F-35 Range

Prinz_Eugn · by **Prinz_Eugn** » 29 Aug 2010, 07:11

lampshade111 wrote: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?

If we gave up that capability think about how much money we could put into rainbows and holding hands!

Now, who wants a hug?

Conan · by **Conan** » 29 Aug 2010, 12:42

harryhill wrote:
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'.

I am sure the overwhelming majority of people hope these fighters are used for nothing more than training missions and for thrilling kids at airshows, but reality and history says otherwise.

I am sorry you had to experience war (I'm sorry anyone does actually) but if others are building new 'weapons of death' to put it into a hyperbolic fashion, then 'we' need to as well.

The 'mission' for this aircraft is to protect the people who spend their national treasure on acquiring it. Personally, I think it will do just that better than any other aircraft ever made...

fiskerwad · by **fiskerwad** » 29 Aug 2010, 22:50

We build weapons because once in a while "we" are forced to defend our way of life by:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfGBYtc6q_M

fisk

harryhill · by **harryhill** » 29 Aug 2010, 23:47

fiskerwad wrote:We build weapons because once in a while "we" are forced to defend our way of life by:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfGBYtc6q_M

fisk

Agree...but WHERE?--What area etc.What does it take to xport this plane to a 'forward' base? Give me your plans.And BTW--aren't we all tired of wars? We have lost in Iraq--losing and will lose in Afghan--btw--Don't flame.Me, I am scared to fight. How about you? If war reaches here in USA..it will be the 'war to end all wars' and the planet.
And...I will not reply or read these 'Beck' posts anymore...

Lightndattic · by **Lightndattic** » 30 Aug 2010, 00:51

I'm breaking rule #2 of internet forums by doing this (Don't feed the trolls), but Harry- we live in a world that has people who do not agree with us and if they could, they would try to take over control of us. History has shown that the strong WILL dominate the weaker, usually to the detriment of the weak. We don't particularly like that concept, so we create things to help us defend our way of life. This has been the way of life on earth for billions of years- predator and prey, it's just that now, biological has given way to the technological.

Now, If you can't handle the fact that the world is a dangerous place (sometimes of our own creating, I'll admit that), then maybe you should pull your head back into your shell and hope that enough of those around you will pay, in both $ and lives, the price for all our way of life.

You've seen A Few Good Men, right? The monologue given by Nicholson's Col. Nathan Jessup in the courtroom has quite a bit of truth in it. If you haven't seen it, I suggest you do and thing about what he means.

fiskerwad · by **fiskerwad** » 30 Aug 2010, 14:57

This is all you need:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo
fisk

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 30 Aug 2010, 21:38

F-35 Range: Just the facts maam - just the facts: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-13653.html
(40Kb PDF from LM) August 2010

> = 'Greater Than'

testpilot · by **testpilot** » 20 Sep 2010, 17:31

You wouldn't catch me in a single engine aircraft on a carrier,but that's what the US Navy is going for because of costs.

wrightwing · by **wrightwing** » 20 Sep 2010, 19:14

harryhill wrote:
Agree...but WHERE?--What area etc.What does it take to xport this plane to a 'forward' base? Give me your plans.And BTW--aren't we all tired of wars? We have lost in Iraq--losing and will lose in Afghan--btw--Don't flame.Me, I am scared to fight. How about you? If war reaches here in USA..it will be the 'war to end all wars' and the planet.
And...I will not reply or read these 'Beck' posts anymore...

Lost in Iraq? Even those on the left that were against the surge, aren't making that claim.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)

If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. – Samuel Adams

popcorn · by **popcorn** » 21 Sep 2010, 10:15

testpilot wrote:You wouldn't catch me in a single engine aircraft on a carrier,but that's what the US Navy is going for because of costs.

The USN has a long history of successfully operating single engine jets off CVs/CVNs.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 21 Sep 2010, 10:39

Popcorn said: "The USN has a long history of successfully operating single engine jets off CVs/CVNs." Agree and the reliability of engines today is incredible as has been pointed out on many threads on this forum by the 'engine guys'.

The F-35s will have all kinds of monitoring systems to catch engine and other potential problems early before there is a 'real' problem (failure). Just today the 19,000 hour test engine hours were notched up:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-330.html

Conan · by **Conan** » 21 Sep 2010, 13:48

testpilot wrote:You wouldn't catch me in a single engine aircraft on a carrier,but that's what the US Navy is going for because of costs.

So you wouldn't have flown an F-8 Crusader back in the day? Guess how many engines it had?

wrightwing · by **wrightwing** » 22 Sep 2010, 01:02

Conan wrote:
testpilot wrote:You wouldn't catch me in a single engine aircraft on a carrier,but that's what the US Navy is going for because of costs.

So you wouldn't have flown an F-8 Crusader back in the day? Guess how many engines it had?

A-4, A-7, etc.... which all had pretty safe records.

zero-one · by **zero-one** » 15 Mar 2014, 04:36

I'm not sure where to ask this, so I hope its not too off topic here.

I always hear that an aircraft's range depends on the configuration (hi-lo-hi, lo-lo-lo. hi-hi-hi etc.)

But what does that mean any way?
hi=Air-air weapons
lo=A-G ordinance

or am I way off?

And a lot of Eurocanard fans love to criticize the F-35s range, saying that it carries 18,000lbs of fuel with a merger 1,200NM range, they're assumption is that it must be a gas guzzler.

EF typhoon Radius are as follows:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/r ... ighter.htm

ground attack, lo-lo-lo : 601 km
ground attack, hi-lo-hi : 1389 km
air defence with 3hr CAP : 185 km
air defence with 10-min loiter : 1389 km

But I cant understand the "hi-lo-hi" terms.

and how does the Lightning compare to these

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 15 Mar 2014, 04:56

Hi-lo refers to altitude (how high) of aircraft at which it flies. Physics 101 shows less air resistance as an object flies higher = flies further for the same engine power or another perspective is faster speed at higher altitude than lower. One can google how high is hi and lo. Mission profiles esp in 3G planes will encompass varying heights due to radar detection/vulnerability vs efficiency considerations. Less so for 5G stealth fighters as radar stealth allows for higher altitude ops. Just a brief summary in the short time allowed.