F-35 internal fuel, range

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

doge

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 195
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 16:07

Unread post25 Apr 2019, 17:12

F-35B pilot Capt. Tyler "Ditch" Bonnett interview.
From around ~8:00
He says ""C" can fly longer more than an hour more than "B"".
"Fuel 20,000lb vs 13,500lb."

other...
Around ~5:30
There is an footage that seems to be F-35B's cockpit viewpoint. (Cockpit installation camera.)
I was the first to see a video of the F-35 cockpit viewpoint.(maybe.) It's super RARE. 8)
Offline

blain

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 107
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post25 Apr 2019, 19:06

doge wrote:F-35B pilot Capt. Tyler "Ditch" Bonnett interview.
From around ~8:00
He says ""C" can fly longer more than an hour more than "B"".
"Fuel 20,000lb vs 13,500lb."

other...
Around ~5:30
There is an footage that seems to be F-35B's cockpit viewpoint. (Cockpit installation camera.)
I was the first to see a video of the F-35 cockpit viewpoint.(maybe.) It's super RARE. 8)


Hmmm. At some point range and payload is going to matter for the Marines, especially in the Pacific. There is only so many big deck amphibs you will be able to operate off from and defensible islands. I'm surprised there is no one in the Marines advocating for a 50/50 mix of Bs and Cs.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4188
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post25 Apr 2019, 19:19

The Marines are already getting Cs to operate from CVNs.
"Spurts"

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

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22854
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post25 Apr 2019, 21:27

'blain' said above: "Hmmm. At some point range and payload is going to matter for the Marines, especially in the Pacific. There is only so many big deck amphibs you will be able to operate off from and defensible islands. I'm surprised there is no one in the Marines advocating for a 50/50 mix of Bs and Cs." 'shrdlusilyscottie' :mrgreen: replied and I'll reply:
Tankers Tankers Tankers. Doan forgut Ospreys spraying fuel either on ground or in the air to F-35Bs or did you forgat that?
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8301
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post25 Apr 2019, 22:22

The USMC only wanted the B due to austere basing. They were forced to get the C.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2271
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post25 Apr 2019, 23:27

Salute!

My view is that the Marines had an active Harrier Mafia, so the STOVL version resulted. OTOH, they flew F-4 and F-18 jets all along, so the Cee model helped the overall budget by reducing unit cost.

So far, the Cee looks like a winner, and the Hornet jocks are gonna have orgasms when they see the fuel numbers. And do not be surprised when you see Cee birds with external tanks and refueling stuff for their buddies.

Gums opines....
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4188
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post25 Apr 2019, 23:37

Legacy Hornet drivers are going to be impressed with the F-35B. F/A-18C only has 10,800 internal. The 13,300 on the F-35B is like a Hornet with a centerline.

The F-35C is like an F-14 with drop tanks.
"Spurts"

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

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22854
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post26 Apr 2019, 01:12

'Gums' said above: "...And do not be surprised when you see Cee birds with external tanks and refueling stuff for their buddies." But But But - what about the STINGRAY!? EFTs maybe but BUDDY REFUEL? Don't buy it - only if MQ-25 fails.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

crosshairs

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2018, 19:03
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post26 Apr 2019, 01:49

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Legacy Hornet drivers are going to be impressed with the F-35B. F/A-18C only has 10,800 internal. The 13,300 on the F-35B is like a Hornet with a centerline.

The F-35C is like an F-14 with drop tanks.


Minus the speed, acceleration, altitude, maneuverability, or numbers of aams.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5251
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post26 Apr 2019, 02:19

crosshairs wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Legacy Hornet drivers are going to be impressed with the F-35B. F/A-18C only has 10,800 internal. The 13,300 on the F-35B is like a Hornet with a centerline.

The F-35C is like an F-14 with drop tanks.


Minus the speed, acceleration, altitude, maneuverability, or numbers of aams.


Are you saying you believe a Tomcat could out maneuver an F-35C? Or carry more AAMs?
"There I was. . ."
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1672
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post26 Apr 2019, 03:51

crosshairs wrote:Minus the speed, acceleration, altitude, maneuverability, or numbers of aams.

Speed: F-35 cut off at Mach 1.6, F-14D with F-110GE400 limit at Mach 1.8
F-14D.PNG


Acceleration:
F-35, at least A version can accelerate as good as F-16 in the subsonic regime, F-14 acceleration is significantly worse than F-16 (in the test vs
F-16vsF-35-2.jpg


Number of AAMs
F-35 can carry 4-6 more AAM than TomCat
F-35 can carry ramjet Meteor
f-14-053.jpg

f-35.PNG

missile range estimation 2.JPG
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post26 Apr 2019, 12:47

With respect to acceleration, I agree with you about the A being superior. But he was likely referring to F-35C, which we know has inferior acceleration (vs. the A, at least).

I honestly don't feel the top speed is all that different, and suspect the F-35 has been cleared out to something greater than Mach 1.6. Perhaps not too far past that, but perhaps 1.8 to close to 2.0. When the new engines get here, top speed will likely remain the same, but range and acceleration will increase substantially.

Even with the current engine, F-35C is much superior to the F-14, B and D models included. As much as I love that old bird, the F-35C is infinitely more capable and will dramatically improve all aspects of naval tac air. Air to air, air to ground, air to everything. In any of those environments, it will not be seen. Or not seen until it's far too late.

F/A-XX has its work cut out for it. It's going to have to improve upon the F-35C's war fighting capabilities by at least 20%. That's going to be a tall order. I'd bet anything the Navy ditches it and just buys up-rated F-35's...
Offline

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1169
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post26 Apr 2019, 15:31

I'd bet anything the Navy ditches it and just buys up-rated F-35's.


Agreed, which sacrifice performance for more range as I can't see a separate product being sanctioned while the F-35 line is open and PCA needs development/producing. Their only real chance for something new is a PCA spinoff.
Offline

castlebravo

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 229
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 19:10

Unread post26 Apr 2019, 18:48

eloise wrote:
missile range estimation 2.JPG


Where are you getting the missile range estimation graph from? I find it hard to believe that a ramjet missile with the intake sticking out in the breeze is going to decelerate at the same rate as an AIM-120 after the motor is out. I also wonder if they account for intake ram drag when calculating the actual thrust at Mach 5+. If ramjets are that awesome for hypersonic missiles, where are all the Mach 5+ AShCMs, and why is everyone clamoring to build a scramjet missile?
Offline

blain

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 107
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post26 Apr 2019, 19:23

You can either carry a lift fan or you can carry 6,000 lbs more fuel and have a larger weapons bay. I seem to remember the Marines doing alright with F-4s in Vietnam and fighting two major wars in the Middle East with Hornets and Intruders. Wars in which they really didn't STOVL.

Now the focus is China. Some people say it might be good to have fighters with range. The Marines say the F-35Bs gives them the option of operating close to the enemy or behind enemy lines from expeditionary bases. It's not World War II when you are both fighting far from home on islands in the South Pacific where the geography and strategy favors seizing islands and establishing bases. If you want to seize and operate from expeditionary airbases you will likely be doing that in the enemy's back yard. TBH - I'd rather punch and jab from close from the end of the opponent's reach than get close to his face and try to slug it out.

Saddam's military might not notice you have an EAB on his territory, but I wouldn't try that against the Chinese when you likely won't need to. If range in fighters is important then the Marines need an adequate mix of fighters with that element. Three squadrons are not enough. If the Marines split the buy they would end up with 210 Bs and 210 Cs.
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Tiger05 and 12 guests