Forum: F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

marksengineer wrote:

Just amazing how so many suggest that the new technology in this aircraft can't possibly be better than the legacy systems yet probably monitor this forum on the latest smart phone, tablet, etc.. It would be redundant to talk about engines and airframes designed using CFD software in lieu of slide rules and how it has improved fuel efficiency and drag reduction.

You're full of sh!t. Everyone knows that top-speed, ferry range, thrust-to-(minimum)weight ratio, and wing-loading are all that matter in fighter performance. Wink

F-16.net Sponsor

/sarcasm meter

*beep Beep BEEP BEEEP!!!*

madrat wrote:

/sarcasm meter

*beep Beep BEEP BEEEP!!!*

Ok, in all seriousness, that's the beauty of a large, multi-function, touch display. It means more upgrades become a matter of software patches instead of having to drill holes, run wire, and bodge new screens and switches into the cockpit. In fact, the entire airframe has that going it, with less need to bend/cut metal in order to make improvements.

SpudmanWP wrote:

What is shows is that the F-35 can go farther, live longer & maneuver better without the need of IFR assets.

Yeah? At the extent of using more fuel aka heavy fuel guzzler to get further combat radius? Can the F-35A/C fly further than F/A-18C/D with both having pumped in only 9000lb of internal fuel carrying 4 AIM-120s and 12 AGM-65G underwing external pylons flying CAS? Your targets would be armored column invading force that if they passed through your last line of defense, you will lose the base and the country?

Mind you, there could be scarce fuel for everyone and you need to fuel up not just 1 aircraft but a squad of 6, maybe 2 squadrons of 12. Also, you don't always outnumbered your enemies like US+Coalition forces at present day attacking 1 single country. Can LM answer this?

Oh brother, this site is attracting a much lower class of troll these days it seems ><

jayraptor wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

What is shows is that the F-35 can go farther, live longer & maneuver better without the need of IFR assets.

Yeah? At the extent of using more fuel aka heavy fuel guzzler to get further combat radius? Can the F-35A/C fly further than F/A-18C/D with both having pumped in only 9000lb of internal fuel carrying 4 AIM-120s and 12 AGM-65G underwing external pylons flying CAS? Your targets would be armored column invading force that if they passed through your last line of defense, you will lose the base and the country?

Mind you, there could be scarce fuel for everyone and you need to fuel up not just 1 aircraft but a squad of 6, maybe 2 squadrons of 12. Also, you don't always outnumbered your enemies like US+Coalition forces at present day attacking 1 single country. Can LM answer this?

Are we playing Command and Conquer? This statement is so bereft of common sense on every level.

1. If there was an armored force on the move that could really threaten you you would not use AGM-65's against it. You would use CBU-105's, at least if you are the US.

2. It is stupid to postulate scenarios where you can't afford to put gas in a plane. If it gets to that point you have larger issues and one strike won't make or break you.

I think your post reflects a total lack of understanding about the use of air power in general and the ability of the USAF and USN to act against mobile armored columns in particular. To be concise about it I would guess that any mobile armored force caught on the move by US air power would be very quickly massacred.

Kids.......

jayraptor wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

What is shows is that the F-35 can go farther, live longer & maneuver better without the need of IFR assets.

Yeah? At the extent of using more fuel aka heavy fuel guzzler to get further combat radius? Can the F-35A/C fly further than F/A-18C/D with both having pumped in only 9000lb of internal fuel carrying 4 AIM-120s and 12 AGM-65G underwing external pylons flying CAS? Your targets would be armored column invading force that if they passed through your last line of defense, you will lose the base and the country?

Mind you, there could be scarce fuel for everyone and you need to fuel up not just 1 aircraft but a squad of 6, maybe 2 squadrons of 12. Also, you don't always outnumbered your enemies like US+Coalition forces at present day attacking 1 single country. Can LM answer this?

The F-35 with similar weapons load, can fly further on internal fuel, than can the F-18 with external fuel tanks. This is the only comparison that is important. The Hornet is far more reliant on tanker support, under any conceivable scenario.

[quote="bigjku"]

jayraptor wrote:

Are we playing Command and Conquer? This statement is so bereft of common sense on every level.

1. If there was an armored force on the move that could really threaten you you would not use AGM-65's against it. You would use CBU-105's, at least if you are the US.

2. It is stupid to postulate scenarios where you can't afford to put gas in a plane. If it gets to that point you have larger issues and one strike won't make or break you.

I think your post reflects a total lack of understanding about the use of air power in general and the ability of the USAF and USN to act against mobile armored columns in particular. To be concise about it I would guess that any mobile armored force caught on the move by US air power would be very quickly massacred.

I guess you have forgotten about having stronger enemies. Can't blame you if you are younger generation. Check with your grandpa how things were like when US were going against countries with similar military strength back then.

