F-35 internal fuel, range

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

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1707
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post06 Feb 2020, 05:54

Corsair1963 wrote:
marsavian wrote:
Mr. Christian Worning (Typhoon test pilot):

I have done above Mach 1.6 for a total of 15 minutes with three tanks on, but that was with heavy manoeuvring in between.


Sorry, 15 minutes is pretty short. Plus, that statement is very vague??? What was the armament and how long was the "heavy maneuvering". :roll:

That said, for a 4th Generation Fighter the Typhoon likely has the best Supersonic Performance with external stores. Yet, hardly means it could compete with a clean F-35.

As a matter of fact Billie Flynn has said the "contrary" and he is a former TYPHOON TEST PILOT!


15 minutes of supersonic performance is an eternity and will drain most of the fuel in any fighter including the F-35. 'Heavy maneuvering' implies a higher straight line speed which he stated earlier in his evidence as being Mach 1.8. However I was intrigued by Hornetfinn's suggestion that F-35 radius numbers might be being underestimated by 10+% by using conservative end of life engine fuel consumption figures for official combat radius statements as it would tie up with all the F-35 pilot quotes you post about the F-35 range superiority over 4th gens. Certainly food for thought and a possibility of squaring the circle between pilot quotes and official numbers which don't quite back the quotes up.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6176
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post06 Feb 2020, 06:03

marsavian wrote:
15 minutes of supersonic performance is an eternity and will drain most of the fuel in any fighter including the F-35. 'Heavy maneuvering' implies a higher straight line speed which he stated earlier in his evidence as being Mach 1.8. However I was intrigued by Hornetfinn's suggestion that F-35 radius numbers might be being underestimated by 10+% by using conservative end of life engine fuel consumption figures for official combat radius statements as it would tie up with all the F-35 pilot quotes you post about the F-35 range superiority over 4th gens. Certainly food for thought and a possibility of squaring the circle between pilot quotes and official numbers which don't quite back the quotes up.



Some can spin it all they want. Yet, no combat loaded 4th Generation Fighter. Is going to out perform a clean F-35 with a full load of Weapons and Fuel.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3427
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post06 Feb 2020, 06:16

hornetfinn wrote:
marsavian wrote:Hornetfinn, 12+% increase in F-35 combat radius would be 850nm+ when the most LM are currently claiming for F-35 in A-A mode is 760nm. Remember also the surplus weight of the 3 EFT shells and their pylons when comparing weights. Also the F-35 has 6% more thrust on a more modern higher bypass (0.57 vs 0.4) F-135 engine than two EJ200 as well as F-35 having 12% more fuel than Typhoon with 3 EFTs. I still stick to my original statement as Typhoon is matching F-35 radius with less fuel, barely less weight and less efficient twin engines.


I did remember the surplus weight of 3 EFTs and the pylons. EF Typhoon is still almost 15 percent lighter than F-35. Those slim EFTs don't weigh that much after all. LM has also been very conservative with their published figures regarding F-35. When those range figures were published, they stated F-35A empty weight to be 30,000lb and thrust to be 40,000 lb. We know that it has more thrust than that and is lighter. AFAIK, they still use that 5 percent fuel degradation and 2 percent thrust loss in their figures for F-35 and not for the EF Typhoon or other fighters. That alone has to have fairly significant effect on range.

So I don't think Typhoon is matching F-35A range even with 3 EFTs in real life even in air-to-air loadout. Load both with bombs and targeting pod and it's not even close.

Especially when you consider routing factors of ~30%, and very conservative numbers for the F-35.
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 831
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post06 Feb 2020, 06:47

Corsair1963 wrote:
marsavian wrote:
15 minutes of supersonic performance is an eternity and will drain most of the fuel in any fighter including the F-35. 'Heavy maneuvering' implies a higher straight line speed which he stated earlier in his evidence as being Mach 1.8. However I was intrigued by Hornetfinn's suggestion that F-35 radius numbers might be being underestimated by 10+% by using conservative end of life engine fuel consumption figures for official combat radius statements as it would tie up with all the F-35 pilot quotes you post about the F-35 range superiority over 4th gens. Certainly food for thought and a possibility of squaring the circle between pilot quotes and official numbers which don't quite back the quotes up.



Some can spin it all they want. Yet, no combat loaded 4th Generation Fighter. Is going to out perform a clean F-35 with a full load of Weapons and Fuel.


Air to air loaded Typhoon can very well outperform clean F-35 in some areas. The Meteor stations on fuselage are conformal so quite low drag. It's still not stealthy but we're only talking aerodynamics here. F-35 is not a magic aircraft.
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1113
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post06 Feb 2020, 06:49

wrightwing wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:
marsavian wrote:Hornetfinn, 12+% increase in F-35 combat radius would be 850nm+ when the most LM are currently claiming for F-35 in A-A mode is 760nm. Remember also the surplus weight of the 3 EFT shells and their pylons when comparing weights. Also the F-35 has 6% more thrust on a more modern higher bypass (0.57 vs 0.4) F-135 engine than two EJ200 as well as F-35 having 12% more fuel than Typhoon with 3 EFTs. I still stick to my original statement as Typhoon is matching F-35 radius with less fuel, barely less weight and less efficient twin engines.


I did remember the surplus weight of 3 EFTs and the pylons. EF Typhoon is still almost 15 percent lighter than F-35. Those slim EFTs don't weigh that much after all. LM has also been very conservative with their published figures regarding F-35. When those range figures were published, they stated F-35A empty weight to be 30,000lb and thrust to be 40,000 lb. We know that it has more thrust than that and is lighter. AFAIK, they still use that 5 percent fuel degradation and 2 percent thrust loss in their figures for F-35 and not for the EF Typhoon or other fighters. That alone has to have fairly significant effect on range.

So I don't think Typhoon is matching F-35A range even with 3 EFTs in real life even in air-to-air loadout. Load both with bombs and targeting pod and it's not even close.

Especially when you consider routing factors of ~30%, and very conservative numbers for the F-35.

Add to that that AFAIK, the Typhoon can't carry 3 tanks and 2x 2k bombs on the available stations, because the weight is too far forward. So it's down to 1 tank
Aussie fanboy
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6176
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post06 Feb 2020, 07:39

disconnectedradical wrote:
Air to air loaded Typhoon can very well outperform clean F-35 in some areas. The Meteor stations on fuselage are conformal so quite low drag. It's still not stealthy but we're only talking aerodynamics here. F-35 is not a magic aircraft.



QUOTE:

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will have kinematic performance better than or equal to any combat-configured fourth-generation fighter. The comparison includes transonic acceleration performance versus an air-to-air configured Eurofighter Typhoon and high angle-of-attack flight performance vis-à-vis the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

"The F-35 is comparable or better in every one of those metrics, sometimes by a significant margin, in both air-to-air, and when we hog-up those fourth-generation fighters, for the air-to-ground mission," says Billy Flynn, a Lockheed test pilot who is responsible for flight envelope expansion activities for all three variants.
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1113
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post06 Feb 2020, 08:41

disconnectedradical wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:

Some can spin it all they want. Yet, no combat loaded 4th Generation Fighter. Is going to out perform a clean F-35 with a full load of Weapons and Fuel.


Air to air loaded Typhoon can very well outperform clean F-35 in some areas. The Meteor stations on fuselage are conformal so quite low drag. It's still not stealthy but we're only talking aerodynamics here. F-35 is not a magic aircraft.

Stealth and 5th gen systems within systems aside. The f-35 isn't magical it's just a platform like everything else. Just by itself it's better than the 80's tech eurocanards. The gripen e tech may be hitting current standards, though I think most of it is PR. I really don't know how far the eurocanards can carry 2 A2A missiles or 2 2k bombs. I'd be happy for you to enlighten me on the 2k bombs. It seems the Typhoon can roughly carry 2 A2A missiles a similar distance, though still not confirmed.

Although the Aussie f-35 can do M1.6. I'd bet more than 95% of the time it's subsonic
Aussie fanboy
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6176
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post06 Feb 2020, 10:08

optimist wrote:Stealth and 5th gen systems within systems aside. The f-35 isn't magical it's just a platform like everything else. Just by itself it's better than the 80's tech eurocanards. The gripen e tech may be hitting current standards, though I think most of it is PR. I really don't know how far the eurocanards can carry 2 A2A missiles or 2 2k bombs. I'd be happy for you to enlighten me on the 2k bombs. It seems the Typhoon can roughly carry 2 A2A missiles a similar distance, though still not confirmed.

Although the Aussie f-35 can do M1.6. I'd bet more than 95% of the time it's subsonic.


In fact modern Stealth Fighters are indeed magical. As they can out perform any combat loaded 4th Generation Fighter. While, their Stealth and Sensor Fusion allow them to command the battle space with near "immunity".

:wink:
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2967
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post06 Feb 2020, 10:44

Corsair1963 wrote:
optimist wrote:Stealth and 5th gen systems within systems aside. The f-35 isn't magical it's just a platform like everything else. Just by itself it's better than the 80's tech eurocanards. The gripen e tech may be hitting current standards, though I think most of it is PR. I really don't know how far the eurocanards can carry 2 A2A missiles or 2 2k bombs. I'd be happy for you to enlighten me on the 2k bombs. It seems the Typhoon can roughly carry 2 A2A missiles a similar distance, though still not confirmed.

Although the Aussie f-35 can do M1.6. I'd bet more than 95% of the time it's subsonic.


In fact modern Stealth Fighters are indeed magical. As they can out perform any combat loaded 4th Generation Fighter. While, their Stealth and Sensor Fusion allow them to command the battle space with near "immunity".

:wink:


I would say that all these combined make F-35 really magical aircraft:

- Decreases enemy SA by several orders of magnitude due to VLO stealth and own SA which helps to avoid being detected
- Can do Mach 1.6, 9Gs and 50 degree AoA while carrying 2x2,000lb weapons or 8 SDB/Spear class weapons, 2 BVR missiles and targeting pod AND still be fully stealthy
- Carries almost similar fuel load as Su-30MKI internally while having dimensions of F-16 (although being heavier)
- Carries similar max weapons load AND internal fuel load as F-15E or Su-30MKI while having dimensions of F-16 (although being heavier)
- Has 360 degree spherical IRST system and vision to the pilot

No other fighter aircraft can do any one of those except for F-22 for the first point. It's a much bigger aircraft but carries only similar fuel and lower weapons load than F-35 (except for pure air-to-air loadout).
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6176
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post06 Feb 2020, 10:59

Sales for 4/4.5 Generation Fighters are quickly drying up. While, the F-35's is just getting started. Which, speaks volumes....
Offline

mozza

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 03 Feb 2020, 22:46

Unread post07 Feb 2020, 01:50

At this point i have to ask this: Why on earth IN THE REAL WORLD you want to carry 2 2000lb bombs on internal fuel at 750/800 without in fligth refuelling, what is the purpose of that ? Maybe i'm just dumb but i don't see the operational purpose of this setup..?
And if it's to strike Russia it's not with some F-35 that you gonna do that, you're gonna be nucked way before any F-35 can drop any bombs... ^^
No offence to the F-35 fanboys i'm just curious about this requirement of 2 2000 lb bombs?
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23923
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post07 Feb 2020, 02:17

eagle3000 wrote:
kimjongnumbaun wrote:You had me until you posted the photo the the Rafale landing on an aircraft carrier with that load. It's a dummy load. Although I am not certain, it it highly unlikely the Rafale can sustain the impact of a carrier landing fully loaded like that. Usually, Navy aircraft need to dump fuel and stores to meet the maximum landing weight.

It's a nice PR pic, but it probably means Dassault made a ton of PR photos that aren't based in reality.


You're funny.
The Rafale M is loaded with 4 fuel tanks and a a buddy/buddy refuelling pod. Obviously the tanks are empty when landing.
The heavy strike configuration of 3 2000l tanks plus 2 cruise missiles has been used operationally.
3b6d8116dd497aba1834fc0b4d4d363f6972532d1b8b47ac67f0a86adba091b8.jpg

Operation Chammal over Syria/Iraq.

download/file.php?id=32293

Image
Please clarify for more old eyes: is that centreline fuel tank 'just a fuel tank'? or a buddy refuel tank? Thanks for reply.
Last edited by spazsinbad on 07 Feb 2020, 02:19, edited 2 times in total.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2913
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post07 Feb 2020, 02:18

mozza wrote:At this point i have to ask this: Why on earth IN THE REAL WORLD you want to carry 2 2000lb bombs on internal fuel at 750/800 without in flight refueling...


Because we just like to make stuff up. :shrug:

Read up, catch up.
Offline

mozza

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 03 Feb 2020, 22:46

Unread post07 Feb 2020, 03:05

spazsinbad wrote:
eagle3000 wrote:
kimjongnumbaun wrote:You had me until you posted the photo the the Rafale landing on an aircraft carrier with that load. It's a dummy load. Although I am not certain, it it highly unlikely the Rafale can sustain the impact of a carrier landing fully loaded like that. Usually, Navy aircraft need to dump fuel and stores to meet the maximum landing weight.

It's a nice PR pic, but it probably means Dassault made a ton of PR photos that aren't based in reality.


You're funny.
The Rafale M is loaded with 4 fuel tanks and a a buddy/buddy refuelling pod. Obviously the tanks are empty when landing.
The heavy strike configuration of 3 2000l tanks plus 2 cruise missiles has been used operationally.
3b6d8116dd497aba1834fc0b4d4d363f6972532d1b8b47ac67f0a86adba091b8.jpg

Operation Chammal over Syria/Iraq.

download/file.php?id=32293

Image
Please clarify for more old eyes: is that centreline fuel tank 'just a fuel tank'? or a buddy refuel tank? Thanks for reply.

In your picture it's a belly 2000L EFT but with the "budy-budy" configuration the Rafale use a belly refuel pod (the one with a little propeller) there is nothing hard to understand here..?
BTW this configuration is used daily on CV to give more legs when they are in operatition.
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2322
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post07 Feb 2020, 03:43

Salute!

At mozza

The 2 x 2000 eggs are just there as an old requirement. Actual loadout for the "real" war would most likely be a slew of the SBD's and maybe the new 'winders or a coupla Slammers, or maybe not, and let others do the sweep/cap/escort/....... The big JDAM or laser stuff would be for very high value targets that required the stealth and F-35 ability to get the weapons right on target.
In another world I flew an attack plane in combat that could do with two 500 pounders what it took an F-4 or F-105 to do with a dozen or more thousand pounders. After our first mission up north, one of our ex-Thud drivers commented that if his old outfit would have had our systems, they would not have had to return time and again and a lot less of our friends would not have had their paid vacation in Hanoi.

The SEAD mission seems very appealing to this old curmudgeon, and I dream about being up in Route pack 6 way back then with a F-35 and not even needing HARM or Standard missiles. Cruise about, target a site with one of those little SBD's, then again, and then again. Plenty of gas because I didn't need to hook up on the way in or out. A decent speed most of the time, but could go fast and turn real good if a bandit got me visually ( unlikely with my sensors).

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

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests