidistant Projection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection) centered on Denver, then they would've actually made something useful. Or used buffers correctly (which would NOT look like circles on that projection)

To be fair, this is a pretty common problem: http://blogs.esri.com/esri/arcgis/2009/ ... n-arcmap/.

Either way, I can sleep better at night knowing that Denver can't launch an F-35 attack on my house!

looks like LM is try to make a stealthy c-130 replacement.
It would also make a good stealth tanker for our forces.

Link: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... c-130.html

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... 215.0.html

That last one reminds me of the Handley Page Victor

marksengineer wrote:

Why should a stealthy tanker be so expensive? It would not need cutting edge stealth as it would stand off from the thickess defenses and could use that which has already been developed. Engines, the refueling boom and subsystems could be taken from existing programs. That leaves airframe development, testing and development. The long pole in the tent of late seems to be software. Certainly it would not need as much as the F-35?

What is needed is an approach like that used by Bert Rutan. A small job shop approach with minimal overhead. The largest manufacturing cost would be the tooling. If the production rate is kept low then few tools would be required.

L-M had a proposal for such an aircraft named MACK, a multi roll Special Ops, Gunship, and Tanker. What became ot it?

DITTO!!!!!!

Why couldn't we take an already proven airframe (B-2)

- special production
- special manufacturing
- special stuctures
- special process
- special materials
- special coatings
- special engines
- special radar
- special clearance

All those "minus special" = high cost

When the airframe is not the prime cost factor and all these other drivers make up for a large precentage of the unit cost. What am I missing?

This is rather simplistic, but Northrop a few years ago rebuilt the Horton Ho 229 flying wing. They found out the AC reduced RCS by 40% and visual detection by 80% and it was made out of plywood. We surely can do better than that and make it multirole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229

These new design are great and I would love as an aviation enthusiest to see them fly. But and here comes the big "but", look at their shape and ask yourself what is easier to build and manufacture? These complex designs or wing and tube? Unless we come up with some cheap and simple contruction technique or the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages or money is no object. we might be stuck with wing and tube for a long time.

strykerxo wrote:

This is rather simplistic, but Northrop a few years ago rebuilt the Horton Ho 229 flying wing. They found out the AC reduced RCS by 40% and visual detection by 80%

Actually, RCS was only reduced by around 15% tops, compared to other period fighters (and most of that was from lack of a propeller disc) . See National Geographic documentary on Northrop's rebuild instead of article that can be edited by any German fanboy. As for visual signature, I don't remember, but 80% reduction seems a little extreme unless it's at the right angle.

I could be wrong though, been awhile since I watched the thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAEhGvRmqS0

Edit:

Better link-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT-aJC3A ... re=related

Also, that 40% detection advantage may have come from factoring in the plane's speed AND signature relative to other fighters of the time. The actual RCS still wasn't that impressive though.

Re: the colorful Combat Radius diagram.

The advantage of computing this out of Denver is you have 5300 feet less of thick air to climb thru than from a sea level aerodrome.

Better option as far as seeing the girlfriend on the weekend, if one plans properly.

Buckley turns are usually pretty good also. (At least they used to be.)

Very Happy

(A good accountant can make the numbers say anything they want. ABQ would have been even better.)

OL I used to fly Cessnas out of FTG when I was a teenager. Hot days can be a real pain in the a$$ at 5500ft (not that it'd make any difference to a fighter pilot unless he was doing something close to the ground).

Forum: General F-35 Forum

Stealth tankers for the F-35