Even if you could afford to pay the fuel, if your enemy is strong with up to date technology, do you think your airbase supply line is invincible to enemy attack? In WW2, Korean War and Vietnam war, US bases and supply lines weren't even safe from attack. Ever wonder how Vietnamese obtained numbers of American aircrafts F-4, F-105, F-5 and tanks M-48 for their military museum?

Fyi, Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbs-Bosnia/Kosovo war, it's basically many vs 1 country with arms embargo having no access to spare parts and additional purchase for military buildup. Their Air Forces and defenses were considered inferior and weak being heavily outnumbered by Coalition forces with their supply lines and bases almost destroyed by Tomahawk and standoff weapons. 1 single US F-15/16 would launch 2 AMRAAMs at each Mig-29s.

All these happen because Russia didn't focus on building up its economy much to cater with proper military R&D, military build up and it is no longer world superpower like it was back then. Even its Arab customers lost faith in large military purchase/buildup mainly because Russia does not have the guts to break arms embargo like it did back then.

Imagine Syria willing to spend all it has to own 300 Su-27SM2/30MK/Su-35BM and Russia will continue supply weapons and parts denying arms embargo. Not just building up its Air Force but its Army and Navy as well with state of the art weaponry. Most importantly, having the capability to detect and intercept Tomahawk cruise missiles protecting its fuel supply line etc. I doubt you will say the same at that time. Thing is people tend to get lagged when things seems easy for them.

wrightwing,
Arent' there news saying that the F-35 burns more pounds of fuel per second than the F/A-18E/F, even beating F-15C in military/afterburner thrust. I haven't seen Lockheed publish this other than using full internal fuel tank 18,000lb alone beating F/A-18E/F with drop tanks. Drop tanks create drag anyway, won't be surprised if F/A-18E/F lost but how big is the difference ratio?

jayraptor wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

What is shows is that the F-35 can go farther, live longer & maneuver better without the need of IFR assets.

Yeah? At the extent of using more fuel aka heavy fuel guzzler to get further combat radius? Can the F-35A/C fly further than F/A-18C/D with both having pumped in only 9000lb of internal fuel carrying 4 AIM-120s and 12 AGM-65G underwing external pylons flying CAS? Your targets would be armored column invading force that if they passed through your last line of defense, you will lose the base and the country?

You are only looking at one side of the equation:

1. How much extra does it cost to keep the IFR assets flying (acquisition, maintenance, fuel, pilots, basing, etc)?

2. What about the cost of IFR escorts, their fuel, maintenance, basing, etc costs?

3. How much time is lost because your 4th gen assets had to tankup on the way in and/or out (since they all had no tanks on the hardpoints)? The F-35 can carry 16 SDB2s/Spear3s and still have room for wingtanks if needed.

4. How much time is lost due to the 4th gen assets taking longer to get on scene (due to high drag wing stores)?

5. How much time is lost assessing the target area and assigning targets in a 4th gen asset vs the auto sharing of high fidelity info and the ability to assign targets via the avionics suite instead of calling targets over the radio.

jayraptor wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

What is shows is that the F-35 can go farther, live longer & maneuver better without the need of IFR assets.

Yeah? At the extent of using more fuel aka heavy fuel guzzler to get further combat radius? Can the F-35A/C fly further than F/A-18C/D with both having pumped in only 9000lb of internal fuel carrying 4 AIM-120s and 12 AGM-65G underwing external pylons flying CAS? Your targets would be armored column invading force that if they passed through your last line of defense, you will lose the base and the country?

Mind you, there could be scarce fuel for everyone and you need to fuel up not just 1 aircraft but a squad of 6, maybe 2 squadrons of 12. Also, you don't always outnumbered your enemies like US+Coalition forces at present day attacking 1 single country. Can LM answer this?

Can the F-35 with less fuel fly further than an F/A-18? No of course it can't.

Conversly an F/A-18 with less fuel can't fly further than an F-35 either, and if both have as much fuel as they can carry, the F-35 flies further.

That is the point behind making a longer ranging fighter. They can go further and do more things, at the expense of burning more fuel.

Obviously these are extremely difficult concepts to grasp...

For comparison sake here is some data on F/A-18E and F-35 engines:

F414: 0.82 SFC, 14,500 lbf Thrust (max non-A/B) = 11,890 lb fuel/hour/engine X2 = 23,780 lb fuel/hour/F/A-18E
F135: 0.886 SFC, 28,000 lbf Thrust (max non-A/B) = 24,808 lb fuel/hour/F-35

Delta: 1,028 lb fuel/hour/aircraft in favor of the F/A-18E. This would indicate that the F/A-18E will generate 25 sorties on the same fuel as the F-35 generates 24 sorties, which could add up over time.

BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE (caveats):
This data is for the engine on a test stand at sea level, so this does not indicate in aircraft performance. Some major reductions are the installation penalty and extranal store added drag.

Source for engine data: Fundamentals of Aircraft and Airship Design, published by AIAA (I bought it because it looked like it would hit a broad range of topics. I would recommend it to anyone wanting a general idea about aircraft design).

Sufa Viper

jayraptor wrote:

I guess you have forgotten about having stronger enemies. Can't blame you if you are younger generation. Check with your grandpa how things were like when US were going against countries with similar military strength back then.

There is no air force that is a peer, much less stronger now, or in the foreseeable future.

Quote:

Even if you could afford to pay the fuel, if your enemy is strong with up to date technology, do you think your airbase supply line is invincible to enemy attack?

It's not a matter of invincibility, so much as redundancy, the ability to repair/resupply, etc... Aside from Russia/China, there is no serious threat to any airfields that US/Coalition forces would be utilizing.

Quote:

Imagine Syria willing to spend all it has to own 300 Su-27SM2/30MK/Su-35BM and Russia will continue supply weapons and parts denying arms embargo. Not just building up its Air Force but its Army and Navy as well with state of the art weaponry. Most importantly, having the capability to detect and intercept Tomahawk cruise missiles protecting its fuel supply line etc. I doubt you will say the same at that time. Thing is people tend to get lagged when things seems easy for them.

Syria is hardly in the position to buy 300 late model Flankers, much less offer much in terms of power projection. Iran is the only player in the mid east, which would cause issues, and that's not due to its air force.

Quote:

wrightwing,
Arent' there news saying that the F-35 burns more pounds of fuel per second than the F/A-18E/F, even beating F-15C in military/afterburner thrust. I haven't seen Lockheed publish this other than using full internal fuel tank 18,000lb alone beating F/A-18E/F with drop tanks. Drop tanks create drag anyway, won't be surprised if F/A-18E/F lost but how big is the difference ratio?

You're still missing the point. I'm not going to get into the weeds, comparing consumption rates, though your remarks are certainly exaggerations. The point is that an F-16 or F-18 can't fly as far, with the same weapons load as the F-35. That's the ONLY point. The USAF/USN/USMC/etc... is never going to be in a position where they're picking targets to strike based upon how much fuel that they can afford to put in the planes.

Last edited by jayraptor on Aug 30, 2012 - 06:58 AM; edited 2 times in total

Wrightwing,

Don't forget the F-35 is meant for future. Today, Russia is inferior and coward in supplying weapons to its customers that get involved in military conflict. So how about tomorrow and future, can you guarantee that Russia will not become top10 richest nations and regain its superpower title? Fyi, the Russians have the capability to build proper quality products should they have the will to develop its economy. If the Russians could have steady income with improved lifestyle condition, they too could become modern country.

The Su-35BM is expensive today mainly because of less demand and buyers due to lost of faith. Same goes to France. All because of Arms Embargo that even arms suppliers would obey. So whichever country that are at war with US or its allies will be shunned by whole world to the extent of no access to purchase food, military equipment, etc. Because of this, you look at any war from Gulf war onwards, they no longer buy aircrafts, tanks, etc in bulk. Only the less maintenance weapons such as small arms, RPG, AT, SAMs, AAAs, etc.

Do you know that the Su-35BM fly away cost could be reduced much further to $30million each or less if the axis nations would still purchase weapons like they used to be back then. Mainly because it is made in Russia, the production cost is way cheaper than European and even US. If you have doubt on Russian aircraft pricing, the Mig-25 Foxbat is supposed to be expensive fighter in 1969/70 but because the buyers buy in bulk and able to breach break even point in production cost, Russia could sell the Mig-25 at cheaper than F-4E's price.

sufaviper & conan,
Again, you are turning towards the larger internal tank of F-35 to compare with F/A-18 carrying drop tanks. Now my comment is F/A-18C/D/E/F with internal tank 9000lb fuel vs F-35A/B/C with internal tank 9000lb fuel to compare. Which could fly further in this case? Reason why I came up with this comparison mainly because the F-35 is not supposed to be in heavy fighter category as F-15/14, Su-27 as per JSF requirement. Since most of you own cars, I'll explain this way so you get the idea. A 2.0L C-segment car even with turbocharged, it is not supposed to burn more fuel than a 3.8L D-segment, same thing with weight. The F-35A seems be be heavier than F-15C. Wonder why the Congress that rejected the X-32 allow this as it has breached JSF requirement.

'jayraptor' Long Live Mother Russia eh? Lots of IFs in your sad story. How about you inhabit more appropriate forums devoted to your interests.

Forum: F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

F-35A/B/C's combat radius and Mission profile