F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2017, 16:02
by mixelflick
As I've become more familiar with it, the F-35 is starting to look like a real winner. Beyond the stealth, sensor fusion and maneuverability though, I'm fascinated with the gas.

So I understand it's 18,000lbs, which is 11,000lbs more than an F-16 and still quite a bit more than the Eagle (13,850), and she has two engines. SU-35 has almost 21,000 but again 2 engines..

So my question is: How they heck did LM get 18,000lbs of gas into such a small airframe? Is every nook and crannie not taken up by sensors packed w/ fuel?

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2017, 16:19
by playloud
That's why the F-35 is a little pudgy.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2017, 16:21
by steve2267
playloud wrote:That's why the F-35 is a little pudgy.


That and internal weapons bays for 2K bombs...

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2017, 16:23
by steve2267
mixelflick wrote:So my question is: How they heck did LM get 18,000lbs of gas into such a small airframe? Is every nook and crannie not taken up by sensors packed w/ fuel?


More or less...

Joint strike fighter fuel tank layout BAE.gif

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2017, 17:13
by sprstdlyscottsmn
mixelflick wrote:So I understand it's 18,000lbs, which is 11,000lbs more than an F-16 and still quite a bit more than the Eagle (13,850), and she has two engines. SU-35 has almost 21,000 but again 2 engines.


can we please drop the "one engine vs two" nonsense?

Fuel flow is TSFC multiplied by Thrust. When in a cruise condition thrust is equal to drag. The factors that will impact range the most are L/D in cruise, fuel fraction, and TSCF.

What makes the F-16 so much more fuel efficient (nm per lb of fuel) than the F-15 is not having one engine, it's a smaller and lower drag airframe. That smaller airframe is due to having one engine, as the smallest plane you could wrap around two of those engines would be an F-15.

Su-27 is a big plane so it has two big engines.

The F-22 is a big plane so it has two big engines.

The F-35 is sized such that two F414s would equal the thrust, but would change the outer mold to be wider at the tail and narrower (top to bottom). A single engine was required by the Marines IIRC (or was it the AF, I can't recall at the moment).

The F-35 will never have the nm/lb that the F-16 has because it is BIGGER! Even with a similar L/D it needs so much more L that it gets that much more D as well. That much more D means more fuel flow. Now, it has so much fuel that it can double the fuel flow of an F-16 and still fly 32% further, and a similar L/D means the F-16 is carrying next to nothing while the F-35 can be carrying full fuel and 5k of weapons without changing L/Dmax (really takes configuration changes to adjust that). In fact, an F-35A with full fuel and 5k internal weapons weighs in at roughly 52,500lb. An F-16 with full fuel and nothing else is roughly 27,000lb. Meaning if they have the SAME L/D (and TSFC) when clean the F-16 will have fuel flows 51% that of the F-35, but it only carries 38% of the fuel, so it only gets 74% of the flight time (range depends on speed at which the L/D being discussed is hit).

The F-35 may have some performance issues that are less than stellar when compared to clean aircraft, but Range isn't one of them.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2017, 17:32
by mixelflick
OK well, I didn't know that. Thought 2 engines means it'd burn more fuel..

In any case, it really looks like the F-35 has some great legs. You always hear about how much gas Flankers carry/great range but you never hear about how much drag there is from lugging a meaningful weapons load around. Their AAM's look to be real draggy, hung off of a draggy airframe.

The F-35 sure is impressive...

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2017, 17:48
by zhangmdev
I think that has something to do with F-35 uses fuel as hydraulic fluid and coolant for environment control. A first in fighter jets?

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2017, 17:52
by steve2267
zhangmdev wrote:I think that has something to do with F-35 uses fuel as hydraulic fluid and coolant for environment control. A first in fighter jets?


Not sure about hydraulic fluid. All the flight controls use self-contained electrohydraulic actuators -- that is, they are sealed, and have their own hydraulic fluid / own pump etc. It was considered a technical risk at the beginning of the program, but appears to have worked very well. I am unsure if there is even a central hydraulic system for anything, and if so, if it uses fuel for the working fluid. I kind of doubt it... if you burned ALL your fuel, you would no longer have hydraulics. But I may be wrong.

I do believe fuel is used for cooling, though.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2017, 18:17
by neptune
steve2267 wrote:... I kind of doubt it... if you burned ALL your fuel, you would no longer have hydraulics. But I may be wrong.


....if you burn all the fuel, you don't need hydraulics.......OTOH you will arrive at the crash site, first!

....maybe you will alarm when the fuel quantity depletes to the minimum fueldraulic limit???
:)

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2017, 18:35
by vanshilar
mixelflick wrote:OK well, I didn't know that. Thought 2 engines means it'd burn more fuel..


Well, it sort of does, but not directly because of the number of engines. Two engines tend to mean a bigger aircraft, which means more weight to move around and more drag, thus more fuel consumed. Or more accurately, a bigger aircraft tends to mean two engines, and a bigger aircraft tends to men more fuel consumed.

The SR-71 also used its fuel as a heat sink, which helped keep the skin relatively cool at Mach 3. "Relatively cool" meaning relative to the amount of heat at Mach 3 speeds.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2017, 18:39
by sprstdlyscottsmn
mixelflick wrote:OK well, I didn't know that. Thought 2 engines means it'd burn more fuel..


I apologize if the post sounded angry. I hate the loss of nonverbal communication in text. I only wanted to pass along the knowledge.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2017, 18:40
by zhangmdev
I searched fueldraulics. Seems it is used only on STOVL version, swiveling the three-bearing nozzle. So it has nothing to do the internal fuel/range. EHA does save a lot of piping.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2017, 18:47
by steve2267
zhangmdev wrote:I searched fueldraulics. Seems it is used only on STOVL version, swiveling the three-bearing nozzle.

Makes sense to use fuel as the working fluid for the swiveling nozzle.

zhangmdev wrote:So it has nothing to do the internal fuel/range. EHA does save a lot of piping.


In addition to saving weight (e.g. the piping you note), it should increase damage tolerance -- if a hit takes out an EHA survo, it is not going to rupture a hydraulic line resulting in loss of an entire hydraulic system. Also, less risk of fire as there is not an entire hydraulic system at risk of burning.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2017, 21:11
by spazsinbad
Thanks 'zhangmdev' and also the fuel storage diagram is no longer correct; 'quicksilver' says fuel is not stored in the tails.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2017, 23:35
by Gums
Salute!

Not so sure about your "analysis", Spurts.

1) I cannot find a F-16 GTOW you mention that only has internal fuel.

2) The two engine discussion is familiar to this old fart. It turns out that you can only pull the throttles back so far and you still have "x" pounds per hour, total. So in our over-powered A-37 we would have about 1500 - 1600 PPH total to maintain a good loiter AoA/speed. If we shut one down and pushed up the single engine we saw about 1300 PPH or so. The motor was running at a better point on the "curve" at a higher rpm.

The Hornet guys I first met said their fuel flow was about like an Eagle!! I discount the higher drag from more skin friction, but you could convince me.

3) I have a problem with asserting F-35 weight requiring lots more lift and associated induced drag. I'll bet that the sucker will come close to the 7 pounds per mile I saw in the Sluf and Viper, and that was total gas from climb to cruise and descent at home. e.g. RTB from 300 miles away using 2100 pounds plus reserve once there. worked every time.

Gums sends...

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2017, 00:17
by spazsinbad
'Gums' IIRC the A4G 'rule of thumb' for quick mental gymnastics was 6 pounds per NM range at low altitude at 360 kannots.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2017, 00:36
by count_to_10
neptune wrote:
steve2267 wrote:... I kind of doubt it... if you burned ALL your fuel, you would no longer have hydraulics. But I may be wrong.


....if you burn all the fuel, you don't need hydraulics.......OTOH you will arrive at the crash site, first!

....maybe you will alarm when the fuel quantity depletes to the minimum fueldraulic limit???
:)

Alternately, if you spring a hydraulic leak, you would have the whole fuel tank as a reserve reservoir while you tried to get back to base. All the fuel in the world won't do you much good if you lose your controls.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2017, 00:40
by vanshilar
count_to_10 wrote:Alternately, if you spring a hydraulic leak, you would have the whole fuel tank as a reserve reservoir while you tried to get back to base. All the fuel in the world won't do you much good if you lose your controls.


Heh I guess it might also be nice for emergencies. If you start running low on fuel because of a leak at least they could refuel you on the way. If you start running low on hydraulic fluid I'm not sure what they can do.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2017, 03:23
by spazsinbad
Aaaah 'hydraulics'.... viewtopic.php?f=60&t=19215&p=351271&hilit=hydraulics#p351271

Damage control & testing was undergone years ago where proof obtained how the aircraft is able to fly with various damage bits & pieces. One claim is that it can fly with one tail IIRC - I'll look that up as well "...example, the F-35 can fly with one horizontal tail and one rudder missing..." http://www.aviationpros.com/article/109 ... ke-fighter

More: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=24027&p=307076&hilit=aviationpros#p307076

Good 'LIVE FIRE TEST' info: viewtopic.php?f=54&t=14199&p=221179&hilit=live+fire+test+bahdayton#p221179
&
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=16020&p=204074&hilit=live+fire+test+bahdayton#p204074

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2017, 04:08
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Gums wrote:Salute!

Not so sure about your "analysis", Spurts.

1) I cannot find a F-16 GTOW you mention that only has internal fuel.

2) The two engine discussion is familiar to this old fart. It turns out that you can only pull the throttles back so far and you still have "x" pounds per hour, total. So in our over-powered A-37 we would have about 1500 - 1600 PPH total to maintain a good loiter AoA/speed. If we shut one down and pushed up the single engine we saw about 1300 PPH or so. The motor was running at a better point on the "curve" at a higher rpm.

The Hornet guys I first met said their fuel flow was about like an Eagle!! I discount the higher drag from more skin friction, but you could convince me.

3) I have a problem with asserting F-35 weight requiring lots more lift and associated induced drag. I'll bet that the sucker will come close to the 7 pounds per mile I saw in the Sluf and Viper, and that was total gas from climb to cruise and descent at home. e.g. RTB from 300 miles away using 2100 pounds plus reserve once there. worked every time.

Gums sends...

Salute!

My "analysis" was only to mathematically show the things that actually effect fuel burn. I will happily talk about each of your points and how they apply.

1) The HAF Blk 50/52+ -1 lists an empty weight of "about" 20,000lbs with oil, oxygen, unusable fuel, pilot, and tip missile rails with an internal usable fuel load of 7,162lb JP-8 (GE enigne, p.B1-6) giving ~27,000lb.

2)Turbine engines tend to run more efficiently the closer to a design throttle setting. Lower throttle settings will have a higher TSFC (more fuel burn). This is what you were seeing. Speed was the same, so drag was the same (maybe even a little higher with an engine out creating ram drag, unless you just idled it) so thrust was the same, so the improved TSFC for operating the one engine closer to the design point led to reduced fuel burn. Out of curiosity, was that in the manual or was that just a tricked you guys picked up?

2.5) the F404 has a higher TSFC than the F100. The F100 was a marvel in how much thrust it could make and how little fuel it could drink.

3) My actual analysis of Stubbies performance shows a greater L/D than the F-16 when clean. Not so much that it actually has less drag (I think it was on the order of 10-20% more drag), enough that it does not have to "pay" for all the extra weight with drag. I was using terms "even with a similar L/D" and "if they have the same L/D and TSFC" to show that even with pessimistic assumptions the F-35 still handily outranges the F-16. Looking back through my statements though I did not call out that these were pessimistic values. Oops. 7lb/nm comes out to ~.14nm/lb. A quick glance at the HAF -1 shows optimum cruise values not being less than .2nm/lb when clean, so I would buy .14nm/lb with climb and ordnance, no problem. My last Stubby model shows .10nm/lb from startup to approach on a 590nm radius optimum profile strike with two one-ton GPS bombs, landing with nearly 7k remaining in the tanks (can't remember if it was Col. Simms or Dolby Hanche that gave the statements I based that on).

"If the pilot took off with full fuel 2 amraams and 2 2000lbs bombs flew 590nm and came back with a 10 min weapon deployment time they would land with around 7,000-8,000lbs still in the tank."

1,180nm total for 10,500-11,500 of fuel, 0.1124nm/lb to 0.1026nm/lb fuel, heavy out, light back

Like I said, range is not one of Stubbys problems.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2017, 05:36
by steve2267
Gums wrote:
3) I have a problem with asserting F-35 weight requiring lots more lift and associated induced drag. I'll bet that the sucker will come close to the 7 pounds per mile I saw in the Sluf and Viper, and that was total gas from climb to cruise and descent at home. e.g. RTB from 300 miles away using 2100 pounds plus reserve once there. worked every time.

Gums sends...


When a pair of F-35A's flew from Eglin AFB to Oshkosh, the AOPA story had this to say about fuel burn:

F-35 Lightning public debut shows the right stuff
by David Tulis 8 August 2015

For the quick two hour, ten minute jaunt from Florida to AirVenture, each fighter jet burned about 5,000 pounds of fuel at 270 knots. Niemi said typical approach speeds are 150 knots and strictly by a 13-degree angle of attack all the way to the ground. “It’s a real easy plane to fly and it has good powerful [air] brakes. At 100 knots it will sit down pretty good,” he said.

Source: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... ight-stuff


The great circle calculator gives 815nm from Eglin AFB to Oshkosh, which serves as a decent 1st order swag on nautical miles flown. 5000lb for 815nm works out to 6.1 lb/nm, just a little under Gums' 7lb/mile swag. (Gums, I presume you meant nautical mile when you said "miles"?)

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2017, 05:47
by h-bomb
Gums wrote:Salute!

2) The two engine discussion is familiar to this old fart. It turns out that you can only pull the throttles back so far and you still have "x" pounds per hour, total. So in our over-powered A-37 we would have about 1500 - 1600 PPH total to maintain a good loiter AoA/speed. If we shut one down and pushed up the single engine we saw about 1300 PPH or so. The motor was running at a better point on the "curve" at a higher rpm.

The Hornet guys I first met said their fuel flow was about like an Eagle!! I discount the higher drag from more skin friction, but you could convince me.

Gums sends...


The F404 was originally called the J101 ultra low bypass turbofan. It is part of the F101/F110/F118 family, uses almost the same core as the F110. I wish I could remember who called it a turbojet with a leak. But it is very low bypass 0.34:1, verse the F110's 0.76.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2017, 07:05
by hornetfinn
playloud wrote:That's why the F-35 is a little pudgy.


I prefer "curvy"... :P

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2017, 07:17
by hornetfinn
mixelflick wrote:In any case, it really looks like the F-35 has some great legs. You always hear about how much gas Flankers carry/great range but you never hear about how much drag there is from lugging a meaningful weapons load around. Their AAM's look to be real draggy, hung off of a draggy airframe.

The F-35 sure is impressive...


It sure is... F-35A

1. Has similar dimensions to F-16
2. Has about 2.5 times the internal fuel of F-16 or 80% of internal fuel volume of Strike Eagle with CFTs
3. Can carry 5,000 lbs of weapons internally
4. Carries advanced targeting pod, insane amount of avionics systems and extensive EW capabilities internally
5. Can do Mach 1.6, 9G and 50 degree AoA maneuvers while carrying all of the above
6. Is the stealthiest fighter jet in existence according to everybody in the know

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2017, 13:45
by steve2267
hornetfinn wrote:It sure is... F-35A

1. Has similar dimensions to F-16
2. Has about 2.5 times the internal fuel of F-16 or 80% of internal fuel volume of Strike Eagle with CFTs
3. Can carry 5,000 lbs of weapons internally
4. Carries advanced targeting pod, insane amount of avionics systems and extensive EW capabilities internally
5. Can do Mach 1.6, 9G and 50 degree AoA maneuvers while carrying all of the above
6. Is the stealthiest fighter jet in existence according to everybody in the know


Is it commonly accepted that the F-35A has a lower RCS than the F-22? Or are we discussing "total signature" to include visual + thermal? Regarding RCS, the last number I saw cited (or stated) for the F-22 was 0.0001 m^2, or the "size of a marble." Are you stating the F-35 comes in less than that number (or have read statements by "people in the know" stating or implying that to be the case)?

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2017, 14:03
by hornetfinn
steve2267 wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:It sure is... F-35A

1. Has similar dimensions to F-16
2. Has about 2.5 times the internal fuel of F-16 or 80% of internal fuel volume of Strike Eagle with CFTs
3. Can carry 5,000 lbs of weapons internally
4. Carries advanced targeting pod, insane amount of avionics systems and extensive EW capabilities internally
5. Can do Mach 1.6, 9G and 50 degree AoA maneuvers while carrying all of the above
6. Is the stealthiest fighter jet in existence according to everybody in the know


Is it commonly accepted that the F-35A has a lower RCS than the F-22? Or are we discussing "total signature" to include visual + thermal? Regarding RCS, the last number I saw cited (or stated) for the F-22 was 0.0001 m^2, or the "size of a marble." Are you stating the F-35 comes in less than that number (or have read statements by "people in the know" stating or implying that to be the case)?


According to General Mike Hostage it is:

https://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen ... -starts/3/

The F-35’s cross section is much smaller than the F-22’s, but that does not mean, Hostage concedes, that the F-35 is necessarily superior to the F-22 when we go to war.


According to LM:
https://www.f35.com/about/capabilities/stealth
The stealth capabilities in the F-35 are unprecedented in military aviation.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2017, 14:18
by playloud
hornetfinn wrote:According to General Mike Hostage it is:

https://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen ... -starts/3/

The F-35’s cross section is much smaller than the F-22’s, but that does not mean, Hostage concedes, that the F-35 is necessarily superior to the F-22 when we go to war.


According to LM:
https://www.f35.com/about/capabilities/stealth
The stealth capabilities in the F-35 are unprecedented in military aviation.

General Bogdan also concurred...

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... roach.aspx
"I would say that General Hostage … is accurate in his statement about the simple stealthiness of the F-35 [with regard] to other airplanes," Bogdan said in the interview. The statement was accurate for radar cross section, as measured in decibels, and range of detectability, he said, and he scoffed at the notion that anyone can tell how stealthy an aircraft is just by looking at it.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2017, 15:34
by Gums
Salute!

THNX for the update, Spurts.

Gross weight? Spurts 1, Gums 0.5 I'm too old and forgot about all the weight increase as the Viper porked up over last 30 years, heh heh. Remember, I cut my teeth on the original "lightweight fighter" !!!!!

Single engine cruise? It was a standard procedure for the A-37 for at least first 6 or 7 years. We used it mostly to loiter, so I would cross my fingers and shut one down in the middle of the night over the Trail and wait for Covey or Blindbat to find a truck convoy. We hardly ever cruised to the tgt on one motor due to ordnance drag. I flew twice from Colorado to Louisiana with only two drop tanks - over 700 n.m. We had to switch motors after a half an hour or so to keep the lubrication where it was supposed to be.

Optimum engine rpm? Yep, Spurts. We're in the zone on that. Even at idle, the J85 was still using 300 - 400 pph.

I, too, saw the "leaky turbojet" comment back in 1974 or so. It was an interview in AvWeek, best I recall. I just think the Hornet was/is too draggy. Even with the pylons on the sluf, both it and the Viper were amazing descending at 300 kias and using only 500 pph. We would pull back to idle 100 miles out, 35,000 ft and put the flight path marker on the homebase TD box. We would soon get to 300 kias and maybe a bit higher.

Gums sends....

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2017, 19:07
by 010137
Gums wrote:Salute!

Not so sure about your "analysis", Spurts.

1) I cannot find a F-16 GTOW you mention that only has internal fuel.

2) The two engine discussion is familiar to this old fart. It turns out that you can only pull the throttles back so far and you still have "x" pounds per hour, total. So in our over-powered A-37 we would have about 1500 - 1600 PPH total to maintain a good loiter AoA/speed. If we shut one down and pushed up the single engine we saw about 1300 PPH or so. The motor was running at a better point on the "curve" at a higher rpm.

The Hornet guys I first met said their fuel flow was about like an Eagle!! I discount the higher drag from more skin friction, but you could convince me.

3) I have a problem with asserting F-35 weight requiring lots more lift and associated induced drag. I'll bet that the sucker will come close to the 7 pounds per mile I saw in the Sluf and Viper, and that was total gas from climb to cruise and descent at home. e.g. RTB from 300 miles away using 2100 pounds plus reserve once there. worked every time.

Gums sends...


Fuel flow is measured in lbs/min in this aircraft. Normally 20's - mid 30k cruising .8-.92M you're burning between 85-100 lbs/min; generally figure 100 for planning but we will beat that a lot. FADEC seems to keep fuel flow pretty constant in a lot of different situations. Max endurance will generally stabilize around 85lbs/min 250-280kts. Unlike a lot of other a/c, you don't buy nearly as much during an idle descent as it seems to take a lot of fuel to keep this gigantic engine turning, around 50lbs/min.

For reference, two tanked F-18 max endurance with pylons you figure 4800 lbs/hour fuel burn. Goes up quickly with speed increase.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2017, 20:58
by count_to_10
010137 wrote:
Gums wrote:Salute!

Not so sure about your "analysis", Spurts.

1) I cannot find a F-16 GTOW you mention that only has internal fuel.

2) The two engine discussion is familiar to this old fart. It turns out that you can only pull the throttles back so far and you still have "x" pounds per hour, total. So in our over-powered A-37 we would have about 1500 - 1600 PPH total to maintain a good loiter AoA/speed. If we shut one down and pushed up the single engine we saw about 1300 PPH or so. The motor was running at a better point on the "curve" at a higher rpm.

The Hornet guys I first met said their fuel flow was about like an Eagle!! I discount the higher drag from more skin friction, but you could convince me.

3) I have a problem with asserting F-35 weight requiring lots more lift and associated induced drag. I'll bet that the sucker will come close to the 7 pounds per mile I saw in the Sluf and Viper, and that was total gas from climb to cruise and descent at home. e.g. RTB from 300 miles away using 2100 pounds plus reserve once there. worked every time.

Gums sends...


Fuel flow is measured in lbs/min in this aircraft. Normally 20's - mid 30k cruising .8-.92M you're burning between 85-100 lbs/min; generally figure 100 for planning but we will beat that a lot. FADEC seems to keep fuel flow pretty constant in a lot of different situations. Max endurance will generally stabilize around 85lbs/min 250-280kts. Unlike a lot of other a/c, you don't buy nearly as much during an idle descent as it seems to take a lot of fuel to keep this gigantic engine turning, around 50lbs/min.

For reference, two tanked F-18 max endurance with pylons you figure 4800 lbs/hour fuel burn. Goes up quickly with speed increase.

These are the considerations that got me wondering if it was possible to power the compressor by sending only a small fraction of the combuster air through the turbine, while the fuel burned in the rest of the air is varied to control thrust.

viewtopic.php?f=38&t=53008

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2017, 21:05
by Gums
Salute!

@010 Need a better callsign, man.

With ppm versus pph, are we talking about the Stubby or the Bug?

Either one it's depressing. My trusty J-57 back in the 60's burned about 3,000 pph, or 50 ppm, I guess. That was a basic cruise or loiter, although I managed to get that down to 2,200 pph or so if I was smooth at best AoA.

In the Deuce, the fuel flow was for one motor, but in the VooDoo you could almost double it but normally about 5,000 pph. Later in life I wondered about shutting down a motor in the VooDoo, as we could maintain 1.15M at 49,000 ft with one in mil and the other at min burner. But A-37 was so overpowered it was an easy decision to shut one down.

Then I flew the Sluf and Viper. We cruised at 2,000 pph ( 33 ppm ? ) , 35K and 0.8M in the Sluf or 0.9M in the Viper or so when RTB with only pylons and missiles on 1 and 9. Maybe a centerline tank.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2017, 21:48
by 010137
Gums wrote:Salute!

@010 Need a better callsign, man.

With ppm versus pph, are we talking about the Stubby or the Bug?

Either one it's depressing. My trusty J-57 back in the 60's burned about 3,000 pph, or 50 ppm, I guess. That was a basic cruise or loiter, although I managed to get that down to 2,200 pph or so if I was smooth at best AoA.

In the Deuce, the fuel flow was for one motor, but in the VooDoo you could almost double it but normally about 5,000 pph. Later in life I wondered about shutting down a motor in the VooDoo, as we could maintain 1.15M at 49,000 ft with one in mil and the other at min burner. But A-37 was so overpowered it was an easy decision to shut one down.

Then I flew the Sluf and Viper. We cruised at 2,000 pph ( 33 ppm ? ) , 35K and 0.8M in the Sluf or 0.9M in the Viper or so when RTB with only pylons and missiles on 1 and 9. Maybe a centerline tank.


Ppm is for the f-35. Pph displayed for the hornet. You would be amazed at the ppm burned in blower... 90ppm at .85m (or 10.5 lbs/nm) is pretty awesome for a motor that produces 40k thrust, especially with how much internal gas we have.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2017, 07:12
by geforcerfx
010137 wrote:
Ppm is for the f-35. Pph displayed for the hornet. You would be amazed at the ppm burned in blower... 90ppm at .85m (or 10.5 lbs/nm) is pretty awesome for a motor that produces 40k thrust, especially with how much internal gas we have.


Is that with internal GBU's? what F-35 variant?

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2017, 15:23
by 010137
geforcerfx wrote:
010137 wrote:
Ppm is for the f-35. Pph displayed for the hornet. You would be amazed at the ppm burned in blower... 90ppm at .85m (or 10.5 lbs/nm) is pretty awesome for a motor that produces 40k thrust, especially with how much internal gas we have.


Is that with internal GBU's? what F-35 variant?


Yes, w ord. B model, but they’re all about the same.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2017, 19:06
by geforcerfx
010137 wrote:
Yes, w ord. B model, but they’re all about the same.


Thanks for answering. The Air Force had a stat posted saying at 30k and .7 (or .75) they burn around 4000 PPH. Your burning around 5400pph going .85, would that small reduction in speed really reduce consumption that much?

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2017, 22:28
by johnwill
No surprise. The drag at 0.85 is about 50% greater than at 0.70.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2017, 23:21
by geforcerfx
johnwill wrote:No surprise. The drag at 0.85 is about 50% greater than at 0.70.


transonic is that bad? I had read like 30%

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2017, 23:36
by viper12
I think johnwill simply meant that drag is roughly proportional to the square of speed in this region, since (0.85/0.7)^2 = 1.47.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2017, 02:00
by sprstdlyscottsmn
geforcerfx wrote: The Air Force had a stat posted saying at 30k and .7 (or .75) they burn around 4000 PPH.


Specifically it was .75M, 32,000ft, 4,600pph (76.7ppm), with 2500lb tactical loadout internal.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2017, 02:24
by Dragon029
I think he's talking about this one:

Image

Mach 0.75, 40kft, no payload specified, 593 gal/hr (= 4032.4pph = 67.21ppm)

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2017, 03:22
by viper12
5 gal/hr for the Predator ! :shock:

Even with the relatively small Cessna 172P, our instructors told us to use the conservative 10 gal/hr fuel consumption, and we didn't fly above 100 kt IAS !

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2017, 04:44
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Dragon029 wrote:I think he's talking about this one:

Image

Mach 0.75, 40kft, no payload specified, 593 gal/hr (= 4032.4pph = 67.21ppm)

Ooh, more data, excellent.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2017, 04:51
by popcorn
Have therr been any credible reports discussing the F-35 range where it's explicitly stated it's got empty bays? I 've always assumed a full internal ordnance load.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2017, 05:16
by Dragon029
Not that I'm aware of; even on a slide describing a surveillance mission they have a payload of 2x AIM-120s and 2x GBU-12s:

Image

(Just note that this was from something like 2012, so I'm not sure how accurate those performance figures are - if they're based off the SAR performance estimates though then they'll be even higher).

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2017, 05:36
by optimist
also the altitude is varying between 5-25k. We don't know time at any altitude or the speed, to give a the breakdown of the mission requirements that give the range.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2017, 06:05
by geforcerfx
yup that's it, thanks dragon couldn't find it in my "F-35" folder need to spend a night and organize that folder a bit. If advent technology engine turns out to be as amazing as they are hyping it then the F-35's will have a 50,000lb thrust engine (afterburner) that can cruise at .75 and only sip 3200lbs of fuel, freaking insane. That's a 1,000nmi combat radius upgrade right there, not to mention the insane increase to the already (very?) healthy subsonic acceleration.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2017, 06:10
by Dragon029

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2018, 18:10
by mixelflick
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
mixelflick wrote:OK well, I didn't know that. Thought 2 engines means it'd burn more fuel..


I apologize if the post sounded angry. I hate the loss of nonverbal communication in text. I only wanted to pass along the knowledge.


Yeah it came off that way, LOL. But it's all good. I learned a great deal given your explanation and that's why we come here! I'm just a guy who loves planes. Was my dream to be a fighter pilot (but bad, bad stigmatisms). I wanted to fly the F-15 and still love that jet. When I found out a Viper had the same/better legs, I was shocked.

But the F-35 being what it is, it impresses me more every day. A jet capable of carrying 5,000lbs mixed air to air/ground load, ridiculous SA/sensors, mach 1.6 dash speed AND 9g capable carrying that load. And oh, Lockheed threw in an invisibility switch. To add to all this, it has great legs.

I think when it's all said and done she'll have an F-15 like reputation, she'll be that dominant.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2018, 18:42
by mixelflick
hornetfinn wrote:
mixelflick wrote:In any case, it really looks like the F-35 has some great legs. You always hear about how much gas Flankers carry/great range but you never hear about how much drag there is from lugging a meaningful weapons load around. Their AAM's look to be real draggy, hung off of a draggy airframe.

The F-35 sure is impressive...


It sure is... F-35A

1. Has similar dimensions to F-16
2. Has about 2.5 times the internal fuel of F-16 or 80% of internal fuel volume of Strike Eagle with CFTs
3. Can carry 5,000 lbs of weapons internally
4. Carries advanced targeting pod, insane amount of avionics systems and extensive EW capabilities internally
5. Can do Mach 1.6, 9G and 50 degree AoA maneuvers while carrying all of the above
6. Is the stealthiest fighter jet in existence according to everybody in the know


Someone really needs to make a graphic reflecting these points, asking - can your fighter do this?

I thought I saw one here, but can't recall where. In any case, this was a great summary. It really illustrates the magnitude of what Lockheed has accomplished. This ain't the F-111...

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2018, 19:49
by Dragon029
While this thread is revived, could someone help me find the source article where it was stated that F-35s participating had twice the combat endurance of F-15Cs during training exercises?

IIRC they specifically talked about F-15s going out on vuls, coming back to refuel, going again and coming back again while F-35s stuck around the entire time, with reference to the F-35's being force multipliers / seeing things that the 4th gens didn't.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2018, 20:37
by sprstdlyscottsmn
that would be a nice one to add to the collection of quotes.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2018, 20:56
by steve2267
Pretty sure I already quoted it. Nope... I didn't. I know the quote of which you speak. I'll see if I can find it.

ETA: My google-fu is weak today. I recall the interview. I want to say the F-35 pilot was a Lt Col or Col, possibly from Hill AFB. I also want to say the article was around the time frame of the F-35 turkey shoot up there in Michigan last year or in 2016.

Maybe the F-16.net WayBack Machine will find it when Spaz reads this thread...

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2018, 21:25
by operaaperta
Hi Dragon,

The quote you are looking for is near the end of this video

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=you ... TgDTC8_PM0

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2018, 21:35
by spazsinbad
:devil: She's got legs & knows how to use 'em.... ZZ TOP... :doh:
Q: "How's the range of the aircraft from an operator perspective?"

CAP: [Lt. Col. Scott “Cap” Gunn USAF] "I think people that say it doesn't have the range are someone that probably looks at a single-engine aircraft and think so it's just an F-16. It aint an F-16.

I fly on a regular basis two training stories worth of training that I would do in an F-15C model with two external tanks on it. So I would go up go out and do one offensive push where we do basically one offensive strike into the area and out and hey I'm bingo I've got to go home on fuel with the F-15C.

In the F-35 I'll go out and do two of those without any problem and one of the things that we found out in the exercise up in Wisconsin, was after we were done firing our weapons after we were done getting everybody into and out of the combat area, if we wanted to go on to keep fighting at that point they would ask us to stick around because of all the sensors we could provide and the data link we could provide to help the 4th gen aircraft who still had missiles on board. We still had fuel and the sensors to be able to provide that information form.

So it's got legs, it's got really long legs." viewtopic.php?f=22&t=52482&p=355916&hilit=Gunn#p355916


Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2018, 05:44
by Dragon029
Cheers guys, I've added it to my archive:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Dragon029/wiki/kinematics

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2018, 10:24
by element1loop
So is a glut of Alled tanking capacity emerging in a decade or so? Has this F-35 madness touched off yet another airpower calamity?

What a lemon. :wtf:

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2018, 16:16
by mixelflick
Better range (much better) than an F-15C with wing tanks? Fantastic..

I bet it out-ranges most Flankers, given their draggy airframes. It carries a ton of gas, but if I'm not mistaken range is strongly correlated to lift/drag index.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2018, 20:05
by viper12
mixelflick wrote:It carries a ton of gas, but if I'm not mistaken range is strongly correlated to lift/drag index.


Range is correlated to this ratio, but it's only proportional in a cruise/climb ; it still appears in the equation for a constant altitude : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_(aeronautics)#Jet_propulsion

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2018, 02:41
by element1loop
Does anyone remember the link to the LM article detailing a 5.7 hour cross-country range/endurance flight test/ verification? (obviously requiring a landing with the 2,500 lb reserve intact)

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2018, 03:08
by spazsinbad
I bin lookin' but interrupted search to post this - again - for this thread. First found by 'SWP' many moons ago now - in Oz:
"...Mr Burbage: We have 16 key performance parameters on this airplane. Half are logistics and sustainment-related, half are aeroperformance-related and one or two are in classified areas. We have an oversight body called the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, the JROC, that looks at those requirements every year and makes decisions on them—'Are we going to meet them, are we not going to meet them? If we are not going to meet them, what is the impact of that?' We have one this year which was the range of the Air Force airplane which had a specific set of ground rules associated with how that range is calculated which is not similar to either of the other two airplanes. The airplane flies a large part of its mission at a non-optimised altitude in the original calculation. The JROC agreed to change the ground rules to fly that airplane as the other two were flown and, when that happened, the airplane had excess margin to the range requirement. For any performance-related requirements, we artificially penalise the engine by five per cent fuel flow and two per cent thrust. Those margins are given back as we mature the design and get more and more solid on exactly what it is going to do. They are there for conservative estimation up front. We have not taken back any of those margins yet so, when those margins are taken back, the airplane will continue to be well in excess of its basic requirement. The airplane is meeting all of the other requirements today...." 20 March 2012 Australian Federal Parliament F-35 Inquiry viewtopic.php?f=58&t=18916&p=220218&hilit=cross+country+test#p220218

Bin Lookin' at the OLD LM Flight Test Updates - this example is NOT what is required but use it as 'reference' for lookin'.
"...18 December 2009: USMC Pilot Completes Longest Duration Flight
US Marine Corps pilot Maj. Joseph Bachmann completes the longest flight on an F-35 to date during the fifteenth flight of BF-2. The 3.7-hour mission, which includes aerial refueling, is in preparation for the ferry flight that will take the aircraft directly from Fort Worth, Texas, to Patuxent River, Maryland...." http://www.codeonemagazine.com/f35_arti ... item_id=11

:mrgreen: Here we go - here we go - here we go (it is bleedin' hot here upside down in these parts & no aircon...) :doh:
"...17 December 2013: Longest Flight Duration
Lockheed Martin test pilot Paul Hattendorf was at the controls of F-35A AF-7 for a 5.2-hour mission systems test flight from Edwards AFB, California. The flight, which also marked 500 hours for AF-7, was the longest test mission to date for the F-35 program. Coincidentally, Lockheed Martin test pilot David Nelson completed a 5.2-hour mission on the same day in F-35A AF-3...." [Did it ARF? Air ReFuel? Did it land back at Edwards AFB?] http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=136

And AGAIN & AGAIN & AGAIN...
"...25 February 2014: Longest Flights To Date
Two F-35 pilots broke the single flight F-35 duration record during the first AMRAAM launch at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. Air Force Maj. Mark Massaro flying BF-18 and Air Force Maj. Andrew Rollins flying AF-6 completed the round trip from Edwards AFB to the range in 5.7 hours. The previous duration record was 5.1 hours...."
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=136

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2018, 03:47
by element1loop
Maybe this helps, from memory it was in LM's flight testing summaries section ... about mid to late 2016, if I remember correctly.

