F-35 internal fuel, range

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

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1221
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post01 Oct 2019, 18:31

wrightwing wrote: ... F-15s don't ferry with ordnance and various pods.


Uh ? various pods? Hmmm.. I think my brother always seemed to bring a "F-15 golf club pod" when he dropped in on a tdy!

But I guess those weren't technically ferry flights.
:devil: :roll: :lol: :lol:
Chobham baggage pod.jpg
Baggage pod
Offline

outlaw162

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1310
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2008, 02:33

Unread post01 Oct 2019, 19:26

But I guess those weren't technically ferry flights.


Used in the 70s primarily to 'ferry' a Colorado brew east across the Mississippi. (Early ones were actually old nape dispensers, severely G limited...the pod itself, if you wanted to get there with what it contained)

Also used often in the 80s to 'ferry' frozen lobsters from Canada to the Great Plains.

The 49th out of Holloman when they had Eagles used to occasionally fly a 'ferry' DACT profile with 3 bags and full up A2A ordnance simulation thru the Morenci MOA, where ArizANG would provide the adversaries. You never know when some sneaky $OBs are going to bounce you.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2662
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post01 Oct 2019, 20:58

“Also used often in the 80s to 'ferry' frozen lobsters from Canada to the Great Plains.”

Back in the days before one could purchase such things in most grocery stores, NAS Brunswick was the destination of choice for the next-to-last leg of a weekend of XC training. Could purchase live ones already boxed for ‘high speed transport’ on the admin (ferry) leg back to home plate. Always had to be careful with climb rates...
Offline
User avatar

playloud

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 278
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 04:07

Unread post01 Oct 2019, 22:10

doge wrote:F-35A's Range is more than twice that of F-15C with EFTx2. (By Lt. Col. Scott “CAP” Gunn)

I'm not sure I'd describe that as "more than twice."

I read it as the F-15C with two bags didn't have the fuel to complete a second offensive push, where as the F-35 did.

The F-15 might have had enough for 75% of the second strike, but not enough to finish. Yes, he did say BINGO, but it sounded to me like he might have just meant that he didn't have enough to do another one.

This could mean the F-35 (being stealthy) doesn't have to burn as much to stay safe, which doesn't necessarily mean the range is >2x if both are flying efficiently.

There are many ways one can interpret his words, and while we can agree that the F-35 has "long legs", I don't think we can truly conclude it is "more than twice that of F-15C with EFTx2".
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5710
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post02 Oct 2019, 01:37

playloud wrote:
doge wrote:F-35A's Range is more than twice that of F-15C with EFTx2. (By Lt. Col. Scott “CAP” Gunn)

I'm not sure I'd describe that as "more than twice."

I read it as the F-15C with two bags didn't have the fuel to complete a second offensive push, where as the F-35 did.

The F-15 might have had enough for 75% of the second strike, but not enough to finish. Yes, he did say BINGO, but it sounded to me like he might have just meant that he didn't have enough to do another one.

This could mean the F-35 (being stealthy) doesn't have to burn as much to stay safe, which doesn't necessarily mean the range is >2x if both are flying efficiently.

There are many ways one can interpret his words, and while we can agree that the F-35 has "long legs", I don't think we can truly conclude it is "more than twice that of F-15C with EFTx2".


From what I recall the F-35 could perform a second offensive push. While, the F-15C with two external fuel tanks couldn't. Yet, he also alluded he could stick around with the F-35's considerable "presences".

While, still not proving the F-35 had double of the range of the F-15C. It's nonetheless clear a clean F-35A has markedly better range than the F-15C with external tanks.

Note: It's also likely the F-15C wasn't carrying external weapons either....
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3446
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post02 Oct 2019, 13:27

doge wrote:I was suddenly driven by the desire to list them...(Uncontrollable! :drool: ) That is... a summary of comments about the Range so far! 8)
F-35A's Range is more than 30% longer than F-16. (By Norway)
F-35A's Range is broadly similar the F-16 with EFTx3 + CFT. (By LM's Steve Over)
F-35A's Range is more than twice that of F-15C with EFTx2. (By Lt. Col. Scott “CAP” Gunn)
F-35A's Range is longer than F-15E. (By Lt. Col. Christine Mau)
F-35A's on-station time of 2.5 hours. (By LM's test pilot Tony "Brick" Wilson)
F-35A's Range is longer than Rafale, Typhoon, F/A-18E, (Gripen E?). (By Swiss's Lightning)
F-35A's Range is longer than the 4th Gen jets with maximum EFT(CFT also?). (By LM's drop tank comment.)
F-35A's Range is BEST among the 4th/5th Gen jets. (By LM's Greg Ulmer)

It's...Fuel Monster!!!!!! :drool: They don’t try to reveal the real max numbers... But, It’s obvious that the Range is really very very very looooonger!! 8) Mysterious Nautical mile, Kilometers!!

I named it...
is The "King of Fuel Monsters"!!!!!!!!!! :doh:


Ah, but what about the Flanker and its various derivatives? Still competitive??
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3446
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post02 Oct 2019, 13:32

playloud wrote:
doge wrote:F-35A's Range is more than twice that of F-15C with EFTx2. (By Lt. Col. Scott “CAP” Gunn)

I'm not sure I'd describe that as "more than twice."

I read it as the F-15C with two bags didn't have the fuel to complete a second offensive push, where as the F-35 did.

The F-15 might have had enough for 75% of the second strike, but not enough to finish. Yes, he did say BINGO, but it sounded to me like he might have just meant that he didn't have enough to do another one.

This could mean the F-35 (being stealthy) doesn't have to burn as much to stay safe, which doesn't necessarily mean the range is >2x if both are flying efficiently.

There are many ways one can interpret his words, and while we can agree that the F-35 has "long legs", I don't think we can truly conclude it is "more than twice that of F-15C with EFTx2".


This makes me wonder about the F-15EX. Will it have the same internal fuel of the F-15C?? Will it have the same internal fuel, but fly mostly with CFT's like the F-15E? (most likely scenario, IMO). I would think though, that the F-15EX represents a golden opportunity for Boeing to increase the Eagle's internal fuel. It would be nice to carry enough internal fuel to rival that of a Flanker, especially given the CFT's (which get it there, almost to the pound) - can't be jettisoned..
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5710
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post03 Oct 2019, 02:39

mixelflick wrote:
playloud wrote:
doge wrote:F-35A's Range is more than twice that of F-15C with EFTx2. (By Lt. Col. Scott “CAP” Gunn)

I'm not sure I'd describe that as "more than twice."

I read it as the F-15C with two bags didn't have the fuel to complete a second offensive push, where as the F-35 did.

The F-15 might have had enough for 75% of the second strike, but not enough to finish. Yes, he did say BINGO, but it sounded to me like he might have just meant that he didn't have enough to do another one.

This could mean the F-35 (being stealthy) doesn't have to burn as much to stay safe, which doesn't necessarily mean the range is >2x if both are flying efficiently.

For comparison the STOVL F-35B carries approximately the same..... :wink:

There are many ways one can interpret his words, and while we can agree that the F-35 has "long legs", I don't think we can truly conclude it is "more than twice that of F-15C with EFTx2".


This makes me wonder about the F-15EX. Will it have the same internal fuel of the F-15C?? Will it have the same internal fuel, but fly mostly with CFT's like the F-15E? (most likely scenario, IMO). I would think though, that the F-15EX represents a golden opportunity for Boeing to increase the Eagle's internal fuel. It would be nice to carry enough internal fuel to rival that of a Flanker, especially given the CFT's (which get it there, almost to the pound) - can't be jettisoned..



The F-15EX is really a twin seat Strike Eagle. So, it will have the internal fuel of a twin seat F-15E not a single seat F-15C. (F-15C 13,850 lbs vs F-15E 13,550 lbs)

For comparison the STOVL F-35B carries approximately the same amount of internal fuel. While, the F-35A/C several thousands pounds more...
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3446
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post03 Oct 2019, 16:31

This makes me wonder about the F-15EX. Will it have the same internal fuel of the F-15C?? Will it have the same internal fuel, but fly mostly with CFT's like the F-15E? (most likely scenario, IMO). I would think though, that the F-15EX represents a golden opportunity for Boeing to increase the Eagle's internal fuel. It would be nice to carry enough internal fuel to rival that of a Flanker, especially given the CFT's (which get it there, almost to the pound) - can't be jettisoned..[/quote]


The F-15EX is really a twin seat Strike Eagle. So, it will have the internal fuel of a twin seat F-15E not a single seat F-15C. (F-15C 13,850 lbs vs F-15E 13,550 lbs)

For comparison the STOVL F-35B carries approximately the same amount of internal fuel. While, the F-35A/C several thousands pounds more...[/quote]

Well, that's a missed opportunity IMO. It's getting engines with extra push, so why not a tad more internal fuel? Another 5,000lbs would give it incredible range, while preserving a competitive thrust to weight ratio. But perhaps USAF philosophy is different and they prefer to fly with CFT's, EFT's or both. Just never made much sense to me, unless you consider the two bags it most frequently flies with can be jettisoned..
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2662
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post03 Oct 2019, 23:27

Contrary to popular internet (and some USG...) perceptions, it takes time and money to redesign aircraft (for things like 5K# of additional internal JP capacity) and to test the features of that redesign sufficient to assuage the risk concerns of the air worthiness authorities. In a design sold as relatively fast and low cost, anything that is going to affect cost and schedule beyond a relatively low threshold will be a non-starter.

Adding a bunch of internal JP would change a lot of little and not-so-little things (eg, structures and loads) in the design that have implications all the way down to the lowest tier suppliers.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4484
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post03 Oct 2019, 23:32

yep
"Spurts"

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

playloud

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 278
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 04:07

Unread post04 Oct 2019, 16:50

Corsair1963 wrote:The F-15EX is really a twin seat Strike Eagle. So, it will have the internal fuel of a twin seat F-15E not a single seat F-15C. (F-15C 13,850 lbs vs F-15E 13,550 lbs)

For comparison the STOVL F-35B carries approximately the same amount of internal fuel. While, the F-35A/C several thousands pounds more...

That's what got me confused. I thought the idea of the F-15X was a modern F-15C, optimized for air to air. The F-15EX, two-seat... I don't see as much of a point. I though they wanted extra air to air capability due to the lack of Raptors, and the aging Albinos.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4484
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post04 Oct 2019, 17:12

playloud wrote:That's what got me confused. I thought the idea of the F-15X was a modern F-15C, optimized for air to air. The F-15EX, two-seat... I don't see as much of a point. I though they wanted extra air to air capability due to the lack of Raptors, and the aging Albinos.

They WILL be used for air to air. The issue is that there is no production line for the single seat model. I don;t think any of them have been built in 30 years. Also, the R&D and V&V testing has been paid for by Saudi Arabia, allowing the US to buy what is REALLY and F-15SA at a discounted price.
"Spurts"

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

blain

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 157
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post04 Oct 2019, 19:59

playloud wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:The F-15EX is really a twin seat Strike Eagle. So, it will have the internal fuel of a twin seat F-15E not a single seat F-15C. (F-15C 13,850 lbs vs F-15E 13,550 lbs)

For comparison the STOVL F-35B carries approximately the same amount of internal fuel. While, the F-35A/C several thousands pounds more...

That's what got me confused. I thought the idea of the F-15X was a modern F-15C, optimized for air to air. The F-15EX, two-seat... I don't see as much of a point. I though they wanted extra air to air capability due to the lack of Raptors, and the aging Albinos.


There has been more Boeing marketing propaganda than details about the F-15EX or F-15X, whatever they are calling it. I am thinking that once they start coming off the line they will be pretty vanilla. An newly built F-15 with AESA.

I still don't understand how a purchasing a 4th gen fighter will help with a peer fight. If the AF has extra money perhaps it might be better spent on other areas like UCAVs. You would think that after watching the Chinese National Day military parade that someone in the DOD or Congress would figure out that the F-15 might not be the best solution.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1727
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post05 Oct 2019, 00:25

Jobs.
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 5 guests