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

The combat radius of the aircraft are impacted by the mission profile.

for example,carry the same load, F/A-18C/D's combat radius will be,
more than 500nm with the H-H-H-H mission profile.
less than 400nm with the H-L-L-H mission profile.

Carry the same load,
F-35A's combat radius is less than 590nm, but F-35C is more than 600nm.
however,
1--F-35C is nearly 6,000 pound more heavy than F-35A.
2--F-35C's wing is much larger than F-35A, it cause more drag.
2--F-35C's internal fuel is only 1,500 pound more than F-35A.
3--F-35C has to reserve more fuel to landing at sea safely.

In my opinion,F-35A's mission profile may include longer low-altitude range than F-35C.

The actual mission profile is very complex.

I think that F-35's combat radius is more than F-35C, if use the same nission profile.

qwe, that's what I thought. Except for CAS, no need for any "L" in the mission profile for a stealth jet, right? Can't think of any reason that a stealth jet shouldn't stay at very high altitude at all points during a strike mission to minimize visual/audio detection, unless any (laser?) guided munitions would depend on clear line-of-sight to the a/c through cloud cover. Or are there any other tactical limitations ?

jetnerd wrote:qwe, that's what I thought. Except for CAS, no need for any "L" in the mission profile for a stealth jet, right? Can't think of any reason that a stealth jet shouldn't stay at very high altitude at all points during a strike mission to minimize visual/audio detection, unless any (laser?) guided munitions would depend on clear line-of-sight to the a/c through cloud cover. Or are there any other tactical limitations ?

+1

qwe2008 wrote:..
1--F-35C is nearly 6,000 pound more heavy than F-35A.
2--F-35C's wing is much larger than F-35A, it cause more drag.
2--F-35C's internal fuel is only 1,500 pound more than F-35A.
3--F-35C has to reserve more fuel to landing at sea safely.
...

But the F-35C is a much better a/c because it has a tailhook, two nose wheels and an Aviator rather than a pilot.

qwe you ignore L over D.

Why is there an assumption that the F-35A/B/C mission profiles are the same? For example each has a different start point potentially - land, flat top/ski jump, carrier catapult - are these variables taken into account for not only fuel required to recover but start/airborne fuel? Until the mission profile(s) details are known it is all just guesstimates. And whose 'round figures' for combat profile are being used? We only know the ball park (rough) figures and that the three are within their required KPPs for 'combat radius'.

There have been other discussions about mission profiles on this forum here are links to just two of them (with graphics) scroll down:

What does 'USAF profile' mean? http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... c&p=226329

First F-35A test flight with external weapons

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... ile#217973

jetnerd wrote:qwe, that's what I thought. Except for CAS, no need for any "L" in the mission profile for a stealth jet, right? Can't think of any reason that a stealth jet shouldn't stay at very high altitude at all points during a strike mission to minimize visual/audio detection, unless any (laser?) guided munitions would depend on clear line-of-sight to the a/c through cloud cover. Or are there any other tactical limitations ?

I agree with you, "L" is no need for stealth jets.

But actual mission profile include some "non-H" altitide range.
from the below link,
F-35B's mission profile is H-M-M-H.
F-35C's mission profile is all "H".
F-35A's mission profile is not clear.

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... ile#217973

'qwe2008' I believe you mistake the 'graphics of F-35 mission profiles' for the one used for F-35 KPPs. We can only guess what is what. There is no indication AFAIK that the graphics represent the actual KPP combat radius mission profiles used - they are only examples and of course there are a zillion possibilities. If you find that KPP combat radius official information then please post it here. Otherwise the graphics or information in public is only guess work. Guess away.

PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE & TRADE
Department of Defence annual report 2010-11 | 20 MARCH 2012

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/dow ... 70/0000%22

“...Mr Burbage: We have 16 key performance parameters on this airplane. Half are logistics and sustainment-related, half are aeroperformance-related and one or two are in classified areas. We have an oversight body called the Joint Require-ments Oversight Council, the JROC, that looks at those requirements every year and makes decisions on them—'Are we going to meet them, are we not going to meet them? If we are not going to meet them, what is the impact of that?' We have one this year which was the range of the Air Force airplane which had a specific set of ground rules associated with how that range is calculated which is not similar to either of the other two airplanes. The airplane flies a large part of its mission at a non-optimised altitude in the original calculation. The JROC agreed to change the ground rules to fly that airplane as the other two were flown and, when that happened, the airplane had excess margin to the range requirement...."

Anyone know the details? Probably not.
_______________

Pentagon Slackens Difficult-To-Achieve JSF Performance Requirements J. Sherman Mar 1, 2012

http://insidedefense.com/20120301239200 ... d-926.html

“The Pentagon last month relaxed the performance requirements for the Joint Strike Fighter, allowing the Air Force F-35A variant to exceed its previous combat radius -- a benchmark it previously missed -- and granting the Marine Corps F-35B nearly 10 percent additional runway length for short take-offs, according to Defense Department sources. On Feb. 14, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council -- in a previously unreported development -- agreed to loosen select key performance parameters (KPPs) for the JSF during a review of the program convened in advance of a high-level Feb. 21 Defense Acquisition Board meeting last month, at which the Pentagon aimed to reset many dimensions of the program, including cost and schedule. Pentagon sources said a memorandum codifying the JROC decisions has not yet been signed by Adm. James Winnefeld, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the JROC chair. Sources familiar with the changes, however, said the JROC -- which also includes the service vice chiefs of staff -- agreed to adjust the "ground rules and assumptions" underlying the F-35A's 590-nautical-mile, combat-radius KPP. Last April, the Pentagon reported to Congress in a selected acquisition report that "based on updated estimate of engine bleed," the F-35A would have a combat radius of 584 nautical miles, below its threshold -- set in 2002 -- of 590 nautical miles.

To extend the F-35A's combat radius, the JROC agreed to a less-demanding flight profile that assumes near-ideal cruise altitude and airspeed, factors that permit more efficient fuel consumption. This would allow the estimate to be extended to 613 nautical miles, according to sources familiar with the revised requirement...."

qwe2008 wrote:The combat radius of the aircraft are impacted by the mission profile.

for example,carry the same load, F/A-18C/D's combat radius will be,
more than 500nm with the H-H-H-H mission profile.
less than 400nm with the H-L-L-H mission profile.

Carry the same load,
F-35A's combat radius is less than 590nm, but F-35C is more than 600nm.
however,
1--F-35C is nearly 6,000 pound more heavy than F-35A.
2--F-35C's wing is much larger than F-35A, it cause more drag.
2--F-35C's internal fuel is only 1,500 pound more than F-35A.
3--F-35C has to reserve more fuel to landing at sea safely.

In my opinion,F-35A's mission profile may include longer low-altitude range than F-35C.

Same load as with 2 Amraams and 2 JDAMs?? The F/A-18C/D has internal fuel of not more than 10,000lb whereas the F-35A/C has internal fuel >18000lb. Or the F/A-18C/D actually carrying more ordnance instead having 3 drop tanks + A2A/AGM/GBU?

So when they compared the combat radius, is the F/A-18C/D carrying 2 AIM-120C + 2 JDAM with internal fuel of 9000lb vs F-35A/C carrying internally 2 AIM-120C + 2 JDAM with internal fuel of 9000lb? Seems to me that the F-35's combat radius is with full tank with weapons carried internally vs F/A-18C/D with drop tanks. That doesn't show the F-35 consumes less fuel than the Hornets.

Su-27 has way better combat radius mainly because of its large internal fuel tank and not because of its fuel efficiency. Same goes to F-14 that has greater combat radius than the F/A-18C/D.

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

And people tend to forget, particularly for the A model but in many cases for the B and C models as well that what will happen is that the F-35's will tank up in the air just before hitting opposed airspace. There is a reason the US buys all those tankers after all. In most missions there will be little stopping them from tanking on the way out and on the way back if needed. They will have plenty of range for an aircraft of that size.

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.