Edit

Just saw your reply spaz, close, not quite it, there was a later 5.6 hr and a few months later, a 5.7 hr test. Definitely a few years later than 2013.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2018, 03:53
by alloycowboy
"Non optimized" meaning they were flying the F-35 at low altitude on deck where the fuel burn is high like it was a Eurofighter Typhoon or something. Instead of fly the F-35 at optimum altitude where the Prat and Whitney F-135 jet engine is the most efficient and relying on the Low Obeservable technology of the airframe to reduce radar return.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2018, 03:53
by spazsinbad
element1loop wrote:Maybe this helps, from memory it was in LM's flight testing summaries section ... about mid to late 2016, if I remember correctly.

No worries - LOOK BACK AT EDIT on previous page - My method is to post then edit post edit at same place - bad - I know.

Repeated here because who looks back? Who reads articles? Questions Questions Questions....
"...25 February 2014: Longest Flights To Date
Two F-35 pilots broke the single flight F-35 duration record during the first AMRAAM launch at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. Air Force Maj. Mark Massaro flying BF-18 and Air Force Maj. Andrew Rollins flying AF-6 completed the round trip from Edwards AFB to the range in 5.7 hours. The previous duration record was 5.1 hours...."
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=136

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2018, 04:06
by element1loop
See my edit above spaz, cheers.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2018, 04:21
by element1loop
spazsinbad wrote:
element1loop wrote:Maybe this helps, from memory it was in LM's flight testing summaries section ... about mid to late 2016, if I remember correctly.

No worries - LOOK BACK AT EDIT on previous page - My method is to post then edit post edit at same place - bad - I know.

Repeated here because who looks back? Who reads articles? Questions Questions Questions....
"...25 February 2014: Longest Flights To Date
Two F-35 pilots broke the single flight F-35 duration record during the first AMRAAM launch at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. Air Force Maj. Mark Massaro flying BF-18 and Air Force Maj. Andrew Rollins flying AF-6 completed the round trip from Edwards AFB to the range in 5.7 hours. The previous duration record was 5.1 hours...."
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=136



Awesome work! Thank you. :salute:

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2018, 04:31
by element1loop
However, there actually is a single aircraft flight test in about 2016 that made the 5.6 and 5.7 results. A formal test.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2018, 04:35
by spazsinbad
That F-35 test is probably in the F-35 SAR report for that year (on later) - do we assume it is unrefueled/ARFed? Report could be in bigwig text submission to US Congress about F-35 progress? Dec 2015 SAR is here [they are dated weird]:

https://fas.org/man/eprint/F35-sar-2016.pdf (0.6Mb) ["As of FY 2017 President's Budget" BUT DEC 2015 - ffsake I give up]

There are other reports such as - DOT&E Annual Reports - that was what I was thinking might contain such information....

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2018, 04:49
by element1loop
spazsinbad wrote:That F-35 test is probably in the F-35 SAR report for that year (on later) - do we assume it is unrefueled/ARFed? Report could be in bigwig text submission to US Congress about F-35 progress? Dec 2015 SAR is here [they are dated weird]:

https://fas.org/man/eprint/F35-sar-2016.pdf (0.6Mb) ["As of FY 2017 President's Budget" BUT DEC 2015 - ffsake I give up]


I definitely read it on the LM site, in an LM article linked to a test summary. I have it ... But on a drive that died in April 2017. .... Doh!

Edit - unrefuelled endurance test, cross country, something like Seattle to a southern state. I remember it was not a direct track.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2018, 05:24
by steve2267
You are claiming, then, a max endurance fuel burn of 2800lb/hr when nominal cruise is on the order of 5000-5300lb/hr.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2018, 06:12
by element1loop
steve2267 wrote:You are claiming, then, a max endurance fuel burn of 2800lb/hr when nominal cruise is on the order of 5000-5300lb/hr.


Now don't go being a schmartie, ask yourself, what exactly constitutes your pseudo-defined "nominal cruise" rate?

What weight?
What altitude?
What ISA conditions, at alt?
Most of all, EXACTLY what TAS?

You don't know.

Spurts can speak on those, and relate it to best endurance speed, and implicatons, if he wishes. Not me, I don't burrow that deep, and I'm absolutely sure that you don't.

I claim nothing, except the 5.7 hr unrefuelled endurance test result, sans condiions, sans best endurance speed, or track distance.

And nor are you, as you can't actually put subsubstance to what is this "nominal cruise speed" flow rate, and the conditions of it, let alone define how or why you adopted that nebulous fuel flow for it, that is little more than imaginitive invention.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2018, 06:34
by spazsinbad
element1loop wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:That F-35 test is probably in the F-35 SAR report for that year (on later) - do we assume it is unrefueled/ARFed? Report could be in bigwig text submission to US Congress about F-35 progress? Dec 2015 SAR is here [they are dated weird]:

https://fas.org/man/eprint/F35-sar-2016.pdf (0.6Mb) ["As of FY 2017 President's Budget" BUT DEC 2015 - ffsake I give up]


I definitely read it on the LM site, in an LM article linked to a test summary. I have it ... But on a drive that died in April 2017. .... Doh!

Edit - unrefuelled endurance test, cross country, something like Seattle to a southern state. I remember it was not a direct track.

Vaguely (& I stress VAGUE) I recall some 'cross-country tests before the first Atlantic Crossing which did not happen because of the 'take-off fire at Eglin AFB' which was in 23 Jun 2014. Perhaps further flights cross-country done later?

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2018, 06:51
by Dragon029
I don't believe that the 5.7 hour flight or such was unrefueled; we've heard here before that an F-35B burns about 85ppm at max endurance - even if we assume that could drop to 75ppm for the A model, that still leaves a max endurance of a little over 4 hours, with zero fuel reserve and assuming that the tanks are initially topped off at altitude.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2018, 07:07
by element1loop
spazsinbad wrote:
element1loop wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:That F-35 test is probably in the F-35 SAR report for that year (on later) - do we assume it is unrefueled/ARFed? Report could be in bigwig text submission to US Congress about F-35 progress? Dec 2015 SAR is here [they are dated weird]:

https://fas.org/man/eprint/F35-sar-2016.pdf (0.6Mb) ["As of FY 2017 President's Budget" BUT DEC 2015 - ffsake I give up]


I definitely read it on the LM site, in an LM article linked to a test summary. I have it ... But on a drive that died in April 2017. .... Doh!

Edit - unrefuelled endurance test, cross country, something like Seattle to a southern state. I remember it was not a direct track.

Vaguely (& I stress VAGUE) I recall some 'cross-country tests before the first Atlantic Crossing which did not happen because of the 'take-off fire at Eglin AFB' which was in 23 Jun 2014. Perhaps further flights cross-country done later?


I'll see if i can locate it this week, the tests happened, and were unrefueled endurance. I was quite astounded when I read it.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2018, 07:20
by spazsinbad
How 'bout this one - but refueling....: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=28905&p=346380&hilit=Atlantic+test+endurance#p346380
"On June 29, 2016, a group of F-35Bs landed in the UK... [Royal Air Force Sqn Ldr Hugh Nichols, & USMC Col Richard Rusnok & Maj. Jack Cronan, all from VMFAT-501 at Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, South Carolina] ...They also practiced their flight across the Atlantic Ocean through endurance flights of five hours, including a refueling exercise...." https://www.f35.com/in-depth/detail/beh ... -riat-2016

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2018, 07:30
by element1loop
Dragon029 wrote:I don't believe that the 5.7 hour flight or such was unrefueled; we've heard here before that an F-35B burns about 85ppm at max endurance - even if we assume that could drop to 75ppm for the A model, that still leaves a max endurance of a little over 4 hours, with zero fuel reserve and assuming that the tanks are initially topped off at altitude.


I would not be so sure dragon, that B may be describing the flow rate at indicated best endurance speed, but was the jet at the best specific fuel consumption altitude when doing it?

The difference between most efficient alt and conditions can be greater than 100% of that reported rate with a turbine.

Right?

I presume you are current or recent RAAF pilot. So is that not correct?

What I know is, what I read, as detailed above.

Now would formal testing not optimise all parameters and conditions for that 5.6 and 5.7? Is that what two tests are attempting to do?



I'll try to locate the page from my other 'puter during week, on phone now.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2018, 07:31
by steve2267
Yeah, I was wrong. 0.85M burning 5400pph (90ppm) with internal ordnance. No altitude was mentioned; 30's at standard ISA conditions would seem reasonable from everything I've seen written / discussed.

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Specifically it was .75M, 32,000ft, 4,600pph (76.7ppm), with 2500lb tactical loadout internal.


0.75M seems more like a max endurance airspeed. I suppose max endurance might be as low as 0.6M? But if the Bee burns around 4600pph @ 0.75M... a max endurance fuel burn of 2800pph (ish) would be phenomenal. If you can document it, I'm sure Spurts would be interested.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2018, 07:34
by element1loop
spazsinbad wrote:How 'bout this one - but refueling....: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=28905&p=346380&hilit=Atlantic+test+endurance#p346380
"On June 29, 2016, a group of F-35Bs landed in the UK... [Royal Air Force Sqn Ldr Hugh Nichols, & USMC Col Richard Rusnok & Maj. Jack Cronan, all from VMFAT-501 at Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, South Carolina] ...They also practiced their flight across the Atlantic Ocean through endurance flights of five hours, including a refueling exercise...." https://www.f35.com/in-depth/detail/beh ... -riat-2016


Nah, it was a formal test program CONUS endurance test.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2018, 07:58
by element1loop
steve2267 wrote:Yeah, I was wrong. 0.85M burning 5400pph (90ppm) with internal ordnance. No altitude was mentioned; 30's at standard ISA conditions would seem reasonable from everything I've seen written / discussed.

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Specifically it was .75M, 32,000ft, 4,600pph (76.7ppm), with 2500lb tactical loadout internal.


0.75M seems more like a max endurance airspeed. I suppose max endurance might be as low as 0.6M? But if the Bee burns around 4600pph @ 0.75M... a max endurance fuel burn of 2800pph (ish) would be phenomenal. If you can document it, I'm sure Spurts would be interested.


For context, in civil high bypass turbines (airliners or business jets) 32,000 ft is typically the highest fuel flow rate (most inefficient alt for best endurance in FLs) but instead it is the best speed alt.

However, the lowest flow rate and best endurance speed, is usually between 40 and 45 k ft, and even higher for lear or concord.

So 32 k ft is the worst possible alt for rate efficency (spec consump) for those engines.

Now correct me if I am wrong, but the F-135 is a high bypass design, with an AB,l lmited by design to sub Mach 1.6?

I do not see why 32k would not also be the most inefficient flight level alt for F-135 endurance speed, as well.

Try 50k ft.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2018, 07:59
by spazsinbad
And this by the AmiableButler: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=15455&p=269752&hilit=Atlantic+Yuma#p269752
F-35B set to make international debut at RIAT, Farnborough
16 Apr 2014 Amy Butler

"...But the programme has been preparing for the extended trip across the Atlantic. On 25 February, a joint sortie by AF-6 and BF-18 – F-35A and B models, respectively – completed a 5.7h mission.... [Yeahbut nobut yeahbut - ARF?]

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... gh-398334/

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2018, 08:34
by element1loop
spazsinbad wrote:And this by the AmiableButler: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=15455&p=269752&hilit=Atlantic+Yuma#p269752
F-35B set to make international debut at RIAT, Farnborough
16 Apr 2014 Amy Butler

"...But the programme has been preparing for the extended trip across the Atlantic. On 25 February, a joint sortie by AF-6 and BF-18 – F-35A and B models, respectively – completed a 5.7h mission.... [Yeahbut nobut yeahbut - ARF?]

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... gh-398334/


Best endurance speed is not only a speed, it is the most efficient speed, at the most burn efficent altitude, for the prevailing ISA conditions, and weight.

Can't have one, and not the other, and call it meaningful.

It consists of correct speed AND correct altitude.

If you have just one, you have not got best endurance data, at all.

This would not be news to pilots in here, but I'm sure it is to most article writers.

So I seriouly doubt a transit flight was at either the optimal speed or optimal altitude for max endurance.

It was a transit with an exercise scheduled.

Nothing more.

An actual test program fight will have gotten clearence to track at correct altitude and correct TAS, and the track they wanted.

HUGE difference.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2018, 08:45
by spazsinbad
Perhaps if you can give more clues for this 'F-35 test flight for endurance' may be found. We only get close - but no cigar.

URL will find all F-35 'flight test updates' at LM CODE ONE: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/articles ... ategory=24

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2018, 09:44
by element1loop
spazsinbad wrote:Perhaps if you can give more clues for this 'F-35 test flight for endurance' may be found. We only get close - but no cigar.

URL will find all F-35 'flight test updates' at LM CODE ONE: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/articles ... ategory=24


As I remember (for what that's worth) I read it around very early 2017, while reading over testing progress updates, from mid and late 2016.

Presumably these were part of the final post production tests to solidify data for certification purposes, and before 3i install, or Marines IOC.

But that's the period I intend to search this week.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2018, 13:09
by optimist
A lot of this stuff seems to be mandatory speed and alt test sets. wasn't there a test change, where the f-35 was allowed to fly at an efficient alt, to get the mission over a KPP threshold limit.

The other question to ask, if if they really want the true numbers released? Or are they going to make stuff up?

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2018, 13:53
by element1loop
optimist wrote:A lot of this stuff seems to be mandatory speed and alt test sets. wasn't there a test change, where the f-35 was allowed to fly at an efficient alt, to get the mission over a KPP threshold limit.

The other question to ask, if if they really want the true numbers released? Or are they going to make stuff up?


Spaz requoted that process a page or so back, earlier today.

As for second guessing data, well, the program is remarkably open to scrutiny.

What I do know is that turbofans are fuel guzzlers (but fast) at FL310 thru FL330.

So any data or model-analysis of 'endurance', in that FL range, will provide the opposite end of the endurance fuel-sipping spectrum, in terms of reported fuel-flow rate.

So what do we really know, if alt is not given?

Which is why I found the LM reported unrefuelled endurance of 5.7 hrs quite an astonishing insight.

That is one very efficient engine (when flown within it's efficiency sweet-spot).

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2018, 14:52
by optimist
Ok thanks I missed that. It was a good example of alt and the individual aircraft's sweet spot, affecting range.

I'm not trying to get outside the group on this, I don't mind either way. I'm sure there would be better data on the trip, than the few lines.
Unless it was specifically stated, It's unusual to run planes to be on the low side in fuel. Normally on ocean crossings. They fly with a tanker, taking constant sips. On a path, so as always to be in range of a divert field. Maintaining enough fuel to divert. It might have been a 5.7hr flight, but It probably wasn't on one tank.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2018, 15:57
by steve2267
element1loop wrote:What I do know is that turbofans are fuel guzzlers (but fast) at FL310 thru FL330.


Wow. I did not know this. So you are saying that a turbofan "guzzles" fuel between 31000 and 33000 ft? But not, say, at 28,000 or at 37,000? And that a turbofan burns the least amount of fuel at around 45,000? So there is actually a peak in fuel burn right in that 31-33000 altitude ban. Huh. I never would have guessed.

Can you explain why this is?

Regarding bypass ratio, the F135 has a higher bypass ratio for fighter-type aircraft, but it is certainly not considered a high bypass ratio gas turbine ala commercial aircraft engines. It may very well be the highest bypass ratio yet flown in a tactical combat aircraft, but that is an educated guess on my part.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2018, 21:24
by spazsinbad
A regular 'approximately five hour flight' for the F-35s seems to be from Eglin AFB, Florida to Edwards AFB, California. Perhaps flights to/from were made for this ENDURANCE TEST FLIGHT WITHOUT AERIAL REFUELLING? I woke up to guess.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2018, 22:53
by optimist
spazsinbad wrote:A regular 'approximately five hour flight' for the F-35s seems to be from Eglin AFB, Florida to Edwards AFB, California. Perhaps flights to/from were made for this ENDURANCE TEST FLIGHT WITHOUT AERIAL REFUELLING? I woke up to guess.

They could have do that on one tank, as there would have been numerous divert fields on the way. It's the ocean crossings, like when we go to flags. Or when the SH were delivered. There were stories at the time.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2018, 23:21
by element1loop
spazsinbad wrote:A regular 'approximately five hour flight' for the F-35s seems to be from Eglin AFB, Florida to Edwards AFB, California. Perhaps flights to/from were made for this ENDURANCE TEST FLIGHT WITHOUT AERIAL REFUELLING? I woke up to guess.


Good try. That would make sense, east to west, but I would be very surprised if they did not track at near ceiling to get above most of the headwind to shorten track distance, and thus allow use of a higher transit speed.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2018, 23:55
by quicksilver
The endurance flight in 2014 was a pre-translant requirement for the movement to the UK for RIAT/Farn (which was eventually cancelled in the wake of the F-35A fire on takeoff at Eglin). I've forgotten what drove the requirement but it was not formal DT flight test activity. IIRC it was also flown at or near planned translant transit speeds and altitudes and utilized AAR at some point in the flight. How do we know this? Because an F-35B cannot stay aloft for that amount of time without it.

Bar napkin analysis says start with ~13,5K# of JP; as a wag, let's subtract 1.5K# for min fuel on deck, and another 1.3K# for start, taxi and takeoff; that leaves 10.7K# of JP to play with. If we are super crazy, and grossly generous (and in error) let's say the jet will burn on average 3K#/hr;that's a 3.6ish hr sortie duration. We believe (from the sum of public reports) that FF at typical military altitudes and profiles for transoeanic movement will be somewhere in the 4.5K-5.5.K#/hr, but let's split the difference and say 5K#/hr. That's a 2.1hr sortie duration.

So, what is the debate about?

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2018, 01:32
by element1loop
steve2267 wrote:
element1loop wrote:What I do know is that turbofans are fuel guzzlers (but fast) at FL310 thru FL330.


Wow. I did not know this. So you are saying that a turbofan "guzzles" fuel between 31000 and 33000 ft? But not, say, at 28,000 or at 37,000? And that a turbofan burns the least amount of fuel at around 45,000? So there is actually a peak in fuel burn right in that 31-33000 altitude ban. Huh. I never would have guessed.

Can you explain why this is?

Regarding bypass ratio, the F135 has a higher bypass ratio for fighter-type aircraft, but it is certainly not considered a high bypass ratio gas turbine ala commercial aircraft engines. It may very well be the highest bypass ratio yet flown in a tactical combat aircraft, but that is an educated guess on my part.


It's complicated, and I'm no expert, so I will keep it simple.

I'm referring to Flight Levels operation, above 29k ft.

Fuel flow rate is highly variable when you maintain speed, but change altitude.

It follows a typical flow curve in modern efficient high-bypass turbofans.

Their maximum speed, and also max flow rate typically occurs around the FL320 area, +/- 2k ft.

At around their ceiling, they're slowest, but burn as little as half the fuel.

The burn is much more economical and (ignoring head or tail winds) provides MUCH better range, and endurance peformance , than at at FL320.

So as much as about 40% more range, but at about 75 to 100 kt lower speed.

Or about 20% lower speed, and 20% longer transit time, maximising range by about 40%, over what you get at FL320.

Pilots like speed, fighter pilots especially, so rarely pay attention to efficient flight regimes, or probably even know how to maximise endurance (and loiter speed is different again, typically at lower alt).

Who wants to fly at 375 kt at 45 k ft, in an F-35, when you could do 550 kts at a lower alt (and use 40% more fuel)?

You don't pay the fuel bill!

So you go fast. And other reasons.

But actual endurance requires low speed and flight near to ceilings, to reduce drag, which reduces fuel burn required to overcome the lower drag and maintain constant speed, that is safely above a high-speed stall, which rises with alt rise (and thus defines the ceiling level).

Drag increases non-linearly with linear rise in speed.

So reducing speed makes drag plumet, thus fuel requirement plumets to, and you need less oxygen to combust.

There is a point where small wings in thin air becomes unstable, producing high speed stall. So you can't go too high, nor too slow, without coming unstuck.

But 50 k ft is also oxygen poor, so the jet needs enough speed to get enough oxygen into inlets, to still burn that lower fuel rate demand, allowed via lower drag, due thinner air.

There is a sweet spot for all jets. Where internal engine efficency design optimisations, and available oxygen (air speed), and thinness of air on airframe (altitude), coincide for best endurance.

And another set for best range speed for it's alt.

They do not coincide.

If you don't know these, and "fly by the numbers", you will never achieve best endurance, or the best range.

Fighter pilots tend to want to do neither much.

(If you want to free up operational budgets, just make your pilots use the most efficient speed and alt ... like auto pilots do for airliners ... yes, they will hate you ... Bad).

At FL320 oxygen is comparsively rich, so you can shove more fuel in and still burn it all, and thus overcome the drag of denser more humid air, thus go much faster, and this coincides with best-speed altitude. Your jet goes like a scalded cat ... IF ... the engine was optimised to operate there (thus F-15C out accel F-16C at plus 30 k ft).

So engine optimisation and aircraft shape has a huge impact on high alt endurance.

We don't know what alt the F-35 is optimised for.

Big wings are great for thin air at a lower endurance speed.

The stubbie does not have that.

But a short wing equates to even lower drag, and higher cruise and endurance speed.

But higher cruise speed actually overcomes the disadvantage (higher stall speed) of a smaller wing, at high altitude (some what).

But an extremely clean shape does the same, also. Thus further increasing cruise and endurance speeds at high alt, thus probably totally negating the downsides of the smaller wing.

And further, the wing area and body lift were maximised for F-35, thus making it able to really perform at very high altitude (predictably much better than any teen fighter can).

So we can expect an unprecidented high cruise, plus very high endurance speed, near top of envelope.

Thus best endurance speed should exhibit outstanding (unheard of) range pertormance, also.

In short, it's a good jet.

Actual endurance time, endurance speed, and endurance track-distance range, will ALL predictably re-write what strikefighters can do.

Contrary to popular opinion.

In theory.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2018, 01:42
by element1loop
quicksilver wrote:So, what is the debate about?


Test results of actual observed baseline max endurance, at non-typical military altitudes and profiles. :mrgreen:


btw, officially, reserves are 2.5 k lb.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2018, 02:46
by quicksilver
1) "It's complicated..."

No, it's not.

2) "I'm no expert..."

Clearly, not about military tacair. So, recommend you stick to stuff you know.

3) "Pilots like speed, fighter pilots especially, so rarely pay attention to efficient flight regimes, or probably even know how to maximise endurance (and loiter speed is different again, typically at lower alt)."

See #2.

4) "If you don't know these, and "fly by the numbers", you will never achieve best endurance, or the best range."

True. But, of course, military mission profiles are widely variable and highly circumstantial. Best endurance or best range are not always the goal of training, nor in many real-world circumstances, practical. When practical, they are routine. Such knowledge is part of primary flight training academics 101 -- the instructional curriculum in Primary at any military flight school. It is reinforced in the strike pipeline if one gets jets, and in-detail in the curriculum for whatever TMS one is selected to fly in the operating forces. You think the guys who are flying 4 hour transits to from their assigned CAPs on the other side of the planet dont know what max endurance or max range alphas are for their jets (at whatever altitude they are assigned)? How about Naval Aviators 'on the ladder' for their 'C' time? See #2 and #3.

5) "Fighter pilots tend to want to do neither much."
Do you base this observation any first-hand experience, or is this just more rectal semantics? See #2, #3 and #4.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2018, 02:48
by quicksilver
element1loop wrote:
quicksilver wrote:So, what is the debate about?


Test results of actual observed baseline max endurance, at non-typical military altitudes and profiles. :mrgreen:


btw, officially, reserves are 2.5 k lb.


For which variant and which service in which countries?

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2018, 04:01
by spazsinbad
I'm with 'QS' - no need for 'fighter pilot' derogatory comments. Naval Pilots especially know some range/endurance numbers for their aircraft by being quizzed every morning about their NATOPS. I was initially trained by RAAF and they have similar quizzes at morning briefing. You BETCHA pilots know their aircraft - if they don't they don't get to fly in it.

Attached PDF of three pages shows BINGO Fuel Endurance/Range for the TA-4J/TA-4F (two different engines) PILOT PCL.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2018, 15:45
by steve2267
element1loop wrote:
steve2267 wrote:
element1loop wrote:What I do know is that turbofans are fuel guzzlers (but fast) at FL310 thru FL330.


Wow. I did not know this. So you are saying that a turbofan "guzzles" fuel between 31000 and 33000 ft? But not, say, at 28,000 or at 37,000? And that a turbofan burns the least amount of fuel at around 45,000? So there is actually a peak in fuel burn right in that 31-33000 altitude ban. Huh. I never would have guessed.

Can you explain why this is?

Regarding bypass ratio, the F135 has a higher bypass ratio for fighter-type aircraft, but it is certainly not considered a high bypass ratio gas turbine ala commercial aircraft engines. It may very well be the highest bypass ratio yet flown in a tactical combat aircraft, but that is an educated guess on my part.


It's complicated, and I'm no expert, so I will keep it simple.

I'm referring to Flight Levels operation, above 29k ft.

Fuel flow rate is highly variable when you maintain speed, but change altitude.

It follows a typical flow curve in modern efficient high-bypass turbofans.

Their maximum speed, and also max flow rate typically occurs around the FL320 area, +/- 2k ft.

At around their ceiling, they're slowest, but burn as little as half the fuel.

The burn is much more economical and (ignoring head or tail winds) provides MUCH better range, and endurance peformance , than at at FL320.

So as much as about 40% more range, but at about 75 to 100 kt lower speed.

Or about 20% lower speed, and 20% longer transit time, maximising range by about 40%, over what you get at FL320.

Pilots like speed, fighter pilots especially, so rarely pay attention to efficient flight regimes, or probably even know how to maximise endurance (and loiter speed is different again, typically at lower alt).

Who wants to fly at 375 kt at 45 k ft, in an F-35, when you could do 550 kts at a lower alt (and use 40% more fuel)?

You don't pay the fuel bill!

So you go fast. And other reasons.

But actual endurance requires low speed and flight near to ceilings, to reduce drag, which reduces fuel burn required to overcome the lower drag and maintain constant speed, that is safely above a high-speed stall, which rises with alt rise (and thus defines the ceiling level).

Drag increases non-linearly with linear rise in speed.

So reducing speed makes drag plumet, thus fuel requirement plumets to, and you need less oxygen to combust.

There is a point where small wings in thin air becomes unstable, producing high speed stall. So you can't go too high, nor too slow, without coming unstuck.

But 50 k ft is also oxygen poor, so the jet needs enough speed to get enough oxygen into inlets, to still burn that lower fuel rate demand, allowed via lower drag, due thinner air.

There is a sweet spot for all jets. Where internal engine efficency design optimisations, and available oxygen (air speed), and thinness of air on airframe (altitude), coincide for best endurance.

And another set for best range speed for it's alt.

They do not coincide.

If you don't know these, and "fly by the numbers", you will never achieve best endurance, or the best range.

Fighter pilots tend to want to do neither much.

(If you want to free up operational budgets, just make your pilots use the most efficient speed and alt ... like auto pilots do for airliners ... yes, they will hate you ... Bad).

At FL320 oxygen is comparsively rich, so you can shove more fuel in and still burn it all, and thus overcome the drag of denser more humid air, thus go much faster, and this coincides with best-speed altitude. Your jet goes like a scalded cat ... IF ... the engine was optimised to operate there (thus F-15C out accel F-16C at plus 30 k ft).

So engine optimisation and aircraft shape has a huge impact on high alt endurance.

We don't know what alt the F-35 is optimised for.

Big wings are great for thin air at a lower endurance speed.

The stubbie does not have that.

But a short wing equates to even lower drag, and higher cruise and endurance speed.

But higher cruise speed actually overcomes the disadvantage (higher stall speed) of a smaller wing, at high altitude (some what).

But an extremely clean shape does the same, also. Thus further increasing cruise and endurance speeds at high alt, thus probably totally negating the downsides of the smaller wing.

And further, the wing area and body lift were maximised for F-35, thus making it able to really perform at very high altitude (predictably much better than any teen fighter can).

So we can expect an unprecidented high cruise, plus very high endurance speed, near top of envelope.

Thus best endurance speed should exhibit outstanding (unheard of) range pertormance, also.

In short, it's a good jet.

Actual endurance time, endurance speed, and endurance track-distance range, will ALL predictably re-write what strikefighters can do.

Contrary to popular opinion.

In theory.


(Since people can edit (or delete) their posts, quoted above for all posterity.)

Thank you for your explanation.

When you resorted to name calling and insulting, belittling comments to some of my other posts, I wondered if you really know of what you write. IMO, this last posts clinches it for me: you know just enough to be dangerous.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2018, 21:36
by usafr
Hey Guys! :-)

"Who wants to fly at 375 kt at 45 k ft, in an F-35, when you could do 550 kts at a lower alt (and use 40% more fuel)?"

No one in this debate seems to be aware of the difference between 1. Indicated Air Speed (IAS) and 2. True Air Speed (TAS).

I only say this because no one has mentioned either one, despite many opportunities to do so.

IAS (and drag) decreases with altitude (because air "thins" with altitude = few air molecules per fixed volume ).

If thrust is added to maintain constant TAS and AOA is increased to maintain lift (to keep Jet in the air, duh) as Jet climbs then, IAS will continue to decline until wing stalls or the engine runs out of additional thrust to overcome drag.

Airplanes display IAS in cockpit and on HMD because IAS is an indicator of how the jet will behave "in the air it is in."

TAS is important to determine "how far the Jet will fly over the ground", +/- wind.

Any debate about "range, endurance, etc" is uninformed if it does not first understand delta IAS v TAS.

Respectfully,

David Austin
Software Developer
AOA Simulations
F-35B Lightning II for X-Plane Flight Simulator

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2018, 06:00
by element1loop
steve2267 wrote: (Since people can edit (or delete) their posts, quoted above for all posterity.)

Thank you for your explanation.

When you resorted to name calling and insulting, belittling comments to some of my other posts, I wondered if you really know of what you write. IMO, this last posts clinches it for me: you know just enough to be dangerous.



You asked for an explanation of why high-bypass turbines characteristically have a higher fuel-flow rate between FL310 and FL330, than at other altitudes.

For the purposes of the reply, and in the context of the question you've asked, the answer is entirely correct.

I'm quite satisfied that what I've written explains it sufficiently to answer you're question.

The more salient question is, why didn't you know any of this?

I take a low view of your comments in particular, simply because they are so consistently low-brow. Lift you're game when commenting - the onus is on you.

But if you want to prance around and talk rubbish, than that's what's being "preserved" here ... for all posteria.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2018, 06:03
by element1loop
usafr wrote:Hey Guys! :-)

"Who wants to fly at 375 kt at 45 k ft, in an F-35, when you could do 550 kts at a lower alt (and use 40% more fuel)?"

No one in this debate seems to be aware of the difference between 1. Indicated Air Speed (IAS) and 2. True Air Speed (TAS).

I only say this because no one has mentioned either one, despite many opportunities to do so.

IAS (and drag) decreases with altitude (because air "thins" with altitude = few air molecules per fixed volume ).

If thrust is added to maintain constant TAS and AOA is increased to maintain lift (to keep Jet in the air, duh) as Jet climbs then, IAS will continue to decline until wing stalls or the engine runs out of additional thrust to overcome drag.

Airplanes display IAS in cockpit and on HMD because IAS is an indicator of how the jet will behave "in the air it is in."

TAS is important to determine "how far the Jet will fly over the ground", +/- wind.

Any debate about "range, endurance, etc" is uninformed if it does not first understand delta IAS v TAS.

Respectfully,

David Austin
Software Developer
AOA Simulations
F-35B Lightning II for X-Plane Flight Simulator


You weighed-in with superfluous BS without even reading the prior discussion.

I wrote this earlier:

See link
viewtopic.php?p=386342&sid=02241efe8346150b527a17711315076b#p386342

"What weight?
What altitude?
What ISA conditions, at alt?
Most of all, EXACTLY what TAS?"


Yet another unctuous person who pretends to have some contrived nit-picking 'point' to critique ... but actually doesn't.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 01:07
by spazsinbad
I'll guess this report is a GOOD REASON why internal fuel/range/endurance is important - even the F-35A gets scratched.
FY 17 DOD PROGRAMS [DOT&E] F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Pub Jan 2018 for 2017 DOT&E

"F-35B and F-35C Air Refueling Restrictions page numbered 58 (physical page 28)
-- Both variants use an air refueling probe which is designed with an intentional weak link to protect the probe. The probe tips are breaking too often, resulting in squadrons imposing restrictions on air refueling. The program is still investigating this problem."

Source: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2 ... f35jsf.pdf (0.5Mb)

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 05:59
by optimist
The pilots here will be able to say. I've heard it is hard work on the pilot flying a ceiling alt, it's not comfortable on the body. There would be an equivalent canopy pressure chart, to see what they are meaning.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 06:59
by spazsinbad
optimist wrote:The pilots here will be able to say. I've heard it is hard work on the pilot flying a ceiling alt, it's not comfortable on the body. There would be an equivalent canopy pressure chart, to see what they are meaning.

I'll bite but from the peanut gallery (with the manky monkey pilots). Flying fighter jets is not comfortable for anyone most likely and as I have not flown every fighter jet there has been or be to come -whatever- that is just my generalization eh.

To me, reading how the F-35 'flies itself' so the pilot can concentrate on his 'tea & biscuits' strategizing watching over the BIG PICTURE, not having to maneuver harshly most of the time, then with that mythical 'paper bag' over me head I can get along in me pjs & slippers nicely - thank you. :mrgreen: With that out of the way I'll attempt to address your question (but why?).

Yes there is a service ceiling which will be at/below the cabin altitude that requires no pressure suit. Probably there are minor differences in the altitude / cabin altitude differential and a canny pilot should keep an eye on the cabin alt to ensure no hypoxilating is evident or similar UPE. Depending on what one has eaten then there should be no problems at high cabin alts - beware the beans & greens because theys mean farts. However if flying on your lonesome who cares.

Probably most miljets take a long time to get to their service ceilings but of course I generalize. Why go there except on a full test flight schedule? I can recall the ONLY time I EVER took an A4G 'as high as it could go' was ONCE returning from a long navigation flight, climbing out from low level at Broken Hill on direct route to NAS Nowra. Sadly my chase wingman instructor pilot had a generator failure thus popping the RAT, Ram Air Turbine emergency generator and he fell out of the sky consequently. We were above 40,000 feet but with plenty of gas (because he was an instructor USN LEUT) he decided to hot foot it back to Nowra TOOT SWEET because we had been in the air for a very long time indeed. (I'd have to check my logbook for details.) I decided to continue as per flight plan so that the fuel figures could be checked (I forget now).


Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 08:16
by spazsinbad
I remembered a not so memorable test flight as a sprog midshipman sitting in the right hand Observer seat of the Sea Venom FAW Mk53 with the Squadron AEO (Air Engineer Officer) who years earlier had joined the RAN FAA from another Fleet Air Arm but had little flying time in our neck o the woods. For myself at that time I had only a few Venom hours (with several hundred Vampire hours) and it was for 'safety' that I went along on behest of our VC-724 Senior Pilot (XO).

Being a test flight of the pressurization system amongst other components we went up towards the service ceiling (what that is I would have to look up) however with a minimal swept wing and more power than a dual Vampire we climbed up fairly quickly. BTW the right hand seat has NO FLIGHT CONTROLS whatsoever (Observer looked in a hooded radar screen).

Well the canopy seal failed at some high height (exactly how high I forget now) but it was HIGH indeed. The AEO being of a mechanical bent or HYPOXIC wanted to 'check out the system' (how he would do that beats me). Meanwhile I just SCREAMED at him to get down below 10,000 feet NOW! I was a middie and he an LCDR but I was not 'taking it anymore'. Perhaps I could have leaned over after loosening my straps to push the control column forward but there is a time of useful consciousness at work here. Whatever. Thank goodness my intrepid pilote decided it was a good idea to get down fast and we did. SIGH of Relief and we more or less moseyed back to NAS Nowra (with me telling the SP "never again").

What did that fast decompression feel like? Just the same as in the pressure chamber learning at Point Cook during Basic Flying Training. IF we had have stayed up there probably we would have been in LahLahLand fairly quickly like an early RAAF F-A-18A Hornet sprog pilot taking off his oxy mask during a climb to high altitude and never putting it back on as he flew on with wingman radioing with out effect. Pilot/Aircraft crashed somewhere, to be found in a big hole years later.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 15:43
by mixelflick
So I read everything and... she has great range :)

Especially for her size. 18,000 plus pounds of fuel and low drag/great lift in a combat loaded scenario. I still get people on other boards wanting to compare clean Flankers, etc to the F-35's stats. Why is it so hard to get these people to think out of "airshow configuration"?

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 18:09
by blindpilot
spazsinbad wrote:...
Yes there is a service ceiling which will be at/below the cabin altitude that requires no pressure suit. Probably there are minor differences in the altitude / cabin altitude differential and a canny pilot should keep an eye on the cabin alt to ensure no hypoxilating is evident or similar UPE. Depending on what one has eaten then there should be no problems at high cabin alts - beware the beans & greens because theys mean farts. However if flying on your lonesome who cares.

Probably most miljets take a long time to get to their service ceilings but of course I generalize. Why go there except on a full test flight schedule? I can recall the ONLY time I EVER took an A4G 'as high as it could go' was ONCE returning from a long navigation flight, climbing out from low level at Broken Hill on direct route to NAS Nowra....


I had a similar opportunity in the Southeast US, where coming home from a T-38 cross country, the weather started going down hill. (as it does in that area) Having a young bride nine months pregnant, I was anxious to get home. Center cleared me "above" whatever was the floor those days (? FL 400?) and I raced to see how fast a thunderstorm can can climb. I made it, but also decided that thunderstorms can climb faster than ANY "go fast jet," and never tried that again. All I ran into was a bit of pressure breathing. FYI fighter jets are good up to about 62,000 feet or so (CO2 poisoning risks on decompress, or some such) without needing a pressure suit. You may just have to forcefully exhale.

FWIW,
BP

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2019, 17:12
by doge
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)

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2019, 19:06
by blain
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.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2019, 19:19
by sprstdlyscottsmn
The Marines are already getting Cs to operate from CVNs.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2019, 21:27
by spazsinbad
'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?

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2019, 22:22
by SpudmanWP
The USMC only wanted the B due to austere basing. They were forced to get the C.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2019, 23:27
by Gums
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....

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2019, 23:37
by sprstdlyscottsmn
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.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2019, 01:12
by spazsinbad
'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.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2019, 01:49
by crosshairs
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.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2019, 02:19
by sferrin
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?

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2019, 03:51
by eloise
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

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2019, 12:47
by mixelflick
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...

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2019, 15:31
by marsavian
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.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2019, 18:48
by castlebravo
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?

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2019, 19:23
by blain
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.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2019, 00:09
by marsavian
castlebravo wrote:
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?


It's a missile simulation.

viewtopic.php?f=44&t=54426

Specifically,

https://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/2019/0 ... 3.html?m=1

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2019, 04:13
by castlebravo
I can't find any details on how he simulated a VFDR, but I wouldn't be surprised if he just plugged in a higher ISP. Reality is far more complex. Ducted rockets have been used in SAMs since at least the 1960's, and in one case (SA-6/SA-11) we have actually seen an older ducted rocket missile get replaced with a modernized version that uses a plain old solid rocket motor. I suspect the key advantage of Meteor is not higher ISP from it being a ducted rocket, but that it uses a Variable Flow Ducted Rocket that allows it to throttle down when appropriate. Unless the VFDR is actually a form of scramjet where the intake air is not decelerated to subsonic velocity, I just don't see Meteor having 3+ times the performance of AIM-120D in every scenario.

If ducted rockets really were that good, everyone and their mom would be using them for their high-end SAMs, and we would have SM-6 Blk III missiles diving down on targets 500+ nmi away while going Mach 6. In reality, we see the exact opposite. A lot of the oldest SAMs built used air breathing engines, and none of the modern ones do. I call that a clue.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2019, 04:59
by eloise
castlebravo wrote:I can't find any details on how he simulated a VFDR, but I wouldn't be surprised if he just plugged in a higher ISP. Reality is far more complex

http://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/2019/01 ... on-of.html
https://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/2019/0 ... on-of.html
http://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/2018/10 ... art-2.html

castlebravo wrote:I just don't see Meteor having 3+ times the performance of AIM-120D in every scenario.

He put AIM-120C-5 in his graph
Secondly, according to various sources, ramjet missiles can improve range by factors of 3 or more
Image
image_260281.jpg


castlebravo wrote:If ducted rockets really were that good, everyone and their mom would be using them for their high-end SAMs, and we would have SM-6 Blk III missiles diving down on targets 500+ nmi away while going Mach 6. In reality, we see the exact opposite. A lot of the oldest SAMs built used air breathing engines, and none of the modern ones do. I call that a clue.

Solid rocket motor has 2 advantages over ramjet:
- Significantly higher initial acceleration
- Can reach higher altitude because their propulsion don't require air
Surface launched missiles has 2 differences from air-launched missiles
- It is easier to increase their size and weight
- They are more limited by radar horizon.
In short, long range is not as important as acceleration and flight ceiling for SAM, and it is easier to increase their size or add a booster so ramjet is not as important for SAM as they are for AAM.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2019, 10:38
by marsavian
sprstdlyscottsmn can also get high range numbers for Meteor with his missile sim with certain assumed parameters.

viewtopic.php?p=414945#p414945

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2019, 13:47
by steve2267
I won’t argue range, but am astonished the Meteor is a 6+ Mach missile — and a ramjet at that! They really are working miracles with CFD these days.


/sarc=off

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2019, 14:32
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Yeah, I got max range at min thrust.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2019, 01:25
by Gums
Salute!

Did I miss the thread topic?

Besides, why use old-fashioned missiles ?

I got my megawatt laser powered by the magnetohydrodynamic grid of the small rocket motor on station 6. You know, the doofer that strips off electrons and ions and generates more power you can dream of when I activate it.

And BTW, there's always an optimum pounds per mile versus miles required in the time available for my plane that uses JP fuel and gets the missile or laser to the fight. My Stubbie has plenty, and it sips gas..

Gums sends....

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2019, 02:04
by doge
F-35 test pilot Tony "Brick" Wilson made remarks that seemed quite important. 8)
From 7:35~

F-35A on station time 2.5 hours.jpg

The F-35A carries about 18,000 lb of fuel internal compared to when I was flying 4th Gen Fighters.

The Legacy F/A-18 carries a little over 10,000 pounds and the Super Hornet carries a little over twelve thousand pounds internal.

Why is this important? Because, with the single engine in that much fuel onboard my on station time is greater.

If I'm flying a max endurance max range type of profile, I'm able to get to two and a half hours of on station time easily out of this aircraft.

"On-station time is 2.5 hours"!! :shock:

I think this is an important number in relation to the mysterious F-35's range (Clear true numbers[km, nmi] not be released. or Classified.) or radius.
I think "2.5 hours on-station time" is very very long. 8) (It's...Long working hours!! :doh: )

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2019, 02:16
by spazsinbad
https://www.youtube.com/embed/hmnkcP-sJHk BEST TO USE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmnkcP-sJHk

LOOKS like '360 degree video' does not work in IE 11 but does in EDGE! so title & link to click on below & the URL works.

360 VIDEO: F-35 Test Pilot Walkaround https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmnkcP-sJHk

Without watching video "what does on station time mean"? Where and WHEN does it start from the carrier? Is it overhead?


Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2019, 04:08
by Dragon029
It'd be interesting to see what range that'd be at from an airbase; it definitely wouldn't be the combat radius, but would this be doing circuits over an airbase? At a training range 50nmi from an airbase? 100nmi? 200nmi?

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2019, 05:03
by spazsinbad
Dragon029 wrote:It'd be interesting to see what range that'd be at from an airbase; it definitely wouldn't be the combat radius, but would this be doing circuits over an airbase? At a training range 50nmi from an airbase? 100nmi? 200nmi?

'Brick' is the FIRST PILOT to arrest aboard a CVN with the F-35C - he was the CO of VX-23 until I guess he retired to be an LM F-35 test pilot. My thinking was 'F-35C from carrier' to be overhead ready to 'buster' out to the bogey but the comment is so NEBULOUS that it becomes irrelevant without context. So we can all 'guess away' to own heart's content. No?

For those unwilling to be '360' here it is in the FLAT EARTH look....

Tony 'Brick' Wilson LM Test Pilot F-35 Explained Walkaround 360 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xn0asyM_-E

UHoh - not even IE 11 shows the FLAT video now so use the URL.


Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2019, 09:50
by doge
About the "on-station time", I found thing of F-16V. 8) (It looks like the magazine of the Indian Force.)
http://forceindia.net/feature-report/fi ... xcellence/

http://www.vayuaerospace.in/issue/vayu- ... df#page=90
Unparalleled Mission Reach
The F-16 Block 70 with conformal fuel tanks has a mission radius exceeding 1,700 kilometres (km) in an air-to-air configuration carrying four AMRAAMs, two ASRAAMs and two 370 gallon fuel tanks. This yields a 750 km DCA Combat Air Patrol (CAP) with on-station time of more than two hours.

Even with the addition of targeting systems and two 2,000 pound (lb) class Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs), the F-16 Block 70 has a mission radius exceeding 1,300 km — 30 per cent greater than that of the F-16’s closest competitor. With the optional 300 gallon centreline tank and two 600 gallon wing tanks, the F-16 Block 70’s advantages are even greater.

F-16V [CFT + 370galEFTx2] Total Fuel About 15,000lb-----------This is Roughly(internal 7,000lb + CFT 3,000lb + 370galx2EFT 5,000lb)

The F-16V's DCA/CAP mission, with fuel about 15,000 lbs, it seems have radius is 750km/on-station time is more than 2 hours.
I hope that F-35A is longer than this F-16... (Because, there are more fuel about 3,000lbs than that! :doh: )(desire 8) )

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2019, 14:03
by quicksilver
Did I miss it or did they not provide the radius at which the TOS was calculated? You can take off and orbit home plate and generate boo-coo TOS...

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2019, 15:51
by mixelflick
I just love the fact it carries so much gas.

For so long, even big US fighters seemed short legged. The F-15 for example: 13.000 or so lbs of fuel vs. most Flankers, up to 25,000lbs. I realize they have different needs (huge country, not much in the way of tankers), but simply carrying more gas makes more sense to me.

LM did a really good job with the internal fuel it packed into the F-22, and a GREAT job with the 18,000lbs in the F-35A, I think 13,000 in the B and 19,000 in the C. The pilots sure seem to appreciate it..

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2019, 16:06
by SpudmanWP
doge wrote:I hope that F-35A is longer than this F-16... (Because, there are more fuel about 3,000lbs than that! :doh: )(desire 8) )
Given that the F-35A has a longer Combat Radius in A2G mode vs an F-16 with CFTs and EFTs (600 gal), the F-35A should also out-range it in A2A, especially considering the F-16 in the above example has 370 gal EFTs.

Trd4pNp[1].jpg

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2019, 16:32
by mixelflick
Someone once relayed an anecdote as to gas, range and the gun.

Loosely, they asked F-35B/C drivers which they'd prefer: More gas, or a gun? They almost universally wanted more gas. To me, that speaks volumes.

I guess I would too, flying over the ocean with my airfield always moving!

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2019, 18:43
by spazsinbad
quicksilver wrote:Did I miss it or did they not provide the radius at which the TOS was calculated? You can take off and orbit home plate and generate boo-coo TOS...

No details are provided. I'll quote it word for word soon..... My 'overhead mother' was just an example with of course many many many many other scenarios that were not provided, including the first mother. In the video at 7:38 the fuel comparison is mentioned. At 8 minutes in he says: "Why is this (the fuel) important. Because with a single engine and that much fuel (18K lbs) onboard my on-station time is greater. If I'm flying a max endurance max range type of profile I'm going to get two - two and a half hours of on-station time easily out of this aircraft."

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2019, 21:50
by vilters
Station: Place where trains depart and arrive
On the station: Is a roof.
So he can sit "on the roof" for 2.5 hrs. :devil:

He never said how far the "station" was form his base, so his 2.5 hrs statement is meaningless info. :bang:
As was my joke above. :devil:

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2019, 22:20
by wrightwing
vilters wrote:Station: Place where trains depart and arrive
On the station: Is a roof.
So he can sit "on the roof" for 2.5 hrs. :devil:

He never said how far the "station" was form his base, so his 2.5 hrs statement is meaningless info. :bang:
As was my joke above. :devil:

Well, an F-16 with less fuel and a higher DI has a >2hr station time, at 750km. If we use some deductive reasoning, we can conclude that an F-35A will likely have 2.5hrs on station at >750km.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 23 Jul 2019, 10:36
by doge
I dug up. 8)
Looks to me as Morten "Dolby" Hanche has revealed quite specific numbers about the F-35 range. 8) (2 years ago but.)
https://www.regjeringen.no/no/tema/fors ... id2353192/ (The language is Norwegian. I used Google Translate.)

That's over 30% of F-16's range...
How long is the range of the F-16? 8) :devil:
The F-35 has the ability to carry weapons and fuel internally. This contributes to the aircraft getting considerably better range than previous aircraft due to less air resistance. In relation to today's Norwegian F-16, we estimate that the F-35 will have a full 30% more range with corresponding weapons load. This design also ensures that the F-35 can fly at maximum speed of 1.6 times the speed of sound (Mach 1.6) even with internal weapons. Older aircraft often have tanks and weapons hanging on the wing or abdomen, which results in high air resistance. It again means that it is almost impossible to achieve the performance (primarily speed and G-load) that is often stated for the type of aircraft. The F-35, which has both fuel and weapon load inside the fuselage, thus has reduced air resistance and consequently better acceleration and maneuverability than older aircraft with similar weapons load.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 23 Jul 2019, 14:45
by jacarlsen
Some 8 years ago we had an operational and test pilot visit us at Kjeller Depot. He showed pictures/video and talked about the bombing carried out in Libya 2011. After the presentation I asked him how this would have gone if Norway had used the F-35. The answer was that now they had flown fuel and loaded F-16's from Crete, tanked on route, bombed, tanked on return and landed Crete. With the F-35 they would have done the same without refueling to and from the target.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2019, 03:37
by johnwill
wrightwing wrote:
vilters wrote:Station: Place where trains depart and arrive
On the station: Is a roof.
So he can sit "on the roof" for 2.5 hrs. :devil:

He never said how far the "station" was form his base, so his 2.5 hrs statement is meaningless info. :bang:
As was my joke above. :devil:

Well, an F-16 with less fuel and a higher DI has a >2hr station time, at 750km. If we use some deductive reasoning, we can conclude that an F-35A will likely have 2.5hrs on station at >750km.


DI from different airplanes cannot be compared. A store with the same incremental drag effect on two different airplanes will have different DI because DI is incremental drag coefficient, which includes reference wing area. Same drag, different wing area, different drag coefficient, different DI.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2019, 04:28
by spazsinbad
mixelflick wrote:Someone once relayed an anecdote as to gas, range and the gun. Loosely, they asked F-35B/C drivers which they'd prefer: More gas, or a gun? They almost universally wanted more gas. To me, that speaks volumes. I guess I would too, flying over the ocean with my airfield always moving!

BUT that is the best part - so good to get home to mother. IF that is done at maximum arrested landing weight of fuel it is even better. In case anyone not aware the carrier is called 'mother' in navy brevity code. Is it called that today? Not sure - I'll check. "Mother - Parent ship" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiserv ... ity_code#M

Everyone would LIKE to be back at mother with max gas at CHARLIE TIME. <burp> :devil: "CHARLIE. 1. Land aircraft on ship. 2. The expected landing time on a ship." http://nato.radioscanner.ru/files/artic ... app7e_.pdf (0.25Mb)

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2019, 04:48
by weasel1962
Assume 1500nm range. 300+kts cruise speed yields close to 5 hours. Take 1+hr to get to 750km and another 1+ back. 2.5 hours on loiter before tanking should be achievable.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2019, 14:02
by doge
I dug the Range further. 8)
It seems to have been said for three years ago. :doh: (From RIAT16)
https://twitter.com/RAeSTimR/status/751039626232598528
Tim Robinson@RAeSTimR
Editor in Chief of AEROSPACE - the flagship magazine of the Royal Aeronautical Society.
7 Jul 2016
Range of F-35 compared to F-16 is some "30-70% better, depending on mission" says Norwegian MoD spokesman. #RIAT16

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2019, 16:10
by ricnunes
doge wrote:That's over 30% of F-16's range...
How long is the range of the F-16? 8) :devil:
The F-35 has the ability to carry weapons and fuel internally. This contributes to the aircraft getting considerably better range than previous aircraft due to less air resistance. In relation to today's Norwegian F-16, we estimate that the F-35 will have a full 30% more range with corresponding weapons load.


By reading Hanche's words, my deduction is that the F-16 (in that case) would absolutely and at least carry two (2) BIG external fuel tanks under the wings (and perhaps even a 3rd fuselage external fuel tank).

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2019, 06:08
by weasel1962
Do the Norwegian F-16s operate with 600 gal tanks? If so, the 30% increase is more impressive.

Otherwise internal fuel + 2 x 370 gal + centerline 300 gal tank = ~13500 lbs fuel carried for an F-16A. It would be roughly logical that an F-35 that carries 18,000 lbs of fuel would have ~33% more range when it carries 33% more fuel. If 600gal tanks then that adds 3000lbs.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2019, 06:54
by spazsinbad
"... If 600gal tanks then that adds 3000lbs." 600 US gallons jet fuel weighs approx. 4,000 pounds https://jscalc.io/embed/oyHJrYooUr1wDQPb

An A4G carried either 150 gallon tanks (1,000 lbs) or 300 gallon drop tanks (2,000 lbs of fuel) plus weight of drop tanks.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2019, 08:05
by XanderCrews
blain wrote: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.


Image



As usual with this subject you make false assertions based on your presumption and then "debunk" them when they were never true in the first place. If you're interested in details I can lay them out line by line. One of the things I really enjoy about you Blain is in a scenario where a Marine is rescuing a kid from a burning building, an airman is beating his wife, and a sailor is passed out on the lawn, you'd criticize the Marine for not carrying the kid how you think he should.

I'll bottom line this really fast. The USMC, is begrudgingly a part of the US Navy. and like the Navy we put a premium on expeditionary warfare and projecting power from the sea and a half dozen handy other phrases that are used to explain why we matter and how our capabilities are unique and can't be replicated by the alternatives. Anywho, Its just our little way of saying "we hear you whining, and we don't care, thanks anyway."

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2019, 08:13
by XanderCrews
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.


Im surprised at your surprise. the Marines prefer STOVL because it fits their operational model and based on their actual combat experience, and not what you think (take a bite of that humble pie) they should do. this is whats called a "trade off" wherein one option is preferred at the expense of something else.

If I proposed B-52s for the Navy in lieu of CVNs, or that they should go with a 50/50 mix of CVW/B-52 since B-52s have a larger bay and more range, How much time would you spend explaining why this cannot happen? Would not your time be spent better doing other things? And if you devise a concise explanation, why would you assume he would understand?

The Marines rejected the f-14 in preference for those Hornets, despite the F-18 numbers not being as rosy as some Tomcat numbers, a decision that has been "justified" to say the least. maybe they've earned the benefit of the doubt?

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.


you think F-35C can't top 8 AAMS?

Swing and Miss, we already Tomcat guys who have flown F-35C and I got to hear from a test pilot how the F-35C is more maneuverable (and of course much easier to fly, so a nugget won't spend 3 years try to learn how to extract performance from it. A lot of this stuff your'e going to have to take to extremes before the F-14 has advantage, and those extremes are all dangerous for Tomcats and only for test pilots in almost all cases.)

I'm a Tomcat fan, but at one point we have to let the bird designed 50 years ago rest in peace.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2019, 08:45
by weasel1962
spazsinbad wrote:"... If 600gal tanks then that adds 3000lbs." 600 US gallons jet fuel weighs approx. 4,000 pounds https://jscalc.io/embed/oyHJrYooUr1wDQPb

An A4G carried either 150 gallon tanks (1,000 lbs) or 300 gallon drop tanks (2,000 lbs of fuel) plus weight of drop tanks.


The calculations are as follows:

370 gal = 370 * 6.5 = 2405 lbs
600 gal = 600 * 6.5 = 3900 lbs

hence the difference of one tank is 1495 lbs (3900-2405) rounded up to 1500 lbs.

The difference of 2 tank will yield 2 * 1500 lbs = 3000 lbs more fuel.

Hence carrying 2 * 600 gal tanks over 2 * 370 gal tanks will yield 3000 more lbs of fuel.

Having a 70% or more increase in range of the F-35A vs F-16 can easily be achieved by simply comparing the F-35A to a F-16 without any EFTs or one centerline tank. If the F-35A carrying 18k lbs of fuel can achieve 70% more range vs an F-16 carrying 16500 lbs of fuel, I'd say that's impressive.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2019, 08:59
by spazsinbad
'XanderCrews' said: "...[USMC] we hear you whining, and we don't care, thanks anyway."" This had me laughing out loud. I want more grins please. A cursory glance at the acronyms for expeditionary warfare by USMC should put people right eh.

OMG there is a tonne of this stuff on appropriate threads here: viewtopic.php?f=61&t=54445 onesuch

Basic instincts: Resetting USMC core operational mindset

viewtopic.php?f=61&t=52650 F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same" 2such

Then a series of yearly USMC Aviation Plan PDF threads with muchos commentos added.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2019, 13:45
by pron
weasel1962 wrote:Do the Norwegian F-16s operate with 600 gal tanks? If so, the 30% increase is more impressive.

Otherwise internal fuel + 2 x 370 gal + centerline 300 gal tank = ~13500 lbs fuel carried for an F-16A. It would be roughly logical that an F-35 that carries 18,000 lbs of fuel would have ~33% more range when it carries 33% more fuel. If 600gal tanks then that adds 3000lbs.

You can see the Norwegian F-16 on Souda Bay here, and maybe you see how big the tanks are?

https://www.nrk.no/nordland/f-16-pa-den ... -1-7563573

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2019, 17:32
by sprstdlyscottsmn
looks like the 370s.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2019, 20:44
by quicksilver
Back to the TOS question...

While the ‘C’ is a significant addition to the CVW, bar napkin math suggests we should temper our enthusiasm wrt 2.5hrs at ~500nm. If one subtracts fuel on the front end for start, taxi, t/o and climb to altitude, as well as fuel reserves for recovery and on-deck mins, we’re probably talking about 15K#-ish of JP for max range transit to/from and max endur on-station time.

Still very, very impressive number(s) but probably not 2.5@500.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2019, 01:29
by weasel1962
CAP not ideal to be too far from the CVBG. Need to be able to vector to any direction.

Logically, it makes sense to be ~50nm-100nm away max. If the inbound aggressor is in the same direction, its still able to intercept at 500nm going outbound. If the aggressor comes in from the opposite direction, then CAP u-turns to tackle in the opposing direction.

Even if C can do 2.5 hrs TOS, it wont cos CAP won't wait to bingo fuel otherwise there's no ability to intercept. That's where buddy refuel and in near future the huge, huge benefit of MQ-25 comes in. They're going to keep CAP fully fueled and ready to go.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2019, 22:16
by doge
I should have previously posted a range article with the same content at F-16.net, but this newly discovered another article had some new contents added. ; About Link 16 and MADL.
https://www.monch.com/mpg/news/air/4370 ... waffe.html
SENSOR FUSION - THE F-35'S SECRET SAUCE
Details Published: 18 October 2018
As the German Air Force (Luftwaffe) is looking for a replacement for its TORNADO combat aircraft, MONCh had the opportunity to visit the Lockheed Martin Aeronautics factory in Fort Worth, Texas/USA to discover at first-hand what the pros and cons are for the fifth-generation fighter as a candidate. Refreshingly open and transparent in response to some very searching questions, company officials provided some surprising – and thought provoking – information.

“In contemporary integrated air defence environments, it is almost impossible for fourth generation aircraft to prosecute their missions and survive,” Director of F-35 International Business Development, Steve Over, told MONCh.

In a current generation aircraft over 90% of the radar cross-section is a result of the external weapons load and LINK 16. In the case of the F-35, the internal weapons bay removes that issue almost entirely, reducing the radar return to a hostile air defence system and contributing to the aircraft’s very low observable (VLO) characteristics.

Similarly, an F-35 with its internal fuel load of 18,000lbs will have a broadly similar range to an F-16 ‘maxed-out’ with every auxiliary fuel tank it can carry – enhancing mission execution and survivability.

Further adding to stealth, instead of using the LINK 16 datalink, the aircraft's Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) allows for stealthy communication that has a low probability of detection. To complete missions in denied airspace, pilots need a way to share information securely, without revealing their location to enemy forces. The F-35 has incorporated Northrop Grumman’s MADL into its missions systems to provide pilots with the ability to connect with other planes and automatically share situational awareness data between fighter aircraft. The MADL is a high-data-rate, directional communications link that allows for the secure transmission of coordinated tactics and engagement for 5th Generation aircraft operating in high-threat environments. The MADL is one of 27 different waveforms in the F-35’s communication, navigation and identification (CNI) suite.

The aircraft's sensor fusion engine then takes the collected data and combines it into a holistic picture that is fed to the pilot.

Would it therefore not it be sensible to add the F-35, with its sensor fusion capability and the promise of stealth, to the Luftwaffe’s force mix? Admittedly, there are significant political considerations that need to be taken into account when thinking about the commitment to the TYPHOON joint programme: but economics, security of supply and sovereign capability are all issues that can be resolved, not impenetrable obstacles to making an enlightened decision.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2019, 23:23
by spazsinbad
Pardon me if this same info has been posted in THIS thread - it has been posted several times in sub-forums so here goes:
Graphic was first posted by 'SWP' here viewtopic.php?f=58&t=12237&p=245913&hilit=WMcCoy#p245913 but it has a 'photobucket' logo on it now so I'll attach another PDF page grab. My original PDF was downloaded from here but no longer available: (probably available new URL) http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012targets/WMcCoy.pdf (3.8Mb)

I see a version of it here for download: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-17154.html (PDF 3.7Mb)

F-35B & C 'range' pages: http://www.aereo.jor.br/wp-content/uplo ... tation.pdf (4.4Mb)

'doge' earlier for F-35C range: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=28906&p=314291&hilit=Presentation+range+nautical#p314291

NEXT PAGE of the PDF for the F-35B range.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2019, 13:07
by quicksilver
weasel1962 wrote:CAP not ideal to be too far from the CVBG. Need to be able to vector to any direction.

Logically, it makes sense to be ~50nm-100nm away max. If the inbound aggressor is in the same direction, its still able to intercept at 500nm going outbound. If the aggressor comes in from the opposite direction, then CAP u-turns to tackle in the opposing direction.

Even if C can do 2.5 hrs TOS, it wont cos CAP won't wait to bingo fuel otherwise there's no ability to intercept. That's where buddy refuel and in near future the huge, huge benefit of MQ-25 comes in. They're going to keep CAP fully fueled and ready to go.


I wasn’t speaking to CAP considerations, only to the idea (expressed earlier in the thread by yourself and wrightwing) that the jet is capable of ~2.5hrs on station at ~500 miles distant from its launch point — wherever that launch point might be. To wit (and I quote) —

WW — “If we use some deductive reasoning, we can conclude that an F-35A will likely have 2.5hrs on station at >750km.”

1962 — “Assume 1500nm range. 300+kts cruise speed yields close to 5 hours. Take 1+hr to get to 750km and another 1+ back. 2.5 hours on loiter before tanking should be achievable.”

IMNSHO, that notion is demonstrably...generous. But let’s be a little more precise with our numbers. (Bar tender...new napkin please). 750 kilometers is actually very close to 400 nautical miles. That’s about an hour (.8hrs) out and an hour back from a given launch point. We have a general idea how much JP the jet will burn at max range cruise and max endurance Mach numbers at assumed optimum cruise altitudes at or above 30K’. What the discussion didn’t consider is how much fuel it takes
for start, taxi, takeoff and climb to altitude and for recovery, landing and reserves; I’ll be generous and call the front end of that 2K#. Someone else here said fuel reserves are 2.5K; we didn’t get to parse that but let’s use it anyway. That means that from the 19.5ishK# of JP we have at startup, I’m gonna subtract 4.5K# to get to what I have for transit to/from and on-station time. Simple math tells me that’s ~15K#.

So, let’s say 4K (5K/hr times .8hrs) out, and 4K back, and we now have ~7K# to work with on station. Even here at the f-16.net watering hole, I can’t divide 7 by 4.5 (assumed max end fuel burn) and get 2.5. But that’s just my math...

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2019, 15:39
by sprstdlyscottsmn
The last simulation I ran on the F-35C for CAP, which included the reserves, ground time, opt cruise, etc came out to just two hours at 400nm. 2.5 hours was achievable at 300nm, That was with my older model, but it involved slightly less napkin-y speed for climbout, transit, and RTB.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2019, 07:13
by weasel1962
Using the attached as a basis.

19,750 lbs internal fuel for C, less 5000 lbs for take off, climb, landing approach and fuel reserve yields 14,750 lbs for mission. At 11.31 lbs per nm, that 14750 lbs translates into roughly 1304 nm. Assuming cruise speed at 320kts, that translates to 4 hours endurance which means 1 hr (320nm) there, 2 hours on station and 1 hr back. Climb and reserve would easily make up the 80nm difference and 30 mins extra (maybe more) if really required. Napkin numbers of course. I suspect loiter speed could stretch endurance but as mentioned, don't think stretching to bingo is a standard procedure.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2019, 15:32
by sprstdlyscottsmn
weasel1962 wrote:Assuming cruise speed at 320kts,

That assumption is not valid. 320kt TAS is way too slow for tactical aircraft max range cruise. 320 is closer to the IAS.

Alt 30,000ft
320KTAS-----494KTAS
200KCAS-----320KCAS
0.543M-------0.838M

Alt 36,000ft
320KTAS-----541KTAS
180KCAS-----320KCAS
0.558M-------0.943M

Alt 40,000ft
320KTAS-----585KTAS
164KCAS-----320KCAS
0.558M-------1.020M

Also, you are using an F-35B chart to infer information about the F-35C. Their climb/cruise/descent profiles will be vastly different due to the wing. Even so, the 1,304nm you are assuming for cruise would be closer to 2.4hr endurance using 320KCAS at 36,000ft.

Best LOITER was given as 32,000ft, 0.75M (438KTAS, 271KCAS), with about 4,600pph in the F-35A with this stated to give a total of 4 hours of fuel. Obviously you don't get to use all 18,400lb of fuel in loiter but as you get lighter you burn less fuel and go up in altitude.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2019, 15:48
by element1loop
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Best LOITER was given as 32,000ft, 0.75M (438KTAS, 271KCAS), with about 4,600pph in the F-35A with this stated to give a total of 4 hours of fuel. Obviously you don't get to use all 18,400lb of fuel in loiter but as you get lighter you burn less fuel and go up in altitude.


438 KTAS loiter is not that far away from getting-out-of-Dodge speed for the legacy jets.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2019, 16:21
by outlaw162
438 KTAS loiter is not that far away from getting-out-of-Dodge speed for the legacy jets.


271 KCAS won't get legacy or any generation jet 'out of Dodge' quickly, let alone Kansas.

edit: legacy 'get out of Dodge' speeds were roughly anywhere from 550-750 KCAS depending on type

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2019, 02:44
by spazsinbad
OOoohh youse guys are hilarious. I'd reckon 'QS' has a good handle on it all. And it is goodnight from him - with ONE stent.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2019, 13:41
by element1loop
spazsinbad wrote:OOoohh youse guys are hilarious. I'd reckon 'QS' has a good handle on it all. And it is goodnight from him - with ONE stent.


438 KTAS @ 32kft = Mach 0.75

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2019, 01:38
by weasel1962
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:320kt TAS is way too slow for tactical aircraft max range cruise. 320 is closer to the IAS.

Alt 30,000ft
320KTAS-----494KTAS
200KCAS-----320KCAS
0.543M-------0.838M

Alt 36,000ft
320KTAS-----541KTAS
180KCAS-----320KCAS
0.558M-------0.943M

Alt 40,000ft
320KTAS-----585KTAS
164KCAS-----320KCAS
0.558M-------1.020M

Best LOITER was given as 32,000ft, 0.75M (438KTAS, 271KCAS), with about 4,600pph in the F-35A with this stated to give a total of 4 hours of fuel. Obviously you don't get to use all 18,400lb of fuel in loiter but as you get lighter you burn less fuel and go up in altitude.


Absolutely agreed. The question is whether its theoretically possible for the C to have 2.5 hrs (or close to) TOS. Of course it can with the assumptions of higher altitudes with a very low loiter speed for max end. The assumption of 320 kts is of course valid for the question. As already mentioned, its not going to happen in actual ops but that's not the question here.

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Also, you are using an F-35B chart to infer information about the F-35C. Their climb/cruise/descent profiles will be vastly different due to the wing. Even so, the 1,304nm you are assuming for cruise would be closer to 2.4hr endurance using 320KCAS at 36,000ft.


No other publicly available chart available. All 3 variants are using the same engine so fuel use rates should roughly be about the same. Agreed wing affects climb and descent rates but difference on range won't be materially far off.

What I like about the chart is it explains the fuel burn rate is based on a training profile for a sortie (minus actual ops). So theoretical max endurance fuel burn rates will probably be a slightly lower consumption figure.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2019, 01:49
by Corsair1963
Anyway you look at it the F-35 has exceptional range for a Tactical Fighter. This will only improve with time. As they're developing even more fuel efficient engines. Including newer models of the F135 plus the ACE Engines. (XA100 and XA101)



Plus, external Fuel Tanks and CFT's.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2019, 03:45
by marauder2048
I tend to think CAP distances will grow beyond the outer defense zone mean of 200 nm
and more towards 300+ nm by virtue of the fact that the escort AAW weapons are no
longer horizon limited and are much, much longer ranged e.g. SM-6 Block IB.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2019, 23:04
by quicksilver
“The question is whether its theoretically possible for the C to have 2.5 hrs (or close to) TOS. Of course it can with the assumptions of higher altitudes with a very low loiter speed for max end.”

Actually, the question was 2.5hrs at what distance from the launch point. We have to assume a TAS icw the #/nm number; assuming 8.5nm/minute (510KTAS) that’s ~96#/min or -5700#/hr. That’s 11.4K# just from to/from ~500nm, leaving 3.3K to burn on station.

If we go to 400nm, we get another ~2K to burn on station, or 5.5K total (1.2hrs).

If we go to 300nm, we get a total of roughly 8K to burn on station (or 1.7hrs).

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2019, 09:58
by doge
Greg Ulmer says the F-35 has the best Range of the 4th or 5th gen fighters. 8) Best...!! :shock: (Get bigger and bigger...! :doh: )
Greg Ulmer, vice president and general manager of the F-35 Ligthning II fighter program at Lockheed Martin.
From RIAT 2019 @1:00~
A lot of people talk about the range and payload for the airplane.
The airplane performs exceedingly well in terms of range.
Probably, it has some of the best range in terms of even 4th or 5th gen aircraft.


Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2019, 23:06
by doge
The-war-zone was receiving comments about the Range from Lockheed !!! :bang: (Damn it!!!!! :evil: )
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... good-thing
Lockheed Eyes Giving F-35s More Gas With Drop Tanks And That's A Very Good Thing
The external tanks could give F-35s significantly valuable extra range and loiter time for certain key missions and circumstances.
BY JOSEPH TREVITHICK AND TYLER ROGOWAYJUNE 14, 2019

These discussions and engineering studies date to at least Fall of 2018, when The War Zone reached out to Lockheed Martin to inquire about just this issue - whether there were any new plans regarding adding drop tanks to the F-35. In response, they had sent us the following statement:
    The F-35, as configured today with internal fuel, exceeds the highly capable specified range performance. In fact, the F-35As range and loiter time are already greater than most existing 4th generation aircraft when flying identical mission profiles and weapons loadouts, even with 4th generation aircraft using maximum external fuel tanks. This range is the result of the F-35’s superior engine fuel efficiency and significantly reduced aerodynamic drag with internal fuel and weapons carriage compared to 4th generation fighters that require external weapons, sensor pods and fuel tanks for the majority of mission sets.

    That said, we have had discussions with customers regarding extended range opportunities to further enable select mission profiles beyond today’s requirement, which can improve operational flexibility and reduce demand on aerial refueling assets. Lockheed Martin, along with government and industrial partners, have completed engineering studies for options to further extend the F-35’s range, which can be accomplished with external tanks, increased fuel efficiency and other opportunities. As a result of the studies, we have strong options should our customers make a decision to add extended range options to their program requirements in the future.

We pushed for more information in subsequent discussions going into the Winter, but there was none available at the time. The fact that the F-35 is as far along in its lifecycle and production run as it is, but still doesn't have a wing tank option had long seemed like a great missed opportunity to us at The War Zone.

(Cool down... 8) )
So...What is the Range, Radius, and Loiter time for the 4th Gen fighters with Maximum Fuel Tanks? :devil:

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2019, 03:29
by weasel1962
Don't understand the maths here. 4 hrsx438 kts = 3000+ nm range still boggles my mind.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2019, 04:31
by sprstdlyscottsmn
4hr×438ktas=1752nm=2015sm=3224km

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2019, 08:08
by weasel1962
Range of legacy F-15 is 3000nm. The claim of the F-35 is per below.
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets ... -15-eagle/

the F-35As range and loiter time are already greater than most existing 4th generation aircraft when flying identical mission profiles and weapons loadouts, even with 4th generation aircraft using maximum external fuel tanks.


Isn't that the general consensus of F-16.net that the F-35 has a greater range than the F-15? I seem to be the only one who thinks otherwise.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2019, 09:23
by charlielima223
weasel1962 wrote:Range of legacy F-15 is 3000nm.
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets ... -15-eagle/

Isn't that the general consensus of F-16.net that the F-35 has a greater range than the F-15? I seem to be the only one who thinks otherwise.


That is the ferry range.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2019, 09:32
by weasel1962
So the ferry range of the F-35 is 3000+nm?

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2019, 09:57
by spazsinbad
Latest LM Fast Facts says: 01 Sep 2019 https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/docu ... 9_2019.pdf (1.1Mb)

Range (internal fuel)
F-35A >1,200 nm / 2,200 km (USAF profile)
F-35B >900 nm / 1,667 km (USMC profile)
F-35C >1,200 nm / 2,200 km (USN profile)

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2019, 10:45
by doge
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:

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2019, 16:25
by wrightwing
weasel1962 wrote:So the ferry range of the F-35 is 3000+nm?

The ferry range isn't operationally relevant. When range comparisons are made, they're referring to combat radius and loiter time. F-15s don't ferry with ordnance and various pods.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2019, 18:31
by blindpilot
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

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2019, 19:26
by outlaw162
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.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2019, 20:58
by quicksilver
“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...

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2019, 22:10
by playloud
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".

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2019, 01:37
by Corsair1963
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....

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2019, 13:27
by mixelflick
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??

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2019, 13:32
by mixelflick
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..

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2019, 02:39
by Corsair1963
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...

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2019, 16:31
by mixelflick
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..

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2019, 23:27
by quicksilver
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.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2019, 23:32
by sprstdlyscottsmn
yep

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2019, 16:50
by playloud
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.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2019, 17:12
by sprstdlyscottsmn
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.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2019, 19:59
by blain
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.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2019, 00:25
by weasel1962
Jobs.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2019, 19:08
by doge
CSBA presents, Range survey and comparison but Source Unknown.
I'm dissatisfied with the CSBA diagram showing that the Range of F-35C is shorter than that of A-3(Fuel 30,000 lb), A-6(Fuel 17,000 lb), A-7(Fuel 10,000 lb) :bang: ...But on the other hand...
I am satisfied that it shows that the Range of F-35C is longer than F-4, F-14, F/A-18CD, F/A-18EF, F/A-XX. 8)
https://csbaonline.org/uploads/document ... f#page=138
CV aircraft range.jpg

It's, a Fuel 20,000 lbs single engine Monster... 8)

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2019, 18:36
by playloud
Maximum payload for the F-35 should be 22,000 lbs.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2019, 20:14
by spazsinbad
playloud wrote:Maximum payload for the F-35 should be 22,000 lbs.

Thanks. LM reference that number here: https://www.f35.com/about/carrytheload/weaponry
"...In stealth mode, the F-35 can infiltrate enemy territory that other fighters can’t, carrying 5,700 pounds of internal ordnance. Once air dominance is established, the F-35 converts to beast mode, carrying up to 22,000 pounds of combined internal and external weapons, to return to the battle to finish the fight...."

Looks like CSBA did not add the combined internal/external loads? 5.7k + 18.3k = 22,000 pounds TOTAL

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2019, 20:21
by XanderCrews
playloud wrote:Maximum payload for the F-35 should be 22,000 lbs.



Puts it literally off the chart 8)

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2019, 20:32
by playloud
spazsinbad wrote:
playloud wrote:Maximum payload for the F-35 should be 22,000 lbs.

Thanks. LM reference that number here: https://www.f35.com/about/carrytheload/weaponry
"...In stealth mode, the F-35 can infiltrate enemy territory that other fighters can’t, carrying 5,700 pounds of internal ordnance. Once air dominance is established, the F-35 converts to beast mode, carrying up to 22,000 pounds of combined internal and external weapons, to return to the battle to finish the fight...."

Looks like CSBA did not add the combined internal/external loads? 5.7k + 18.3k = 22,000 pounds TOTAL

To be fair, the USAF and USN fact sheets list it at 18,000 lbs, as does the LM Fast Facts sheet. However, that never made sense given the internal/external hardpoint capacities. But, in the beast-mode advertisement you linked, they now specifically say it is 22,000 lbs, which jives with the hardpoint numbers.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2019, 20:35
by spazsinbad
In the 'beast mode' thread there is discussion about this - I'll find the link soonish…. BTW CSBA should be brighter than us.

SOME LINKS: viewtopic.php?f=54&t=51255&p=376723&hilit=H4kuB58nENs#p376723
&
viewtopic.php?f=58&t=29374&p=393671&hilit=H4kuB58nENs#p393671

BEAST MODE LM Jeff Babione Shares F-35 Update at ASC17 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4kuB58nENs


Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2019, 23:35
by element1loop
For F-35A/C:

18,000 lb total weapon load equates to:

5,700 lb (int) + 12,300 lb (ext) = 18,000 lb

The tallied weight allowance for each pylon comes to.

Max internal = 5,700 lb
Max external = 16,600 lb ... ... (4,300 lb more than the available 12,300 lb for external stores in a 18,000 lb total allowable payload)
Total = 22,300 lb

A maximium external load configuration would be:
2 x 5,000 lb weapon (includes 2 x 550 lb pylons)
2 x 2,500 lb weapon (includes 2 x 550 lb pylons)
2 x 300 lb (includes 2 x 113 lb pylons)
1 x 1,000 "multi-mission pod" (as centerline station is reported rated for 1,000 lb)

Which brings it up to about 16,600 lb of total max external weight that could be added to the jet.

I don't see a configuration where 18,000 lb external is even possible, unless the pylon stations were capable of carrying more weight than claimed. For instance, if a higher external weight was made possible via a reduced certification +/- G range. i.e. the official 18,000 lb of total payload would represent the allowable payload, without reducing +/-G numbers below required G ranges. Thus a "Beast mode" loading would only be viable with a reduced agility envelope in battle, plus non-standard weapons, and this may degrade structural life also. I'm betting we never see maximum loadings like that.

But even if you had full-fuel plus an actual 22,300 lb weapon load the takeoff-weight still only comes to 69,797 lb, or 203 lb less than MTOW

Now, if you had full-fuel plus the full 18,000 lb weapons load (theoretically possible, but unlikely) the actual takeoff-weight only comes up to 65,497 lb, or 4,503 lb less than certified MTOW.

But if you have full-fuel plus the maximum long-range standoff strike configuration possible, you get this:

2 x JSM @ 950 lb each = 1,900 lb
2 x AIM-120D @ 355 lb each = 710 lb
Full internal load = 2,610 lb

2 x AIM-9X @ 187 lb each = 374 lb
4 x JASSM-ER @ 2,250 lb each = 9,000 lb
Add pylon weight: 4 x Heavy weapon pylon @ 550 lb each + 2 x AAM rail pylon @ 113 lb each = 2,426 lb
Full external loading is therefore = 11,800 lb

So the maximum long-range strike takeoff weight is 11,800 lb external plus 2,610 lb internal = 14,410 lb

So, full-fuel plus the 14,410 lb, comes to 61,907 lb for a maximum strike-loading at takeoff, or 8,093 lb less than MTOW.

In this relatively light configuration power to weight looks like this:

Dry thrust:
28K lb Thrust @100% fuel = 0.452
28K lb Thrust @50% fuel = 0.532

Wet thrust:
43K lb Thrust @100% fuel = 0.695
43K lb Thrust @50% fuel = 0.817

And the achievable cruise altitude such a light takeoff weight and the resulting climb and cruise fuel-burn efficiency benefit will provide is a lot higher than what all prior strikefighters could achieve with their maximum long-range strike loads.

:applause:

EDIT1: I slipped up with the middle pylon's allowable weight limit, resulting numbers now adjusted.
EDIT2: All numbers updated using 'Spurts' suggested pylon weight additions, given immediately below.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2019, 23:57
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Heavy pylons can weigh over 550lb each and AAM pylons can still be 200. In pylons alone you are looking at adding another 2,600lb possibly. I think the pod weighs 1700lb IIRC

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2019, 00:04
by element1loop
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Heavy pylons can weigh over 550lb each and AAM pylons can still be 200. In pylons alone you are looking at adding another 2,600lb possibly. I think the pod weighs 1700lb IIRC


OK, thanks.

The outer AAM station capacity is 300 lb and the missile is ~187 lb, so its pylon should weigh less than 113 lb.

EDIT: I've now updated my post above with Spurts suggested pylon weight numbers, and adjusted the resulting P:W numbers as well. (Note that the figures still don't include things like expendable countermeasures, fluids and/or compressed liquid-gases, that may add to payload weight, and are not a part of the empty-weight.)

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2019, 01:39
by playloud
The C model carries the gun pod, which would push total carriage on all hardpoints to 22,300 lbs. Not that you'd ever get every single pound out of each station.

F-35 hardpoints.jpg

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2019, 17:25
by doge
I... set off on a journey to find past Range articles. :crazypilot: It's a...treasure hunt...!! 8) (devour.)
http://secure.afa.org/media/scripts/conf2006_Davis.asp
AFA Transcripts
Brigadier General Charles R. Davis Deputy Program Executive Officer
F-35 Lightning II Program Office Air & Space Conference and Technology Exposition 2006
Washington, D.C. Sept. 26, 2006
"F-35 and What It Does"

This kind of gives you an idea of a little bit of the configuration differences. I’ll kind of show you how they match up to some of the legacy airplanes right here. The big point we need to emphasize on all of the discussions we have here, look at what the internal fuel is on all the airplanes. 18,000 on CTAL. Even STOVAL has 14,000; 20,000-plus on CV. That is a significant amount of range, more so than any legacy jet out there, and that is in a very, if you will, low observable, stealth configuration. To be able to carry that much gas, and you’ll kind of get an idea of what the range is. But most of the airplanes are well over 550, up past 650 nautical miles of range based on being able to carry weapons and that amount of fuel in a stealth, low observable configuration which is a new aspect that most of the services, short of the Air Force right now, that’s going to be picking up this airplane will have that they’ve never had before.

So if you think about the Department of the Navy, the Marines, and certainly all of our partner countries, never had a stealth platform, never had a day one stealth platform out there, this kind of gives you an idea of what the F-35 is going to do for them.

http://www.robodaily.com/reports/Lockhe ... t_999.html
Lockheed Martin F-35 Succeeds In First Aerial Refueling Test
by Staff Writers Fort Worth TX (SPX) Mar 16, 2008

The F-35 carries a prodigious amount of internal fuel - more than 18,000 pounds - giving it exceptionally long range without external tanks, and dramatically reducing its need for tanker support. The internal-fuel configuration enables the Lightning II to remain stealthy by avoiding external tank carriage typically used by legacy fighters to extend range.

https://vanguardcanada.com/2014/05/21/j ... iven-data/
The Joint Strike Fighter: Driven by data
Vanguard Staff (from Apr/May 2014)

“It has the best combat ID suite of any fighter I have ever come across,” he says. “And it has the most advanced suite of countermeasures of any fighter airplane.” In addition, he points out that the F-35 carries 18,500 pounds of onboard fuel, meaning it can stay in the fight longer than its fourth generation counterparts.

That range of capability – operating at distance, onboard electronic warfare, target identification, common situational awareness, and the ability to engage for longer duration – suggests a change in tactics.

O’Bryan says young pilots entering the F-35 program are already starting to think of new ways of operating. “They are getting very innovative. I have seen them in the simulator do things that I have learned from, things to create deception and surprise.” But that, too, will remain classified.

https://theaviationist.com/2019/03/05/f ... nthan-afb/
F-35 Demo Team Debuts with New Dynamic Aerobatic Routine at Davis-Monthan AFB
March 5, 2019

Capt. Olson went on to tell TheAviationist.com, “The stuff you see at the airshow is really awesome, but it doesn’t even touch the tip of the iceberg of what this airplane is. When you get out there and actually employ this airplane, you’re talking stealth, you’re talking sensor fusion, and then ‘information fusion’ is kind of another word we’ve been using recently. It’s fusing together information not only from itself, from sensor fusion, but also from all other different sources, coming in, and presenting it to the pilot to be able to make decisions not only for your own airplane, not only for your own wingman, but for the entire battle space, and its sharing that information for the whole battle space. So, the chief recently compared it to the quarterback on the field and I think that is a great analogy for what this airplane brings to the battle space. When we go out there we’ve got tons of gas, we can hang out for a long time and we can paint the battlespace for everybody and share that situational awareness with our fourth gen brothers and sisters and be a more effective fighting force.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2019, 17:34
by doge
I am...The Runaway Train! :devil:
What I noticed when I was looking for; Mr.Billie Flynn often touches the F-35 Range. 8) (devour, Devour)
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/lockhe ... -1.1324551
Lockheed Martin launches Canadian PR campaign for F-35
Terry Milewski · CBC News · Posted: Apr 08, 2013

'Stealth is not an accessory'
Flynn swoops into the fray fully loaded. For him, the price isn't really the issue. Spread over the 40-year lifespan of the fleet, he says, the F-35's cost will be roughly the same as its rivals.

Rather, the issue for him is whether Canada wants to send pilots to war with second-rate equipment. Having flown his share of Arctic-sovereignty missions in Canada's North, Flynn doesn't think much of them. Canada's CF-18s, he says, allowed only a "token presence." They couldn't see far or stay for long. The F-35, he says, has greater range and lets pilots see much more — covertly, too.

"With the immense amount of fuel — with 18,500 pounds of gas inside this jet — it has range and persistence better than any other jet," Flynn says.

"So I go further, I stay longer and with the sensors I see vast distances."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KppyVg4ttLU
A Pilot's Perspective: The F-35's Range
10/22/2013
Patrolling the far reaches of Canada requires a fighter with great range. F-35 test pilot Billie Flynn relates his experience as an RCAF pilot to the Lightning II's fuel capacity and range.

You know it's interesting all the fuel and the f-35 is carried internally in the body of the airplane and out on the wings.
I have 50% more fuel capacity in the f-35 than I did in the cf-18 that I flew as it as a young pilot and later into combat.
I go further I stay longer once I get there than I ever could in any of the in the see f-18 or any of the legacy fighters that I ever flew.
That translates when we're talking about patrolling the largest coastline Pacific and Atlantic in the world or the vast expanse of the Canadian Arctic.
That translates to significantly more range which means area covered and surveilled by us and allows us to stay on station and patrol an area much longer dramatically longer than I ever could in any of the fourth-generation airplanes that I flew it is measurable.
The difference in range and and persistence in the f-35 in the fourth-generation fighters you.

https://sldinfo.com/2014/06/shaping-arc ... -the-grid/
Shaping Arctic Defense: Leveraging the Grid
06/07/2014
Billie Flynn, former Canadian Air Force fighter pilot, is now an F-35 test pilot with Lockheed Martin. Flynn started flying the CF-18 some 30 years ago and retired after commanding 441 squadron and leading the Canadian task force involved in Kosovo.

Given the importance of CFB Cold Lake in any Arctic strategy, Flynn’s operational experience is suggestive of the way ahead if F-35s become the mainstay Canadian aircraft. “Because the F-35 is clean in design and operation, it goes further and stays longer in the airspace. This allows it to patrol the Arctic without the same level of tanker support that the CF-18 requires. It can stay over the Arctic area of operation to be able to see at distance,” he says.

“It will allow the Canadian Air Force to patrol areas with fighter aircraft in way they could not do before. As the CO of 441, to fly out of Cold Lake for Arctic ­sovereignty missions required a significant logistical support just to operate in the areas crucial for the mission. With 18,000 pounds of fuel on board the F-35, the pilots will operate longer and at greater range than with the CF-18.”

We then discussed impacts of combat systems for the Arctic sovereignty mission set. “Stealth allows the F-35 to patrol with impunity. The combination of 360° multi-spectral sensor, sensor fusion shared information among members of the network allows the F-35 to serve as a key node to a much broader grid than anyone would have thought possible with a tactical fighter,” he asserts.

Flynn believes that patrolling and guarding Canadian resources in the Arctic will be done on a order of magnitude more effectively with the F-35 than any legacy fighter platform. “The F-35 sees in depth and breadth and across many electronic spectrums as well. It can see hundreds of miles around itself and does so in a moving space as it operates. The pilot is in a shared sensor space – he is not operating as a unit of a squadron defined by wingmen.”

https://defensemaven.io/warriormaven/ai ... Zv5PZU9-w/
Warrior Maven Video Special: War in the F-35 - Pilot Interview
2/5/2019 By Kris Osborn
On F-35 Stealth
F-35 Pilot Billie Flynn: Stealth contributes to the survivability of the platform. The only way to achieve that survivability is to build an aircraft that is stealthy from the word "go" -- from the very beginning. The fuel is carried internally, 18,000 pounds of gas in an F-35A and 20,000 pounds of gas in an F-35C. The antennas are embedded into the skin of the airplane and every sensor is flush mounted into the airplane. This allows us to fly with less drag than any legacy platform, go farther and remain on station - and be survivable.

...... One of the most fascinating parts of the F-35 is how every hinge, every panel, every fastener and every bolt is closed back up when we are done with the maintenance of the airplane. Every time we take off in an F-35, we are in that stealth, non-visible configuration. We designed it so the stealth robustness will be maintained over many decades.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 30 Nov 2019, 19:00
by doge
I Quote from a Magazine PDF posted by Spaz. :notworthy:
viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043&p=411798&hilit=ADBR&sid=0eccc32d26647934e8ccece585c2b9ac#p411798
Web ver. https://australianaviation.com.au/2019/ ... -luke-afb/ (Not complete compared to pdf.)
I will quote only my favorite part because it's long.
    ・F-35 flight characteristics are similar to F-22.
    ・F-35 is run circles around Time-On-Station/Combat Radius than Hornet.
    ・F-35 is significantly better in Mil-Power Sea-Level performance, and climb quite from the 40K ft compared to the Hornet/Super Hornet.
    ・F-35 can Take-off with Fuel 18,000lb with Mil-Power, but Hornet can't Take-off without using AB with Fuel 16,500lb(3xEFT).
Etc. are written. 8)
LUKE DAYS - FLYING THE F-35
Nov-Dec 2018 Andrew McLaughlin
LtCol Heirlmeier has an impressive resume, having previously flown the Boeing F-15C before moving to the Lockheed Martin F-22 as an operational and then instructor pilot. He has led the 61st FS for nearly 18 months.
“I think I was lucky to have an F-15 experience, from a legacy platform perspective where you really had to work sensors to get information then fuse it up here,” he said as he tapped his head. “To then go into the F-22 and be like, ‘Oh this is great, sensors do all the work for you’ – they fuse the picture and now you’re really just a decision-maker. So coming into the F-35, that was the same.
“The flight characteristics of the F-35 are similar in a lot of ways to the F-22,” he added. “With the high angles of attack, it’s very similar performance there. They obviously look similar in a lot of ways, and I think the digital flight control system laws ported over in a large way as well. Plus the way the stick behaves and how it moves the airplane was very intuitive having come from the F-22.”


“Overall, the PVI is very intuitive and very well done. The jet also carries a lot of fuel and, if you fly carefully, it will run circles around the Hornet for time on station and combat radius. It is also very easy to land and is very stable, and the flight control system and control laws are first class.”


WGCDR Jackson said the other key difference between the F-35 and older generation jets is the built-in mission flexibility the new jet brings to the fight. “I think one of the other differences with flying the F-35 is it’s pretty much always a clean jet,” he said. “The performance is considerably better than an aircraft that’s lugging around a bunch of tanks or external weapons.
“We commonly equate some of the performance to a classic Hornet carrying a centreline tank, but even that’s probably not valid. The F-35’s sea level performance in mil power is significantly better than you would see in a classic, and as you get higher up even into the ‘40s’, if you keep the speed on the jet it goes quite well up there compared to a Hornet or Super Hornet.
“But importantly, in terms of the missions that you’re flying you’ve got far more flexibility, because you’re always in a configuration that can do any of the roles. It’s not like I can’t do BFM (basic fighter manoeuvrings) that day because my fleet is ‘jugged up’ with (external) tanks, so quite often here we’ll do some BFM on the back end of the mission, whereas historically we wouldn’t have been able to do that.
“Or now we can swing-role into something else, whereas maybe we wouldn’t have had that flexibility in the past because we didn’t have a targeting pod on the jet,” he said. “That creates some scheduling and training flexibility that we didn’t previously have, and it means we’re unencumbered by some of the constraints we have on the classic Hornet.
“So, by nature the way we operate tactically, I can do a lot more mission elements in a single F-35 flight than I could previously, and I can stay competent across a broader range of roles using fewer focused sorties.


The first time I noticed something different was on the takeoff roll. We did a mil power (non-afterburner) take off, and this was the first time I had felt the acceleration - the F-35A has more 'go' than the classic, that's for sure. We took off in mil power with 18,000 pounds of fuel, whereas the classic would have a maximum of 16,500 pounds with three external tanks and need to do a full AB (afterburner) takeoff.
Overall compared to a Hornet, The F-35 is noticeably faster while carrying more fuel, and was extremely stable and easy to fly. I can't wait to get to the tactical flying!

And, Quoted from my past posts. 8)
I am forgetting my past posts! :doh: (When searching for Range articles and finding this, I remembered that I posted the same thing in the past.)
https://www.bcam.net/wp-content/uploads ... ll2017.pdf
viewtopic.php?f=58&t=24027&p=378010&hilit=British+Columbia+Aviation+Museum&sid=402d07cfac897a6237abeda5184c881c#p378010
THE NORSEMAN NEWS
THE OFFICIAL NEWSLETTER OF THE British Columbia Aviation Museum
2017/10

We are in the information age. Another observation from that exercise was that the F-35 has a greater time on station than the others. This is due to two factors, one is that because of its stealth design the airframe is very slick. The other fourth generation planes carry external weapons and fuel tanks creating drag using more fuel and keeping their speed reduced.

The F-35 carries 18,000 lbs. of internal fuel and so can remain on station for longer periods than its nearest peers. The F-35’s engine produces 42,000 lbs. of thrust, compare that with the CF-18 which is no slouch. The F-18 has two engines producing 17,000 lbs. thrust for combined 34,000 lbs. Lightning II‘s stealth and radar jamming capabilities make it survivable even in heavily defended airspace. Young pilots will survive even against modern and deadly Russian surface to air missiles.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 01 Dec 2019, 14:57
by mixelflick
OK so it's pretty clear it has excellent range, especially compared to the F-15, 16 and 18. Having said all of that, how does the range compare to an SU-35?

It's clear the Flanker carries more fuel, but then again it has 2 engines vs. 1 and a draggy airframe. Soooo... assuming full internal fuel for both, and a 6 AAM loadout for both (we'll assume 6 AMRAAM's for F-35).... who has the better range? Let's assume the mission is offensive counter air...

It's hard (for me, anyway) to figure out. Opinions?

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2019, 19:53
by doge
This time, I tried searching the Israeli Range article. 8)
I try various approaches. :devil:

From the IAF official site English version.
https://www.iaf.org.il/5642-35315-en/IAF.aspx (As far back as I can tell using [wayback machine], this article seems to have existed since 2010.)
Fifth Generation in Israel
It's one of only two fifth-generation combat aircraft in the world, a stealth jet with impressive fighting, bombing and transport capabilities, and for the IDF it's the aircraft of the future. The F-35 is already taking shape, and the Air Force is doing all it can to acquire it as fast as it can, in order to preserve its aerial supremacy in the Middle East.
Sivan Gazit
An Unseen, Outstretched Arm
In reality, acquiring the F-35 isn't moving forward, it's leaping forward. It's not equivalent to updating the F-16, improving an Electronic Warfare system or receiving a new smart bomb. "Apart from the F-22, there's no stealth fighter like the F-35 anywhere in the world", says Colonel Ido. Lockheed-Martin markets it similarly: a cross between a combat plane and a B-2 stealth bomber.
"The Air Force is putting its hope in this aircraft in a very dramatic way, as it adds capabilities that don't exist today, to fly anywhere, even to a very dangerous area, and return without being discovered". 'Anywhere' is no exaggeration; the F-35 will dramatically extend the Air Force's already long arm. "The F-35 can carry the most fuel", explains Colonel Itzik. "The aircraft's internal tank, for the sake of comparison, holds about the same as the F-16I holds in its internal, under-wing and conformal fuel tanks put together". The fuels tanks and its weapons bay will be situated inside the aircraft, not under-wing, so as not to harm its radar signature.


In 2012, LM O'Bryan was presentation on F-35 at a conference in Israel. :doh:
http://www.fisher.org.il/Fisher%20Insti ... ons/50.pdf (Talks about F-35 on pages 35~43. He talks not only about the Range/fuel, but also about Radar, IR sensors, EW, datalink, etc.)
F-35 in the Symmetric Conflict Stephen O'Bryan, Vice President, F-35 Business Development and Customer Engagement, Lockheed Martin, USA
May 22, 2012

How do we design an airplane? We try to retro-fit it on F-16, we did our best but we really made no discernible impact to the operational signature of the airplane despite reducing it quite a bit. So, it had to be designed from the beginning, and if you go to the first thing we realized, it is that you have to put the fuel internal to the airplane. You have a 35A, for Israel is going to have 18,500 pounds of fuel compared to internal F16 is only 7200 pounds of fuel.

That is what we knew on the F-35 that we could not do on the F-16, and those attributes have to be present from the beginning in the design of the airplane and that is what F-35 does. When we look at it, it is not just the stealth, but the different qualities of it, so when you see the comparisons of the F-16 and F-35 you can see the big thing that takes you, this amount of fuel on the F-35 that comes to 18,500 pounds and the same amount of ordinance that you see on a fully loaded F-16 today, about 52,100 pounds of it, but what we know in a new symmetrical environment [is] that F-16 is not going to be survivable, it is going to be the high risk: you are going to take high loses or you are not going to accomplish the mission, or more likely all these three.
But the F-35 is a flexible alternative, because again, you cannot be just one element of it, you cannot be just the first four days of a conflict; you have to provide a sustained approach to a level of efforts, report to troops, cast missions and only the F-35 gives you 18,000 pounds of ordinance. The flexibility, a transition to a more permissive environment that you see in Iraq and Afghanistan and being able to bear more ordinances without compromising the amount of fuel you have. You could see that compared to any other 4th generation airplane, the F-35 is going to bring more ordinance even in a permissive life as well as an in a stealth configuration. When you add that up it gives you a huge change in the aerodynamics of the airplane.
The first, as you see [referring to presentation] is the range, so when you take 5th generation engine technology, advanced 30 years behind what we did to an F-16 and then you put 18,000 pounds of fuel and then you mounted it internally to the airplane you get a huge increase in the range capability, whether it is time on-station or to reach a target further along. When everything is not carried external to the airplane, you are actually able to accelerate faster and you are able to reach a high supersonic speed faster. The F-16 now will tell you in a slick configuration is a mach 2.0 airplane but the configuration I showed you prior, a combat configuration with bombs, tanks and missiles, is a subsonic airplane. That same configuration in F-35, that stealth configuration is a mach 1.6 airplane every day, all day, and we are seeing that in a flight test [referring to presentation].


In 2016, In response to criticism/concerns about F-35, an anonymous IDF senior officer whose name hidden talked the F-35 range/radius/fuel. 8)
https://www.calcalist.co.il/local/artic ... 59,00.html (Language is Hebrew. I used Google translation. (partial bing translation.))
Lockheed Martin responds: "Why is an excellent aircraft like F35 getting a negative attitude from the media?"
Shaul Amsterdamsky and Uri Tovel 05.04.16
Lockheed Martin Senior World Vice President Gary North and Business Development Vice President Jack Chrysler - and Lockheed Martin Israel Brigadier General (res.) Joshua Shani on Sunday held a press conference at the Hilton Hotel in Tel Aviv. The aircraft and praised its capabilities.
The senior officials refrained from answering the Calcalist question about the findings of the severe report the Pentagon submitted to Congress a week and a half ago, and its details have been widely published here, but both expressed resentment at the publication: "There is a vexing question - why is an excellent aircraft receiving so much criticism from the media?"

"Every project has risks."
This position of Ben Eliyahu is well reflected in the Ministry of Defense's position and the official answers received from the apply that he commands.
In response to the "Calcalist ", the IDF could talk to one of the senior officers in the Air Force, but not to quote it in his name. In the bottom row, check the audit.
The officer claimed that he knew the project closely and even visited the United States about two weeks ago to examine him, and he said he was advancing to the satisfaction of the Air Force.
"For us this is the leading and most important power building project in the Air Force in the coming decade, and he is currently very good." In December, the first two planes are going to land. "This is a full-on plan," said the officer, when asked about the timetable.
Officer number: "There's an operational and perceptual leap in here, and the Air Force has entered this plane into the fifth generation era." No one in the Middle East has any "fifth-generation airplanes." Contrary to his remarks, the security expert will open a shafir from the Institute for National Security Studies, said last week to "calcalist " that "we love to present this plane as one of the fifth generation planes, but the truth is that it is a legend." The division of Dorot is a marketing issue that should be overlooked.


Q: Your optimism doesn't match the Pentagon's report.
The officer: "There may be a professional argument about a parameter here. Every professional platform (that is, the aircraft and the SC) has bugs and we handle them over the years. The planes will be declared operational one year after they arrive, progressing along the way. In any Air Force project. "
"When we bought airplanes like the F16i, they came to us after accumulating lots of flying hours. The F35 project is still under development, and as with any such project there are risks."

Q: Why is the IDF so interested in an aircraft that some of its features are inferior to those of other aircraft?
The officer: "Already today, the aircraft represents a major operational leap in relation to the capabilities we have. weighing his capabilities with those of the other planes, our aircraft level jumps to generation 4.5th."
As for "Calcalist" questions about the aircraft's elusiveness - which should be one of its key benefits - the officer replied that there are few people who know the real details of this feature, and are not the people with whom "Calcalist" spoke.

Q: This aircraft can only fly 1,100 km without refueling, compared to F15 which can fly 1,800 km. Isn't that a problem for you?
The officer: "There is no gap in the range capabilities of the aircraft compared to other aircraft because the aircraft carries the armament inside the body and not the wings, so it does not need a lot of fuel.
Considering all the data, its range performance does not fall below that of other aircraft."


Q: Israel paid $ 5.6 billion for 33 aircraft and their maintenance is expected to be very expensive. Given the many reported failures, isn't this a deal that is too expensive?
The officer: "The cost of holding the aircraft is down significantly. If you compare the price of a new F15 bought today with the F35, you will find that the first is 30% more expensive."

This IDF senior officers say there is No Range Gap between to the F-35, even when compared to a Radius 1,800 km F-15 !! :doh: Is the Radius/Range of F-35 that so Long !? :roll: wow!?

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2019, 00:49
by marsavian
From that 50.pdf, p36, implies the AN/ASQ-239 can jam by itself.

For engine inlets what we learned was the rivets in the engine inlets are also a big radar reflector, therefore in the F-35 the inlets are all composites so there is not a single rivet involved in the construction of the inlets. You also have to hide the engines, for the spinning titanium blades are a big radar signature. So, for the F-35 you can actually put your head in the intake and still have no view of the actual engine in the F-35. Finally, we have to align the edges so that not only are the edges aligned from the leading edge to the wing to the horizon tail, but actually the fuselage is aligned with the vertical tails, and the angles associated with the inlets are also aligned with the horizontals, so not only can we isolate a spike but we can actually mitigate the return of energy to the adversary, and we have to embed the antennas, so everything has to be flush mounted from the electronic warfare gear to the targeting pods, to the jamming pods, to any of the antennas - everything has to be flush mounted to the airplane from the beginning.

