F-35C and Uclass

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

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post21 May 2017, 00:01

kostas29 wrote:How about refueling F35Bs from stealthy submarines?

http://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?Docid=2016 ... 405689E034


Margetis Konstantinos. Is that the Ancient Aliens guy from History Channel?
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22853
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post21 May 2017, 01:29

:mrgreen: Jules Verne LIVES! Let us hope the Nuke Sub goes fast while F-35B sucks more fuel than it blows in STOVL mode. :devil:

System & Apparatus for Refueling Aircraft from a Watercraft [Margetis] 17 page PDF attached
Patent Application Publication: US 2016/0304213 A1 Pub. Date: 20 Oct 2016
http://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?PageNum=0& ... 3DMargetis
Attachments
SubRefuelF-35Bpatent pp17.pdf
(958.47 KiB) Downloaded 156 times
graphic SubRefuelF-35BpatentTIF.gif
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

kostas29

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 42
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2015, 05:19

Unread post21 May 2017, 05:42

spazsinbad wrote::mrgreen: Jules Verne LIVES! Let us hope the Nuke Sub goes fast while F-35B sucks more fuel than it blows in STOVL mode. :devil:

System & Apparatus for Refueling Aircraft from a Watercraft [Margetis] 17 page PDF attached
Patent Application Publication: US 2016/0304213 A1 Pub. Date: 20 Oct 2016
http://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?PageNum=0& ... 3DMargetis


F35B burns around 400lb/min in STOVL mode (Military Technology 6/2016).
Probe and drogue aerial refueling systems can refuel between 1500-4500 lb/min. Obviously a larger diameter hose and a more powerful pump can be installed in a submarine (no weight or power restrictions) achieving even higher refueling rates.

Also: the sub does not have to be a Nuke sub, a relatively cheap unmanned underwater vehicle can do the job.

Can you imagine such a capability for Australia?
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2632
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post21 May 2017, 07:27

That seems like a horribly expensive & inefficient way to aerial refuel a F-35B.

To build an entire submarine to do that vs just having a boat do it makes no logical sense, even a stealthy boat would be better at doing that if you really cared about stealth while refueling.
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post21 May 2017, 19:56

You guys realize the guy who wrote the patent is a neurosurgeon. Clearly didn't think this one through. Well, patents are cheap.
Offline
User avatar

archeman

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 708
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2011, 05:37
  • Location: CA

Unread post22 May 2017, 00:09

The funny bit here is the push for 'stealth' during the refuel, but the F-35B isn't stealthy when it is in hover mode.
So what is the point of keeping the sub underwater at all?


An even simpler contraption would be a fold out platform for the F-35B to land on aft of the sub mast.
Let the sailors run out with a real fuel hose and let the pilot stretch his legs for abit.
Daddy why do we have to hide? Because we use VI son, and they use windows.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7677
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post22 May 2017, 00:50

I guess landing the Bee on an ice floe is out of the question then?
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

kostas29

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 42
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2015, 05:19

Unread post22 May 2017, 01:12

archeman wrote:The funny bit here is the push for 'stealth' during the refuel, but the F-35B isn't stealthy when it is in hover mode.
So what is the point of keeping the sub underwater at all?


An even simpler contraption would be a fold out platform for the F-35B to land on aft of the sub mast.
Let the sailors run out with a real fuel hose and let the pilot stretch his legs for abit.


The F35B isn't as stealth in the STOVL mode as it is during the flight, but it is definitely more stealth than a surfaced submarine or a ship. As you know stealth is relative and it is not a all or nothing situation.

Moreover, the submerged submarine can move much more steadily during the refuel process, because it is not subjected to the wave effects. The submerged submarine can also move faster compared with being on the sea surface.

Does it make sense now?
Offline

kostas29

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 42
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2015, 05:19

Unread post22 May 2017, 01:18

KamenRiderBlade wrote:That seems like a horribly expensive & inefficient way to aerial refuel a F-35B.

To build an entire submarine to do that vs just having a boat do it makes no logical sense, even a stealthy boat would be better at doing that if you really cared about stealth while refueling.


You need to elaborate why you consider it ineffecient.

The "entire submarine" can be an unmanned underwater surface(UUV), which can be much cheaper than an air-refueling aircraft...

The UUV can be prepositioned in the area of interest and remain there without revealing its presence. Obviously, this cannot be done with a surface vessel.
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3281
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post22 May 2017, 01:36

I think the bigger problem with the idea is the limited gross weight at which thr B can hover at the speed of a sub.
Though it might have real promise for helicopters or tilt rotors.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2537
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post22 May 2017, 03:24

omgrotflmao...

Tin hat troll alert.

Hey, let's go put some jet fuel in a sub...

Anyone ever fished for sailfish using kites? Go google videos of such a thing and tell us how stable a refueling hose extending from a similar device (the parachute) might be...in the open sea.

Tell us how the F-35B in the pic above hovers with neither the upper lift-fan doors, the VAVBN exhaust doors, nor the auxillary air inlet doors open. How exactly does said F-35 hover with both of the thrust posts positioned aft of the aircraft CG?

:crazypilot:
Offline
User avatar

southernphantom

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1070
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Nuevo Mexico

Unread post22 May 2017, 03:27

spazsinbad wrote::mrgreen: Jules Verne LIVES! Let us hope the Nuke Sub goes fast while F-35B sucks more fuel than it blows in STOVL mode. :devil:

System & Apparatus for Refueling Aircraft from a Watercraft [Margetis] 17 page PDF attached
Patent Application Publication: US 2016/0304213 A1 Pub. Date: 20 Oct 2016
http://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?PageNum=0& ... 3DMargetis


This cannot be serious :bang: :bang:
I'm a mining engineer. How the hell did I wind up here?
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post22 May 2017, 03:39

quicksilver wrote:Anyone ever fished for sailfish using kites? Go google videos of such a thing and tell us how stable a refueling hose extending from a similar device (the parachute) might be...in the open sea.


Duh! Hellow!! Ever heard of HAARP? We can control the weather.

God. Such ignorance.
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 800
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post22 May 2017, 10:50

kostas29 wrote:Moreover, the submerged submarine can move much more steadily during the refuel process, because it is not subjected to the wave effects. The submerged submarine can also move faster compared with being on the sea surface.

This actually does make some sense and even though the complete concept is probably not workable it is a nice outside the box idea.
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2632
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post28 May 2017, 08:27

F-35B was not designed to be fuel efficient while hovering, isn't that the reason why flying behind a V-22 Osprey refueling or a real aerial tanker makes more sense.

Heck even the UCLASS flying around refuleing the F-35B would make more sense.
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 19 guests