F-35 Range

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

checksixx

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1525
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2005, 04:28
  • Location: Langley AFB, VA

Unread post28 Sep 2006, 17:48

skrip00 wrote:Hah! The F120 never made it into production!
But, I'll admit GE/RR can make good engines, but please, keep the bogus claims out of here. There is no evidence to support your reasoning. As far as I'm concerned, the F119 is the better engine as it appears to be offering greater than expected performance in flight today. The same can, and will be said for the F135.

As for the YF-23... I can list numerous reasons for its loss, but it usually comes down to these two:
1. No TVC (which means poorer WVR combat and even supersonic manuverability.)
2. Poor weapons release design/philosophy (More prone to failure, even less storage capacity than F-22's. F-22 main bay is a single unit.)

However, we have a "winner" in service. This typically means we have a good fighter.

As for the A-12.... good riddance. It's death allowed for the JAST program to truely evolve into JSF and to greenlight production of one of the best carrier aircraft out there.


Both the 119 and 120 engines were prototyped and flown. The 120's outperformed the 119's in the YF-23. Probably had something to do with inlet design. The reasons listed for the 23's loss though are true but had nothing to do with the final decision. It came down to literally...which one do I like better...okay, that one gets my vote. Weapons had nothing to do with it...the 23 could carry plenty of weapons..you must not have ever seen how big the bay was. Same launching concept as the F-22. TVC was taken care of by the 23's exotic control surfaces and could manuever as well as the 22. One thing I think they took into consideration was Lockheed's successful fighter legacy and that really hurt Northrop/McDD. Skripp00 does make a good point though...The F-22A is a winner and that is very obvious!
Offline

end

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 69
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2006, 09:19

Unread post29 Sep 2006, 11:20

idesof wrote:
end wrote:Let's compete with Su-27
The Su-27 is twin engines fighter, F-35 is single engine, so the fuel consume rate of F-35 should be half Su-27.
Su-27 internal fuel is approximately to 9,3 tons, F-35 is over 8.3 ton.
The combat radius of Su-27 is 1500 km, but the F-35, you guys say range, ok, that isn't matter, 1200nm approxi radius to 700 km or make you more satisfied to say 900km that enough!
No matter radius or range, F-35 ONLY is 2/3 of Su-27 at most!
I don't know why you guys so happy? I am so worried that....... :(


Can anyone translate this? Only part I got was, since the F-35 only has one engine and the Sue Twenty-seven has two, then the F-35's SFC should be half. Since that is a wild, not to mention incorrect, assumption, I don't think the rest of the post really matters. If it does, a translation would be appreciated. Thanks! :D


What does I mean?
I mean the fuel you carry is about 8/9 of Su-27.
But the combat radius is only less 2/3 of Su-27!
I think therefor I am
Offline

idesof

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 634
  • Joined: 29 May 2006, 22:59

Unread post29 Sep 2006, 14:16

end wrote:
idesof wrote:
end wrote:Let's compete with Su-27
The Su-27 is twin engines fighter, F-35 is single engine, so the fuel consume rate of F-35 should be half Su-27.
Su-27 internal fuel is approximately to 9,3 tons, F-35 is over 8.3 ton.
The combat radius of Su-27 is 1500 km, but the F-35, you guys say range, ok, that isn't matter, 1200nm approxi radius to 700 km or make you more satisfied to say 900km that enough!
No matter radius or range, F-35 ONLY is 2/3 of Su-27 at most!
I don't know why you guys so happy? I am so worried that....... :(


Can anyone translate this? Only part I got was, since the F-35 only has one engine and the Sue Twenty-seven has two, then the F-35's SFC should be half. Since that is a wild, not to mention incorrect, assumption, I don't think the rest of the post really matters. If it does, a translation would be appreciated. Thanks! :D


What does I mean?
I mean the fuel you carry is about 8/9 of Su-27.
But the combat radius is only less 2/3 of Su-27!


Ah, I get you now. Don't pay attention to the figures you're reading. The F-35's range is a lot greater than the figures being given, as I believe they related to the requirement as opposed to actual results.
Offline

end

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 69
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2006, 09:19

Unread post30 Sep 2006, 07:29

I got your idea, I will be waiting the real results.
I think therefor I am
Offline

renatohm

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 125
  • Joined: 27 Dec 2004, 20:49

Unread post30 Sep 2006, 14:57

idesof wrote:
Guysmiley wrote:Exactly, thrust ain't free. A big motor burns more gas than a little one.


It is my understanding that the F-135 is a more efficient motor than the F-100, with a substantially higher percentage of dry vs. afterburner thrust. Moreover, you are talking about an aircrat that is far less draggy in combat configuration. Also, the Viper's range hasn't decreased appreciably with the advent of higher thrust engines. Higher thrust also means the same relative thrust at lower power settings.


Ever heard about sfc? Sure, the -135 vmay be more efficient, but if you use higher thrust, fuel consumption will be higher. Moreover, the real data are not attainable, for 2 reasons: 1) fighter still in developmentand 2) even when it is ready, data will surely be classified for quite some time.

Personally, I do believe a single-engine fighter carrying as much fuel as a Flanker will certainly outrange its 700+nm range. But while data is classified, we can only assume... :(
Offline

harryhill

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2010, 00:47
  • Location: Saint George

Unread post28 Aug 2010, 00:50

I am confused... what the blank is this figher for?

As planned, 'for defense of the homeland': Intercept incoming ICBM’s? Defend against similar swarming fighters (Red Baron?) thousand miles from home? Down Supersonic Cruise missiles? Hi-Tech to seek out and destroy world and homeland IED roadside bombs? Negate the Taliban Air Force? Decimate Al-Qaeda’s cruise and stealth bomber force? Defend against Invasion by illegal aliens? $89 million x1753 cost effective if one applied.
Offline

munny

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 630
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2010, 01:39

Unread post28 Aug 2010, 03:37

"what the blank is this figher for?"

You went to all the trouble of creating an account to come to the f-35 forums of this site in particular to post that question?

Let me fix your question for you..

Why does military technology have to be improved? Why can't we all just fly bi-planes and fire machine guns at each other from 300 meters
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3296
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post28 Aug 2010, 05:40

harryhill wrote:

Yes..I am a taxpayer, not a member of the 'fraternity'. So, answer the question please. I do not flame. I could have also asked "What is the use of carriers except to be targets".



Well as a taxpayer, I'm sure you'd appreciate a good investment in maintaining a technological edge for our pilots, considering the Europeans, Russians, and Chinese aren't resting on their laurels. As for what the aircraft is for- it'll do anything the aircraft that it's replacing better, and many things that they can't do
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1043
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post28 Aug 2010, 06:27

harryhill wrote:I am confused...what the blank is this figher for?

As planned, 'for defense of the homeland': Intercept incoming ICBM’s? Defend against similar swarming fighters (Red Baron?) thousand miles from home? Down Supersonic Cruise missiles? Hi-Tech to seek out and destroy world and homeland IED roadside bombs? Negate the Taliban Air Force? Decimate Al-Qaeda’s cruise and stealth bomber force? Defend against Invasion by illegal aliens? $89 million x1753 cost effective if one applied.


It is for fulfilling the USAF, USN and USMC and partner nations requirement for a new fighter aircraft to replace their rezpective fleets of legacy fighters.

Fighters like anything other object we use, wear out and need to be replaced...
Offline

shep1978

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1395
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2009, 16:00
  • Location: UK

Unread post28 Aug 2010, 07:55

'Harryhill' eh, well i'm sure after naming himself after a well known UK T.V clown type personality we can rest assured his questions will be serious in nature and it sure looks like he's left a little joke on this forum...
(I do like his show though!)

Image

(Don't waste your time)
Offline

harryhill

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2010, 00:47
  • Location: Saint George

Unread post28 Aug 2010, 17:14

Conan wrote:
harryhill wrote:I am confused...what the blank is this figher for?

As planned, 'for defense of the homeland': Intercept incoming ICBM’s? Defend against similar swarming fighters (Red Baron?) thousand miles from home? Down Supersonic Cruise missiles? Hi-Tech to seek out and destroy world and homeland IED roadside bombs? Negate the Taliban Air Force? Decimate Al-Qaeda’s cruise and stealth bomber force? Defend against Invasion by illegal aliens? $89 million x1753 cost effective if one applied.


It is for fulfilling the USAF, USN and USMC and partner nations requirement for a new fighter aircraft to replace their rezpective fleets of legacy fighters.

Fighters like anything other object we use, wear out and need to be replaced...


Hello....Again..even the ones that wear out...what is the mission? Nobody has ever stated this. I was bombed years ago and know the resiliance of the 'receivers' first hand. It just inflamed people against the harbingers of death. I guess this is 'mission accomplished'.
Offline

LMAggie

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 579
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2007, 07:43

Unread post28 Aug 2010, 17:29

harryhill wrote:
Conan wrote:
harryhill wrote:I am confused...what the blank is this figher for?

As planned, 'for defense of the homeland': Intercept incoming ICBM’s? Defend against similar swarming fighters (Red Baron?) thousand miles from home? Down Supersonic Cruise missiles? Hi-Tech to seek out and destroy world and homeland IED roadside bombs? Negate the Taliban Air Force? Decimate Al-Qaeda’s cruise and stealth bomber force? Defend against Invasion by illegal aliens? $89 million x1753 cost effective if one applied.


It is for fulfilling the USAF, USN and USMC and partner nations requirement for a new fighter aircraft to replace their rezpective fleets of legacy fighters.

Fighters like anything other object we use, wear out and need to be replaced...


Hello....Again..even the ones that wear out...what is the mission? Nobody has ever stated this. I was bombed years ago and know the resiliance of the 'receivers' first hand. It just inflamed people against the harbingers of death. I guess this is 'mission accomplished'.


To answer your question, the mission is to serve as a weapon for use of force in wars. If you want to have a debate about war, this is not the appropriate forum for that.
“Its not the critic who counts..The credit belongs to the man who does actually strive to do the deeds..”
Offline

shep1978

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1395
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2009, 16:00
  • Location: UK

Unread post28 Aug 2010, 17:29

Jesus Harry, if you're going to try and troll at least be subtle about it. I can honestly say this is some of the worst trolling i've ever seen, worst as in awful and not very clever or provocative at all.
I'll give you a 2/10 for effort and for coming back but you have much work to do should you want to become a decent troll, maybe in a few years you'll be ready but for now you should leave it to those more experienced than yourself...
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3296
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post28 Aug 2010, 18:45

harryhill wrote:

Troll...those who opposed idiotic spending for nothing...Thanks..new internet word to my collection.
And...so goodbye...my speaking to the wind is futile.


Last year I went to Iraq. Before Team America showed up, it was a happy place. They had flowery meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles. :roll:
Offline

lampshade111

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 191
  • Joined: 22 Sep 2008, 02:17

Unread post29 Aug 2010, 06:18

Okay Harry. First you need to work on your English. Second you can't keep a supersonic fighter aircraft flying forever. Most of our F-15 and F-16 fleet is at least 20 years old. And finally are you seriously suggesting we give up our capability to achieve and take advantage of air-superiority?
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: marsavian and 12 guests