Finally, we get to the rear quarter. I have found, as many in this room have found, that when you drop a bomb on somebody they tend to get angry about that, so it is not only ingression to the target, you need to egress as well, and those mobile targets since they move around you do not know where they are so it is not enough to be stealth in a tiny quadrant of the airplane, you have to have all-aspects stealth. And then you have to carry your stores internally. If you do all these things and you do not carry the weapons internal to the airplane, you are going to compromise your signature and you are going to undo all the effort to reduce the signature, and it has to be designed in, from the beginning.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2019, 01:55
by spazsinbad
Ten pages from 'the "50"' PDF are attached: http://www.fisher.org.il/Fisher%20Insti ... ons/50.pdf (30Mb)

Air Power Challenges in a Changing Strategic Environment 2012 (pub 2013)
F-35 in the Symmetric Conflict Stephen O'Bryan, Vice President,
F-35 Business Development and Customer Engagement, Lockheed Martin, USA

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2019, 02:22
by marsavian
Nice job, thanks.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2019, 03:14
by Gums
Salute!

I don't know how many of you have flown around the older planes like the Double Ugly or Hun or Thud or........

But the Sluf surprised everyone. We had about 9,000 lb internal, and in combat we flew with 2 x 300 drops, so figure another 3500 + lbs, and their weight and drag. With 10 x Mk-82 we had a radius of 350 to 400 n.m. and 15 or 20 minutes of playtime before making 4 or 5 passes. Came back with plenty of gas and no refueling. Drove the Double Ugly folks crazy. It was our fan motor!! Contrary to much negative waves, the Viper was also an economical bomb truck. The thing was more drag limited than weight limited, so best loadout was big bombs like Mk-83 and Mk-84. Coming home it was better than the Sluf.

This new guy looks fantastic, with more gas internal than the law should allow. I would like us to have a F-35 driver tell us the fuel flow at normal cruise and 25,000 to 30,000 feet. The Sluf and Viper were about the same, with Viper maybe a bit better. On RTB we both burned about 1,500 lb/hr at .8M and 30,000 feet. I cannot recall our burn going in, but it was much higher.

This new kid on the block gives we old farts a great feeling. You know where you are. You know how to get to the target. You ain't worrying about running outta gas! And the bad guys ain't gonna you're there until your bomb hits. Gotta love it.

Gums sends...

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2019, 05:25
by spazsinbad
Corsair A-7D Flight Manual Sep 1972: 600 pages USAF VERSION
https://www.filefactory.com/file/1slhgt ... Manual.pdf (56.5Mb)

Firstly due to file size limits for the forum attached is a 57 page PDF from the above manual OPERATING LIMITS ONLY PDF.

Cannot upload anything after a WIN10 update today. ??? MSG says "waiting for a response from F-16.net" (ain't dat de truf)

Musta bin a problem because earlier was DOWNLOADING a large file - I guess AGAIN my INTERNET CONNECTION is CRAP.

Now SECONDLY etc the Performance Data & MISSION planning 121 page PDF attached below. SUCCESS! :shock:

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2019, 06:12
by Corsair1963
Gums wrote:Salute!

I don't know how many of you have flown around the older planes like the Double Ugly or Hun or Thud or........

But the Sluf surprised everyone. We had about 9,000 lb internal, and in combat we flew with 2 x 300 drops, so figure another 3500 + lbs, and their weight and drag. With 10 x Mk-82 we had a radius of 350 to 400 n.m. and 15 or 20 minutes of playtime before making 4 or 5 passes. Came back with plenty of gas and no refueling. Drove the Double Ugly folks crazy. It was our fan motor!! Contrary to much negative waves, the Viper was also an economical bomb truck. The thing was more drag limited than weight limited, so best loadout was big bombs like Mk-83 and Mk-84. Coming home it was better than the Sluf.

This new guy looks fantastic, with more gas internal than the law should allow. I would like us to have a F-35 driver tell us the fuel flow at normal cruise and 25,000 to 30,000 feet. The Sluf and Viper were about the same, with Viper maybe a bit better. On RTB we both burned about 1,500 lb/hr at .8M and 30,000 feet. I cannot recall our burn going in, but it was much higher.

This new kid on the block gives we old farts a great feeling. You know where you are. You know how to get to the target. You ain't worrying about running outta gas! And the bad guys ain't gonna you're there until your bomb hits. Gotta love it.

Gums sends...


Billie Flynn would be a good source....

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2019, 06:25
by SpudmanWP
marsavian wrote:From that 50.pdf, p36, implies the AN/ASQ-239 can jam by itself.

Remember that the 4 towed decoys are controlled by the -239 so it can jam through them.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2019, 15:45
by wrightwing
marsavian wrote:From that 50.pdf, p36, implies the AN/ASQ-239 can jam by itself.

For engine inlets what we learned was the rivets in the engine inlets are also a big radar reflector, therefore in the F-35 the inlets are all composites so there is not a single rivet involved in the construction of the inlets. You also have to hide the engines, for the spinning titanium blades are a big radar signature. So, for the F-35 you can actually put your head in the intake and still have no view of the actual engine in the F-35. Finally, we have to align the edges so that not only are the edges aligned from the leading edge to the wing to the horizon tail, but actually the fuselage is aligned with the vertical tails, and the angles associated with the inlets are also aligned with the horizontals, so not only can we isolate a spike but we can actually mitigate the return of energy to the adversary, and we have to embed the antennas, so everything has to be flush mounted from the electronic warfare gear to the targeting pods, to the jamming pods, to any of the antennas - everything has to be flush mounted to the airplane from the beginning.

Finally, we get to the rear quarter. I have found, as many in this room have found, that when you drop a bomb on somebody they tend to get angry about that, so it is not only ingression to the target, you need to egress as well, and those mobile targets since they move around you do not know where they are so it is not enough to be stealth in a tiny quadrant of the airplane, you have to have all-aspects stealth. And then you have to carry your stores internally. If you do all these things and you do not carry the weapons internal to the airplane, you are going to compromise your signature and you are going to undo all the effort to reduce the signature, and it has to be designed in, from the beginning.


Yes! There have been numerous articles stating that, which gives F-35s spherical EW coverage, along with the ability to use the APG-81 in the frontal hemisphere, and towed decoys.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2019, 16:50
by Gums
Salute!

This was the graphic I wanted to use, and we actually lived up to it when at Korat. Rule of thumb for RTB after dropping was 7 pounds per mile to get hinme with 1,000 pounds. Climb to 30 or 35K, cruise at about 1,500 lb/hr and maybe 450 kt ground speed, then descend near idle at 100 miles out, 3 degrees on the HUD and take whatever speed ya got . Ten years later I was using the same RoT for the Viper, and it was closer to 6 pounds per mile. Sometimes we would stay low and zip across Cambodia from III Corps at 500 feet.

Image

The fun part was USAF got silly about theater orientation and we had to have Double Ugly "friends" our first few sorties. Hell, I had several hundred missions over III and IV Corps, and don't think they had anywhere near that. They had to hit tanker on the way and then coming home. If we played games with them by dropping in singles, they would get antsy. On more than one mission they actually let us loiter while they got some gas and then came back so we could resume busting trees.

Didn't take long for the word to spread about our staying power and ,of course, our 15 meter CEP. Good thing, as the Dragonfly squadron had folded up a few weeks before and they were the first choice by the FAC's for close work.

Gums sends...

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2019, 17:26
by steve2267
Gums, what was your RoT for the Dragonfly?

If the F-35 is 6lb per mile, that would be phenomenal, given how much heavier it is than the Viper.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2019, 19:54
by Gums
Salute!

RE: Dragon fly
We burned about 1/2 pounds per hour less than the Sluf or Viper on two engines when loaded, but cruised at almost half the speed. So with load of 2 x 750, 2 x 500, 2 x 250 and 2 x 100 gal tanks we would go to 20K and cruise at 300 knots TAS and maybe 1500 - 2000 pounds per hour. Our normal missions were less than 100 miles from Bien Hoa, but we could get out to 200 without having to use the single engine routine.
We mainly used the single engine capability for loitering or when we stayed around our target longer than usual and came home on one motor. I flew from Pete Field to England AFB two times non-stop with just the two wing tanks and on one motor after getting above 20K. About 750 nm or so, at 160 knots TAS/300 TAS and a decent tailwaind.

Gums replies.....

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2019, 08:02
by hornetfinn
That's very interesting Gums. Do you know if similar single engine capability has ever been used in any other twin-engined fighter aircraft or was it just Dragonfly specialty?

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2019, 03:58
by Gums
Salute!

Best guess is no other attack or fighter plane routinely shut down a motor.

You must remember the extreme power we had over the Tweet. It had about 1,000 lb total thrust. Our J-85 had 2,800 lbs of thrust, and then we had the other one!! At idle, each burned maybe 300 or 400 lb/hr. At holding speed loaded, each motor burned about 700 or 800 lb/hr. By shutting down one motor and pushing the other up to a more economical power setting, we could hold at maybe 1200 to 1300 lb/ hr. After expending, single engine cruise allowed a higher speed than for loiter and fuel was about the same. So at 25k and 300 kt TAS figure a little over 4 lbs per mile.

Gums sends....

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2019, 17:22
by f119doctor
The Fairey Gannet anti-submarine patrol plane had the Double Mamba twin engine driving coaxial propellers independently. They could shut down one engine for extended patrol endurance. This is the only other twin engine combat plane that I have heard of the routinely shut down one engine for fuel economy reasons

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2019, 20:38
by spazsinbad
Good call. However some 'woebetides' happened to those when procedures not followed during 'single-engine' demos etc.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2019, 20:51
by Gums
Salute!

And didn't the P-3 Orion loiter on three motors?

Gums sends..

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2019, 22:31
by quicksilver
Gums wrote:Salute!

And didn't the P-3 Orion loiter on three motors?

Gums sends..


Both outboards I think...

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2019, 23:32
by spazsinbad
VG & * sirs: :mrgreen: :applause:
Engine loiter shutdown: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_P-3_Orion
Once on station, one engine is often shut down (usually the No. 1 engine – the left outer engine) to conserve fuel and extend the time aloft and/or range when at low level. It is the primary candidate for loiter shutdown because it has no generator. Eliminating the exhaust from engine 1 also improves visibility from the aft observer station on the left side of the aircraft.

On occasion, both outboard engines can be shut down, weight, weather, and fuel permitting. Long deep-water, coastal or border patrol missions can last over 10 hours and may include extra crew. The record time aloft for a P-3 is 21.5 hours, undertaken by the Royal New Zealand Air Force's No. 5 Squadron in 1972...."

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2019, 01:33
by outlaw162
off topic banter removed. :D

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2019, 18:45
by Gums
Salute!

c'mon Outlaw! Tis a time for good spirits, you merry gentlemen.

I always liked the idea of shutting down our one motor in the Sluf, pulling on the RAT handle to get hydraulic pressure plus minimal avionics, then gliding the last 50 miles before getting the motor running again.

Gums sends...

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2019, 13:47
by mixelflick
Gums wrote:Salute!

c'mon Outlaw! Tis a time for good spirits, you merry gentlemen.

I always liked the idea of shutting down our one motor in the Sluf, pulling on the RAT handle to get hydraulic pressure plus minimal avionics, then gliding the last 50 miles before getting the motor running again.

Gums sends...


This is satire, yes?

Either that or you're the most gutsy pilot I've ever met..

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2019, 17:06
by blindpilot
mixelflick wrote:
Gums wrote:Salute!
.. I always liked the idea of shutting down our one motor in the Sluf, pulling on the RAT handle to get hydraulic pressure plus minimal avionics, then gliding the last 50 miles before getting the motor running again.
Gums sends...


This is satire, yes?

Either that or you're the most gutsy pilot I've ever met..


Knowing Gums, yes it's satire (he liked the "idea", not doing it) ... BUT BUT BUT ... He may well be the most gutsy pilot you have met, none the less (He did like the idea!) .. :D :D
MHO,
BP

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2019, 17:22
by spazsinbad
Heheh. I like 'liked the idea'. One newly minted A4G AWI Air Warfare Instructor fresh from RNAS Lossiemouth was wild-eyed about the idea of shutting the engine down to force a flyby if threatened from astern. Of course a relight required.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2019, 04:21
by Gums
Salute!

In the cosmic sim we had at the Beach ( motion, super radar sim that used large photographic film plates and such, and great ECM inputs for our RHAW gear), I used to try a deadstick using the whimsical technique from the previous post. Problem was staying on the runway. I did it enuf times that I would have attempted it given a long runway or at Edwards dry lake.

The RAT stopped decent hydraulics below 120 knots or so, but residual differential brake pressure was enuf for down to maybe 60 knots or so. I had practiced using the last ditch emergency braking system a few times with good results if you had "touch". That thing was designed for boat operations at walking speed to keep from rolling of the deck. It was a pneumatic doofer and I had watched the trolley coachman use one like it for years while growing up in New Orleans. You moved the lever just a bit and the pressure built up on the brakes, and you released the lever to keep the brakes pressure from increasing. Another southern boy in the squad also could do it, so one day our technique might have saved a jet. But don't try this at home!!!

Anyway, wimpy Air Force stopped letting us shut down a motor in the Dragonfly and that's that. The Viper was the first USAF jet after us that allowed deadstick attempts due to its good glide and the hydrazine EPU for hydraulics and minimal avionics.

Gums sends....

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2019, 07:49
by doge
LM, USAF Gen. Gary L. North (Ret) revealed a fairly specific number for the F-35 Range... 8)
He says the F-35 can fly for 3.5 hours without refueling !!! :shock: wow!? 3.5 hours!! :doh: How good is that time!? :roll:
https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340, ... 54,00.html (Language is Hebrew. Used Google and bing translation.)
Lockheed Martin senior: "The F-35 can head off cruise missiles"
Against the Iranian threat that was already being implemented on Saudi oil facilities, retired General Gary North explained today that the stealth aircraft, much like the Air Force, could answer this: "The world's most powerful radar must fly - even at low altitude threats"
Yoav Zeitun Posted: 17.12.19, 17:07
Retired general Gary North, senior U.S. stealth aircraft manufacturer Lockheed Martin, said today (Tuesday) in a conversation with reporters held in Tel Aviv during his visit to Israel, that the "mighty" (F-35) planes in the Israeli air Force have the ability to identify and intercept threats that travel long-term at low-altitude and quickly Like cruise missiles, using the advanced radar installed on the front of the aircraft.
General North's remarks come in light of Israeli concern over Iranian attack by cruise missiles combined with attacking drones over hundreds of miles, similar to the Iranian Air Force's combined and unprecedented attack on Saudi oil facilities in mid-September.
Saudis and Americans feared and refrained from responding to this attack, which testified to Iran's high operational and technological capability, along with a significant increase in Tehran's boldness to attack its enemies in the Middle East. Simultaneously with North's remarks about the F-35's capabilities to deal with the threat. Israel develops and upgrades existing and future capabilities of the air defense system against this threat, primarily through the David Sling system's defense batteries (Magic Wand).
    Three and a half hours without refueling. F-35 (Photo by Lockheed Martin)
General North has hinted that Israel may be favorably influenced by the US government's decision to halt Turkey's progress in the F-35 international plan:  "The Turkish army has designated about 100 aircraft under the plan and now production lines in these aircraft are vacant which could accelerate delivery of these aircraft to other countries".
The allusion came alongside ongoing discussions by Lockheed Martin's representatives with senior Air Force officials about the choice of future corps squadrons, and the political crisis that freezes and hinders these values. In the coming year, the Permanent Government will need to decide on the identity of the new fighter squadron, which will be based on the two existing F-35 squadrons whose ranks are filled in the Air Force. The dilemma is between a new Boeing F-15 bomber squadron and another mighty squadron.
According to General North, the new version of the stealth aircraft has improved carrying capacity, rising from eight tons to nine tons of armaments, including fuel, missiles and bombs. "Under the F-35 program, we invested $ 1.74 billion a year in the Israeli defense industry, and within five years, we will invest about $ 5 billion a year," North claimed. "Today every F-35 in the world has an Israeli part".

General North, himself a former U.S. fighter pilot, said the F-35 can now fly for three and a half hours without refueling according to altitude and data speed, and is therefore considered the world's most protected aircraft and not only because of its elusive capability that prevents it from being "Who's the enemy": "We are developing the next version of the aircraft in Israel, with our engineers working on this issue with aircraft users around the world. Anyone flying the F-35 does not want to return to the Generation 4 aircraft".


original: https://www.mako.co.il/pzm-soldiers/Art ... f61027.htm
English ver: https://www.news1.news/il/2019/12/the-p ... siles.html
Not only sneaky: "The mighty planes can protect Israel from missiles"
Air Force F-35 stunts can also help the air defense system, the former U.S. general and senior aircraft manufacturer claims. He says systems installed in it allow missile defense missiles to be launched from Gaza or the north :"It's not something we offer Israelis, it's already there"
Shi Levi | PM | Posted 17/12/19 3:15 PM
Will the Israeli Air Force's stealth aircraft of the mighty F-35 help protect the State of Israel from missiles of different types?
Retired General Gary North, the aircraft manufacturer's vice president, Lockheed Martin, based in Israel, said the evaders could integrate with missile defense systems and target the rocket and even the anti-missile and rocket dome. "It's not something we offer to Israelis, for the simple reason it's already there," he said.
North explains that as early as 2016, an experiment was conducted in which the F-35 aircraft helped intercept a missile (hypersonic). "The stunner identified the missile, passed the data to the interception system and it hit the target precisely and destroyed the missile," he noted.
He said the aircraft radar could detect both aircraft and missiles: "The stealth can shoot down, with its own missiles, enemy enemy missiles even though they fly fast and very low."
In the context of launching rockets, small and short-range, such as those threatening the State of Israel from Gaza, General North said: "The technology available on the aircraft includes sensors that can detect very small objects."
All this, he said, happened almost without the intervention of the pilots and with the help of a data transfer system. "The aircraft has the ability to transmit any information it collects through the system, including an iron dome that the stalker can tell you, cast on the road. This is a network that is like a highway and anyone on it can share information."
Industry officials noted that stealth aircraft could also assist IDF special forces in the same missions that are currently being used by unmanned aircraft.

The company official noted that the aircraft could carry a large amount of fuel in internal tanks and thus extend the duration of its tasks. "It does depend on the altitude and speed of the flight, but in a big way it can fly for more than three hours in a row without refueling, unlike other aircraft."

As for costs, North noted that by 2025, the cost of flight time had dropped to $ 25,000, as in today's 4th generation jets.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2019, 16:27
by Gums
Salute!

3.5 hours on internal fuel is very reasonable for the Stubbie.

The Sluf had about 9,000 lbs internal, and by the time we taxiied, rolled and got to 20K, we had maybe 6,500 to 7,000 pounds remaining carrying a half dozen Mk-83's parent rack ( our best bang for the buck due to low drag). Outlaw might have his own numbers, but a quick look at the Dash One and my memory seems about right. The climb took maybe 15 minutes with that load at most. Cruise would be about 2000 lb/hr at .6 mach and 400 KTAS.

Coming home clean would be 1500 lb/hr at maybe .75M and 30,000- 35,000 ft.

So you figure it out. At Korat we carried 8 - 10 MK-82 and 2 x 300 gal tanks. Average sortie was 2.5 hours. We prolly burned 1/3 our gas just to get to 20K.

Image

The Stubbie carries an obscene amount of gas internal, and unless the pilot races around with his/her on fire, 3+ hours should be a piece of cake. If you use the burner or zip at mil power, then it won't be that good. I, for one, am glad to see a jet that can easily beat the Sluf.


Gums sends...

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2019, 01:49
by outlaw162
As a former 'guzzler(s)' driver, there's nothing quite as comforting as a measure of freedom from that ominous fuel gauge....and, of course, knowing exactly where you are.

However, no matter how much fuel you've got, someone will come up with a requirement for you to use almost all of it.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2019, 14:02
by steve2267
outlaw162 wrote:As a former 'guzzler(s)' driver, there's nothing quite as comforting as a measure of freedom from that ominous fuel gauge....and, of course, knowing exactly where you are.

However, no matter how much fuel you've got, someone will come up with a requirement for you to use almost all of it.


THAT'S not guzzling...! Need some perspective here!

Shortly after going supersonic, the Atlas V 422 powering the Boing Starliner was gulping down fuel at 2800lb per second.

Yup, and someone came up with a requirement for them to use almost all of it...

:drool:
[/sarc=off]

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2019, 14:36
by quicksilver
Watched it a few minutes ago. Talking heads telling us it didn’t establish expected orbit...

“Starliner in stable orbit. The burn needed for a rendezvous with the ISS did not happen. Working the issue," NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine tweeted, following the announcement of the anomaly.“

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2019, 17:01
by Gums
Salute!

Boeing has it tuff enuf with the 737 MCAS debacle, and this ain't gonna help.

The elapsed timer on the Starliner was not set correctly, and the beast was not in a good place for telemetry when it fired up the orbital motors. Unlike Space X, they try to keep the gees low but for longer than Crew Dragon. Guess the Boeing astronauts are wimps. Space X motors can start and stop many times, and did a second stage coast phase test just a month ago to satisfy military cusomers.

Good news is that with a crew onboard, they could have stopped the motor from using too much propellant.

Gums sends...

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2019, 17:41
by ricnunes
Gums wrote:
Good news is that with a crew onboard, they could have stopped the motor from using too much propellant.

Gums sends...


That's kinda of "funny" and ironic. This un-manned flight is meant as a test in order to make the capsule (much) more safe for human spaceflights but the problem that happened with this flight could apparently be easily solved if there were humans on board that could control the capsule :mrgreen:

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2019, 17:47
by steve2267
Gums wrote:Salute!

Boeing has it tuff enuf with the 737 MCAS debacle, and this ain't gonna help.


Poor, poor Boing. Maybe they can sell more SuperDupers to some gullible sap.

Gums wrote:The elapsed timer on the Starliner was not set correctly, and the beast was not in a good place for telemetry when it fired up the orbital motors. Unlike Space X, they try to keep the gees low but for longer than Crew Dragon. Guess the Boeing astronauts are wimps.


My wife explained the requirement is for 3.5G during ascent. Apparently for commercial crew comfort or something. ULA tends to take requirements literally. Dunno if they "extended" the 3.5G for longer than is "required" or not. Reading between the lines, it sounds like the requirement is "ascent acceleration shall not exceed 3.5g," and ULA programmed the FCS to throttle the RD-180 motor to provide exactly that.

In any event, I am hearing that Atlas V was "spot on."

Gums wrote:Space X motors can start and stop many times, and did a second stage coast phase test just a month ago to satisfy military cusomers.


So can Centaur, but they don't use Centaur for taxi service in orbit, apparently... relying on the Starliner's OMS or Service Module motors (four of them?). Pretty sure they can re-light multiple times too (probably hypergolics). But when you let the motor run and run and run and... cuzz of a timer issue... can't re-light if no mo gas.

I'm sure Boing'll get it sorted out.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2019, 18:51
by zhangmdev
No, that cannot be sorted out. Starliner's first mission will not reach the space station. It will return as soon as Sunday. A huge disappointment.

The problem is not lack of fuel (propellant), but timing. When Atlas upper stage, Centaur with 2 engines, separated from Starliner, the spacecraft is sub-orbital. Meaning it is a elliptical orbit with lower end altitude dipping low in the atmosphere. If Starliner cannot raise its orbit using its attitude control engines, it will return (reenter). The window of opportunity for this maneuver is short. Apparently something went wrong, Starliner did some maneuver afterward. Its orbit is stable, won't reenter, but the orbit is wrong, it cannot reach the ISS. As far as is known, Atlas / Centaur performs well, Boeing bungles it again.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2019, 20:28
by geforcerfx
zhangmdev wrote:No, that cannot be sorted out. Starliner's first mission will not reach the space station. It will return as soon as Sunday. A huge disappointment.



It wasn't required to, neither starliner or crewed dragon had the requirement to dock with the ISS both choose to to show autonomous docking capabilities (something spacex has been doing for almost a decade so no biggie for them). The testing was to show the rockets could launch on the required trajectories and stay within G tolerances, and to demonstrate the capsules could re-enter and land safely in there designated spots.

The orbit may get lifted and they may extend to Tuesday for re-entry, they only burned 25% of the orbital maneuvering fuel but there reserves would be too low for a docking maneuver (apparently only by 3%) but they might be able to get close to the station to test some maneuvering around the station (like a few km away).

As long as the capsule lands as expected the missions testing requirements will be successful and the next flight will have Boeing astronauts on board.

Also some interesting post flight quotes in the article

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/20/79009867 ... ce-station

NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine said that had astronauts been on board Friday's Starliner flight, they would have been safe and could have taken control of the vehicle.

"In fact, had they been in there, we very well may be orbiting, or docking with the space station tomorrow had they been in the spacecraft," he said.

"We trained extensively for this type of contingency and had we been on board there, there could have been actions that we could have taken," said NASA astronaut Nicole Mann. She's slated to fly on the first crewed Starliner mission next year.

"That's why you have test pilots on board, especially for these early missions," she said. "We are looking forward to flying on Starliner. We don't have any safety concerns.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2019, 21:05
by zhangmdev
Starliner OFT is an end-to-end test of the system, from launch to land, including docking to the station. Only SpaceX Dragon 2 can dock. It did once this year. Dragon can only berth, which is being captured by the robotic arm on station. That is quite different. End up in a wrong (unplanned) orbit and unable to test the whole rendezvous and dock procedure, without hatch opening and on-station operation, the mission is not complete.

"NASA and Boeing officials said a problem with a timer on the spacecraft that tracks what’s known as Mission Elapsed Time meant that the spacecraft’s internal time was off, disrupting an orbital insertion burn 31 minutes after liftoff to place the spacecraft into orbit."

https://spacenews.com/starliner-anomaly ... s-docking/

The root cause of the timer problem is not yet known. It is too early to speculate if there will be a second test flight before a crewed mission.

"flight controllers commanded the spacecraft to maneuver into an unplanned orbit to preserve the opportunity to land the capsule as soon as Sunday morning at Boeing’s primary landing site at White Sands Space Harbor in New Mexico.

“The orbit we’re in today, the reason we picked it and put it there, is that allows us to return to White Sands in 48 hours,” Chilton said. “Without knowing exactly what was going on, the team quite rightly said, ‘Let me put the spacecraft in an orbit that I know I can control and get home, and give the engineering team time to thoroughly figure out whats going on.'”

https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/12/20/b ... canaveral/

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2019, 21:44
by Gums
Salute!

Yeah geforce....

That Atlas has done super work for a long time, so no surprise it did well, even with an unusual trajectory. Seems to me that Space X does not use a lot of the Dragon OMS fuel to get the rdvz orbit, but a lotta their design stuff is "protected". They originally were thinking about using the abort motors to have a vertical landing back at the Cape, if I recall.

I am not surprised that the "fine print" in the crew capsule contract did not require a robot rejoin. The fairly low gee requirement is a surprise, as 3 or 4 gees across your body versus from your head to toes is not a big deal for anyone used to flying fighters. And if pulling 4 or 5 translational gees for 8 minutes or so is the requirement to fly, then that's the requirement. Wimps need not apply. My understanding of the Space X profile is less than 4 max and about 9 minutes to second stage cuttoff. Also with my limited understanding of orbital mechanics and trajectories, you can limit the gees by increasing pitch but then you loose delta vee. Boeing's trajectory looks like flat and reduced power, but then requires the Starliner OMS to fire later and higher for a orbit intersecting the ISS orbit. So at the end of a coast phase we light the motor when high and slow to avoid a highly elliptical orbit.

Gotta hand it to Space X. They did the robot docking months ago and demonstrated "off the pad abort" long ago. After the design fix on the Dragon from a fuel leak, they did a good test a few weeks back. Unlike Boeing, and with no "requirement" they are gonna do a high speed test of the escape mode in a few weeks, kinda like duplicating the real life Russian abort/escape that saved three folks last year. So I predict Space X will have two live humans at the ISS by the end of February. Their Dragon has had many flights, and the crew version had to be easier to develop than the Boeing effort. And which team has the most government involvement? Hmmmm....

It is a joy to see that our move into space is now more and more due to private companies and not government entities and agencies.

Gums sends...

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2019, 22:34
by steve2267
After having corresponded with a fellow who works launch ops @ the Cape, and who described the corporate culture of SpaceX and their mindset from the persepctive of several several buddies who had been laid off, but then got jobs with SpaceX @ the Cape, and after having watched SpaceX blow stuff up @ the Cape, in Texas etc...

I'd ride Boing's Starliner on Atlas V any day of the week. If you offered me a flight on a Dragon, at this point, I'll pass. Maybe in 5-10 years after seeing how their culture shakes out and if they continue to improve. But today? No thank you.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2019, 22:57
by zhangmdev
The problem is Centaur stage engine RL-10 is too weak to lift heavy load to low Earth orbit, even when there are 2 of them. So Atlas 5 first stage burns for quite a long duration, like four and a half minutes. So there is less work left for Centaur to do. But the powerful first stage can cause too much acceleration, (the highest G-load happens when the 1st stage is almost empty,) so the thrust must be reduced. So the trajectory is shallow. It is not optimal because you are falling down too much when accelerating forward.

SpaceX Falcon 9's flight profile is more balanced. Its first stage only burns for two and a half minutes. After finishing its work, it can even land. Falcon 9 second stage engine Merlin 1D Vacuum has far more thrust than RL-10. A single one can lift Dragon to orbit. Dragon separated in a stable orbit, no need to circularize afterwards. Circularization is when Starlines OTF's trouble occurred.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2019, 23:08
by steve2267
**cough**cough**bullshit**cough**cough**

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2019, 23:30
by usafr
F-35 internal fuel, range?

You guys have lost the plot

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2019, 02:09
by Gums
Salute!

Well, usafr..... How much more do we need to discuss about range?

We already know the beast can go real far on internal fuel cause it has a lot and it is single engine. So I would match the pounds per mile per speed with anybody flying now unless we bring back the 'vaark. Oh yeah, how far from bomb release will the enema detect the thing?

Weapon loadout could be a bone of contention, but if your Pk for two bombs is better than the Pk of four or six or ......, you have to run some Monte Carlo attack sims and factor in all the crapola. Did I mention same loadout as the F-117 over Baghdad plus two Slammers?

In Linebacker, the old heads that had flown Thuds or Double Uglies on their first tour came back after a sortie or two and lamented that they did not have the awesome computed delivery system the Sluf had. And the fact that we could not fly a thousand miles per hour was not as important as not having to go back the next day cause the bridge was still standing or the power plant was still running or the airfield was still open. Oh yeah, no refueling required going or coming.

I would not have had a dozen classmates spending 5 or 6 years in prison or almost 20 in their graves if they had flown F-35's instead of Thuds and Double Uglies.

So until we have a dash one for the F-35, what is the big deal about range. The thing is much more capable than the Hornet for the fleet, and maybe not as flexible as the Viper, but it will be able to go where the Viper cannot and it will survive.

Gums sends...

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2019, 02:45
by geforcerfx
Double engine Centuar weighs half as much with propellant and has half the power, double engine centaur is the roughly the same T/W as falcon upper stage with a better specific impulse (RL-10 is still one of the most efficient rocket engines flying).

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2019, 03:39
by steve2267
Gums wrote:
So until we have a dash one for the F-35, what is the big deal about range. The thing is much more capable than the Hornet for the fleet, and maybe not as flexible as the Viper, but it will be able to go where the Viper cannot and it will survive.


Hey Gums,

In what ways do you see the Viper as being potentially more flexible than the Panther?

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2019, 05:17
by Gums
Salute!

Good question, Steve...

I am guilty of planning for the prolonged combat sortie surge scenario and not the first day of the war gorilla. It was what I did back in that other galaxy.

Without the exact tech orders and procedures, I am assuming the Stubbie is not as easy to reconfigure as the Viper, or even the Hornet. Whereas the Viper can have various racks on fixed pylons, the Subbie pylons may be more of a problem installing them than the racks for multiple stores on the the Viper. If we start mounting external stores, then can we easily go back to a pure stealth configuration? That ain't a problem for the Viper, as the pylons are fixed and the plane is already visible to many defense systems.

A surge scenario as I envision would have the Vipers configured with some Slammers or Winders on the wing tips and maybe those two - station racks on pylons 2 and 8. If we insist on an ECM pod for the centerline, then we have pylons 3, 4, 6 and 7 for ordnance/fuel. We routinely changed the load for stations 3 and 7, maybe 2 and 8, during our combat sortie surge exercises. About the biggest change in configuration was adding or removing tanks on 4 and 6, and that's the potential problem I see with the Stubbie. Not gas, but whatever they have to do for the stealth aspects.

Mission-wise, the Stubbie has the advantage as long as configuration changes are not required and we start with a mix of SEAD, recce and strike bird configuration. As we have postulated for the Navy's Cee model, it goes in first and the Hornets follow. Heh heh, the Hornets would need to gas up anyway, while the Stubbies go in without needed to hit the tanker. For the strict land-based scenario we might have a mix of Stubbies loaded for bear and others in the clean, L-O mode for SEAD and recce/strike coordination. The bomb trucks would be fairly close behind.

Oh well, I am thinking more of strike packages and scenarios than the various missions both the Viper and Stubbie can perform.

Gums sends...

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2019, 06:03
by steve2267
Glad I asked -- I was stuck thinking like a war grilla.

Along those same lines, then... until Lightnings are cleared for a much wider variety of ordnance, the Viper will be more flexible in terms of what it can employ. May or may not be a factor in the next 5-10 years.

With HAL being in charge there inside Stubby, re-configuration once the maintenance troops get done changing hardware oughta be a breeze. The pneumatic bom popper-offers should make the hanging and prep of new kaboomers easier to, me thinks. Although I'm not sure if the external racks take advantage of pneumatics? That may be an internal bay trick only...

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2019, 02:37
by doge
Pretty old article.
In 2008, JPO's Gen. Charles R. Davis and LM's Tom Burbage have refuted Winslow Wheeler (Current POGO) and Pierre Sprey's criticism of the F-35. :doh:
In it, they mentioned F-35 fuel/Radius. 8)
http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/?p=227
PROGRAMME LEADERS RESPOND - BY TOM BURBAGE AND MAJ GEN CHARLES DAVIS
Sep 16 2008 Published by JSFNieuws.nl at 8:13 under Purchase JSF
The great American humorist Will Rogers once said: “It ain’t what people don’t know that hurts ‘em - it’s what they do know that ain’t so!”
It’s not clear why the authors of the previous article chose to defile the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme, other than their claim of expertise in legacy fighter performance and procurement. That expertise is largely irrelevant today because that game has changed.
It is clear that they do not understand the underlying requirements of the F-35 programme, the capabilities needed to meet those requirements or the real programmatic performance of the JSF team. Fortunately, leaders throughout the tri-service, multinational partnership that will be tasked with making difficult acquisition decisions in the next few years do understand. While it is not our intent to challenge the authors’ right to recount their personal opinions, it is important to put them in the context of facts.
Fact: F-35 unit costs have increased 38 per cent since the contract was awarded in 2001 (not 54 per cent). Fully 35 per cent of that increase is due to economic factors outside of the programme’s control, including cost of raw materials, such as titanium and carbon fibre composites, and inflation factors. The average per-unit cost of the F-35 is US$ 77 million in future-year dollars on a programme expected to be in production through at least 2036.
Fact: It is true that the F-35 has barely begun its flight-test programme. We have two aircraft in flight test and one in ground test. Over the next 18 months, 17 more ground- and flight-test vehicles will enter the programme.
Recognising this concurrency challenge, the F-35 programme broke with traditional programmes like the ones the authors are familiar with. Very large investments were made in a vast and highly integrated laboratory system and a first-ever, full-fusion flying testbed. All F-35 sensors are flying today on surrogate test aircraft. The flight test for the F-35 is, for the first time, verification of projected performance and not discovery-oriented.
It is important to note that the F-35 flight-control software and avionics have performed flawlessly, contrary to the authors’ assertion. A single electrical anomaly was discovered very early on in the first test aircraft and was related to manufacturing process control, not a technical shortcoming, proving the value of early test aircraft to reduce technical risks. In addition to the 19 developmental test aircraft, the F-35 is producing 20 fully instrumented, production-configured operational test aircraft. No programme in history has employed this many test vehicles.
Fact: On the F-35, the referenced 19 million Software Lines of Code (SLOC) span the aircraft, the logistics systems, flight and maintenance trainers, maintenance information system and flight-test instrumentation. So far 9 million of that total SLOC has been completed on cost and on schedule.
Fact: At peak production the F-35 programme will produce 231 jets annually: better than one per manufacturing day. In this year’s budget the DoD funded a peak rate of 150 aircraft per year for the three US services. The additional aircraft will be built for the international partners, providing unprecedented economies of scale for all parties.

Fact: The ‘dog’ referred to by the authors is in fact a ‘racehorse’. The take-off weight reference to 49,500 lb is true but misleading as the programme brings ‘traditional external fuel’ internal to the F-35 for stealth reasons. The F-35 carries 18,500 lb of internal fuel which, coupled with the very low drag that results from internal carriage of weapons in the stealth mode, allows unprecedented combat radius performance.

The high thrust-to-weight ratios of the lightweight fighter programme the authors remember did not include combat-range fuel, sensors or armament. Fighter performance demonstrated by fourth-generation aircraft in airshow manoeuvres is not relevant to performance in a combat loadout. Lightweight fighter dependence on energy management and manoeuvrability has little relevance in the threat environment for which the F-35 is being designed.
Fact: The F-35 has the most powerful single engine ever installed in a fighter, with thrust equivalent to both engines today in Eurofighter or F-18 E/F aircraft.
The conventional version of the F-35 has 9 g capability and matches the turn rates of the F-16 and F/A-18. More importantly, in a combat load, with internal carriage of ‘external fuel, targeting sensor pods and weapons’, the F-35’s aerodynamic performance far exceeds all legacy aircraft equipped with a similar capability. When the threat situation dictates that it is safe for legacy aircraft (like the ones the authors reference) to participate, the F-35 can carry ordnance on six external wing stations in addition to its four internal stations. External weapon clearance is part of our current test programme, contrary to the authors’ claim. This racehorse can also enter the fight from any base. One of the F-35’s many advantages is its ability to be stealthy whenever the situation dictates - a distinction that is absent in all fourth-generation fighters. Anyone who doubts the value of stealth need only look over the grotesquely lopsided victory-to-loss ratios of F-22s in mock combat exercises such as ‘Red Flag’ and ‘Northern Edge’.
Fact: The F-35’s data collection, integration and sharing capabilities will transform the battlespace of the future and will redefine the close air support mission. The reference to the F-117 incident in Serbia had far less to do with stealth than it did with the inability to share tactically important information. The F-35 is specifically designed to correct that deficiency.
In January the US will inaugurate a new president. He will be required to rebuild frayed alliances and form new coalitions to deal with future conflicts. He will see that one programme has been designed from the beginning to provide both the military and eco-industrial underpinnings to facilitate that need. He will see why, for the first time, economies of commonality and scale are reversing the trends of the past. When a programme of the scale and truly transformational nature of the F-35 comes along, detractors often try to relate to the world we are leaving behind and not the world we are trying to change. Their opinion is a valuable part of the checks and balances we employ.

We appreciate the chance to respond.
Tom Burbage is the Executive Vice President and General Manager, F-35 Program Integration, and Major General Charles Davis is the Program Executive Officer for the F-35 Program. Both men have extensive aircraft design and development, flight test and operational experience across a broad portfolio of leading-edge fighter programmes.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2019, 02:56
by doge
This time, I searched for Norwegian Range articles. 8)
An article on F-35 criticism/concern has mentioned Ranges. :doh:
All, Language is Norwegian. Used Google translation.
https://www.regjeringen.no/no/tema/fors ... id2470670/
Red Pen - "Attack or Defense"
Article | Last updated: 18.01.2016
In the book "Attack or defense - fighter aircraft, Norwegian values and security policy ambitions", the authors Cathrine Sandnes and Ingeborg Eliassen argue that the F-35 will seize such large portions of the defense budget in the future that it will force further reductions in the other defense structure. Program Director in the fighter aircraft program General Major Morten Klever believes this is based on a misunderstanding and that the book contains several actual errors.

Page 109:
Q: The aircraft has limited range, and it has a small load capacity that limits what kind of weapons it can carry. But part of the basis for air power is that it can be used in defense and attack - at the same time, says Pietrucha.
A: This is very misleading. The F-35 has significantly greater load capacity and range than today's Norwegian F-16, and it is not unique to the F-35 that it can be used in several roles in the same mission. This is a capacity that all modern fighter aircraft have, and that is emphasized in their marketing.


https://www.regjeringen.no/no/tema/fors ... /id745027/
The 5 biggest myths about the F-35
Article | Last updated: 23.02.2015
Has the Norwegian purchase become much more expensive? Is there a bomber Norway does not need? Does it work and will anyone else buy the plane at all? And shouldn't we also buy drones? Read the answer to the 5 biggest myths surrounding the Norwegian F-35 purchase here!

2) "F-35 is a bomber not suitable for defense of Norway"
Fact: This is not true. The F-35 is a multi-role aircraft that can do everything the F-16 does today, and much more.
Experience from the last 30 years is absolutely clear - Norway needs a multi-role aircraft that can solve a wide range of missions both today and in the future. The F-35 is one of the first aircraft built as a multi-role aircraft from the ground up, and will be able to solve both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions equally well. This is difficult to achieve with older machines, such as the F-16, where equipping the aircraft for air-to-ground missions reduces performance in the air-to-air role. This is because when hanging on external weapons, fuel tanks, sensors and defense systems, it creates air resistance and reduces the aircraft's ability to withstand extreme stresses. Previous aircraft have therefore usually had one main task, and then several side tasks. This is not the case with the F-35 where performance is very little affected by carrying full internal weapon load and where all of the fuel and sensors are carried internally. With internal weapons and full fuel tanks, the F-35 will be able to fly at greater speed, maneuver more powerfully and fly farther than almost any other fighter aircraft with similar equipment available on the market today. In addition, the F-35 will have systems and sensors that give the aircraft a superior in air combat that few other aircraft can compete with.

This means that the F-35 will be far better suited to contribute to a future defense of Norway than today's F-16.

This also applies to so-called cut-off missions in the northern areas. First, the F-35 will be able to fly longer and at the same speed as today's F-16 on such missions thanks to large internal fuel tanks and the ability to carry weapons internally. In addition, much better active and passive sensors will allow the F-35 to find, track and identify other aircraft over greater distances. The F-35 can also do this from distances where it will not be detected by other aircraft, and Norwegian pilots can then choose how they will handle the situation in a completely different way than today and when they will possibly make themselves known to carry out a formal cut. It is important to remember that Norwegian aircraft nowadays rarely use acoustic velocity at interceptions. The most common way to do this is by choosing a "cutting" course where you will meet the other aircraft in the air, hence the name "intercept." This we will also do with the F-35 in the future, and thus be able to carry out sovereignty claims in accordance with international rules.


https://www.aldrimer.no/store-forventninger-til-f-35/
https://www.aldrimer.no/f-35-pilotsjefe ... beste-fly/
F-35 pilot commander: - The world's best aircraft
15/11/2017 By Thorstein Korsvold
F-35 pilot and Lieutenant Colonel Martin Tesli is convinced that the F-35 will be a success for the Air Force. Despite much criticism of the F-35 program, Tesli believes Norway gets the world's best aircraft.

"Stealth" is not the most important thing
The F-35 is a so-called five-generation aircraft. This means that a whole range of features are significantly different from today's F-16:
・ The aircraft has so-called "stealth", which means that in many contexts it is invisible to sensors.
・ The aircraft has a number of advanced sensors that will provide an ability to detect enemies long before they see the aircraft. This is referred to as the main advantage of the aircraft.
・ A number of types of information from sensors and other sources are put together to give the pilot a superior understanding of the situation. The very advanced pilot's helmet is one example: It makes the aircraft around the pilot "disappear" so that he can "see" around him without obstructions.
・ The pilot and aircraft must be able to talk to, among other things, surveillance aircraft, ground forces, ships or soldiers, or obtain intelligence.
・ The aircraft can be equipped with advanced long-range, targeted missiles.
・ The F-35 will probably have about 35% better range than the F-16, given a similar weapon load.
・ The F-35 is equipped with a brand new and advanced radar that will be superior to many others. The new radar is devoid of moving parts, can follow several targets at once and is difficult to detect for others.
We also ask Martin Tesli which of the new features is most important. But he chooses to point to the sum of all the improvements, rather than, for example, the important stealth trait.

- What is the most important new feature of the aircraft? Is it stealth technology, sensory performance, situational understanding, or are there technical aspects such as being able to swing tight, high-angle aircraft, and so on?
- It's a combination of all of them. The F-16 is and has been a great aircraft for 40 years, and it has evolved all the way. But the F-35 has completely modern, state of the art technology on board. And when you combine the benefits and the stealth, it allows us to think differently about how to implement presence and exercise air power. It's not a simple matter, all those things are important. And when you put them together in the F-35, it becomes a formidable capacity, Tesli tells Aldrimer.no.

- What is it like to fly these planes?
- The F-35 is a very powerful aircraft. Compared to the F-16, it has a lot of performance and is very maneuverable. It is important for a fighter aircraft like the F-35. But what strikes you - apart from the physical, is that the amount of information, the way it is put together, the sensors that are completely new - they give us opportunities to operate in a different way than before.


http://www.totalforsvar.no/?p=1757
The F-35 is a good investment
Posted by KFB on January 15, 2016.
The new fighter aircraft marks the start of a whole new era for the Armed Forces.
By 2025, Norway is scheduled to buy up to 52 new fighter aircraft at a cost of NOK 64 billion. The first F-35 was solemnly unveiled in the painting hall of aircraft manufacturer Lockhead Martin in Fort Worth, Texas. Both Defense Minister Ine Eriksen Søreide and Defense Secretary Haakon Bruun-Hanssen were present.

IMPROVED COMPETITIVENESS - This is a good investment. The F-35 is one of the most important platforms in the future defense. We build much of our business around the F-35 and utilize the capacity of this aircraft. First and foremost, it's the fighting ability that is significantly better than the F-16. Stealth technology increases survivability and makes it easier to get into an opponent without being detected. And here is the weapon system with considerably longer range than what we have on the F-16, says Bruun-Hanssen.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2019, 03:07
by doge
I also searched Dutch F-35 Range articles. 8)
All, Language is Dutch. Used Google translation.
https://adoc.tips/de-vliegende-hollande ... 62832.html
the Flying Dutchman
Volume 69 | number 12 | December 2013
First Dutchman flies on F-35
Minister Hennis-Plasschaert and pilot Major Laurens-Jan Vijge at the F-002.

"Different" The difference with the F-16 is, according to Vijge, despite many similarities quite large. "Like the F-16, the F-35 can deliver excellent close air support. In bad weather, however, it can also detect ground targets through the clouds. The F-16 can't do that. Thanks to the good aerodynamic properties and the extra amount of internal fuel, the Lightning II can also remain "on station" for longer, "he summarizes effortlessly. "In addition, the aircraft not only have better sensors than the F-16, but they also share each other's information. As a result, they can see much further. This ability to share information will soon become important with the arrival of the unmanned MQ-9 Reaper. A large part of this information is also presented intuitively on the helmet. A while ago we had a relatively inexperienced F-16 pilot "play" with the F-35 on-board system and he got the hang of it in no time. During the operational test phase at Edwards in California, we will investigate whether a pilot receives too little, enough or too much information during a mission. "De Smit and Vijge find it difficult to compare the flight characteristics of both aircraft. "An F-16 is no more difficult to fly," Vijge says somewhat hesitantly. "It's just ... very different!"


https://magazines.defensie.nl/vliegende ... /01_f35_01
Difference F-16 with successor is becoming increasingly clear
This article belongs to: de Vliegende Hollander 06 | 2019
A dull blow from a training bomb, splashing sand and drifting seagulls marked Dutch military aviation history on 13 June. For the first time, F-35s drew practice bombs on Dutch soil. To be precise, the Cornfield Range on Vlieland on the sand plain of the military training ground.

There are more sides to this Rapid Reaction Test that are striking enough to be mentioned in the history book about the Air Force. To get the bombs on the Cornfield Range, both F-35s covered a distance of no less than 9000 kilometers. That too has never been shown. The operation therefore did not start at Volkel Air Base or Leeuwarden Air Base, but on the other side of the large lake at Edwards Air Force Base, home of the 323 Test & Evaluation Squadron. This unit carries out the operational testing and evaluation phase for the F-35 within the Air Force. Once it has been put on, the operational life of the 37 aircraft will begin.
Surprise
In any case, the plan for long-distance aerial action was born on Edwards in the California desert. "Rapid Reaction means that you perform an assignment quickly, at great distances and with minimal means by surprise", Lieutenant Colonel aviator Ian "Gladys" Knight outlines the contours of the test. "For a temporary basis you could appeal to a friendly country in the region."
To make the test run in a representative manner, an American C-17 Globemaster also flies to Europe on its own with the necessary ground equipment and (re) armament. The bombs dropped by the F-35s in the Netherlands do not transport this machine. That is because both devices take them themselves.
Undamaged
"Initially we wanted to do this form of deployment elsewhere in the United States," says Knight. Partly because we can also be present during the Air Force Days, the choice fell on Vlieland. According to the pilot, a Rapid Reaction mission with only two aircraft is only possible with fifth-generation aircraft. “In order to reach the target unharmed, older combat aircraft need a higher degree of air superiority and therefore the help of a supporting air fleet. You do not speak of a short, rapid effort, but of a major air operation. “Thanks to its stealth characteristics and advanced sensors, the F-35 can do it all on its own. As soon as he takes off, you lose him. ”On the other hand, the pilot in the cockpit of the aircraft sees exactly what is happening around him in an instant. “In terms of information gathering, it is just like a big vacuum cleaner. A huge advantage is the fusion of the sensors with the complex environment. With an F-16 you could never do this mission. "
Air resistance
Bringing armament on board again reveals a striking achievement, because never before has a fighter aircraft of the Royal Air Force flew over the Atlantic Ocean armed. With the current F-16, that would also be highly impractical. The bombs under the wings cause enormous air resistance and fuel consumption. "On the other hand, with the F-35 the armament is in the hull, which means that fuel consumption is not significantly higher than without armament," Knight explains. "The internal transport of bombs and rockets is a must in order to fully demonstrate the stealth characteristics of the aircraft."


https://magazines.defensie.nl/defensiek ... omstf35_03
Stir at the Air Force
Text by rider Jessica Bode 2019/03/02 Photograph of Corporal Jasper Verolme, Sergeant Major John van Benten
With the delivery of 10 F-35s this year for the Netherlands, the Royal Netherlands Air Force is on the eve of the biggest change in its history. This is stated by Director Operations, commodore André Steur. "Everything is going to change." He explains that on the basis of 8 questions.

5. Can you compare the F-16 and F-35?
"No, absolutely not. The F-16 is a traditional fighter aircraft, while the F-35 carries out the total package of missions. But more importantly, through the information collection and processing capacity, the F-35 improves all units within a coalition capable of fighting, a real force multiplier, usable under all circumstances, and very user-friendly for the pilot, as the aircraft itself processes data into information.In the F-16, this is one of the important tasks of the kite."

7. What do you think about the criticism that the F-35 makes more noise than its predecessor?
“Officially, the device indeed produces more decibels, but the perception of the sound is very different. The F-35 is faster at altitude and can fly on for longer, so that the sound fades away faster and fewer take-offs and landings are required. The shrill sound of the F-16 versus the sympathetic hum of the F-35. I compare the F-16 with Gerard Joling and the F-35 with Barry White. It depends on what you love. For me it remains "the sound of freedom". We must continue to explain this: why do we train and for what purpose? For peace and security, it has not been taken for granted for years. "


When Ian ‘Gladys’ Knight flew Leeuwarden Air Base with the F-35, the F-35 was able to continue to fly because of the fuel left, but the F-16 that he was flying together had no fuel left, so, he say couldn't continue flying. 8)
How many fuel tanks were in F-16 on that day? :roll: x2?
https://frieschdagblad.nl/2019/11/1/gev ... leeuwarden
Fighter plane F-35 receives atmospheric welcome at Leeuwarden Air Base
After years of development, production and practice, the F-35, the most expensive defense project in Dutch history, is in the hangar of Leeuwarden Air Base. And that was celebrated.
Jan-Peter Soenveld and Jan Ligthart Posted: November 01, 2019 at 6:00 AM
Perhaps it was a symbolic moment. Just before the F-35 would land, the outdated predecessor, an F-16 from Volkel Air Base, had to make a precautionary landing in Leeuwarden due to a technical problem. There was smoke in the cockpit. Slightly delayed and accompanied by a song from the air force orchestra (24k magic in the air by Bruno Mars) the F-35 arrived shortly thereafter.


Not enough fuel
Around two thousand spotters had gathered outside the airbase, hoping for a nice picture of "the flying laptop", as the advanced jet fighter is called. Kite Ian ‘Gladys’ Knight would have liked to have given them a better view of the photogenic F-35. "I was planning to fly an extra pattern for the people outside the fences, but unfortunately that did not happen anymore." Due to the aforementioned precautionary landing, the F-35 and flying F-16s had to stay in the air longer, and the F-16s did not have enough fuel left.

From everything Knight notices that the hunter is an improvement on the F-16. "I have flown with it for about six hundred hours now. Fantastic plane, I can't say anything else. It does what it is designed for and flies very easily. There are many things that look like the F-16, so it is not very difficult for us to learn how to fly. But the difference is life-size. It is a stealth aircraft, so you are invisible to radar equipment. "

Sensors
And that really works. "It is not from a glossy brochure from the manufacturer on the basis of which we believe that. It has been thoroughly tested. And another difference is the sensors that are on it. As a result, we can very accurately find and designate targets in all weather conditions and possibly deploy weapons."

The F-35 also had a solution for the foam that the fire engine sprayed on the hunter. "If I had wanted, I could have put my helmet on and I would have seen everything around me through infrared cameras."

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2019, 19:33
by doge
doge wrote:Pretty old article.
In 2008, JPO's Gen. Charles R. Davis and LM's Tom Burbage have refuted Winslow Wheeler (Current POGO) and Pierre Sprey's criticism of the F-35. :doh:
In it, they mentioned F-35 fuel/Radius. 8)
http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/?p=227
PROGRAMME LEADERS RESPOND - BY TOM BURBAGE AND MAJ GEN CHARLES DAVIS

Surprisingly, Lockheed Martin had posted a similar to this article on own LM official site...!! :doh: Official...OFFICIAL...!!! :shock:
https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2008-09 ... ht-on-F-35
Setting The Record Straight On F-35
PRNewswire-FirstCall FORT WORTH, Texas 2008-09-19
U.S. Air Force analyses show the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is at least 400 percent more effective in air-to-air combat capability than the best fighters currently available in the international market.
The Air Force's standard air-to-air engagement analysis model, also used by allied air forces to assess air-combat performance, pitted the 5th generation F-35 against all advanced 4th generation fighters in a variety of simulated scenarios. The results were clear: the F-35 outperformed the most highly evolved fighters in aerial combat by significant margins.
"In all F-35 Program Office and U.S. Air Force air-to-air combat effectiveness analysis to date, the F-35 enjoys a significant Combat Loss Exchange Ratio advantage over the current and future air-to-air threats, to include Sukhois," said Maj. Gen. Charles R. Davis, F-35 program executive officer.
Recent claims that Russian fighters defeated F-35s in a Hawaii-based simulated combat exercise are untrue, according to Maj. Gen. Davis.
"The reports are completely false and misleading and have absolutely no basis in fact," Maj. Gen. Davis said. "The August 2008 Pacific Vision Wargame that has been referenced recently in the media did not even address air-to-air combat effectiveness. The F-35 is required to be able to effectively defeat current and projected air-to-air threats. All available information, at the highest classification, indicates that F-35 is effectively meeting these aggressive operational challenges."
The Pacific Vision Wargame was a table-top exercise designed to assess basing and force-structure vulnerabilities, and did not include air-to-air combat exercises or any comparisons of different aircraft platforms.
Other erroneous allegations about the program were recently made in a letter distributed and written by industry-watchers Winston Wheeler and Pierre Sprey.
"It's not clear why they attacked the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program," said Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin executive vice president of F-35 program integration. "It is clear they don't understand the underlying requirements of the F-35 program, the capabilities needed to meet those requirements or the real programmatic performance of the JSF team."

Here are the facts:
    -- The F-35 is a racehorse, not a "dog," as Wheeler/Sprey suggest. In stealth combat configuration, the F-35 aerodynamically outperforms all other combat-configured 4th generation aircraft in top-end speed, loiter, subsonic acceleration and combat radius. This allows unprecedented "see/shoot first" and combat radius advantages.
    -- The high thrust-to-weight ratios of the lightweight fighter program Wheeler/Sprey recall from 30 years ago did not take into consideration combat-range fuel, sensors or armament, which dramatically alter wing loading, thrust-to-weight ratios and maneuverability. We do consider all of this in today's fighters.
    -- The F-35 has the most powerful engine ever installed in a fighter, with thrust equivalent to both engines today in Eurofighter or F/A-18 aircraft. The conventional version of the F-35 has 9g capability and matches the turn rates of the F-16 and F/A-18. More importantly, in a combat load, with all fuel, targeting sensor pods and weapons carried internally, the F-35's aerodynamic performance far exceeds all legacy aircraft equipped with a similar capability.
    -- When the threat situation diminishes so that it is safe for legacy aircraft to participate in the fight, the F-35 can also carry ordnance on six external wing stations in addition to its four internal stations.
Other important facts:
    -- External weapon clearance is part of the current F-35 test program.
    -- The government has already proven that no other aircraft can survive against the 5th generation stealth that only the F-22 and the F-35 possess; it is impossible to add this stealth to fourth-generation fighters.
    -- The F-35's data collection, integration and information sharing capabilities will transform the battlespace of the future and will redefine the close air support mission. The F-35 is specifically designed to take advantage of lessons learned from the F-117 stealth aircraft. Unlike the F-117, the ability to share tactically important information is built into the F-35, along with stealth.
    -- F-35 is developing, testing, and fielding mature software years ahead of legacy programs, further reducing development risk. The F-35's advanced software, already flying on two test aircraft with remarkable stability, is demonstrating the advantages of developing highly-common, tri-variant aircraft. The software developed span the entire aircraft and support systems including the aircraft itself, logistics systems, flight and maintenance trainers, maintenance information system and flight-test instrumentation.
    -- Rather than relying exclusively on flight testing, the F-35 is retiring development risk through the most comprehensive laboratories, sensor test beds, and integrated full-fusion flying test bed ever created for an aircraft program. Representing only 25% of our verification plans, still the F-35's flight test program is comparable in hours to the combined flight test programs of the three primary U.S. aircraft it will replace.
    -- The F-35 is one aircraft program designed to replace many different types of aircraft around the world -- F-16, F/A-18, F-117, A-10, AV-8B, Sea Harrier, GR.7, F-111 and Tornado -- flown by 14 air forces.
    -- In addition to 19 developmental test aircraft, the F-35 is producing 20 fully instrumented, production-configured operational test aircraft. No program in history has employed this many test vehicles.
"Simply put, advanced stealth and sensor fusion allow the F-35 pilot to see, target and destroy the adversary and strategic targets in a very high surface-to-air threat scenario, and deal with air threats intent on denying access -- all before the F-35 is ever detected, then return safely to do it again," said Burbage.
The F-35 is a supersonic, multi-role, 5th generation stealth fighter. Three F-35 variants derived from a common design, developed together and using the same sustainment infrastructure worldwide will replace at least 13 types of aircraft for 11 nations initially, making the Lightning II the most cost-effective fighter program in history. Two F-35s have entered flight test, two are in ground test, and 17 are in various stages of assembly, including the first two production-model jets scheduled for delivery to the U.S. Air Force in 2010.
Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security company that employs about 140,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The corporation reported 2007 sales of $41.9 billion.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2019, 19:59
by doge
In 2010, From Parliament of Canada. 8)
In that parliament, the F-35's Range is, said to be longer than the CF-18 of Fuel 16,000 lbs with EFT !! :doh:
How long km is the CF-18's Range with Fuel 16,000 lbs!? :devil:
https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewe ... 4/evidence
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
My last question, Mr. Chair, through you to anybody who wishes to answer, is this. According to the basic knowledge I have about the CF-18, I think it has two missiles and a cannon that's able to drop bombs. We have air-to-air and air-to-surface capabilities there. Given the fact that we are going to sharply escalate the evolution of the technology through stealth, moving from fourth generation to fifth generation, what are we talking about insofar as ordinances and capabilities of the aircraft go? Is it going to have a cannon? It will obviously engage air-to-air. How is it going to engage air-to-ground? Are we going to be able to use these in counter-insurgency? Is it an excellent reconnaissance plane?
Can you just give me a little bit of information here?

The Vice-Chair (Hon. Bryon Wilfert):
General Deschamps.

LGen J.P.A. Deschamps:
The airplane, because of stealth, has an internal weapons carriage capability. That's part of that stealth component where you're reducing profile. You can carry internally a significant amount of weapons, about 5,000 pounds worth, and because you can turn it into a conventional airplane as well as a stealth platform, you can carry externally another 13,000 pounds, which is as much if not more than some of the conventional airplanes around right now. The airplane will carry a range of weaponry depending upon the missions. It opens up whatever avenue we need to open up for multi-role, and we can choose what weapons we select downrange. We don't have to pick the weapons now. Because of all the partners, there is going to be a range of weapons, so we can select later if we want other weapons. The airplane has a lot of versatility concerning what it can carry.

Mr. Blaine Calkins:
When it comes to the operational, compared to the CF-18 from a flight range perspective, all of these things have been looked at in a comparative analysis. What kind of range does it have? Do we add on fuel tanks and all these other kinds of things that we normally would be able to expect from a fighter plane?

The Vice-Chair (Hon. Bryon Wilfert):
Mr. Burt.

Col D. C. Burt:
Thank you for the question.
Our current aircraft has 16,000 pounds of fuel with three external fuel tanks. The conventional take-off and landing variant of the F-35 with internal fuel only is 18,500 pounds, so it has significantly more fuel just internally. It will have significantly more range and we can also put external tanks on the F-35. It will have significantly more range than we currently have, which is an incredibly important element when we look at flying across the far north of Canada.


In 2015, At the Dutch Parliament, In the counterargument to the criticism against F-35, the range of F-35 was mentioned. 8)
https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl ... -3264.html (Language is Dutch. Used Google Translate.)
Appendix to the Acts
Date of publication 04-09-2015 Organization of the House of Representatives of the States General
Questions from De Roon (PVV) member to the Minister of Defense about serious shortcomings of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) compared to potential opponents (submitted 13 August 2015). Answer from Minister Hennis - Plasschaert (Defense) (received 2 September 2015)


Question 3
Do you share the conclusion that the limited weapon load that the JSF can carry seriously limits the effectiveness of the device? If not, why not?
Answer 3
No. The F-35 can carry armaments internally to utilize the benefits of the stealth properties. The other devices cannot. In addition, the F-35 can also carry external armament. The total weapon load that the F-35 - including the external weapon load - can carry is larger than what the Dutch F-16 can carry. The F-35 can perform missions effectively with these different options.

Question 4
Do you share the conclusion that the short flight range of the JSF can limit operational deployment? Is it true that the JSF is at a disadvantage in terms of flight range compared to its Russian and Chinese opponents? If not, why not?
Answer 4
The report describes that the F-35 has a larger flight range than various of the Western aircraft that the F-35 will replace. This also applies to the Dutch F-16. The flight range of the F-35 is sufficient for the intended operational deployment. The flight range of fighter aircraft depends on various factors, such as weight and internal or external armament. It is therefore not possible to compare different devices at that point.

The F-35 transports all fuel internally. Partly depending on future experiences - initially from the operational test phase - the flight range of the F-35 can be extended with external tanks if desired.


Marines website? :roll:
In 2014, The USMC soldiers countered each other the criticism and USMC soldiers seemed to be arguing with each other. :doh: Hell. In it, the fuel of F-35C was mentioned. 8)
https://mca-marines.org/gazette/a-count ... %E2%80%A9/
A Counter To ‘Air Cooperation’

Posted on February 01,2014 By Maj Jeff Dean

Aircraft and Equipment
The biggest target in the Air Cooperation article is the F–35 Lightning II, followed closely by two of our current fixed-wing aircraft, the F/A–18 Hornet and AV–8B Harrier. Majs Thiele and Rubinstein complain that F/A–18s and AV–8Bs are “less than optimal” when providing close air support (CAS), and that the F–35 “will do nothing to ameliorate” the alleged degraded support to the ground commander. Their proposed solution is the Brazilian-designed Embraer Super Tucano. While bashing the F/A–18, AV–8B, and F–35, the authors also laud the OV–10 Bronco and A–10 Thunderbolt as the best aircraft for integrating with ground forces.


It is also important to address the complaints against the F–35 Lightning II, or Joint Strike Fighter. The Marine Corps is acquiring both the F–35B vertical/short takeoff and landing (V/STOL) variant and the F–35C carrier variant. Because the F–35 is still conducting both developmental and operational test and evaluation, we do not yet know all of its characteristics. Given its advanced technology, it is sure to encounter technological challenges, and its ultimate success will be determined in time. However, the arguments that Majs Thiele and Rubinstein make against the F–35 are not valid. With regard to range and on-station time, for example, the F–35 outperforms both the F/A–18 and the AV–8B. The F–35C even carries more internal fuel than the F/A–18 and AV–8B combined! But there is much more to this aircraft.

The F–35’s potential goes beyond anything in our current inventory and encompasses many functions of Marine aviation. It is a fifth-generation fighter designed for amphibious forcible entry and first-day strike capability. Many of its true capabilities remain classified. But just because the F–35 was not designed specifically for fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan does not automatically make it less capable in a low-intensity conflict. Its strengths can still be used to exploit the enemy’s weaknesses. In addition to the kinetic fire support capability, imagine a single aircraft being able to collect, exploit, and even directly attack the enemy using the electromagnetic spectrum. Every electron that the enemy transmits becomes vulnerable, the information is distributed across the network, and the kill chain is shortened significantly.


In 2013, Mr.Billie Flynn or LM touches the F-35 Range. 8)
https://lfpress.com/2013/04/28/the-shap ... 080cde9923
John Lund visited Lockheed Martin's giant Fort Worth, Texas, plant
BY JOHN LUND Updated: May 6, 2013
What sets it apart?
The F-35 is a flying computer, constantly crunching and sharing data from an alphabet soup of sensors — like AESA, DAS, EOTS, CNI and RWR — ­with wingmen and the military network. This “sensor fusion” aims to give pilots a seamless, real-time picture of what’s going on around them without overtaxing them.
Feeding the system is the F-35’s radar, six external cameras, electronic-warfare antennas, a radar-warning receiver and sophisticated communication, navigation and identification gear, plus wingmen and other military sources. The processed information is projected on the pilot’s helmet visor or displayed on the 20 by 50 cm digital “instrument panel” touchscreen in front of him.
This gives F-35 pilots “superior situational awareness,” Lockheed says: knowing where your friends are, where the enemy is — and whether his radars, jets and missiles have spotted the F-35 — so they can find and hit their targets and get home safely.
The cameras, for example, let the pilot see hundreds of kilometres in any direction — even through his own jet.
“This is where it gets all Darth Vader,” grins Billie Flynn, retired RCAF CF-18 squadron commander and senior Lockheed test pilot, as he holds up the shiny black helmet. “I can see all around the airplane from horizon to horizon, as far as my head can swivel . . . . I can look down at 30,000 feet at 0.9 Mach, and see the Red River between the state of Texas and Oklahoma between my feet.”
The Electro-Optical Targeting System, behind a sapphire window under the F-35’s nose, uses infrared to find and track air and ground targets, day or night, and laser gear to guide smart bombs.

How is it stealthy?
Radar works by bouncing radio waves off targets, like aircraft, which are picked up by a receiver. Stealth technology doesn’t make F-35 invisible to radar, but rather redirects, absorbs or weakens the radar signal to make it harder to “see.”
That’s a “quantum leap” in air combat, says Flynn. “It’s not invisibility, it’s very low observability to the point you can almost act with impunity.”
That, he says, will let the F-35 go where existing warplanes increasingly can’t: close enough to destroy air or ground targets defended by state-of-the-art anti-aircraft systems.
The F-35 has gained from Lockheed Martin’s stealth experience: They built the first operational stealth fighter, the F-117 Nighthawk, an aerodynamically unlikely, diamond-faceted flying flatiron that gave Saddam Hussein’s gunners fits in Iraq. They also built the F-22 Raptor, America’s state-of-the-art fifth-generation air-dominance fighter.
“That’s what we use as our stepping stone with the F-35,” says Flynn, who has piloted most fourth-generation fighters and test-flown Eurofighter Typhoon. “That’s our confidence.”
“You can’t just apply a coating,” or tweak a few features of an older aircraft to make it stealthy, Scott stresses, perhaps referring to Boeing’s proposals for stealthy versions of its competing F-18 Super Hornet and older F-15 Eagle. “It’s . . . fundamental to the design.”
On the F-35, that means hiding key radar reflectors — like the engine’s fan blades, antennas, fuel tanks and weapons — internally, cladding the jet in radar-absorbing materials like carbon-fibre composites and using a hard-to-track, low-emission radar.
Canting fuselage sides and vertical tails at the same angle, matching the sweep of wings and tail, and edging access doors and even the jet exhaust with sawtooth edges help redirect radar energy. And the F-35 is built to tolerances thinner than a human hair, so it’s smooth, with as few, radar-bouncing flaws as possible.

But low observability comes at a cost in speed, endurance and weapons load. Some critics say the F-35’s performance will lag existing aircraft, and that its range and payload are too small.
But Lockheed counters the F-35 can carry 18,500 pounds of fuel — far more than the CF-18, for example — and Flynn has said publicly it will outperform fourth-generation jets with a combat payload.
Plus, Scott adds, it’s versatile: When you need stealth, say, to “kick in the door” and take out enemy air defences, the F-35A can carry 2,400 kg of missiles and bombs internally. When you don’t need stealth, that jumps to 8,000 kg — “as good or better” than “legacy” jets or competitors — by adding six hardpoints under the wings, two of which can take 600-gallon drop tanks.


It may not have anything to do with range, but I'll quote it because I like it. 8)
https://ipolitics.ca/2013/05/16/selling ... rement-pr/
Selling the simulation at Lockheed Martin: A journey into the heart of procurement PR
By Colin Horgan. Published on May 16, 2013
~ Part One: What they want you to think you know ~
“We live in a world where there is more and more information, and less and less meaning.”― Jean Baudrillard, ‘Simulacra and Simulation’

Just before lunch, you’ll talk to Billy Flynn, the first Canadian to fly the F-35 and who was trained in the RCAF by now-Conservative MP, Laurie Hawn. Billy notes a few things that you should apparently be remembering, including the fact that stealthy airplanes are the future. One reporter from a specialty defence publication asks that Billy fill you all in on “what additional capabilities are we getting with the F-35, stealth aside?” Billy is only too happy to answer. He talks about the plane’s Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities, the integrated data system that gives the pilot access to real-time battlefield information with 360-degree coverage.

“We never had that capability in my experience wearing the uniform – a platform that actually can sense, horizon to horizon, and pass that information on to someone. We now have that in a tactical fighter. I think, to me, that’s just a massive step forward,” Flynn says. He also mentions the F-35’s jamming capabilities.
And he talks about the stealth. In prior conflicts, he says, “You needed 70 aircraft to punch ahead, punch a hole through the defences, to shoot down everyone that’s looking at you, to safely get some bomb-droppers into bad guy land and out. You needed that whole package to do it. And if you missed any component, guys were potentially not coming home.” That’s because, he continues, before stuff like the F-35, “everybody on the ground can see you coming and going.”

Then he reminds you of another stealth plane.
“I can tell you, when I was in Kosovo, the B2s came and went whenever they wanted,” he says.

The Lockheed team likes you to know a lot of facts. They tell you all about the plane’s internal fuel tanks and that even when those are fully loaded, the thing can do Mach 1.6 or fly across the Arctic. They mention that software development will wrap up in probably 2016, and that cold weather testing in a climate controlled chamber will happen before the Marine Corps takes possession of its jets in mid-to-late 2015, and that this method is normal for all jets. You learn about how the plane will be able to track any slight damages to the stealth skin and therefore mitigate against unexpected or unscheduled maintenance issues.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2019, 20:13
by doge
In 2016, a Belgium reporter was interviewing Mr.Billie Flynn!! :doh: (He is everywhere!)
In it, Mr.Billie Flynn revealed fairly specific percentages % for the F-35 Range... 8)
https://www.hangarflying.eu/2016/07/f-3 ... uchtmacht/ (Language is Dutch. I tried using Bing translation.)
F-35: the future for our Air Force?
Tom Brinckman July 14, 2016
We meet Billie Flynn (53) at the F-35's 1:1 model. Before joining Lockheed Martin, he was a 23-year-old CF-18 pilot and colonel in the Canadian Air Force. He flew combat missions over Kosovo and after his military career as a test pilot went to work on Typhoon, Tornado and finally the F-16. He totals more than 5,000 flight hours in 80 different aircraft types. In June 2012, he was the 39th pilot to fly with the F-35. In short, the ideal person to explain to us about the F-35.

What is the biggest difference between a 4th and 5th generation fighter plane?
Billie Flynn: "In short: stealth and sensor technology. I can watch 360 degrees around my plane, up to hundreds of kilometers away. All I need to know is read off on that screen in an understandable way."
"With stealth, we make the F-35 less easily detectable. That's not to say we're completely invisible. But enough to go on a goal without anyone knowing you're here. I see everything, but they don't see me."
"In addition to the typical tasks such as air defense, air strike and ground attack, the F35 also takes an important place in reconnaissance platform," Flynn continues. "The F-35 is a computer that can collect information from all sensors and send them to the commanders. An unprecedented wealth of information on the battlefield. They already get that information, but they do get from aircraft in the format of large transport equipment. Now 1 or 2 F-35s will be able to take over that task."

As far as we are concerned, it seems like a rather 'American' device... large and made for a multitude of tasks that we as a small air force do not need. Why does the Belgian Air Force have to buy the F-35?
"40 Years ago Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark and the United States became partner countries with the purchase of the F-16. In that 40-year career, the F-16 evolved and adapted to the current needs of the Air Force. Instead of buying an aircraft that already needs a midlife update when you buy or is already almost at the end of his career, the F-35 is almost the same as the F-16 back then. It will also evolve and adapt to the needs of the next 30 to 40 years."
"To answer the second part of your question," Flynn picks up. "What is very important for the fighter pilot? The danger is now air-target missiles that are deadly up to 150 km away. So long before you've entered the airspace. A plane that can be detected will not survive a mission. An airplane with the characteristics of the F-35 does."
"The way of waging war has changed a lot. Just like in the early days of the F-18 where I started my career. We flew three different missions that were previously flown by three different aircraft. Now we have learned that both air defense, air strikes, ground attack strikes can carry out with one fighter plane."
"Interoperability between NATO partners also plays a role. As in the TLP programme that took place in Florennes for a long time and still exists in Spain. There pilots come together and practice together and share tactics. Even as F-35 pilots, we assume that principle, it doesn't matter if you're Dutch, Dane, Norwegian or British, we share all the tactics."

How does the F-35 fly compared to our F-16?
"For starters, we already have more fuel on board than an F-16 on board with both internal and external drop tanks. With that almost 9,000 kg of fuel, I fly 40% further and longer than any other fighter plane I've already flown. That's in the stealthiest configuration where, for example, in the two internal arms rooms 2 x 2,000-pound GBU-31 JDAM laser-guided bombs and 2 x AIM-120C air missiles are on board. So we do not have air resistance from external drop tanks or weapons and we still reach the speed limit of the F-35, which is about mach 1.6. As a test pilot, I do so regularly; for fourth-generation aircraft where everything hangs under the wing, the speed limit can no longer be reached. We can also continue to draw the maximum G-forces."
"If stealth plays no role, there are 11 weapons stations under the wings for a whole arsenal of bombs and missiles. The standard version (F-35A), which is also in the running for Belgium, also has a 25 mm GAU-22/A cannon on board. In addition, a variant that can land vertically (F-35B) and a navy variant (F-35C(V)) for use on aircraft carriers."
"Another plus is that all the systems are internal. For example, the sniper pod that now also hangs under the F-16 is now built under the nose. Also at Typhoon of Gripen such a pod must be purchased separately. The electronic warfare protection, say the jammingpod is also incorporated into the F-35. The device is delivered with everything on it, no need to purchase extras."

What's different for the pilot?
"The screens in the cockpit and especially the helmet that projects everything for my eyes what I need to fly. What information? Everything that was projected on to a HUD (Head Up Display). The composite image of the 6 infrared sensors strategically placed around the F-35 also give me unseen images. On a night flight, you can look down exactly the plane like the plane's not here. You look almost as good at night as during the day without extra night vision goggles. So spatial awareness is rising dramatically. It took us years to develop the helmet, but now more than 300 pilots are already working with it. Everyone likes to fly with it!"

It's mainly a computer-controlled plane. Is it still necessary to really fly?
"Of course you still have to be able to control the jet well, but you will fly it differently from the current generation of planes. It's no longer comparable to Top Gun as Tom Cruise and Val Kilmer flew (laughs). That's over, we can do a dogfight before the fun on Friday afternoon, but that's not the way the F-35 has to be flown. The F-16 is small and fast, the Lightning II is pure power, my Lord, if you turn on the afterburner you'll be gone very quickly."

The F-35 is mainly focused on international cooperation?
"Cooperation is the key word. Small countries buy small numbers of F-35s (*) to form a larger coalition together. Everyone sits on the same wavelength, including the layered secrecy. Not everyone will have access to the same information as pilots or support personnel. There is also international cooperation on the use of tactics and planning."
"At Luke Air Force Base in the U.S. state of Arizona, there is the grandly established international school to train the pilots of all partner countries. We teach everyone all the tactics to use the F-35 operationally. We are at the start of the fifth generation so we teach everyone to fly on an equal footing with that new generation. We're not going to repeat old F-16 procedures but start all over again from scratch. For example, that was one of the mistakes made in our Canadian Air Force in the past: we flew the new CF-18s according to the tactics we had already used with the F-104 Starfighter and F-101 Voodoo. We lost a few years until we realized that with a totally different aircraft other tactics should also be used."

The final word is for the Chamber's National Defence Committee, which currently hear experts and academics, both civilians and military, to decide which of the five contenders will replace our current fighter planes. By the end of 2016, the federal government will have to give its permission to start the recruitment phase, which runs from the end of 2016 to mid-2018.
Tom Brinckman

He says, the F-35 can fly 40% longer than the fighters he has ever flown!!! :shock: wow! :doh:
How long is the Range of fighter jets that Mr.Billie Flynn has flown so far? :devil:

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2019, 20:27
by ricnunes
doge wrote:He says, the F-35 can fly 40% longer than the fighters he has ever flown!!! :shock: wow! :doh:
How long is the Range of fighter jets that Mr.Billie Flynn has flown so far? :devil:


One would have to dig out in order to find the answer but out of my head I know that Mr. Flynn flown the F/A-18 (Legacy Hornet), the F-16 and the Typhoon (and likely others but which I can't remember). So from what I gather the F-35 has at least 40% more range than the longest ranged aircraft of those 3 (Legacy Hornet, F-16 and Typhoon).

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2019, 22:02
by Gums
Salute!

Thanks, ricnunes......

I am also glad you didn't paste pages of text from whoever cares versus a sinple URL link many of us can go to if we wish

Fer chrisakes, doge, cut and paste a quote or two to make the points. Post the URL of the entire article for us to read for the fine points. Sheesh....

The plane has "legs", and all of us that have actually flown some of the planes the Stubbie is being compared with will agree.

Gums sends...

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2020, 07:16
by doge
ricnunes wrote:One would have to dig out in order to find the answer but out of my head I know that Mr. Flynn flown the F/A-18 (Legacy Hornet), the F-16 and the Typhoon (and likely others but which I can't remember). So from what I gather the F-35 has at least 40% more range than the longest ranged aircraft of those 3 (Legacy Hornet, F-16 and Typhoon).

Thank you very much for the information. :notworthy:
Gums wrote:I am also glad you didn't paste pages of text from whoever cares versus a sinple URL link many of us can go to if we wish
Fer chrisakes, doge, cut and paste a quote or two to make the points. Post the URL of the entire article for us to read for the fine points. Sheesh....
The plane has "legs", and all of us that have actually flown some of the planes the Stubbie is being compared with will agree.
Gums sends...

I’m truly sorry! :oops: My posts have many number of character words, Quotes is Long, and are hard to read. :doh: (It's I think very long even if read at it myself.)
From now on, I want to reduce the count of Quote texts and posts frequency. :notworthy: My apologies... :oops:

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2020, 21:29
by steve2267
Doge, I always appreciate your posts. You are digging nuggets out for the rest of us. I would be disappointed if your posts dropped in frequency -- they are that good, IMO.

I think what Gums is suggesting (or requesting) is that you don't quote the entire article. Maybe post the URL of the article, the opening paragraph, then a blank line, then some ellipses (...) on a line, another blank line, then quote another paragraph of interesting information with the pertinent stuff in bold font, a blank line, some more ellipses (...) on a line, blank line, then skip down to another paragraph or statement of interest.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2020, 01:39
by ricnunes
Gums wrote:Salute!
Thanks, ricnunes......

I am also glad you didn't paste pages of text from whoever cares versus a sinple URL link many of us can go to if we wish


doge wrote:Thank you very much for the information. :notworthy:


You're welcome guys!

BTW, sorry for not posting a link in my previous post. To be honest with you I was in a hurry since I was preparing myself for the New Year's Eve so my post was as short as possible :wink:

Anyway, here an excerpt/part of Mr. Billie Flynn's relevant "biography":
https://www.aessa.org.za/wp-content/upl ... n_2019.pdf

There you can read the following:
In 2003, Billie joined Lockheed Martin as a test pilot for the F-16 E/F Super Viper. In June 2012, he became the 39th pilot to fly the F-35 when he took off in an F-35B.


Prior to joining Lockheed Martin, Billie served in the Canadian Armed Forces for 23 years and flew the CF-18 Hornet operationally in both Canada and Germany.


From 1990-94, he flew as the Canadian Air Force exchange test pilot at the F-16 Combined Test Force at Edwards Air Force Base in California.


In 1999, he became a test pilot for the European Aerospace and Defence Company based in Munich, Germany. During this time, he tested the Eurofighter Typhoon, focusing on flight control development and radar testing, as well as testing the F-4 E/F and Tornado fighters.


So besides flying the F/A-18 Legacy Hornet (known as CF-18 in Canada), F-16 (he flew several variants of this aircraft) and the Typhoon previously mentioned by me and besides the F-35 (all variants) of course, he also flew the F-4 Phantom and the Tornado.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2020, 02:15
by spazsinbad
FlynnieBoy used to IRK me because he spoke so SLOWly and DELIberateLY but now I understand why and he has also lightened up (for the LIGHTENING? - yes I know). Now I just think he is AWESOME after Paris Airshow Display. AWESOME.

Billy does a lot of this speaking I guess to learn that speaking slowly and clearly helps the interpreter interpret accurately.

Flynn New F-35 Pilots Best in Future Brief Turkey Jun 2018 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzYzEvjViGo


Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2020, 06:26
by Corsair1963
Billie is the "MAN"..... :D

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2020, 14:58
by mixelflick
In the F-35, we finally have a fighter that can rival the Flanker insofar as range. I'm just surprised that it turned out to be a single engine light fighter, the obvious comparison being to the F-16.

It's interesting to watch American fighters change given the new range requirements being drawn up..

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2020, 15:36
by knowan
mixelflick wrote:In the F-35, we finally have a fighter that can rival the Flanker insofar as range.


The F-35 likely has significantly better range than the Flanker; note the range claims for the Flanker are exaggerated a fair bit.

Eg, Su-27 has 9.4 tons of internal fuel with twin engines, a large draggy airframe and external payload. F-35 has only 11% less fuel with a single engine, smaller airframe and internal payload.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2020, 20:33
by lbk000
Su-27 operate downfueled because they simply can't fight on a large fuel load, while the F-35 doesn't give a damn.
The difference is much more operationally significant than the numbers look.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2020, 15:38
by mixelflick
knowan wrote:
mixelflick wrote:In the F-35, we finally have a fighter that can rival the Flanker insofar as range.


The F-35 likely has significantly better range than the Flanker; note the range claims for the Flanker are exaggerated a fair bit.

Eg, Su-27 has 9.4 tons of internal fuel with twin engines, a large draggy airframe and external payload. F-35 has only 11% less fuel with a single engine, smaller airframe and internal payload.


I figured some of the Flanker's stats were exaggerated, but not range. It carries a LOT of gas (25,400lbs in the SU-35), and its engines have a stingy SFC. Nevertheless, external drag on a draggy airframe will bring that down, especially if flying at lower altitudes.

One thing I found interesting in the Flanker's development that originally, it carried only about 13,000lbs of fuel, like the F-15. However, later in its development the powers that be changed the requirement, and wanted a lot more range. This book on the Flanker BTW where I read it is probably the best/most comprehensive I've ever purchased - 720 pages! Excellent tome for those interested in a all things Flanker - https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/19108 ... UTF8&psc=1

Everything from the T-10 on up to Chinese Flankers and the SU-35.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2020, 17:16
by knowan
mixelflick wrote:
knowan wrote:
mixelflick wrote:In the F-35, we finally have a fighter that can rival the Flanker insofar as range.


The F-35 likely has significantly better range than the Flanker; note the range claims for the Flanker are exaggerated a fair bit.

Eg, Su-27 has 9.4 tons of internal fuel with twin engines, a large draggy airframe and external payload. F-35 has only 11% less fuel with a single engine, smaller airframe and internal payload.


I figured some of the Flanker's stats were exaggerated, but not range. It carries a LOT of gas (25,400lbs in the SU-35), and its engines have a stingy SFC. Nevertheless, external drag on a draggy airframe will bring that down, especially if flying at lower altitudes.

One thing I found interesting in the Flanker's development that originally, it carried only about 13,000lbs of fuel, like the F-15. However, later in its development the powers that be changed the requirement, and wanted a lot more range. This book on the Flanker BTW where I read it is probably the best/most comprehensive I've ever purchased - 720 pages! Excellent tome for those interested in a all things Flanker - https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/19108 ... UTF8&psc=1

Everything from the T-10 on up to Chinese Flankers and the SU-35.


Su-35 has about 22% more fuel than the Su-27 and Su-30, so it would have a fair bit more range.

The 1500 km combat radius claims for the Su-27 and Su-30 though? Basically propaganda; a realistic figure would be more like 1000 km.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2020, 02:01
by energo
lbk000 wrote:Su-27 operate downfueled because they simply can't fight on a large fuel load, while the F-35 doesn't give a damn.


Negative. The F-35 also has limits on a comparably large internal fuel load. E.g. it doesn't have a full envelope on full internal fuel. The ORD specifically mentions "Manuevring Weight" at 60 percent internal fuel.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2020, 02:55
by spazsinbad
energo wrote:
lbk000 wrote:Su-27 operate downfueled because they simply can't fight on a large fuel load, while the F-35 doesn't give a damn.


Negative. The F-35 also has limits on a comparably large internal fuel load. E.g. it doesn't have a full envelope on full internal fuel. The ORD specifically mentions "Manuevring Weight" at 60 percent internal fuel.

Please inform us of this 'new' F-35 limitation with a reference thank you - otherwise you will be bombarded with quotes to the contrary. The F-35 has full envelope maneuver with full fuel and internal weapons, explicated many times here IIRC.

Such restriction MAY have been in the past but not today - for example: 26 PDF page report attached below
"...Under previous versions of software, the JSF was restricted in maneuvering based on fuel weight and, under the best of conditions, the F-35A was limited to seven gravitational force equivalents (G-forces), simply called “Gs.” This forced pilots to artificially pad or limit their turns, so as not to “over-G” the aircraft. In a defensive engagement for example, pilots looking over their shoulder at the aircraft prosecuting them would underplay their “G” loading to ensure that they did not place too much stress on the jet (“over-G”) and force an untimely end to their sortie.

Those restrictions are now completely gone, and even with a full internal weapons load-out and fuel, pilots can pull back as far as the stick will go and let the jet limit loadings to nine Gs anytime the jet is capable of generating that kind of turn. As discussed below (under “The Weapons School Standard”), that same finesse is what fighter pilots have always referred to as energy management, and it can only be learned through multiple, regular air-to-air training repetitions..." John Venable 14 May 2019 https://www.heritage.org/node/13072063/print-display

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2020, 09:29
by energo
spazsinbad wrote:Please inform us of this 'new' F-35 limitation with a reference thank you - otherwise you will be bombarded with quotes to the contrary. The F-35 has full envelope maneuver with full fuel and internal weapons, explicated many times here IIRC.

Such restriction MAY have been in the past but not today - for example: 26 PDF page report attached below


Spaz,

I think we had this covered many years ago. Recall the Bowman report and my talks with LM. And what would be the rationale in claiming *no* performace degredation at take off? The F-35 is designed to take off with full internals, burn some off and then fight. Surely not the other way around.

Quote from LM following my visit at the plant in 2008, specifically asking about this:
CTOL is 9g with 60% internal fuel (60% = about 5,000kg of fuel, or about 1,600kg more than a fully fueled F-16) and two internal AIM-120s. The internal weapons stations are 9g. Also 9g with external A-A missiles.

F-35 roll performance is comparable to F-16. F-35 maximum AOA capability is much greater than F-16. F-35 can reach 50 deg AOA, which is nearly twice the F-16 capability. The F-35 aircraft has instantaneous turn-rate capability better than F-16.


Note: The stores 9G reference is independent of fuel: i.e. the F-35 can pull 9Gs with a full internal weapons load, but not both. I think that is where the confusion originates.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2020, 09:38
by spazsinbad
Some perspective please. The date for your quote is 2008? My quote was recent. Can you concede that in the meantime - a decade - things have improved? That is clear from my quote. There are many other quotes about the F-35 having the full performance envelope with full fuel/internal weapons. Sure the aircraft has to taxi and take-off but these days it can be refuelled inflight to have FULL FUEL and still have a full internal weapon load. Many quotes support this F-35 factoid.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2020, 09:46
by energo
spazsinbad wrote:Some perspective please. The date for your quote is 2008? My quote was recent. Can you concede that in the meantime - a decade - things have improved? That is clear from my quote. There are many others about the F-35 having the full performance envelope with full fuel / internal weapons. Sure the aircraft has to taxi and take-off but these days it can be refuelled inflight to have FULL FUEL and still have a full internal weapon load. Many quotes support this F-35 factoid.


I don't think so as LM was refering to the final designed performance. And I don't think AR was part of the design missions. At least I've never seen or heard about such, for any aircraft.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2020, 10:00
by spazsinbad
You have added a NOTE: which is interesting. However you will have to explain more about what was quoted to you some eleven years ago now. I'm looking at my documents for more quotes that will probably point to the same quotes in this forum. Meanwhile I came across this AIRSHOW quote which is perhaps tangential but it interested me: [more on way] And yet you are not able to concede that 'things have changed since 2008'? Remarkable indeed.

BTW I get tired of finding quotes that are not from my memory 11 years ago. I usually only quote what I can quote:
The F-35’s High Angle of Attack Explained 12 Jul 2016 LM [this is a quote from LOCKHEED MARTIN hisself]
https://www.f35.com/in-depth/detail/the ... -explained
-
“...The F-35 was also designed to turn at nine Gs, with a full load of internally-stored fuel & weapons...”
-------------------------------------------------------
Inside the F-35 Lightning II - the invisible fighter jet 29 Oct 2015 Erica Elkhershi
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03 ... ghter-jet/
“...The F-35 has a 43,000 pound thrust class engine which pushes the aircraft to 1.6 times the speed of sound and 700 nautical mph. It pulls 9G - “& it does all of that full of bombs, full of fuel, full of missiles”, Mr Flynn added.

Fourth generation fighter jets, which the F-35 is replacing, need external fuel tanks to fly long distances in combat, and they carry bombs and missiles on the exterior of the aircraft. “When you do you create drag, you slow the aeroplane down. It can’t go super sonic anymore, it can’t pull at maximum G and it can’t accelerate quickly,” Mr Flynn said. “My aeroplane [F-35] does all of that full of bombs, full of missiles, full of fuel.””
--------------------------------------------------------
The F-35’s Race Against Time Nov 2012 John A. Tirpak
http://www.airforcemag.com/magazinearch ... ghter.aspx
“...Lockheed Martin Vice President Stephen O’Bryan, the company’s point man for F-35 affairs, declared that the fighter meets requirements. A former Navy F/A-18 Hornet pilot, O’Bryan said... ...Stealth also permits (and requires) internal fuel and weapons carriage. The Air Force F-35 variant, fully loaded for combat, can pull nine-G turns with a full load of fuel and missiles. This cannot be done by fighters lugging along external weapons & fuel tanks...”

"...2. Aircraft configuration and Fuel Requirements. The profile is flown in a standard configuration aircraft. Taking off with less than full fuel is authorized. Fuel load considerations include: divert requirements, cable availability, and density altitude. Typical fuel loads at engine start are: full fuel for a staged show, 14,500 pounds for a high show, and 12,000 pounds for a low show. All nose low maneuvers were designed to recover above 500’ AGL even in the event of a jet malfunction that relegates the aircraft to only 4Gs, 20° AOA, and mil power. 4Gs and 20° AOA are available even with an FCS POWER LIMIT Caution...." [Yes virginy no armaments are mentioned] 2019 USAF F-35A MANEUVERS PACKAGE https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/a ... ackage.pdf

USAF completes F-35A modifications required for IOC 18 Jul 2016 STEPHEN TRIMBLE
"...The USAF restricted the delivered F-35A fleet to 3g maneouvres when carrying a fuel load of fuel. Only when more than half of the fuel tank was empty could the F-35A perform manoeuvres up to 7g’s, the maximum allowable for USAF variant with Block 2B software. The Block 3F version scheduled for release next year will allow the F-35A to operate the full flight envelope with manoeuvres up to 9gs.…" https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... oc-427568/

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2020, 13:49
by mixelflick
Well. that's pretty clear now isn't it!?!

Remarkable really. I assume the Raptor is the only other aircraft capable of such. So we know the F-35 is a 9g capable airframe with full internal fuel and weapons, whereas it seems the Flanker needs to be at 60% internal fuel or less. I have to hand it to both aircraft really. Their design teams broke new ground in both cases...

The difference of course being the F-35 is much newer. Whatever the case, its an incredible advantage for the F-35 vs. all other 4th/4++ etc. jets...

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2020, 18:19
by ricnunes
mixelflick wrote:Well. that's pretty clear now isn't it!?!

Remarkable really.


Absolutely!

Spaz's last post is definitely cristal clear on the subject: The F-35A is 9G/full envelope capable with FULL internal FUEL and FULL internal weapons load.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2020, 20:44
by wrightwing
energo wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Some perspective please. The date for your quote is 2008? My quote was recent. Can you concede that in the meantime - a decade - things have improved? That is clear from my quote. There are many others about the F-35 having the full performance envelope with full fuel / internal weapons. Sure the aircraft has to taxi and take-off but these days it can be refuelled inflight to have FULL FUEL and still have a full internal weapon load. Many quotes support this F-35 factoid.


I don't think so as LM was refering to the final designed performance. And I don't think AR was part of the design missions. At least I've never seen or heard about such, for any aircraft.


It's been stated on numerous occasions, that F-35As with full fuel, and full internal payload (i.e. >5000lbs) have 9G/50° AoA/M1.6 envelope. It's not even subject to debate at this point.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2020, 00:20
by energo
spazsinbad wrote:You have added a NOTE: which is interesting. However you will have to explain more about what was quoted to you some eleven years ago now. I'm looking at my documents for more quotes that will probably point to the same quotes in this forum. Meanwhile I came across this AIRSHOW quote which is perhaps tangential but it interested me: [more on way] And yet you are not able to concede that 'things have changed since 2008'? Remarkable indeed.


I don't follow you here. Why is it remarkable that I adhere to the source itself? Did requirements suddenly change after 2008? Was there a sudden huge improvement in performance that LM did not predict in 2008? Where is the logic in taking off with full fuel and go directly into a 9G battle? Where is the mission?

Your airshow quotes states that a reduced fuel load is used, so it does not conflict with LMs tatement.

The Flynn comment can be interpreted several ways, he is not specifically saying "full internal fuel". "Full of fuel" can simply refer to "Lots of fuel". I graced over the subject with Flynn at FIA14 and although I can't remember the specifics there was certainly nothing new that stood out. But I guess that is conjecture at this point.

The o'Bryan comment is more compelling, but its is still contrary to what LM clearly stated back then.

However, I found the replies to my followup questions:

BB: What is the g-limit with internal 2000-pund class weapons?
LM’s Answer: The CTOL F-35 has full (9g) capability with 2000 lb class internal weapons up to Basic Flight Design Gross Weight.


So now you can trade fuel with ordnance up to the Basic Flight Design Gross Weight. This is also in line with the Bowman report and its analysis of performance requirements in the JORD.

I will see if I can get more confirmation on this, but I'm not too optimistic.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2020, 00:38
by energo
wrightwing wrote:
It's been stated on numerous occasions, that F-35As with full fuel, and full internal payload (i.e. >5000lbs) have 9G/50° AoA/M1.6 envelope. It's not even subject to debate at this point.


Clearly it's debatable, but your source is? On a general note, isn't it common for fighters to have AOA restrictions simply due to to the fact that CG is changing as weight is changing during the mission? Give me all yer best. :mrgreen:

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2020, 00:46
by spazsinbad
Firstly: which copy of the JORD do you refer. AFAIK it has been changed. Do you have a copy of whatever JORD?

Secondly: please specify 'Basic Flight Design Gross Weight' and why refer to BOWMAN which is now old & speculative? AND to what BOWMAN document do you refer? Some links to your assertions would be great otherwise you rely on notes & memory from 11 years ago.

Now tell me why requirements cannot be surpassed. We are told plenty of times that the performance of the F-35 is better than expected/required/whatever. In 2008 the aircraft may have been designed but then surpassed what you say.

O'Bryan is an LM spokesperson. How do you account for the LM PR quote:
The F-35’s High Angle of Attack Explained
12 Jul 2016 LM PR

"...The F-35 was also designed to turn at nine Gs, with a full load of internally-stored fuel and weapons, far outclassing any enemy jet with their externally-mounted missiles and fuel tanks. The F-35 is designed to be comparable to current 4th Generation tactical fighters, such as the F-16, F/A-18, and F-15, in terms of maneuverability, but the Lightning II’s design is optimized for stealth, allowing it to operate in contested airspace environments where they could not survive latest current and emerging threats...."

Source: https://www.f35.com/in-depth/detail/the ... -explained

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2020, 00:48
by spazsinbad
energo wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
It's been stated on numerous occasions, that F-35As with full fuel, and full internal payload (i.e. >5000lbs) have 9G/50° AoA/M1.6 envelope. It's not even subject to debate at this point.


Clearly it's debatable, but your source is? On a general note, isn't it common for fighters to have AOA restrictions simply due to to the fact that CG is changing as weight is changing during the mission? Give me all yer best. :mrgreen:

Why does the F-35 have to be 'common' to 4thGen fighters and their restrictions? Give me some idea please.

IS this it? Scorecard - A Case study of the Joint Strike Fighter Program April 2008 Geoffrey P. Bowman, LCDR, USN
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-14791.html (PDF 238Kb)

BTW this is the 'airshow quote that most interested me:
""...2. Aircraft configuration and Fuel Requirements. The profile is flown in a standard configuration aircraft. Taking off with less than full fuel is authorized. Fuel load considerations include: divert requirements, cable availability, and density altitude. Typical fuel loads at engine start are: full fuel for a staged show

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2020, 01:23
by energo
spazsinbad wrote:Secondly: please specify 'Basic Flight Design Gross Weight' and why refer to BOWMAN which is now old & speculative? AND to what BOWMAN document do you refer? Some links to your assertions would be great otherwise you rely on notes & memory from 11 years ago.

Now tell me why requirements cannot be surpassed. We are told plenty of times that the performance of the F-35 is better than expected/required/whatever. In 2008 the aircraft may have been designed but then surpassed what you say.


But now you are speculating.

According to LM Basic Flight Design Gross Weight is 60 percent fuel and two AAMs.

spazsinbad wrote:O'Bryan is an LM spokesperson. How do you account for the LM PR quote


That's pretty compelling, but I'm far from convinced as my info is not from the comms or PR department. Let's see how this plays out. Of course, there would be nothing better if LM had this all wrong in 2008. :applause:

Now consider this: the 29300 pound empty weight, which forms the basis of all the performance calculations, has not changed. So where would this substantial increase in performance come from? Four and a half tons of internal fuel makes huge difference, wouldn't you agree?

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2020, 01:41
by spazsinbad
energo wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Secondly: please specify 'Basic Flight Design Gross Weight' and why refer to BOWMAN which is now old & speculative? AND to what BOWMAN document do you refer? Some links to your assertions would be great otherwise you rely on notes & memory from 11 years ago.

Now tell me why requirements cannot be surpassed. We are told plenty of times that the performance of the F-35 is better than expected/required/whatever. In 2008 the aircraft may have been designed but then surpassed what you say.


But now you are speculating.

According to LM Basic Flight Design Gross Weight is 60 percent fuel and two AAMs.

spazsinbad wrote:O'Bryan is an LM spokesperson. How do you account for the LM PR quote


That's pretty compelling, but I'm far from convinced as my info is not from the comms or PR department. Let's see how this plays out. Of course, there would be nothing better if LM had this all wrong in 2008. :applause:

Now consider this: the 29300 pound empty weight, which forms the basis of all the performance calculations, has not changed. So where would this substantial increase in performance come from? Four and a half tons of internal fuel makes huge difference, wouldn't you agree?

Please provide a reference to the 'LM Basic Flight Design Gross Weight' you seem to be relying on your 'notes' and memory whilst this forum can see neither. And how am I speculating with sourced quotes? 'energo' you seem to think that we must believe your assertions circa 2008. 'Performance Calculations in 2008' are one thing but then there is FLIGHT TEST and the quotes quoted subsequently recently.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2020, 01:44
by energo
spazsinbad wrote:Why does the F-35 have to be 'common' to 4thGen fighters and their restrictions? Give me some idea please.


Let's establish our baseline here: Are you saying changing weight does not influence CG and AOA on fighters? Can you refer to any examples where this does not apply?

spazsinbad wrote:IS this it? Scorecard - A Case study of the Joint Strike Fighter Program April 2008 Geoffrey P. Bowman, LCDR, USN
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-14791.html (PDF 238Kb)


My apologies, I simply assumed you remembered the report. It has been debated in this and other forums. You even replied to it on at least one occation. But I agree it should not be taken as a defacto fact. I merely added it as it corroborates LMs own statements.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2020, 01:48
by spazsinbad
UhOH. 'energo' you brought up this point so go ahead & prove it for the F-35: "Let's establish our baseline here: Are you saying changing weight does not influence CG and AOA on fighters? Can you refer to any examples where this does not apply?" I don't have to prove anything. I'm asking you to provide evidence with URLs etc for whatever F-35 info you have.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2020, 01:58
by energo
spazsinbad wrote: 'Performance Calculations in 2008' are one thing but then there is FLIGHT TEST and the quotes quoted subsequently recently.


You are speculating about flight tests. Sorry partner, but you have lost me there.

I will see if I can get an update on this.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2020, 02:13
by spazsinbad
I see myself speculating on your speculations from 2008 NOT updated to today (or recently anyway). You can claim a lot of things but to have credibility you need authoritative sources - not just a note/memory of yourn from 2008. Meanwhile:
Semper Lightning: F-35 Flight Control System
09 Dec 2015 Dan “Dog” Canin (LM TEST PILOT) [pity no follow up]

"...The F-35 is an inherently unstable airplane, required to handle a wide range of CG. Its control surfaces are sized to meet the requirements of both maneuverability and low observability. As a result, the combinations of body rates, AOAs, CGs, Machs, and weapon bay door positions that define the controllable envelope of the F-35 are extremely complex – and the boundaries of that envelope are reflected, with all that complexity, in CLAW...."

Source: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=187

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2020, 03:52
by lbk000
Just as a point of reference we'll use Su-27SK, so this won't be exactly accurate to the Su-35S, but the deviation won't be dramatic:
Max operation G-loading is limited to 8.0 Gs @ 21,400 kg (47179 lbs)

Empty weight is ~38600lb
For an F-35 "equivalent" load:
2x 1000lb bomb equivalents (1100+lb FAB-500 + mounting) + 2x MRMs (700+lb R-27ER + rail), drop in 300+lb of ammo, you've got about 4100lbs of ordinance.
You get 4500lbs (!!!) of gas to match the F-35's airshow-out-of-the-bag capability. That's about 22% of the total possible fuel load. Again, this isn't even a realworld loadout as seen over Crimea or Syria which would be heavier, but it will put into context the Flankers seen with open pylons and 30% fuel.

Making allowances for a more realistic operational paradigm of 1. burning off gas to the mission and 2. ditching the A-G mission, you'll find there is no mission profile where you need a full tank of gas AND be at max performance maneuvering weight at the fight with the fuel needed to come back.
That's because a significant portion of the Flanker's gas tanks are by design for ferry use.

The central point I was trying to make, and that you willfully ignored, is that the Flanker's max operational fuel capacity is NOT its gross fuel capacity, so operational radius comparisons favor the F-35 even harder. No amount of pedantry over the F-35's weight limits here will change the balance.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2020, 05:01
by weasel1962
Agreed on Sukhoi's range vs operational radius difference. Same goes with the F-35.

Su-30mk2: 3000km (1619 nm) range at cruise altitude with MTOW of 34,500kg (75,900lbs) and 9720kg (21,384lbs) max internal fuel with a load-out of 4 AAMs. Flight range is 1270km at low altitudes...

Source: Official numbers per rosboronexport catalog (site use at your own risk).
http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/aerospace-sys ... /su-30mk2/

Weasel's note: 1 engine vs 2 engine is less relevant since low power use at optimal cruising speed is probably imho roughly equivalent in terms of fuel usage (if similar TW, ceteris paribus and using simple logic. However carrying one extra engine does increase weight...). imho, F-35A should be able to achieve 1600+nm ferry range on the 15% less internal fuel. Drag from 4 AAMs is not that significant and suks are generally quite slick. Don't forget the Russians designed the Su-27 as an air superiority (not multi-role) fighter first.

The difference is that when one goes into air combat, the afterburner will have to kick in and that's where the fuel guzzling begins for the suk that will be far higher than the F-35. So the effective combat radius drops significantly because if the suk has to engage F-35s at 600nm, they won't be going home. Hit the afterburners, don't have the range to go home. Don't hit the afterburners, the F-35 goes into the combat with a significant energy advantage i.e. get shot down and still don't get to go home.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2020, 06:23
by wrightwing
energo wrote:

Let's establish our baseline here: Are you saying changing weight does not influence CG and AOA on fighters? Can you refer to any examples where this does not apply?


No, what we (and official sources) are saying, is that the F-35A/B/C has no envelope restrictions with full fuel/internal weapons. Pilots have routinely said that internal weapons have no discernable effect on flight performance/handling.
4th gen jets have envelope limits due to external mounted weapons, fuel, pods, which can have a big effect on DI, CG, etc... One of the big selling points for the F-35, is that in stealthy configurations, it can outperform 4th generation jets by a large margin.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2020, 08:18
by spazsinbad
In the interest of backing up some of my so-called 'speculations' with sadly very dense material such as the CLAW quote above. Now for the really dense stuff about 'better than predicted/requirement' F-35 results from those who dun dood it.
F-35 Aerodynamic Performance Verification
25-29 Jun 2018 David G. Parsons, Austin G. Eckstein, & Jeff J. Azevedo LMers

"...Ultimately, the flight test results proved that the design of the F-35 aircraft exceeded requirements....

...II. Introduction
THIS paper provides a top-level understanding of the approach taken and analytical techniques used on the F-35 during our performance validation. With these we verified the conventional performance requirements of the F-35, with particular emphasis on the key performance parameters (KPPs) of the Joint Contract Specification (JCS). Our modeling and simulation-based verification process successfully validated the aerodynamics and performance databases used to calculate performance with a minimal flight test matrix. Ultimately, the process indicated that the mission performance of all three variants of the F-35 exceeded requirements....

...IV. Performance Management
At contract award, the F-35 program mandated the use of a conservative factor on aircraft performance calculations to cover risks in several aspects of the new design. The factor was implemented as a 5-percent increase in predicted fuel flow to cover immaturity in the design, among other things. It also covered the uncertainty in predicted aerodynamics and propulsion databases, as well as the possibility of weight growth during the maturation of the design. Further, it covered the potential for configuration changes resulting from discoveries during flight testing that could adversely affect performance. As the aircraft design matured and flight testing was accomplished, uncertainty in each of these areas was to be retired. In tandem, the factor was to be progressively reduced until no conservatism was to be applied for the final calculation of specification performance....

...VI. Flight Test Analysis Results...
...After completing all flight test analysis and obtaining the F-35 JPO’s concurrence, we used the validated aerodynamics databases to calculate the KPP mission performance for each variant. The results showed that each of the variants exceeded the JCS requirement for mission range by more than 10 percent, as illustrated in Fig. 15.... [attached]

...VII. Conclusion
On the F-35 program, we successfully implemented a modeling and simulation-based approach to aerodynamic performance verification. Applying conservatism to performance calculations early in the program protected against potential uncertainties in configuration, weight, or aerodynamics levels. Our rigorous process controlled aircraft weight growth and helped to ensure that the performance of the final F-35 design met the KPP requirements of the program specification. The efforts of a government/contractor team culminated in delivering a credible, flight test-based aerodynamics and performance database that accurately represents the performance of the F-35. This will be applicable for not only specification verification but also the operational performance products used by the fleet."

Source: download/file.php?id=27757 (PDF attached below)

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2020, 10:09
by weasel1962
Don't all planes have a flight envelope, at any fuel load?

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2020, 10:17
by wrightwing
weasel1962 wrote:Don't all planes have a flight envelope, at any fuel load?

The difference is that the F-35 has a full flight envelope with no restrictions, with full fuel and internal ordnance. 4th generation jets only carry external weapons, fuel tanks, pods, so their envelopes will vary greatly depending on the configuration and fuel status.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2020, 10:36
by weasel1962
A flight envelope is perhaps in itself a restriction since that explains the upper limits of how an aircraft is expected to perform? Maybe the better way to describe is that the flight envelope of the F-35 at full fuel load would look like that of a legacy clean plus plus which itself has a significantly broader envelope than a legacy/suk either weighed down by EFTs or externally carried stores. A broader flight envelope could of course mean being able to fly faster at differing altitudes/weights, turn more at differing speeds, pull more Gs at certain speeds, fly higher etc.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2020, 11:27
by spazsinbad
Tried to improve Fig.3 with subset MISSION PERFORMANCE because after all is not this thread about 'internal fuel, range'?
"...Performance requirements for the F-35 were defined in the JCS. The primary conventional aircraft performance requirement for each variant was the KPP design mission radius. The F-35B (STOVL) had additional KPP requirements for short takeoff distance and vertical landing bring-back to emphasize operations aboard Navy LH-class amphibious assault ships. The approach to verifying each of those requirements followed processes similar to those used for the conventional performance requirement approach presented herein. Vertical landing bring-back is a measure of the aircraft’s ability to recover to the ship with unexpended munitions and fuel. The F-35C (CV) had a separate KPP requirement for approach speed to emphasize operations on Navy aircraft carriers. The F-35 program used a modeling and simulation-based approach to determine and verify aircraft aerodynamics and performance...."

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2020, 03:52
by Gums
Salute!

Getting some good poop here last few days.

One thing for all the armchair folks to consider is the initial climb/cruise phase. You don't takeoff and keep the burner going, comb hair forward and pull out your Zippo. In Linebacker II we didn't accelerate until about 100 miles out, and descended a few thousand feet to help. You try to save as much gas as you can before you need to push it up.

OTOH, at Red Flag one time I had two of the big tanks and 6 or 8 Mk-82 on MER's. Down on the deck at 540 kts I was burning 4500 to 5000 lb/hr and still had about 9,000 lbs of gas. No refueling in or out. I was "comfortable".

Gums sends...

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2020, 04:02
by Corsair1963
The F-35's large internal fuel volume and excellent aerodynamic performance can't be underestimated.... 8)

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2020, 04:20
by steve2267
Gums wrote:OTOH, at Red Flag one time I had two of the big tanks and 6 or 8 Mk-82 on MER's. Down on the deck at 540 kts I was burning 4500 to 5000 lb/hr and still had about 9,000 lbs of gas. No refueling in or out. I was "comfortable".

Gums sends...


Gums, were you at full MIL down on the deck? Or were you still a handful of RPM's back from full MIL? (0.94 Mach? Am guessing you were all the way forward, but not in burner just yet...)

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2020, 04:53
by Gums
Salute!

No, Steve, I was maybe 90% rpm and not full mil power. That rascal was fast! 'vaarks and Thuds faster, but we had the A2A capability that they didn't have. Recall the Bomb Comp at Lossiemouth.

Gums sends...

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2020, 05:23
by johnwill
At those speeds, the MERs were probably galloping a little. :shock:

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2020, 05:40
by steve2267
Gums wrote:Salute!

No, Steve, I was maybe 90% rpm and not full mil power. That rascal was fast! 'vaarks and Thuds faster, but we had the A2A capability that they didn't have. Recall the Bomb Comp at Lossiemouth.


I'm not a motor guy... but am inferring that fuel consumption is NOT a linear function of rpm?

And now after looking at some numbers I'm confused...

Wiki says the F-100-PW-220 gets about 0.73lb/hr/lbf for gas mileage. If full MIL is 14,600lb thrust, then full MILL should be drinking about 10.6K/hr. Dividing your fuel flow rate of 5000lb/hr by .73 gives only 6850lb of thrust. That seems too low? If you were on the deck @ Nellis, that puts you at what 4-5000 MSL? So the air is thicker than here in Denver. What am I missing? Installed thrust vs static, sea-level thrust? Damn, I'm going to have to go dig out some old text books...

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2020, 08:05
by weasel1962
presumably the Lt Col was referring to 388TFW's 81 bomb comp? +1.

I note the F-16 outcome was all ground targets destroyed, 88 A2A kills, and no losses with a near-perfect score.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2020, 08:42
by knowan
weasel1962 wrote:Weasel's note: 1 engine vs 2 engine is less relevant since low power use at optimal cruising speed is probably imho roughly equivalent in terms of fuel usage (if similar TW, ceteris paribus and using simple logic. However carrying one extra engine does increase weight...). imho, F-35A should be able to achieve 1600+nm ferry range on the 15% less internal fuel. Drag from 4 AAMs is not that significant and suks are generally quite slick. Don't forget the Russians designed the Su-27 as an air superiority (not multi-role) fighter first.


It's more the increased frontal area and associated drag of two engines versus one, and the Flanker definitely has a fair amount of drag, considering the relatively modest subsonic acceleration performance of the plane.

Due to less drag and less weight, the F-35 is very likely to consume considerably less fuel per distance than the Flanker, likely enough to give it greater combat range than the Su-27/30.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2020, 09:41
by weasel1962
knowan wrote:It's more the increased frontal area and associated drag of two engines versus one, and the Flanker definitely has a fair amount of drag, considering the relatively modest subsonic acceleration performance of the plane.

Due to less drag and less weight, the F-35 is very likely to consume considerably less fuel per distance than the Flanker, likely enough to give it greater combat range than the Su-27/30.


which again is not totally relevant. Consider the F-15 vs F-16. The extra thrust more than compensates for the drag. Of course in the case of the F-35, there is a lot more thrust vis the F-16 for a lower amount of drag. But from a purely aircraft performance angle, I'd rather be in an F-22 than an F-35.

I don't think the range difference is that significant between the Suk and an F-35. The Russians have always liked long ranged planes due to their geography and have designed their planes as such. The difference is more how the pilot uses the plane. Good pilots will be able to squeeze more out of the same plane.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2020, 11:19
by knowan
weasel1962 wrote: The extra thrust more than compensates for the drag.


Not with Flanker vs F-35.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2020, 11:32
by weasel1962
Factually at least 28% more thrust than the F-35. Do kindly share your drag coefficient "sauces" to demonstrate...

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2020, 11:33
by ricnunes
weasel1962 wrote:The Russians have always liked long ranged planes due to their geography and have designed their planes as such. The difference is more how the pilot uses the plane. Good pilots will be able to squeeze more out of the same plane.


IMO, not necessarily true.
Most of the Migs, namely the Mig-21, Mig-29 and also the Mig-23 do not follow such long ranged plane 'philosophy'.

Resuming the Russians also seem to have favored "point-defense" (short range) interceptors, at least until a relatively recent past.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2020, 11:48
by hornetfinn
knowan wrote:Su-35 has about 22% more fuel than the Su-27 and Su-30, so it would have a fair bit more range.

The 1500 km combat radius claims for the Su-27 and Su-30 though? Basically propaganda; a realistic figure would be more like 1000 km.


It's really interesting that Sukhoi does not claim much better range for Su-35 than for Su-27, but 20% longer range than Su-30. Here are their figures with 2xR-27R1 and 2xR-73E with halfway launch. I don't think it's really even supposed to be realistic combat flight profile though. Real world figures would naturally be a lot lower depending on mission and carriage.

Su-27 1,340 km low / 3,530 km high
Su-30 1,270 km low / 3,000 km high
Su-35 1,580 km low / 3,600 km high

IMO, it would make much more sense to overestimate Su-35 range than old aircraft like Su-27. They are marketing and trying to sell their new equipment after all. I find it interesting that Su-35 range is almost 18% better in low altitudes but only less than 2% better at high altitudes. Su-30 is 5.5% inferior at low altitudes but almost 18% inferior at high altitude.

I bet this is because both Su-30 and Su-35 are a lot heavier than Su-27 and burn more fuel reaching the optimal high cruise altitude. Su-35 has huge amount of fuel and probably pretty similar amount of drag to Su-27. So at low altitudes it has significantly better range. Su-30 is both heavier and draggier, so it's slightly inferior at low altitudes and has quite significantly inferior range at high altitudes.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2020, 11:58
by weasel1962
ricnunes wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:The Russians have always liked long ranged planes due to their geography and have designed their planes as such. The difference is more how the pilot uses the plane. Good pilots will be able to squeeze more out of the same plane.


IMO, not necessarily true.
Most of the Migs, namely the Mig-21, Mig-29 and also the Mig-23 do not follow such long ranged plane 'philosophy'.

Resuming the Russians also seem to have favored "point-defense" (short range) interceptors, at least until a relatively recent past.


Accepted. However, doesn't change the fact that the su-27 was designed as a long-ranged fighter, not a point defence fighter like the Migs.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2020, 12:04
by mixelflick
ricnunes wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:The Russians have always liked long ranged planes due to their geography and have designed their planes as such. The difference is more how the pilot uses the plane. Good pilots will be able to squeeze more out of the same plane.


IMO, not necessarily true.
Most of the Migs, namely the Mig-21, Mig-29 and also the Mig-23 do not follow such long ranged plane 'philosophy'.

Resuming the Russians also seem to have favored "point-defense" (short range) interceptors, at least until a relatively recent past.


Quite true. Even the Mig-25 was a reflection of this, a situation not rectified until the advent of the Mig-31. Sukhoi started with the goal of creating an "anti-F-15", something that could outperform it. Thus, the SU-27 had to be a big machine in order to carry the radar, fuel etc.necessary to achieve its goal. In fact, it needed to be even bigger than its western counterpart, given Soviet electronics/avionics were inferior and quite a bit heavier than the AN/APG-63.

They wound up with something that could carry vast amounts of fuel internally, and when requirements were changed early on for more range, had the available space. I don't know that we'll see a return to point defense interceptors anytime soon, as even the Mig-35 has much longer legs than the Mig-29. Russian design philosophy has apparently shifted, as there are no aircraft on Mig's or Sukhoi's drawing board that appear to sacrifice range vs. the Flanker. If anything, the SU-57 should have even greater range than its predecessor...

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2020, 12:26
by spazsinbad
I find it 'faskinatin' not that there is endless B/S about Soviet Aircraft on a thread about 'F-35 internal fuel, range'. Why.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2020, 12:33
by ricnunes
weasel1962 wrote:However, doesn't change the fact that the su-27 was designed as a long-ranged fighter, not a point defence fighter like the Migs.


Yes, indeed.
I agree and echo mixelflick's words that the Russian design philosophy has apparently shifted in the relatively recent past (I would say since the 1980's) with the Su-27 family that you mentioned and also with the Mig-31 and apparently and more recently with the Su-57.
Anyway, the point of my previous post was to correct the "always liked" part of the "Russians have always liked long ranged planes" sentence.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2020, 12:49
by hornetfinn
And it seems that range has become more important than ever recently even in US. Fighter aircraft are getting more and more CFTs and F-35 was specifically designed to carry a huge amount of internal fuel with really high fuel fraction.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2020, 15:29
by ricnunes
hornetfinn wrote:And it seems that range has become more important than ever recently even in US. Fighter aircraft are getting more and more CFTs and F-35 was specifically designed to carry a huge amount of internal fuel with really high fuel fraction.


Yes, I agree.

In the case of the US/West, I'm pretty sure the reasons are rather obvious. Air superiority together with Tactical, Interdiction and Strategical Air-to-Ground strikes is the cornerstone of US/Western/NATO strategy to overcome any enemy and as such having longer range and as such inevitably associated with more fuel is of paramount importance to achieve this.

Regarding the Russian (or even Eastern) perspective, I wonder if the Mig-29's colossal failure - doesn't matter which excuse a fan of this plane may come up with, there's no other wording to describe the Mig-29's real combat performance! - which was even a failure against the Su-27 (during the Ethiopia-Eritrea War of 2000) played a significant role in Russia's decision to go with bigger and longer ranged aircraft (Su-27 family and later the Su-57)??

Of course that short range doesn't fully excuse the Mig-29 poor record but I would say that "short range" would likely be among the Mig-29's top three (3) or so shortcomings.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2020, 18:35
by knowan
weasel1962 wrote:Factually at least 28% more thrust than the F-35. Do kindly share your drag coefficient "sauces" to demonstrate...


There's been discussions of how well Flanker and F-35 accelerations compare to other aircraft on these forums. IIRC, the F-35A compares well with F-16C, which puts it well ahead of the Flanker.

And there's this thread: viewtopic.php?f=55&t=52510

Flanker accelerating worse than F-35 means it has less excess thrust over drag, despite possessing greater thrust. This means the Flanker has significantly more drag than the F-35.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2020, 19:09
by steve2267
knowan wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:Factually at least 28% more thrust than the F-35. Do kindly share your drag coefficient "sauces" to demonstrate...


There's been discussions of how well Flanker and F-35 accelerations compare to other aircraft on these forums. IIRC, the F-35A compares well with F-16C, which puts it well ahead of the Flanker.

And there's this thread: viewtopic.php?f=55&t=52510

Flanker accelerating worse than F-35 means it has less excess thrust over drag, despite possessing greater thrust. This means the Flanker has significantly more drag than the F-35.


Well... it's larger, so all things being equal, yeah, it's going to have more drag. Or were you meaning to state that the Flanker has a higher zero lift drag coefficient than the F-35?

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2020, 22:24
by sprstdlyscottsmn
steve2267 wrote:
Well... it's larger, so all things being equal, yeah, it's going to have more drag. Or were you meaning to state that the Flanker has a higher zero lift drag coefficient than the F-35?


They could have the exact same coefficient and the Flanker would have 40+% more actual zero lift drag.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2020, 01:06
by weasel1962
ricnunes wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:However, doesn't change the fact that the su-27 was designed as a long-ranged fighter, not a point defence fighter like the Migs.


Yes, indeed.
I agree and echo mixelflick's words that the Russian design philosophy has apparently shifted in the relatively recent past (I would say since the 1980's) with the Su-27 family that you mentioned and also with the Mig-31 and apparently and more recently with the Su-57.
Anyway, the point of my previous post was to correct the "always liked" part of the "Russians have always liked long ranged planes" sentence.


That part I maintain what I said. Long ranged interception does not stem from the Su-27. You can trace the Soviet roots down to the Yak-25 thru Su-15 and the split between PVO (long ranged interception) and Frontal aviation. Long ranged interception requirements arose from the start of the cold war due to the threat of nuke-armed bombers and the Yak-25 (or Yak-120) was developed from 1951 to fill that need. Before that, one might even point to the Yak-9D.

Agree in part that the Su-27 inclusion into frontal aviation may have changed that segment from just point defense but PVO has existed since way before that.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2020, 01:17
by weasel1962
steve2267 wrote:
knowan wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:Factually at least 28% more thrust than the F-35. Do kindly share your drag coefficient "sauces" to demonstrate...


There's been discussions of how well Flanker and F-35 accelerations compare to other aircraft on these forums. IIRC, the F-35A compares well with F-16C, which puts it well ahead of the Flanker.

And there's this thread: viewtopic.php?f=55&t=52510

Flanker accelerating worse than F-35 means it has less excess thrust over drag, despite possessing greater thrust. This means the Flanker has significantly more drag than the F-35.


Well... it's larger, so all things being equal, yeah, it's going to have more drag. Or were you meaning to state that the Flanker has a higher zero lift drag coefficient than the F-35?


I'm not sure whether the issue is being conflated. One would naturally expect lower acceleration due to wind flow for a swept wing design like the su-27 at lower speeds. Lower speed = lower airflow. However, higher thrust is therefore precisely used to offset/compensate for this. That's the design. At higher speeds, the drag factor is offset. I think it would be erroneous to interpret that to mean the Su-27 has a higher drag at all speeds/altitude.

The trapezoidal design like the F-35 doesn't have that problem but the offset is, in theory, a higher wing loading that affects the lift coefficient. That was also the initial criticism of the F-35 but I think pilot experience shows otherwise. At higher speeds, the drag difference between the 2 is imho unlikely to be materially advantages for the F-35, unless the Su-27 carries significant external stores to create the additional drag. I haven't read anything to suggest that is an incorrect understanding but I never studied aeronautical engineering so I'd gladly defer to the experts.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2020, 05:01
by knowan
For aircraft range, subsonic cruise and drag are most relevant, and the Flanker does appear to be inferior to F-35 in that flight regime.

While I did not mention subsonic flight in regards to drag previously, it was what I was talking about.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2020, 08:33
by weasel1962
knowan wrote:For aircraft range, subsonic cruise and drag are most relevant, and the Flanker does appear to be inferior to F-35 in that flight regime.

While I did not mention subsonic flight in regards to drag previously, it was what I was talking about.


Which again is not conclusive because that also depends on air density i.e. altitude. drag increases the lower one goes, hence the most efficient cruise ranges are often at higher altitudes which again may not suggest a significant difference throughout the entire subsonic envelope. That's also why the Su-30 brochure states a 3000km cruise range and a 1270km range at low altitude. I would not be surprised if the f-35 can go beyond 1270km range flying low but the standard cruise range should not be very far from that of the Su-30mk2.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2020, 09:10
by knowan
weasel1962 wrote:Which again is not conclusive because that also depends on air density i.e. altitude. drag increases the lower one goes, hence the most efficient cruise ranges are often at higher altitudes which again may not suggest a significant difference throughout the entire subsonic envelope. That's also why the Su-30 brochure states a 3000km cruise range and a 1270km range at low altitude. I would not be surprised if the f-35 can go beyond 1270km range flying low but the standard cruise range should not be very far from that of the Su-30mk2.


Altitude won't favour the Flanker; drag will decrease by the same proportional rate for each aircraft as they go higher, because it isn't the aircraft that is changing but atmospheric density.

As sprst said, even assuming same coefficient, the Flanker has at least 40% more drag; that's more than enough to result in lesser range despite the Su-27/30 possessing ~15% more fuel.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2020, 12:27
by hornetfinn
spazsinbad wrote:I find it 'faskinatin' not that there is endless B/S about Soviet Aircraft on a thread about 'F-35 internal fuel, range'. Why.


I agree that it has gone quite off-topic but I think the original idea was to compare F-35 range with one of the longest legged and largest 4th gen fighters. And it does compare very favourably there and also to all other current fighters. I think if we compare combat loaded F-35A to combat loaded Su-30 for example, F-35A is going to have superior range not to mention all other advantages it has.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2020, 15:43
by mixelflick
ricnunes wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:And it seems that range has become more important than ever recently even in US. Fighter aircraft are getting more and more CFTs and F-35 was specifically designed to carry a huge amount of internal fuel with really high fuel fraction.


Yes, I agree.

In the case of the US/West, I'm pretty sure the reasons are rather obvious. Air superiority together with Tactical, Interdiction and Strategical Air-to-Ground strikes is the cornerstone of US/Western/NATO strategy to overcome any enemy and as such having longer range and as such inevitably associated with more fuel is of paramount importance to achieve this.

Regarding the Russian (or even Eastern) perspective, I wonder if the Mig-29's colossal failure - doesn't matter which excuse a fan of this plane may come up with, there's no other wording to describe the Mig-29's real combat performance! - which was even a failure against the Su-27 (during the Ethiopia-Eritrea War of 2000) played a significant role in Russia's decision to go with bigger and longer ranged aircraft (Su-27 family and later the Su-57)??

Of course that short range doesn't fully excuse the Mig-29 poor record but I would say that "short range" would likely be among the Mig-29's top three (3) or so shortcomings.


The range issue may also be a consequence of peripheral factors. Meaning USAF has an enormous fleet of tankers, while Russia doesn't. And while this has served the U.S. well in the past, dependency on tankers is a growing issue - particularly with Chinese/Russian ultra long range AAM's entering service. The F-35 will go a long, long way toward reducing that tanker dependency. By any measure, it's a dramatic improvement over legacy fighters (with the possible exception of the F-15E).

I share your opinion of the Mig-29, and agree wholeheartedly it couldn't have failed in a more spectacular way. The Iraqi's had some of their best pilots flying them, but it didn't matter. Reduced to spare parts/teeth/eyeballs. Post Gulf War 1 findings of the Iraqi air force found that the Mig-25 was perhaps their most successful aircraft. They were most disappointed in their Mig-23's (which was more or less expected), and likewise their Mig-29's (which wasn't)

In the Serbian conflict, they lost 6 Mig-29's there; 2 to F-15's and 2 to F-16's. The Iranians? They found the F-14 superior to their Mig-29's in almost every way, and consequently only bought a limited number.

In summary, the Mig-29 continued the tradition of Russian fighter aircraft falling victim to their US built counterparts. Full combat win/loss record appears below. With the exception of some action in Cuba*, it's rather damning...

MiG-29 6-18-1

Lebanon War 1982-2000 (Syria) 0-2-0
Gulf War (Iraq) 0-5-0
Transnistria War (Moldova, Russia) 0-0-0
Brothers in Rescue incident* (Cuba) 2-0-0
Slovenian War (Yugoslavia) 0-0-0
Croatian War (Yugoslavia) 0-0-0
Bosnia (Serbia) 0-0-0
Kosovo (Serbia) 0-6-0
Kargil War (India) 0-0-0
Ethiopian-Eritrean War (Eritrea) 3-5-0
Georgian border violation 2008 (Russia) 1-0-0
Darfur War (Sudan) 0-0-1

* It did shoot down 2 Cessna Skymasters... :)

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2020, 15:58
by Gums
Salute!

The Finn has it right. However, without some war stories from Flanker flyers, we're speculating too much.

I think the original idea was to compare F-35 range with one of the longest legged and largest 4th gen fighters. And it does compare very favourably there and also to all other current fighters.


I would rather see Super Bug and Mudhen folks comment/compare.

Secondly, the big effect of altitude is the engine's performance. e.g. we cruised at 20K to 25K in the Sluf because the motor and drag combination was best for range there. And we were SLOW!!! We could gradually climb higher, but gained little miles per gallon. So from Korat to Hanoi we would get to 25K, then we started a full grunt descent about 100 miles out. The Viper motor was really great up at 30 - 35K, and if clean we could handle 40K slightly supersonic in mil for a minute or two, then tap burner and get back to 1.1M for another minute or two ( family model with centerline tank). I routinely demo'd this to students when coming back from Mountain Goat ( we flew "strange" field insturment approaches at SLC and the Goat)

Gums sends...

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2020, 17:02
by playloud
Gums wrote:Secondly, the big effect of altitude is the engine's performance. e.g. we cruised at 20K to 25K in the Sluf because the motor and drag combination was best for range there. And we were SLOW!!! We could gradually climb higher, but gained little miles per gallon. So from Korat to Hanoi we would get to 25K, then we started a full grunt descent about 100 miles out. The Viper motor was really great up at 30 - 35K, and if clean we could handle 40K slightly supersonic in mil for a minute or two, then tap burner and get back to 1.1M for another minute or two ( family model with centerline tank). I routinely demo'd this to students when coming back from Mountain Goat ( we flew "strange" field insturment approaches at SLC and the Goat)

Gums sends...

Such good performance in the Viper. Then I read this...

Morten Hanche - Google Translated wrote:"With the F-35 we get more of this, compared to what we are used to today. Discovering how much more was a positive surprise for me. In full war equipment, the F-35 effortlessly operates 10,000 to 15,000 feet higher than our F-16 manages, without the use of an afterburner. The speed of the cruise is simply 50 to 80 knots higher. In the F-16 , I have to use the afterburner and take off speed before a missile shot. F-35 cruiser both faster and higher. That's why I'm ready to shoot far at any time."

https://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampf ... elt-annet/

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2020, 01:31
by weasel1962
Shouldn't be surprising. The F-135 generates twice the military thrust of the older F-16 engines at similar weights (with the older F-16s lugging EFTs).

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2020, 15:08
by mixelflick
So does that mean a cruising altitude of say, 50,000 feet or more?

One of the things the F-35 gets dinged on a lot is its ceiling, at least compared to F-15's, Flankers, certainly F-22's and the SU-57. Most articles describing this make it sound like the F-35 will struggle to maintain 35,000ft, and for the life of me I can't see why they'd think this?

Everything's internal, little drag - check. Not a big wing (except on the C), but gets plenty of lift from its fuselage/lifting body design - check. Huge engine, to power it to higher altitudes, especially vs. legacy fighters - check. But this myth just keeps getting repeated, and I'm not sure why?

You would think you could look at an F-16 weighed down with tanks/weapons/drag and understand that in that configuration it can still fly at 25,000 ft or so, perhaps higher. By simply removing all of that and assuming 50% internal fuel, you arrive at a much higher altitude - around 40,000ft. It therefore seems to be no stretch that the F-35 can (at least) do the same, and in all likelihood more.

But I guess F-35 bashing is still cool... :(

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2020, 15:11
by ricnunes
weasel1962 wrote:That part I maintain what I said. Long ranged interception does not stem from the Su-27. You can trace the Soviet roots down to the Yak-25 thru Su-15 and the split between PVO (long ranged interception) and Frontal aviation.


Yes, I admit that I overlooked the PVO and their "fleet" of long range interceptors. But notice that even considering this, these long-ranged aircraft were still by far the minority.
For example during the time that the Su-15 was in service, a much wider array of short-ranged fighter aircraft ranging such as the Mig-21, Mig-23, Mig-25 and the Mig-29 were fielded or already in service.
And during the time that the Yak-25 was in service, a much wider array of short-ranged fighter aircraft ranging such as the Mig-17, Mig-19 and the Mig-21 were fielded or already in service.
So the longer-ranged aircraft were clearly and vastly a minority and were only used for a single and specific role (intercepting enemy aircraft, namely bombers and long range recon aircraft), this and again until not so long ago.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2020, 15:31
by ricnunes
mixelflick wrote:I share your opinion of the Mig-29, and agree wholeheartedly it couldn't have failed in a more spectacular way. The Iraqi's had some of their best pilots flying them, but it didn't matter. Reduced to spare parts/teeth/eyeballs. Post Gulf War 1 findings of the Iraqi air force found that the Mig-25 was perhaps their most successful aircraft. They were most disappointed in their Mig-23's (which was more or less expected), and likewise their Mig-29's (which wasn't)


Yes, I also agree with what you said above. I definitely agree with you that the most effective Iraqi aircraft during Desert Storm (I don't like the "Gulf War I" designation for this war/conflict since IMO "Gulf War I" would be the "Iran vs Iraq War", this again in my humble opinion) since it was able to shot down a Coalition aircraft (F/A-18) and wining an engagement against a pair of F-15's by damaging one of them and forcing the other to retreat.
Apparently there wasn't any other Iraqi Air-to-Air victory during that conflict (although there's a unconfirmed claim of a Mig-29 shooting down a RAF Tornado).

Yes, I also agree with what you say about the Mig-23 and IMO a proof of this is that the Mig-23 service was relatively short-lived in many "Eastern" Air Forces being "quickly" superseded or replaced by the Mig-29 in many of those same Air Forces which means that even for the Soviets the aircraft was likely seen as a disappointment as well.
As such the case of the Mig-29 being a 'disappointment' was/is much more severe when compared to the Mig-23.


mixelflick wrote:MiG-29 6-18-1

Lebanon War 1982-2000 (Syria) 0-2-0
Gulf War (Iraq) 0-5-0
Transnistria War (Moldova, Russia) 0-0-0
Brothers in Rescue incident* (Cuba) 2-0-0
Slovenian War (Yugoslavia) 0-0-0
Croatian War (Yugoslavia) 0-0-0
Bosnia (Serbia) 0-0-0
Kosovo (Serbia) 0-6-0
Kargil War (India) 0-0-0
Ethiopian-Eritrean War (Eritrea) 3-5-0
Georgian border violation 2008 (Russia) 1-0-0 (***)
Darfur War (Sudan) 0-0-1


Ok, the first number is the aircraft shot down by Mig-29's while the second (middle) number is how many Mig-29's were show down by enemy aircraft. But what's the third number?


mixelflick wrote:* It did shoot down 2 Cessna Skymasters... :)


(***) Yeah, and it also manage to shot down an unarmed Georgian UAV, LoL :mrgreen:


Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2020, 16:51
by sferrin
ricnunes wrote:and wining an engagement against a pair of F-15's by damaging one of them and forcing the other to retreat.


Do you have any information on this engagement? :?

Never mind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samurra_Air_Battle

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2020, 13:11
by mixelflick
The third number in the Mig-29's combat sequence I took to mean.... a draw. If that's true, it would seem the Mig-29 entered many an air battle only to wind up on the losing end. Whatever the number is/represents, it's still a damning record for an aircraft meant to be the backbone of Soviet aviation.

The account of Foxbats dueling Eagles is indeed riveting. Especially when you consider the F-15 was designed a generation later, and was a direct response to the Soviet fighter. What I found most fascinating about this engagement was that Hehemann's F-15 survived a hit in his left engine by an R-40. BIG missile, with a BIG warhead ranging anywhere from 84-220lbs. If I'm not mistaken the Iraqi's used a 125lb warhead in DS, or thereabouts. This compares to the AIM-7M's weighing 86-88lbs and AMRAAM's (about 40lbs).

Between this and an Israeli F-15 surviving an entire wing being sheared off, the Eagle is one tough bird!!!

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2020, 14:37
by aussiebloke
The Format is:
[Name of aircraft] Air-to-air kills – Air-to-air losses – Losses to ground fire
[Name of conflict aircraft was used in]
[Nation that used aircraft in said conflict]
Air-to-air kills – Air-to-air losses – Losses to ground fire

https://migflug.com/jetflights/the-comb ... ly-in-use/

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2020, 15:00
by sferrin
mixelflick wrote:The third number in the Mig-29's combat sequence I took to mean.... a draw. If that's true, it would seem the Mig-29 entered many an air battle only to wind up on the losing end. Whatever the number is/represents, it's still a damning record for an aircraft meant to be the backbone of Soviet aviation.

The account of Foxbats dueling Eagles is indeed riveting. Especially when you consider the F-15 was designed a generation later, and was a direct response to the Soviet fighter. What I found most fascinating about this engagement was that Hehemann's F-15 survived a hit in his left engine by an R-40. BIG missile, with a BIG warhead ranging anywhere from 84-220lbs. If I'm not mistaken the Iraqi's used a 125lb warhead in DS, or thereabouts. This compares to the AIM-7M's weighing 86-88lbs and AMRAAM's (about 40lbs).

Between this and an Israeli F-15 surviving an entire wing being sheared off, the Eagle is one tough bird!!!


The R-40 hit probably wasn't direct and used it's proximity fuse.

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2020, 03:43
by ricnunes
aussiebloke wrote:The Format is:
[Name of aircraft] Air-to-air kills – Air-to-air losses – Losses to ground fire
[Name of conflict aircraft was used in]
[Nation that used aircraft in said conflict]
Air-to-air kills – Air-to-air losses – Losses to ground fire

https://migflug.com/jetflights/the-comb ... ly-in-use/


Thanks aussiebloke :thumb:

Re: F-35 internal fuel, range

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2020, 03:45
by ricnunes
sferrin wrote:
ricnunes wrote:and wining an engagement against a pair of F-15's by damaging one of them and forcing the other to retreat.


Do you have any information on this engagement? :?

Never mind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samurra_Air_Battle


Yes, that was it :wink: