F-35 Advantages over other Fighters-Range

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

armedupdate

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 474
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2015, 21:11

Unread post27 Jan 2016, 01:08

I believe the LM chief test pilot said it can go 800 miles A2A. Nautical miles or just miles I am not sure.
Last edited by armedupdate on 27 Jan 2016, 01:27, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23157
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post27 Jan 2016, 01:21

What a marvel the internet has become - type in "700 Nautical Miles = miles?" in your browser = 805.546 miles. NOICE.

youtube video string between these marks [youtube] & [/youtube] string is 96Kx6b7oKA8

RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Online

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 771
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post27 Jan 2016, 01:49

this doesn't make a lot of sense ,so F-35 with 2 Gbu-12 , 2 aim-120 cruise at 5-25k feet can fly almost 118 nautical miles further than F-35 with 2JSM , 2 AIM-120 cruising at 30k feet ?
Image
Image
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23157
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post27 Jan 2016, 01:57

'garrya' note there is a 'combat allowance' at '20K' which shortens range in that JSM carriage instance (if all other comparable things are equal & that is tres difficult to know - it seems some misunderstand that many details are lacking).
Attachments
F-35survRangeNorwayBrief.gif
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

armedupdate

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 474
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2015, 21:11

Unread post27 Jan 2016, 04:49

Also I believe LM did some tests and they reported the F-35 had around 751 nautical mile combat radius air-air.
Attachments
F-35 Combat Radius.jpg
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23157
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post27 Jan 2016, 05:19

Jane's 2009 had that article which is in a PDF downloadable from here: www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=21434
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

doge

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 255
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 16:07

Unread post27 Jan 2016, 17:53

http://www.aereo.jor.br/wp-content/uplo ... df#page=13
F-35C
USN Profile: (2) 2K lb JDAM + (2) AIM-120
Mission Radius - nm
768nm w/ Tanks
927nm 2x 480 gal Tanks

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012targets/WMcCoy.pdf#page=4
F-35A
Air-Surface Weapons Load
Mission Radius
732nm

https://www.f35.com/global/participation/canada
The F-35 has the capability required to protect Canada with a mission radius greater than 700 nautical miles in low observable combat configurations and internal fuel capacity of more than 18,500 pounds.
Offline

vanshilar

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 402
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2015, 11:23

Unread post27 Jan 2016, 18:08

doge wrote:http://www.aereo.jor.br/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Joint-strike-fighter-Presentation.pdf#page=13
F-35C
USN Profile: (2) 2K lb JDAM + (2) AIM-120
Mission Radius - nm
768nm w/ Tanks
927nm 2x 480 gal Tanks


An interesting note with that link: it also shows all variants of the F-35 as having better instantaneous and sustained G's than both the F-16C and the F/A-18C (although worse transonic acceleration). It was made by Lockheed's Skunk Works back in 2010. Wonder what the F-35's actual performance is.
Offline
User avatar

cosmicdwarf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 677
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2015, 21:20

Unread post27 Jan 2016, 18:59

doge wrote:http://www.aereo.jor.br/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Joint-strike-fighter-Presentation.pdf#page=13
F-35C
USN Profile: (2) 2K lb JDAM + (2) AIM-120
Mission Radius - nm
768nm w/ Tanks
927nm 2x 480 gal Tanks

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012targets/WMcCoy.pdf#page=4
F-35A
Air-Surface Weapons Load
Mission Radius
732nm

https://www.f35.com/global/participation/canada
The F-35 has the capability required to protect Canada with a mission radius greater than 700 nautical miles in low observable combat configurations and internal fuel capacity of more than 18,500 pounds.

