F-35C and Uclass

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

jessmo111

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 670
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2015, 02:49

Unread post21 Apr 2017, 07:39

This thread will primarily be a spin off of the F-35 and X-47 thread. This is due to the changes in the navy drones requirements, and design.

viewtopic.php?f=55&t=20468

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... ramp-20287

What does this article have t do with the F-35C? A lot apparently

Conversations with industry experts regarding the MQ-25 suggests that an aircraft small enough to meet the additional requirement of fitting five within the air wing should be capable of offloading up to 17,000 pounds of fuel during a refueling maneuver conducted in a “sweet-spot” 500 and 590 nautical miles from the carrier (the distance of the F-35C’s unrefueled combat radius). However, in an apparent effort to preserve a previously rejected 12-hour ISR endurance requirement, naval aviation officials set the MQ-25 fuel offload requirement at only 14,000 pounds at 500 nautical miles from the carrier. Not only is this 20-25% less than what is achievable, it would result in two fewer F-35Cs being refueled at their maximum radius – a 20% reduction in F-35C striking power.

What's going on with the navy? 1st they need to be dragged into the 21st century, and the 5th generation of fighters.
And now it seems they they are sabotaging their own striking capability. Im starting to get the picture that any plane that doesn't have Hornet someplace in the title isn't welcomed. Maybe we should call the F-35C the ulta-hornet, and the uclass :bang: the mini-hornet?
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2055
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post21 Apr 2017, 09:33

....not intending to distract your thread, just adding a reference point.....

MV-22B the (New)COD....

...V-22 Aerial Refueling System (VARS); The high-speed version of the hose/drogue refueling system is designed to be deployed at 185 knots and function at up to 250 knots. Onboard tanks and a roll-on/roll-off bladder can contain up to 12,000 lb of fuel.

Empty weight: 33,140 lb
Loaded weight: 47,500 lb
Max. takeoff weight: 60,500 lb (self-deploy/long runway)
Maximum rolling takeoff weight: 57,000 lb (STOL)

57,000 lb - 33,140 lb = 23,860 lb (possibly fuel for VARS)


Maximum speed: 275 knots at sea level / 305 kn at 15,000 ft
Cruise speed: 241 kn at sea level
Stall speed: 110 kn in airplane mode
Range: 879 nmi
Combat radius: 390 nmi
Ferry range: 1,940 nmi with auxiliary internal fuel tanks
Service ceiling: 25,000 ft
:)
Offline

jessmo111

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 670
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2015, 02:49

Unread post21 Apr 2017, 10:01

So we have 12k lbs of gas versus 17K? It seems like the UCLASS will have better range, and capacity.
The big question here is why would the navy go against the direction of their own chain of command?
Are they fighting the F-35C tooth and nail? do they not realize they have plenty of ISR already?
What's the issue against stealth? Naval air has its head in the wrong vector.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1361
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post21 Apr 2017, 15:23

At this point, even legacy Hornets are looked upon more fondly than the F-35C/virtually every other airframe. You really have to hand it to Boeing (or politicians, maybe both): They've brainwashed the USN into seeing only Hornet solutions.

At this rate, I'd second the notion to attach the Hornet name to the F-35C. It may be the only way to save the program..
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 678
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post21 Apr 2017, 16:58

LM should whisper in the Admirals' ears: "Just for you, we will replace the single engine F-135 with two GE F-414 engines, then you'll have a dual engine fighter for your CVNs..."

When someone points out the single exhaust duct at the end, simply explain that it really is dual engine, but a single exhaust saves $$ and is stealthier. Then pay-off all the maintenance people.

Maybe that will work...

[/sarc=off]

Other than that, all I can hope is that the Navy is sticking to their original plan to have two F-35C squadrons and two F/A-18 Super Duper squadrons per CVN, and hope all the Boing white noise soon washes over.
Offline

usnvo

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 18:51

Unread post22 Apr 2017, 01:14

"The big question here is why would the navy go against the direction of their own chain of command?
Are they fighting the F-35C tooth and nail? do they not realize they have plenty of ISR already?
What's the issue against stealth? Naval air has its head in the wrong vector."

Other than Capt Hendrix, who says they are? What is the difference between 14klbs and 17klbs at 500nm to 590nm anyway? This is trade space. Note that strike tanking is your most demanding requirement, everything else is less than that.
Lets say that the requirement is for your MQ-25 squadron (5 aircraft) to get 4 F-35Cs carrying an internal load to a 1000nm strike range. I don't have any insight on what the real answer is but that seems pretty reasonable to me, so lets SWAG that.
A F-35C has a combat radius of something around 630nm with internal load.
It carries 19klbs+ of fuel internally but you will need to carry a reserve of fuel.
Just from order of magnitude calculations, you will need 2 tanker for every 2 F-35Cs, one going out, one coming back. You might be able to get by with 1 MQ-25 for 4 F-35Cs on the return leg but that would seem to be cutting it tight, even with 17klbs.
You will need to refuel where the F-35C can recover if refueling doesn't work, so something like 550nm or so.

Now lets assume the guys at NAVAIR did their homework and decided the 2 F-35Cs will need, just spitballing here, 14klbs of fuel to topoff the tank between 500nm and 590nm to reach 1000nm. Note I don't know what the real answer is but that seems like a reason 14klbs is floating around as opposed to 12klbs or 15klbs. Now assuming that is true, do you really need 17klbs of give? You can't fill the tanks more than full and 3klbs is not enough to add another aircraft to the strike. Even splitting between 2 MQ-25s, you still can't add another aircraft.
So the extra 3klbs of capability means precisely nothing and trading it away allows for a 12 hour ISR mission (flying when the carrier isn't allowing for 24hr coverage using organic assets. Because if organic assets are available, why not just use a KC-46 and take half the airwing to 1000nm?).

Now I don't know what the guys at NAVAIR are thinking and I really don't think CAPT Hendrix does either. Frankly for someone who equated radius with range in his study of airwing strike range, I don't have high expectations. But it seems reasonable to me that they may have looked at this problem a little closer than the good Captain and said that maybe they did not need the maximum fuel give, and that sometimes more is just more. Once you have enough, you have enough. It is not like you can fill the tanks fuller than full. But, if you trade that extra 3klbs of give for longer endurance in the ISR mission, you can gain something else that enhances the value of your airwing because there is a big step function of utility at 12hrs of endurance, especially if you only have one carrier.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 124
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post23 Apr 2017, 21:22

I don't know if this makes sense but in my opinion I would say that the "reluctance" from the US Navy to adopt the F-35 in favour of the Super Hornet Block Whatever has a historical reason. This historical reason is that the US Navy is traditionally lets say "conservative" when adopting new aircraft technology which put the US Navy behind the US air force and outside-US air forces quite often in the past. Let me give a few examples:
- The US Army Air Corp (USAF predecessor) first monoplane fighter aircraft, the P-26 Peashooter flew for the first time in 1932 while the first US Navy monoplane fighter aircraft, the Brewster Buffalo flew for the first time in 1937. It may only look something like "5 years only" but in a decade where military aviation evolved so fast - among the fastest in piece-time periods - it's "a lot".
- Another well known case was the introduction of what later become one of the best carrier based aircraft of its era, the introduction of the F4U Corsair in 1943. The US Navy was "desperate" for a new fighter aircraft to replace the already outdated F4F Wildcat but the US Navy in its "immense wisdom" decided that the F4U Corsair was unsuitable and dangerous for carrier operations and thus decided not to adopt the aircraft and then gave them to the Marines. With this the Marines won and the Navy loss even because it would take several more months for the US Navy to have a proper modern fighter aircraft in the form of the F6F Hellcat. This somehow draws some parallels to what's currently happen with the US Navy with the Super Hornet and the F-35C.
Later the Brits (Royal Navy) found a solution of safely operate the F4U Corsair from carriers and the Corsair became probably the best propeller-driven carrier-borne fighter aircraft of WWII which later it even replaced in the F6F in the US Navy and it even saw combat in Korea.
- The US Navy was also a late adopter of Jet aircraft and worse even a late adopter of swept-wing combat aircraft which put the US Navy at a serious disadvantage during Korea where it fought with it's straight-wing F9F Panthers against the superior swept-wing Mig-15 while the USAF was also at a clear advantage in Korea (compared to the US Navy) with its also superior swept-wing F-86 Sabre.

Things really changed a bit in the US Navy after the late 1950's with the introduction of the F-8 Crusader and later with the F-4 Phantom and F-14 Tomcat. I won't mention the F/A-18 Hornet (legacy) because this one was a result of a forced decision upon the US Navy where it had to choose one of the LWF contesters (YF-16 and YF-17) and the F/A-18 was basically a modified YF-17.
I guess that the US Navy is getting back to it's old "traditional roots" of being later adopters of newer combat aircraft technology. :roll:
Offline

arian

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 822
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post24 Apr 2017, 02:45

I'm a bit confused. What is the "combat radius" of F-35C? Sources give it as 630nm with 2 JDAM and 2 AMRAAM, while also returning with 2 JDAM and 2 AMRAAM: https://fas.org/man/eprint/F35-sar-2016.pdf#page=16

500-nm is quoted for F-35B rather. Of course we may never know, and it depends on the reserve fuel requirements etc. And in any case there is plenty of wiggle room in there if the radius is given for the plane coming back with weapons. And in any case, it represents nearly a doubling of the combat radius compared to the SH.

But this seems like a rather overblown critique. A "reduction of 20% of F-35 striking power". Hmm. Not really. You're talking about MAXIMUM striking distance, and realistically this will be an extremely rare event.

And why would a 12 hour loitering capability affect refueling? That just seems like a guess by the author, than anything the USN is saying.

PS: Realistically, in what scenario would you be refueling planes 500-590nm from the carrier to extend their combat radius to 1,000nm? It would imply you have a permissive environment out to 500-590nm from where the carrier is located, in which case, why is the carrier located so far off shore?

Someone who has experience with carrier operations can enlighten us, but it doesn't seem to me to be a practical or common thing to refuel planes at their maximum combat radius range in order to extend their combat radius. There may be scenarios where you'd want to do that, but its probably a very rare case?

PPS: Yes, there may be the case of having to traverse several countries from shore to reach the target. But in that case, USAF tankers would likley be the most utilized asset other than for short-term. Which would still mean this is a very rare event.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 17815
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post24 Apr 2017, 03:41

Relevant page 16 from SAR 2016 however this same page cribbed from F-35 SAR December 2015 as shown page top right:

https://fas.org/man/eprint/F35-sar-2016.pdf#page=16 (PDF 0.7Mb)
Attachments
F-35sar2015stovl&CombatRadiusALL.gif
Last edited by spazsinbad on 24 Apr 2017, 03:42, edited 2 times in total.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

maus92

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1994
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post24 Apr 2017, 03:42

ricnunes wrote:I don't know if this makes sense but in my opinion I would say that the "reluctance" from the US Navy to adopt the F-35 in favour of the Super Hornet Block Whatever has a historical reason. This historical reason is that the US Navy is traditionally lets say "conservative" when adopting new aircraft technology which put the US Navy behind the US air force and outside-US air forces quite often in the past. Let me give a few examples:
- The US Army Air Corp (USAF predecessor) first monoplane fighter aircraft, the P-26 Peashooter flew for the first time in 1932 while the first US Navy monoplane fighter aircraft, the Brewster Buffalo flew for the first time in 1937. It may only look something like "5 years only" but in a decade where military aviation evolved so fast - among the fastest in piece-time periods - it's "a lot".
- Another well known case was the introduction of what later become one of the best carrier based aircraft of its era, the introduction of the F4U Corsair in 1943. The US Navy was "desperate" for a new fighter aircraft to replace the already outdated F4F Wildcat but the US Navy in its "immense wisdom" decided that the F4U Corsair was unsuitable and dangerous for carrier operations and thus decided not to adopt the aircraft and then gave them to the Marines. With this the Marines won and the Navy loss even because it would take several more months for the US Navy to have a proper modern fighter aircraft in the form of the F6F Hellcat. This somehow draws some parallels to what's currently happen with the US Navy with the Super Hornet and the F-35C.
Later the Brits (Royal Navy) found a solution of safely operate the F4U Corsair from carriers and the Corsair became probably the best propeller-driven carrier-borne fighter aircraft of WWII which later it even replaced in the F6F in the US Navy and it even saw combat in Korea.
- The US Navy was also a late adopter of Jet aircraft and worse even a late adopter of swept-wing combat aircraft which put the US Navy at a serious disadvantage during Korea where it fought with it's straight-wing F9F Panthers against the superior swept-wing Mig-15 while the USAF was also at a clear advantage in Korea (compared to the US Navy) with its also superior swept-wing F-86 Sabre.

Things really changed a bit in the US Navy after the late 1950's with the introduction of the F-8 Crusader and later with the F-4 Phantom and F-14 Tomcat. I won't mention the F/A-18 Hornet (legacy) because this one was a result of a forced decision upon the US Navy where it had to choose one of the LWF contesters (YF-16 and YF-17) and the F/A-18 was basically a modified YF-17.
I guess that the US Navy is getting back to it's old "traditional roots" of being later adopters of newer combat aircraft technology. :roll:


Except the Super Hornet has the best strike avionics suite of any US aircraft in service. There's that.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 6336
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post24 Apr 2017, 05:06

maus92 wrote:Except the Super Hornet has the best strike avionics suite of any US aircraft in service. There's that.


4th gen maybe... or did you forget that the F-35 is "In Service"?
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 678
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post24 Apr 2017, 15:17

maus92 wrote:
Except the Super Hornet has the best strike avionics suite of any US aircraft in service. There's that.


Kind of pointless if the SH doesn't have the legs to reach there, or can't survive the IADS to get there even if it had the legs.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 124
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post24 Apr 2017, 21:09

maus92 wrote:Except the Super Hornet has the best strike avionics suite of any US aircraft in service. There's that.



Could you care to develop your "claim"??

For my part what I have to say and to start with and in line with what SpudmanWP said, the F-35A already entered in service with the USAF as well as the F-35B already entered in service with the USMC. Or are you even trying to imply that the Super Hornet has a better "strike avionics suite" than the F-35?? Really?? Are we going this way??
I could post here several lines about how the F-35 has a SUPERIOR and better "strike avionics suite" compared to the Super Hornet but I guess that you already know that but in case you don't, you should (afterall you're an older member than I here at f-16.net)

And even if we're talking about 4th gen fighter aircraft only in any US service things aren't that linear as well. For example the F-16 can carry the HTS (HARM Targeting Pod) while the Super Hornet has nothing like it or nothing with similar capabilities that a USAF F-16 with a HTS pod can bring.
I guess that an another example are the EO/FLIR pods, the F-16 carries the SNIPER XR while the Super Hornet carries the ATFLIR - Are you implying that the ATFLIR is better than the SNIPER XR?
Note that I'm NOT implying that in overall terms that the F-16 has better "strike avionics suite" than the Super Hornet, I actually believe it's the opposite (in overall terms) but and however things are not linear.

And then again we have the F-35 (USAF -A's and USMC -B's)...

Oh and moreover: With current late technology adopters regarding the US Navy, I'm talking about the "next leap" or "next step" in evolution or more precisely in the end of my latest comment I was mentioning the next step in evolution from 4th/4.5th gen to 5th gen.
An evolution from 4th to 4.5th gen is definitely NOT a "next step" in evolution.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2844
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post24 Apr 2017, 22:07

Or that the F-15E has the same radar backend with a larger antenna.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

arian

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 822
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post25 Apr 2017, 00:08

No reason Sniper XR can't be put on a SH. It's on the Canadian Hornets. It's simply a matter of procurement. Yes modernized F-15Es have the same back-end as SH, but there are a lot more modernized SHs with that radar than F-15Es. So overall, I'd tend to agree that the SH is, overall, a better strike platform (considering numbers of planes here as well). Likewise SEAD F-16s aren't anywhere near as well equipped as Growlers. And of course F-35 is better, but he obviously meant in comparison to other 4th gen fighters.

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Meteor and 3 guests