F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2006, 17:31
by idesof
I am confused. The F-16 Block 40, at least according to Janes, goes 500 NM with two bags of gas, two Mk-84 type stores, two AAMs. Meanwhile, advertised range for the F-35A with a similar internal load and a completely clean exterior is only about 600 NM. This despite the fact that in this configuration it should have something like half the drag of the F-16, and its internal fuel load is a whopping 18,000+ pounds, two-and-a-half times that of the F-16. What gives? Either they are drastically understating the range so they can claim vast advances during testing, actual range is classified, or the F-35 engine is the most inefficient piece of egineering on the planet. And yet, from everything I know, it should be more efficient than the F-100 and F-110 given that its dry thrust is a much higher percentage of its afterburner output. With 18,000+ pounds internal fuel, an external clean configuration and a more efficient engine, there is no reason whey the F-35A's range should not easily exceed 1,000 NM. We're talking about an aircraft whose internal fuel load is something like 70% of its empty weight (compare that with the F-16 Block 40, whose internal fuel load is only about 37% of its empty weight). Anyone care to weigh in?

By the way, the Viper's range in that mission was for a hi-lo-hi profile, if I remember correctly. The F-35A's mission profile should be hi-hi-hi, zipping around at 50,000 ft. (same engine, only more powerful, as F-22, which cruises around at 60,000 ft.). No way in hell the F-35A's range is only 600 NM.

RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2006, 18:01
by DeepSpace
According to Global Security the range is around 1,200 NM.

Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2006, 18:05
by idesof
DeepSpace wrote:According to Global Security the range is around 1,200 NM.


Right, but look at its combat radius. Only 590 NM. Viper's radius 500 NM with above mentioned load...

RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2006, 19:00
by skrip00
No... >590nm, not ONLY.

RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2006, 19:25
by toan
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -specs.htm

F-16C:
1. Empty weight: 8,372~8,710 kg
2. Internal fuel: 3,160 kg
3. Thrust of engine: 23,770 Ib~29,000Ib class
4. Combat radius: 740 nm (with 2,000 Ib bomb*2 + AIM-9L*2 + 1,040 Gal external fuel) --> The total fuel of F-16C in this condition is 3,160 + 1,040*3.785*0.8 = 6,309 kg.

======================================================
F-35A:
1. Empty weight: 12,000~12,500 kg
2. Internal fuel: 8,390 kg
3. Thrust of engine: 40,000~43,000 Ib class
4. Combat radius: 600~700 nm (with 2,000 Ib bomb*2 + AIM-120*2l)
--> The total fuel of F-35A in this condition is 8,390 kg.

RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2006, 19:41
by toan
Comparing with F-16C, F-35A is a much bigger and heavier fighter that is almost as heavy as F-15C (12,973 kg). Therefore, it should be reasonable that it needs to exhaust more thrust and fuel than F-16C to achieve the same combat range. However, the internal fuel capacity of F-35A is big enough to achieve the combat radius that F-16C needs another 2 to 3 auxillary tanks to do the same performance.

RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2006, 19:43
by Guysmiley
Exactly, thrust ain't free. A big motor burns more gas than a little one.

RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2006, 19:59
by toan
PS: The performance of strike radius of JSF family today should be just the "minimal requirement" from USAF (600 NM+ for F-35A), USN (700 NM+ for F-35C), and Marine (450 NM, for F-35B) not the actual one ~ Don't forget, the maiden voyage of F-35 hasn't begun, so it should be impossible to know the "real" performance of combat radius of F-35A/B/C right now.

RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2006, 20:00
by locum
The USAF has officially said that the (clean configuration) ferry range of the F-22 raptor is 1,499 nm/ 2.776 km, a Specific Range of 0.082 nm/lb at Mach 0.8 with 2,500 lbs recovery fuel would give this ability. With drop tanks at Mach 0.9 the range would be 2,700nm+ / 5.000 km+.

The F-35 Lightning has a longer range than the F-22!
F-35A, ~ 1,200nm/ 2.222 km with 18,498 lbs gas
F-35B, ~ 900nm/ 1.667 km with 13,326 lbs gas
F-35C, ~ 1,400nm/ 2.593 km with 19,624 lbs gas

I think the above mentioned Triple Ugly ranges are clean configurations but with gun ammo, 2 JDAMs and 2 AIM-120s.
Just for comparison: The FB-111A has a range of 1,300nm/ 2.408 km with 4 internal JDAMs.

More comparison: F-22 with 20,649 lbs gas.
Range without reserves, clean and at Mach 0.9: 1,569nm / 2.906 km
Range with 5,000lbs / 2.270 kg gas at M 0.9 : 1,189nm / 2.202 km

Range no reserves, clean Mach 0.8 : 1,692nm / 3.134 km
Range with 5,000 lbs gas Mach 0.8 : 1,283nm / 2.376 km

Remember that the F-119 + the F-22 wing is optimised for supersonic flight and the F-35 + F-135/F-136 combination is optimised for subsonic flight.

RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2006, 21:40
by Raptor_One
Umm... I don't know about this whole optimization for supersonic vs. subsonic flight. While there may have been some design point, off design performance was by no means neglected. And the F-135 engine is a derivative of the F-119, correct? It's not optimized for subsonic flight as far as I know.

Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2006, 03:39
by idesof
toan wrote:Comparing with F-16C, F-35A is a much bigger and heavier fighter that is almost as heavy as F-15C (12,973 kg). Therefore, it should be reasonable that it needs to exhaust more thrust and fuel than F-16C to achieve the same combat range. However, the internal fuel capacity of F-35A is big enough to achieve the combat radius that F-16C needs another 2 to 3 auxillary tanks to do the same performance.


You are forgetting that stores and fuel in the configuration you cited for the F-35 are all internal, whereas the F-16 must haul bombs, fuel, not to mention jamming and targetting pods, externally. This should more than offset the F-35's heavier weight, given that with the same attack configuration (2 X 2,000 bombs, 2 AAMs), the F-35 is a hell of a lot less draggy and the Viper. Also, I would not say that the F-35's empty weight is anywhere near that of the F-15C, certainly not anymore. They have shaved something like 3,000 lbs. off its empty weight in its redesign prior to FSD. The empty weight of the F-35A is now about 26,000 lbs. vs. more than 30,000 for the F-15C. The F-16 Block 40 is no lightweight fighter anymore, either (19,000 lbs. empty). My very educated guess is that when all is said and done, the F-35's combat radius on a hi-hi-hi mission is AT LEAST 1,000 NM. Add a couple of 600 gal. drop tanks you can get rid of before penetrating enemy airspace, you're talking 1,250 NM easy.

Picture this: F-35, two 600 gal. drop tanks, two JASSMs, eight SDBs, two Amraams, stealthy from the minute it penetrates enemy airspace (having fired the JASSMs and dropped the tanks). Or four JASSMs without the drop tanks, plus the internal load. The F-35 is going to be a beast of a striker! :D

I used to have my reservations about it, but the more I look at it, the more I like it. And I still can't get over that internal fuel load: 18,500 lbs! To put it into perspective, the F-15 carries only about 13,000 lbs, and in a substantially bigger and heavier airframe. And the -35C carries even more fuel. AND, a large internal armament load. A miracle of engineering in my book.

The only one I'm still skeptical about is the -35B. In my mind, the other two models have had to trade off too much in terms of absolute performance for the sake of commonality with the STOVL, and I'm still not certain it will work on the long term. Just look at the V-22. Totally different program, yes, but this vertical flight stuff is not easy for airplanes to perform naturally...

Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2006, 03:43
by idesof
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.

Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2006, 03:47
by idesof
Raptor_One wrote:Umm... I don't know about this whole optimization for supersonic vs. subsonic flight. While there may have been some design point, off design performance was by no means neglected. And the F-135 engine is a derivative of the F-119, correct? It's not optimized for subsonic flight as far as I know.


If memory serves, the F-119 and F-135 are both leaky turbojets, basically, with bypass ratios far lower than those of the F-100 or F-110. This may, in fact, contribute to a less fuel-efficient design optimized for supersonic vs. subsonic flight. Although, I haven't read it, but the F-135 may have a higher bypass ration than the F-119, given that it is designed for an airframe that will not supercruise (although I have my doubts about that, since I suspect the F-35 will easily supercruist but the USAF is not shouting that fact from the rooftops as it may provide amo to those who would have the F-22 cut).

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2006, 04:06
by toan

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2006, 04:09
by LordOfBunnies
I'm not really sure about how everything work with this, but it may also not always be in full Mil. thrust all the time. The thing is good at full Mil. thrust, but if you're trying to putter along and extend range, this may not be best. I couldn't say exactly, need more schooling. The more advanced the engine, the lower the SFC almost always. This may have a higher bypass ratio than the F100/110 which would make it much more efficient. It will cause longer spool up (more spinning mass), but hopefully not that much as this thing is going off a carrier.

As for the 35B, I'd be worried mostly about maintenance on the lift fan. I know that maintenance is good, but if the thing breaks and throws a blade... the pilot is dead. I belive the tech to make it safe is there, but it may take out a little while to work the bugs out unfortunately.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2006, 04:17
by LWF
Absolute fuel isn't a good way to measure range. The most accurate way to measure range based on fuel, is the fuel fraction, or percentage of the plane's weight that is fuel. Example, the F-15 carries far more fuel than the F-16, but the F-16 has longer range. Reason: the F-16 has a higher percentage of fuel.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2006, 04:20
by idesof
LWF wrote:Absolute fuel isn't a good way to measure range. The most accurate way to measure range based on fuel, is the fuel fraction, or percentage of the plane's weight that is fuel. Example, the F-15 carries far more fuel than the F-16, but the F-16 has longer range. Reason: the F-16 has a higher percentage of fuel.