Of course it does.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23157
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post27 Jan 2016, 19:23

Thanks 'doge' - good to be reminded - this material is elsewhere on forum along with the usual discussions about drop tanks and range and such but repeated here again because we all need to be reminded: http://www.aereo.jor.br/wp-content/uplo ... tation.pdf (4.4Mb) PDF made Dec 2009 Bevilaqua lecture. Where are the F-35A/B/C drop tanks? :shrug:

F-35A info from: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012targets/WMcCoy.pdf (3.8Mb)
Attachments
F-35BmissionPerformanceDec2009bevilaquaTANKS.gif
F-35CmissionPerformanceDec2009bevilaquaTANKS.gif
F-35ArangeNILtanks.gif
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

armedupdate

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 474
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2015, 21:11

Unread post19 Feb 2016, 15:49

The F-35A has a said combat radius of around 590 nm minimum when carry 2 JDAMs and 2 AMRAAMs. How does that range change when carring 4 AMRAAMs? Does increase in T/W cause a dramatic difference?
Offline

str

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 141
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2015, 07:54

Unread post19 Feb 2016, 17:42

armedupdate wrote:The F-35A has a said combat radius of around 590 nm minimum when carry 2 JDAMs and 2 AMRAAMs. How does that range change when carring 4 AMRAAMs? Does increase in T/W cause a dramatic difference?


It's not really T/W ratio that makes a difference here, it's total lift. Lift =drag, so when you weigh less, you need less lift. Which means you're producing less drag. Which means the engine doesn't have to work as hard to keep you at a given speed, which saves fuel.

EDIT: answer given above: about 750 nm.
Offline

vanshilar

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 402
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2015, 11:23

Unread post19 Feb 2016, 18:05

So this point came from Keypub (sorry) but I'm not sure where the logic fails. The basic argument is that the F-35 is horribly draggy and/or fuel-inefficient. Consider the following, using Eurofighter as a comparison:

1. The F-35A carries 18,250 lb of fuel internally. The Eurofighter carries 5000 kg of fuel internally, and also 3 1000 liter tanks. Assuming 0.8 kg per liter, this works out to 2400 kg of fuel externally, so 5000 kg internally and 7400 kg total, or 11,000 lb internally and 16,300 lb total. Basically, the F-35A can carry more fuel *internally* than the Eurofighter *total*.

2. The F-35A's single engine puts out about as much thrust as both of the Eurofighter's engines, 28,000 lbf dry vs 2 x 13,500 lbf dry for the Eurofighter.

3. The F-35A's stated range is 614 nm, from the 2014 SAR. The Eurofighter's stated range is 750 nm, for an air-to-ground "hi-lo-hi" mission profile.

Now, the point isn't that the Eurofighter needs external fuel tanks to beat the F-35A's range. The point though is that the Eurofighter has better range using less fuel, with similar engine thrust, and with weapons and fuel tanks mounted externally (i.e. draggy profile). Doesn't this imply that the F-35A has much more aerodynamic losses (i.e. drag) and/or is less fuel-efficient than the Eurofighter, even when the Eurofighter is carrying a bunch of stuff externally?

I can think of several possibilities:

1. The F-35A's range is a requirement. It's just the bare minimum the plane needs to be able to demonstrate. Its actual range may be much farther. For example, the above graphic states its air-to-surface range as 732 nm.
2. The Eurofighter's range is badly sourced. I mean, Wikipedia just says the specs are sourced from Jane's (but couldn't find the original document) and fas.org, so it's not from official documentation.
3. The mission profiles may be different. I don't know if the U.S. has different mission profile assumptions compared with the Europeans. Actually, I don't know the mission profile for the F-35A, the SAR doesn't really say (I thought I read it somewhere else before though).
4. Corollary to the mission profile, after the Eurofighter is done with the external fuel tanks it could choose to drop them, and obviously once it expends its weapons those pylons are empty. So it "flies home" on a much cleaner profile compared with on the way to the target.

What am I missing here?
Offline

str

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 141
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2015, 07:54

Unread post19 Feb 2016, 18:29

F-35 profile is always hi-hi-hi with max internal load, as that was the spec it was designed for.

What's the Typhoon's payload in said mission? I guess it wasn't cited. My guess is that everyone is taking the A2A range and making copy pasta. A2A intercept radius is given as 750nm, no way is the EF flying that far with 4 to 8 thousand pounds of PGWs.
Attachments
Eurofighter-6.jpg
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7697
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post19 Feb 2016, 23:42

vanshilar wrote:
What am I missing here?

What are the comparable aircraft weights in your scenario?
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests