F-35 internal fuel, range

[Corsair1963]

Al Norman has been quoted as saying. That the F-22 and F-35 both have "eye watering aerodynamic performance".

[optimist]

Gripen/Rafale/Typhoon with three EFT have similar drag to a clean F-35.

I would like to see you even try to support such an "absurd" claim....

It would be hard, I don't think any of them can go supersonic, let alone M1.6 with 2X 2,000lb and tanks to determine what the drag is and equal the f-35 mission. I think Gums will confirm the F-16 can't

[Corsair1963]

It would be hard, I don't think any of them can go supersonic with 2X 2,000lb and tanks to equal the f-35 mission. I think Gums will confirm the F-16 can't

The F-35A/C could carry 6 GBU-32's (2,000 lbs JDAM) plus 2-Sidewinders and 2-Amraams and still go "Supersonic".

That would be two internal GBU-32's and two Amraams. With the rest external.

[optimist]

It would be hard, I don't think any of them can go supersonic with 2X 2,000lb and tanks to equal the f-35 mission. I think Gums will confirm the F-16 can't

The F-35A/C could carry 6 GBU-32's (2,000 lbs JDAM) plus 2-Sidewinders and 2-Amraams and still go "Supersonic".

That would be two internal GBU-32's and two Amraams. With the rest external.

what about fuel? Oh that's right, it has 18,000lb

[Corsair1963]

It would be hard, I don't think any of them can go supersonic with 2X 2,000lb and tanks to equal the f-35 mission. I think Gums will confirm the F-16 can't

The F-35A/C could carry 6 GBU-32's (2,000 lbs JDAM) plus 2-Sidewinders and 2-Amraams and still go "Supersonic".

That would be two internal GBU-32's and two Amraams. With the rest external.

what about fuel? Oh that's right, it has 18,000lb

Yes, the F-35A has slightly over 18,000 lbs of internal fuel. While, the F-35C has nearly 20,000 lbs....

[hornetfinn]

Yeah i have to correct you on some points, first Rafale can carry Meteor too and F-35 can't (it's a project like the EFT but nothing real for now they are too busy trying to make the things works like it should) secondly Rafale can carry 2 heavy payloads Like Cruise missiles or heavy bombs even with 3 EFT and the Eurofigther can't, he has to sacrifie one of his 3 wet point to carry a cruise missile and i think it's the same for the Gripen and finally Rafale has 5 wet points so he can theorically carry 5 EFT plus 4 or 6 AAM which give him more range (btw i don't know why someone want to do that).
Oh and i don't even mention the CFTs and the last 2 hard points on the wings than even French air force don't use because it's considered as an overkill and just mean more fatigue on the airframe in regard to the considered sufficiant current payload capability..

Thanks for the corrections mozza. I read loadout charts a bit wrong. It seems true that Rafale can carry 2 heavy cruise missiles or bombs and 3 EFTs. And that EF Typhoon can carry only 1 EFT with 2 heavy cruise missiles or bombs. On top of that, EF Typhoon current EFTs are only half the size. Gripen you are correct, it can do 1 EFT and 2 heavy weapons. With that configuration Rafale definitely has the longest range especially as it has slightly more internal fuel and is lighter aircraft (than EF Typhoon). Super Hornet can also do 2 heavy weapons and 3 EFTs or 5 EFTs and 4-6 AAMs. Of course it's impressive that Rafale can do that while being quite a bit smaller aircraft.

I agree that F-35 currently can't use nearly as many different weapons as Rafale, EF Typhoon or SH. It will take few years before it can use most of them like Meteor or cruise missiles. Currently the selection is very limited, but of course the other attributes of the F-35 make up for much of that. They are now used more like forward scouts to find targets for 4th gen aircraft to shoot at with their larger inventory. In 4-5 years that's also going to change. Then we might see loadouts in F-35 with 4-6 heavy weapons or huge number of SDBs for example while carrying enormous amount of fuel internally.

[hornetfinn]

what about fuel? Oh that's right, it has 18,000lb

Yes, the F-35A has slightly over 18,000 lbs of internal fuel. While, the F-35C has nearly 20,000 lbs....

True. I think that should be the amount of fuel for roughly similar range/endurance to Dassault Rafale with 3 2,000l EFTs. That previously mentioned comparison between F-35 and other current fighters was F-35 with end-of-life engine (with pretty serious restrictions) which should mean well over 800 nm range with normal engine. Others were given benefit of doubt if data was not available and thus probably had slightly optimistic range figures. In any case Rafale with 3 big EFTs has very good range.

[optimist]

what about fuel? Oh that's right, it has 18,000lb

Yes, the F-35A has slightly over 18,000 lbs of internal fuel. While, the F-35C has nearly 20,000 lbs....

True. I think that should be the amount of fuel for roughly similar range/endurance to Dassault Rafale with 3 2,000l EFTs. That previously mentioned comparison between F-35 and other current fighters was F-35 with end-of-life engine (with pretty serious restrictions) which should mean well over 800 nm range with normal engine. Others were given benefit of doubt if data was not available and thus probably had slightly optimistic range figures. In any case Rafale with 3 big EFTs has very good range.

Can the Rafale can carry 2x 2,000lb bombs, station 3/11 and with 3 tanks to M1.6? From memory with the Typhoon, the weight is too far forward to have a 2,000lb bomb on the outer hardpoints.

[kimjongnumbaun]

I just post some pictures to proove it:





2CFT, 3 EFT, 2 cuise missiles, 2 AAM:

You had me until you posted the photo the the Rafale landing on an aircraft carrier with that load. It's a dummy load. Although I am not certain, it it highly unlikely the Rafale can sustain the impact of a carrier landing fully loaded like that. Usually, Navy aircraft need to dump fuel and stores to meet the maximum landing weight.

It's a nice PR pic, but it probably means Dassault made a ton of PR photos that aren't based in reality.

[Corsair1963]

what about fuel? Oh that's right, it has 18,000lb

Yes, the F-35A has slightly over 18,000 lbs of internal fuel. While, the F-35C has nearly 20,000 lbs....

True. I think that should be the amount of fuel for roughly similar range/endurance to Dassault Rafale with 3 2,000l EFTs. That previously mentioned comparison between F-35 and other current fighters was F-35 with end-of-life engine (with pretty serious restrictions) which should mean well over 800 nm range with normal engine. Others were given benefit of doubt if data was not available and thus probably had slightly optimistic range figures. In any case Rafale with 3 big EFTs has very good range.

Drag is an absolute killer on range. While, carrying all of that external fuel. Dramatically cut back on the payload you can carry! The above picture makes that perfectly clear. As the Rafale needs to use the two inner most and centerline pylons for external fuel. Which, happen to be the highest rated stations to carry external weapons in the first place!

Honestly, I would love to see a direct comparison between the F-35 vs any 4th Generation Fighter either light or heavy! As it wouldn't even be a contest in most cases...

[hornetfinn]

Drag is an absolute killer on range. While, carrying all of that external fuel. Dramatically cut back on the payload you can carry! The above picture makes that perfectly clear. As the Rafale needs to use the two inner most and centerline pylons for external fuel. Which, happen to be the highest rated stations to carry external weapons in the first place!

Honestly, I would love to see a direct comparison between the F-35 vs any 4th Generation Fighter either light or heavy! As it wouldn't even be a contest in most cases...

Definitely true. Basically F-35 is carrying 3 big EFTs along with decent weapons load and targeting pod, all internally. And it can do Mach 1.6, 7-9Gs and 50 degree AoA while doing so. It can also compete with far bigger Strike Eagle and Su-30/35 when it comes to max payload. That's just insane considering that it has almost identical dimensions to F-16 or Dassault Rafale!

[Corsair1963]

Drag is an absolute killer on range. While, carrying all of that external fuel. Dramatically cut back on the payload you can carry! The above picture makes that perfectly clear. As the Rafale needs to use the two inner most and centerline pylons for external fuel. Which, happen to be the highest rated stations to carry external weapons in the first place!

Honestly, I would love to see a direct comparison between the F-35 vs any 4th Generation Fighter either light or heavy! As it wouldn't even be a contest in most cases...

Definitely true. Basically F-35 is carrying 3 big EFTs along with decent weapons load and targeting pod, all internally. And it can do Mach 1.6, 7-9Gs and 50 degree AoA while doing so. It can also compete with far bigger Strike Eagle and Su-30/35 when it comes to max payload. That's just insane considering that it has almost identical dimensions to F-16 or Dassault Rafale!

Yes, for the F-15E Strike Eagle to have any respectable range. It has to carry massive amounts of external fuel. Which, includes three external fuel tanks plus CFT's. This you have to subtract from it's payload. Which, is why the Strike Eagle can reach GROSS WEIGHT with lighter load than the F-35A/C in many cases.

[spazsinbad]

Second last pic shows RAFALE M (hook down) as a BUDDY TANKER (see fins on buddy tank on centreline) so tanks empty.

RAFALE M BUDDY TANKER in the SPAGHETTI cropped rotated 2 degrees: https://i.imgur.com/oMUq3Cr.jpg

French Navy Rafale M buddy-refueling training https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiBgybR4Ps8


__________________________________________________________________________________

RAFALE REFUELING https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUPkk78cK4g


_________________________________________________________________________________

Then the superhorny equivalent (empty tanks - fuel dumped if necessary to get under maximum arrest landing weight):

https://live.staticflickr.com/4077/4759 ... 7d_o_d.jpg

[hornetfinn]

You had me until you posted the photo the the Rafale landing on an aircraft carrier with that load. It's a dummy load. Although I am not certain, it it highly unlikely the Rafale can sustain the impact of a carrier landing fully loaded like that. Usually, Navy aircraft need to dump fuel and stores to meet the maximum landing weight.

It's a nice PR pic, but it probably means Dassault made a ton of PR photos that aren't based in reality.

I found this: download/file.php?id=21209

On page 12, it says:

In late 2002, the fighter participated in a three-week trial campaign on board the Charles de Gaulle to validate various weapon/external load configurations at heavy weights. For instance, Rafale M1 was catapulted at a weight of 21,4 tonnes (47,137 lb.) with a Scalp on the centreline pylon, two 2,000 litre drop tanks on the inboard wing pylons, and four Mica missiles at the wingtips and under the fuselage. During another test, it was recovered at a weight of 15,7 tonnes (34,581 lb.) with six AASM 300 kg bombs (plus empty 1,250 litre drop tanks), clearly demonstrating its huge ‘bringback’ capability

So it's possible that it could land carrying all that with empty EFTs and low on internal fuel. I think Super Hornet has similar bring back capability,

[wrightwing]

Gripen/Rafale/Typhoon with three EFT have similar drag to a clean F-35.

I would like to see you even try to support such an "absurd" claim....

That's one of the more absurd claims I've seen in a long time, at least by someone on this page. That's BFA/APA level BS.