Well, yes, if you had read my earlier posts you would have seen I did exactly that. The F-35's percentage of fuel load vs. empty weight is almost twice that of the F-16.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2006, 04:28
by toan

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2006, 12:18
by locum
Idesof wrote:'And I still can't get over that fuel load: 18,500lbs! ..... AND a large internal armament load. A miracle of engineering in my book.'
He he Idesof, first I thought the same, but I saw the X-35 parked side by side with a F-16, if the F-16 is a sleek Cheetah than the X-35/ F-35 is a Rhino or Hippo. The F-35 has a very volumeous fuselage, because of the F-35Bs' liftfan the fuselage needs to be wide: advantage= a lot of internal fuel, disadvantage= the aerodynamic qualities are decreased.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2006, 14:38
by idesof
locum wrote:Idesof wrote:'And I still can't get over that fuel load: 18,500lbs! ..... AND a large internal armament load. A miracle of engineering in my book.'
He he Idesof, first I thought the same, but I saw the X-35 parked side by side with a F-16, if the F-16 is a sleek Cheetah than the X-35/ F-35 is a Rhino or Hippo. The F-35 has a very volumeous fuselage, because of the F-35Bs' liftfan the fuselage needs to be wide: advantage= a lot of internal fuel, disadvantage= the aerodynamic qualities are decreased.


Yes, unfortunately, that is a disadvantage: the F-35 is not a pretty aircraft by any means (better than the F-32, though, which was one ugly mofo). However, given what areodynamicists can now do with computer engineering, the F-35 is probably more aerodynamically efficient than the Viper even if it looks, as you say, like a Rhino (which I suspect will become its nickname among pilots, or something like it). "Looks right, flies right" used to be the axiom, but that probably doesn't apply anymore. Not always true, though. Look at the British Lightning, one of its two namesakes: that was one ugly plane, and yet apparently was highly maneuverable. Had a range of about 15 NM, though, only slightly better than the F-18! Anyway, I'm babbling.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2006, 14:52
by asiatrails
LOB

I think you are mixing max continuous use with off design conditions - not the same thing.

Prior to a cat shot the engine is stabilised at the desired power setting either dry or AB.

Containment is one aspect which is being tested, I suspect that you have never been involved in rotor burst testing.

Here is a link to show just some of the testing being done: http://www.dcmilitary.com/navy/tester/1 ... 769-1.html

LordOfBunnies wrote:I'm not really sure about how everything work with this, but it may also not always be in full Mil. thrust all the time. The thing is good at full Mil. thrust, but if you're trying to putter along and extend range, this may not be best. I couldn't say exactly, need more schooling. The more advanced the engine, the lower the SFC almost always. This may have a higher bypass ratio than the F100/110 which would make it much more efficient. It will cause longer spool up (more spinning mass), but hopefully not that much as this thing is going off a carrier.

As for the 35B, I'd be worried mostly about maintenance on the lift fan. I know that maintenance is good, but if the thing breaks and throws a blade... the pilot is dead. I belive the tech to make it safe is there, but it may take out a little while to work the bugs out unfortunately.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2006, 16:03
by skrip00
With the new EMALS launch system, it may have enough muscle to throw F-35s into te air without them needing a/b.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2006, 23:13
by Corsair1963
locum wrote:Idesof wrote:'And I still can't get over that fuel load: 18,500lbs! ..... AND a large internal armament load. A miracle of engineering in my book.'
He he Idesof, first I thought the same, but I saw the X-35 parked side by side with a F-16, if the F-16 is a sleek Cheetah than the X-35/ F-35 is a Rhino or Hippo. The F-35 has a very volumeous fuselage, because of the F-35Bs' liftfan the fuselage needs to be wide: advantage= a lot of internal fuel, disadvantage= the aerodynamic qualities are decreased.




Many forget the F-35 has a thrust level somewhere between the F-14A and F-15C all the while being much lighter...........and will carry its weapons load interally. Talk about turn and burn! :twisted:

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2006, 01:14
by Scorpion1alpha
Corsair1963 wrote:and will carry its weapons load interally. Talk about turn and burn! :twisted:


Ahhh.....the wonders of internal weapons carriage.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2006, 05:53
by JCSVT
Corsair1963 wrote:F-15C all the while being much lighter


I think that the F-35 will come somewhat close to the F-15C in terms of loaded weight. The F135 is very powerful and there is a reason for that. Not to say that it won't perform well but I have a feeling that it will be a pretty solid fighter. Most of this is due to the large fuel fraction and the progress of technology. It will have more range than an Eagle or Viper though.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2006, 05:55
by skrip00
F-35's weight is a fixed variable. It is not allowed to exceed its currently set target weight. All 3-classes are dependent upon weight limits set for the -B model.

Hence, tha A and C will be lighter than the B considerably since weight reduction measures applied to the -B will be applied to them as well.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2006, 23:16
by Corsair1963
skrip00 wrote:F-35's weight is a fixed variable. It is not allowed to exceed its currently set target weight. All 3-classes are dependent upon weight limits set for the -B model.

Hence, tha A and C will be lighter than the B considerably since weight reduction measures applied to the -B will be applied to them as well.



Also, we are just at the beginning of engine development. With the P&W F-135 making around 43,000lbs of thrust and rumors of the GE F-136 somewhere near 46,000lbs! :shock:

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2006, 00:03
by skrip00
46,000?? Sounds like a rumour. Last I heard, 43,000 was a major development.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2006, 00:16
by Corsair1963
skrip00 wrote:46,000?? Sounds like a rumour. Last I heard, 43,000 was a major development.



While, I would have to concede that it is just a rumor at this point. I don't think its unreasonable. Especially, if the P&W F-135 is making 40,000-43,000lbs in its current form. As the GE F-136 is a more advance design. Further, earlier P&W F-100's for example made less than later GE F-110's. Which, inturned forced P&W to develope more powerful F-100's to compete.......Which, looks like history is going to repeat itself! Surely, a good thing for everyone envolved. Thank the Good Lord they kept funding (reduced) for the GE/RR F-136 engine! :D

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2006, 01:35
by skrip00
But then again P&W did make those awesome engines that power the F-22A, and they built upon that success to make the F135.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2006, 01:39
by Corsair1963
skrip00 wrote:But then again P&W did make those awesome engines that power the F-22A, and they built upon that success to make the F135.




Regardless, of ones preference..............competition is good! Personally, I'll take a F/A-35C Lightning II equipped with GE F-136 Engines. :twisted:



FLY NAVY 8)

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Ran

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2006, 01:45
by skrip00
Yeah, 2 engines are good in terms of choices.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2006, 01:49
by Corsair1963
skrip00 wrote:Yeah, 2 engines are good in terms of choices.



I doubt we would have P&W F-100's making over 32,000lbs of thrust if we never had GE-F110's............

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2006, 01:50
by LordOfBunnies
Skrip00, I believe the F120 engines for the YF-23 were also pretty cool and innovative. I don't know if they were better or even compatible with the 22, but they were cool. Anyone have good info on the F120? If you ask people which they're prefer they will almost always say GE.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2006, 02:19
by Corsair1963
LordOfBunnies wrote:Skrip00, I believe the F120 engines for the YF-23 were also pretty cool and innovative. I don't know if they were better or even compatible with the 22, but they were cool. Anyone have good info on the F120? If you ask people which they're prefer they will almost always say GE.



I believe the GE F-136 is a derivative of the earlier F-120 just like the F-135 is a by product of the F-119 that powers the F-22 Raptor. :roll:

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2006, 02:19
by asiatrails
skrip00 wrote:With the new EMALS launch system, it may have enough muscle to throw F-35s into te air without them needing a/b.


The big advantages of EMALS are the ability to integrate it into a ramp for better ballastics on launch, the elimination of steam ingestion, and a lot of space gained throughout the ship.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2006, 02:40
by skrip00
Or just use a regular flat deck. Cant launch an E-2 off a ramp.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2006, 03:40
by asiatrails
Now that would be interesting, but they will probably be on the way out when the EMALS gets into service.

I search of the impossible, the USN managed to get a T2 off a ramp at Pax river one time.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2006, 03:42
by asiatrails
Read the Great Engine War for P&W business practices.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2006, 05:00
by idesof
LordOfBunnies wrote:Skrip00, I believe the F120 engines for the YF-23 were also pretty cool and innovative. I don't know if they were better or even compatible with the 22, but they were cool. Anyone have good info on the F120? If you ask people which they're prefer they will almost always say GE.


The F-120 is the basis for the F-136. The F-120 was superior to the F-119, but lost out because it was a higher-risk design, for much the same reasons that the F-23 lost to the F-22. Much as I love the Raptor, it pains me to think that such an absolutely marvelous design as the F-23 was never mass produced. Probably the greatest fighter that never was... :cry:

Same thing happens when I think of the A-12 (which the Navy traded that POS super bug for), or the F-16XL, which was decades ahead of its time, and which the air force traded the thoroughly conventional mudhen for. I hate, HATE people and organizations that are risk-adverse.

Of course, the F-117 and B-2 are something else entirely. Those took guts, and what glory was paid back in return. To think that the B-2 first flew back in 1989. Unbelievable. In some ways, the B-2 has got to be considered the aerospace engineering miracle of the century.

As for the Navy, when have those pansies taken any sort of risk lately? The super bug deserves the Navy, and the Navy deserves the super bug... :evil:

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Ran

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2006, 17:48
by skrip00
The F-120 is the basis for the F-136. The F-120 was superior to the F-119, but lost out because it was a higher-risk design, for much the same reasons that the F-23 lost to the F-22.


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.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Ran

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2006, 07:10
by Raptor_One
The YF-22 didn't have a single main bay. The F-22A does though.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Ran

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2006, 14:12
by end
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....... :(

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2006, 14:45
by idesof
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

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2006, 17:31
by skrip00
F-35 has stealth and high technology avionics which allow it to outperform an Su-27.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2006, 17:48
by checksixx
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!

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 11:20
by end
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!

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2006, 14:16
by idesof
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.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2006, 07:29
by end
I got your idea, I will be waiting the real results.

Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2006, 14:57
by renatohm
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... :(

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2010, 00:50
by harryhill
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.

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2010, 03:37
by munny
"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

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2010, 05:40
by wrightwing
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

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2010, 06:27
by Conan
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...

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2010, 07:55
by shep1978
'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)

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2010, 17:14
by harryhill
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'.

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2010, 17:29
by LMAggie
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.

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2010, 17:29
by shep1978
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...

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2010, 18:45
by wrightwing
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:

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2010, 06:18
by lampshade111
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?

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2010, 07:11
by Prinz_Eugn
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?

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2010, 12:42
by Conan
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...

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2010, 22:50
by fiskerwad
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

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2010, 23:47
by harryhill
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...

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2010, 00:51
by Lightndattic
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.

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2010, 14:57
by fiskerwad

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2010, 21:38
by spazsinbad
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'

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2010, 17:31
by testpilot
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. :(

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2010, 19:14
by wrightwing
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

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2010, 10:15
by popcorn
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.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2010, 10:39
by spazsinbad
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'. :D 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

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2010, 13:48
by Conan
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?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2010, 01:02
by wrightwing
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.

Re: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2014, 04:36
by zero-one
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

Re: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2014, 04:56
by weasel1962
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.

Re: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2014, 05:06
by spazsinbad
There was a discussion about 'range' and 'missions' on this forum some time back. I recall downloading a PDF with graphics of various profiles as produced some years ago. I have no idea if profiles have changed in meantime. This area of 'profiles' and 'range' can take up the rest of the time left in the universe if certain parameters not set so that 'apple' to 'bad apple' comparisons can be made. Sadly we have not very much info about the F-35. As I say to all and sundry "send me the NATOPS (pilot manual) in PDF Format" and I'll figure it out for you. These days as one would imagine the ease of figuring out a mission profile on the F-35 computer system would be instantaneous (as long as ALIS allowed). :devil:

The moderators (I'm kidding) :D allowed me to find this topic via search:

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=14154&p=177051&hilit=range#p177051

Re: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2014, 02:32
by weasel1962
What the EIS docs shows is that F-35 pilots will be training at much higher altitudes than the legacy aircraft they replace. Pilots train where they fight. That could have a corresponding plus to fuel usage in some profiles.

Re: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 10:26
by hornetfinn
zero-one wrote: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


EF Typhoon and Dassault Rafale both have pretty impressive range, especially when using external tanks. Both have relatively large internal fuel volume (about 5 tons) and very good aerodynamics and good engines. However we do not know what flight profiles and restrictions (like reserve fuel or combat) were used in these profiles (either F-35 or EF Typhoon).

We do know that F-35A has about 18,200 of internal fuel and Eurocanards have about 10,000 to 10,500 lbs of internal fuel, about equal to Classic Hornet. Both Eurocanards must carry all the weapons externally while F-35 will carry some or all of them internally, depending on situation. I think here the issue is that EF Typhoon figures are with maximum external fuel tanks and quite optimistic flight profile and the figures for F-35 are with internal fuel only and likely rather realistic flight/combat profile. Of course they also include the artificial engine performance restrictions (thrust and fuel flow).

I think it's very optimistic to think that EF Typhoon would have anywhere near the range on internal fuel as F-35A (or C). EF Typhoon is somewhat lighter and has two engines with slightly less power than the one in F-35A. If the two had identical drag and engine tech, then EF Typhoon should have about 60 percent of the range of F-35A on internal fuel. Of course neither is identical and in combat configuration with weapons (especially A/G), F-35A should have lower drag and it also should have engine with better fuel efficiency. EF Typhoon could have lower drag when clean, but not with heavy weapons. With external fuel, EF Typhoon could have close to equal range to F-35A if it carries at least 3 external tanks or CFTs and at least 1 external tank. Of course EF Typhoon would then be sluggish and not stealthy at all compared to F-35.

I'm pretty sure that F-35A and C compare very favorably to Eurocanards when it comes to range. F-35 has huge amount of internal fuel (about 75% more) and is only somewhat heavier and more powerful. It should also have least amount of drag in A/G configuration. I think both Eurocanard need maximum amount of external tanks to have any hope in competing in range and then they have rather modest weapon carry capability and also rather modest performance. I think F-35 will be able to strike much further and/or with much larger amount of weapons delivered.

Re: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 12:42
by enrico
HF - While having the greatest respect for what you think or are pretty sure about, I'd check the fuel fractions (which as Lindbergh knew are more important than fuel load). You will find that a fully loaded Rafale has a higher fuel fraction than a fully loaded F-35A at take-off, and while it may look draggy on the way out will be a lot more efficient than the JSF on the way home because it's not hauling as much tankage and has no weapon bays. ISTR that Dassault claims 750 nm hi-lo-hi on interdiction.

Re: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 13:34
by popcorn
enrico wrote:HF - While having the greatest respect for what you think or are pretty sure about, I'd check the fuel fractions (which as Lindbergh knew are more important than fuel load). You will find that a fully loaded Rafale has a higher fuel fraction than a fully loaded F-35A at take-off, and while it may look draggy on the way out will be a lot more efficient than the JSF on the way home because it's not hauling as much tankage and has no weapon bays. ISTR that Dassault claims 750 nm hi-lo-hi on interdiction.



Wouldn't being draggy and having an RCS the size of a barn from all that external baggage be a big liability during ingress to target? That's when you want to be as stealthy and agile as possible, to deal with hostile aircraft and long-range SAMs while trying to close the distance to employ one's own weapons. Otherwise, the likely outcome could be a lost aircraft or an aborted mission. Definitely much better being sleek on the way in AND on the way back rather than only the latter.

Re: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 14:27
by enrico
We were talking about range. Note I said "hi-lo-hi". Radar performs poorly when the target is behind 5 billion tonnes of rock.

Re: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 15:16
by popcorn
enrico wrote:We were talking about range. Note I said "hi-lo-hi". Radar performs poorly when the target is behind 5 billion tonnes of rock.


Talking about range? Voyager circumnavigated the planet on a single tank of gas. In the context of strikefighters, lugging around EFT and ordnance under the wings to achieve range incurs serious penalties.

Oh yeah, 5 billion tons of stealth coating... especially useful over the oceans and flat desserts.. LOL. Northern Edge showed how high-flying 5Gen fighters negated mountainous terrain as a shield that would otherwise foil traditional,AWACS... LOL

Re: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 15:18
by luke_sandoz
And the combat range of a Rafale or Typhoon in maximum stealth mode is . . . Zero km.

They may have good combat range but all that stuff hanging off the wings and belly mean their claims of being 4.5 gen aircraft with excellent stealth capabilities only happens when they are flying in Air Show mode. It turns them into very big radar targets.

Re: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 15:52
by zero-one
Do we have any links that can support that the Combat range published on Eurocanards were taken with EFTs
Because some people claim that its at internal fuel With a decent weapons load.

Re: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 17:34
by sprstdlyscottsmn
they are the one who have something to prove. if it doesn't pass a common sense test then they need to prove otherwise.

Re: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 19:12
by basher54321
zero-one wrote:Do we have any links that can support that the Combat range published on Eurocanards were taken with EFTs
Because some people claim that its at internal fuel With a decent weapons load.



Most range figures you see are pretty much useless for this very reason - they rarely include enough information on configuration and flight profile.

Re: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 20:07
by strykerxo
enrico wrote:We were talking about range. Note I said "hi-lo-hi". Radar performs poorly when the target is behind 5 billion tonnes of rock.


Lets not forget the "low" part of the profile. Not as the bird flies but nap of the earth, specific way-points, mountains, hills, population areas and avoiding ingress areas that can be exploited be the enemy. These can all effect range.

Stealth is the answer

Re: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 20:51
by enrico
EFT and ordnance under the wings to achieve range incurs serious penalties.

That must be why Rafale carries more, farther, than the JSF with less thrust and at 6000-7000 lb lower empty weight.

Re: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 20:56
by sferrin
enrico wrote: EFT and ordnance under the wings to achieve range incurs serious penalties.

That must be why Rafale carries more, farther, than the JSF with less thrust and at 6000-7000 lb lower empty weight.


Yeah? How fast can it jettison it all at the first sign of danger? :lol:

Re: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 21:14
by enrico
Faster than the F-35A can jettison 7000 pounds of metal.

Re: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 21:42
by basher54321
enrico wrote:That must be why Rafale carries more, farther, than the JSF with less thrust and at 6000-7000 lb lower empty weight.


What have you based that claim on?

Re: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 21:55
by basher54321
enrico wrote:Faster than the F-35A can jettison 7000 pounds of metal.


I suppose sferrin is coming from the viewpoint that the Rafale is more likely to be detected on the way in.

I know the F-35 has a fuel dump:

viewtopic.php?t=10601

viewtopic.php?t=8545


Assume it can jettison any internal bombs as well if it needs to ? ( considering past photos of inert drops)

Re: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 22:12
by sprstdlyscottsmn
doing a little math based on a previous release about fuel burn with a given load, the F-35A would have an out-and-back hi-hi-hi (no need to go low) radius of between 900 and 1000nm carrying a 2,500 lb load (roughly equivalent to 2 AIM-120 and 8 SDB) and holding a 1,000lb fuel reserve. This is from actual in flight data, not a model based on end of life weight gain/engine degredation.

Re: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 22:59
by popcorn
strykerxo wrote:
enrico wrote:We were talking about range. Note I said "hi-lo-hi". Radar performs poorly when the target is behind 5 billion tonnes of rock.


Lets not forget the "low" part of the profile. Not as the bird flies but nap of the earth, specific way-points, mountains, hills, population areas and avoiding ingress areas that can be exploited be the enemy. These can all effect range.

Stealth is the answer


Against ground-based radar, an exciting ride.,Against AWACS and fighters with look-down/shoot-down capability, likely a much shorter one.

Re: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 23:08
by strykerxo
All these numbers are for the F-35 in its first week combat mission configurations(internals), something the 4th gen. a/c cannot do alone. Second week when air superiority is accomplished you can max out the F-35 with externals (fuel and weapons). Now do a comparison

Re: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 23:23
by popcorn
An indication of Rafale ordnance loads during the Libyan campaign.

http://www.sldinfo.com/the-libyan-air-o ... rspective/

Lt. Gen. Desclaux: Basically, in the AOR, whether the Rafale was air or navy, it was conducting the same type of mission; 70 percent dynamic targeting, and 30 percent deliberate targeting. Obviously the advantage of being on an aircraft carrier is you’re closer from the theater of operation. The disadvantage when you take off from a French carrier is that your Rafale brings less ammunition than when taking off from a runway.

For example, with the Rafale from land, you can take off with two cruise missiles, as from the carrier it’s only one. The air force Rafale can take off from the land with six 250 kilos bombs – from the carrier, it only was four. You’re closer but you bring less ammunitions and you need gas anyway because in the dynamic targeting operation loiter time is important to mission success.

Re: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2014, 00:59
by cantaz
In/Egress from a carrier is also not going to give the Rafale much mountain to hide behind.

Re: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2014, 03:02
by mk82
Thats great Enrico, when the Rafale gets detected (by SHORADs etc)....it can jettison its EFTs and external ordnance real quick.....that is still a mission kill! A VLO aircraft is much less likely to jettison anything during a combat sortie!

Re: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2014, 04:27
by treebeard
hornetfinn wrote:
zero-one wrote: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


EF Typhoon and Dassault Rafale both have pretty impressive range, especially when using external tanks. Both have relatively large internal fuel volume (about 5 tons) and very good aerodynamics and good engines. However we do not know what flight profiles and restrictions (like reserve fuel or combat) were used in these profiles (either F-35 or EF Typhoon).

We do know that F-35A has about 18,200 of internal fuel and Eurocanards have about 10,000 to 10,500 lbs of internal fuel, about equal to Classic Hornet. Both Eurocanards must carry all the weapons externally while F-35 will carry some or all of them internally, depending on situation. I think here the issue is that EF Typhoon figures are with maximum external fuel tanks and quite optimistic flight profile and the figures for F-35 are with internal fuel only and likely rather realistic flight/combat profile. Of course they also include the artificial engine performance restrictions (thrust and fuel flow).

I think it's very optimistic to think that EF Typhoon would have anywhere near the range on internal fuel as F-35A (or C). EF Typhoon is somewhat lighter and has two engines with slightly less power than the one in F-35A. If the two had identical drag and engine tech, then EF Typhoon should have about 60 percent of the range of F-35A on internal fuel. Of course neither is identical and in combat configuration with weapons (especially A/G), F-35A should have lower drag and it also should have engine with better fuel efficiency. EF Typhoon could have lower drag when clean, but not with heavy weapons. With external fuel, EF Typhoon could have close to equal range to F-35A if it carries at least 3 external tanks or CFTs and at least 1 external tank. Of course EF Typhoon would then be sluggish and not stealthy at all compared to F-35.

I'm pretty sure that F-35A and C compare very favorably to Eurocanards when it comes to range. F-35 has huge amount of internal fuel (about 75% more) and is only somewhat heavier and more powerful. It should also have least amount of drag in A/G configuration. I think both Eurocanard need maximum amount of external tanks to have any hope in competing in range and then they have rather modest weapon carry capability and also rather modest performance. I think F-35 will be able to strike much further and/or with much larger amount of weapons delivered.

I reckon I don't know a lot about comparative performance of the Rafale vis-à-vis the Eurofighter, but I do know that the Eurofighter has been widely criticised on behalf of it's range and overall performance. Performance-wise the T1s have the edge over later Tranches as their airframes were not meant to fulfil the full range of A-G capabilities, with the T1 hull alone being at least 1.000 to 1.500 kg lighter compared to the strengthened hulls of later Tranches. This lower weight should have a positive impact on behalf of acceleration, manoeuvrability and range figures, and should surpass those of performance figures of the later versions. In 1994 the Dutch MoD, closely following the development of the Eurofighter (together with Norway), already concluded the internal range of the Eurofighter to be sub-par to re-engined F-16A/B MLU block 15s with P&W 220E engines. In later studies the Dutch MoD, in cooperation with the National Aerospace Laboratory of the Netherlands, acknowledged the Eurofighters internal range to be one of numerous shortcomings. The later Eurofighter tranches are said to be short-legged in comparison to F-16C's and palpably inferior to F-15Cs with either F-100-PW229 or F-110-GE-129 engines. I cannot say much about external range figures, but I'm willing to bet that these will not be in any way superior to F-35 (A, B or C) whose overall performance is less penalised by drag.

Re: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2014, 06:46
by weasel1962
The range comparison is pretty meaningless since anything beyond max range can be topped by tanker regardless of the aircraft. In real life, comparing sortie rates at max range is also meaningless as there's an airbase within range in most cases (unless one is fighting in the pacific in which case, carriers only carry rafales & F-35B & Cs so Typhoon :bang: ). Beyond 600nm, the sortie rates reduce to an extent that no one does that sustainably so that's restricting to Osirak kind of alpha strikes which tanker support will still be there.

What is undeniable is that F-35 has the advantage in being able to operate more safely at higher altitudes due to stealth. Any flyboy will tell you its always easier to dive (lookdown) than climb (lookup) from an ACM perspective. Flying at high altitudes will always be more fuel efficient than low. From that perspective, no 3/4G plane can compare to the F-35.

Re: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2014, 07:17
by spazsinbad
'weasel1962' said:
"...P.s. Hi-Lo-Hi is probably the least used flight profile I know..."

Back in the early 1970s it was popular in my part of the world. :D But yeah it must be acknowledged circumstances have changed somewhat these days eh. :doh:

Re: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2014, 09:01
by weasel1962
spazsinbad wrote:'weasel1962' said:
"...P.s. Hi-Lo-Hi is probably the least used flight profile I know..."

Back in the early 1970s it was popular in my part of the world. :D But yeah it must be acknowledged circumstances have changed somewhat these days eh. :doh:


I was talking our of my a*se with that comment :doh: Below was the point I was trying to make which is an extract from the F-35B EIS.

The F-35B’s capabilities will allow it to fly at generally higher altitudes than the legacy F/A-18 and AV-8B aircraft. The altitude range for the F-35B in training is 300 ft AGL to 50,000 ft MSL, with the greatest proportion (67 percent) spent at altitudes above 15,000 ft MSL. Table 2-20 provides an estimated altitude profile for the aircraft.

Table 2-20. Estimated Altitude Profile for the F-35B
Altitude Band Percent Time Used
300 to 5,000 AGL <1%
5,000 AGL to 10,000 MSL 7%
10,000 MSL to 15,000 MSL 26%
15,000 MSL to 25,000 MSL 48%
25,000 MSL to 50,000 MSL 19%

As this profile shows, the F-35B would spend very little time below 5,000 ft AGL....This profile differs from the current legacy aircraft operations where much more time is spent at lower altitudes.

Re: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2014, 11:54
by hornetfinn
enrico wrote:HF - While having the greatest respect for what you think or are pretty sure about, I'd check the fuel fractions (which as Lindbergh knew are more important than fuel load). You will find that a fully loaded Rafale has a higher fuel fraction than a fully loaded F-35A at take-off, and while it may look draggy on the way out will be a lot more efficient than the JSF on the way home because it's not hauling as much tankage and has no weapon bays. ISTR that Dassault claims 750 nm hi-lo-hi on interdiction.


Ok, then we can do the calculations.

Internal fuel only:
F-35A with no weapons: 0.385
Dassault Rafale A with no weapons: 0.31-0.33 (depending on source for weights)

F-35A with all internal weapons load (about 5000lbs or about 2300kg): about 0.35
Rafale A with similar weapons load: about 0.29

F-35A with heavy load (say 15,000 lbs or about 6800kg): about 0.29
Rafale A with similar weapons load: about 0.22


With external fuel:
F-35A with 2 480 gallon fuel tanks: about 0.46 without weapons, about 0.43 with all internal weapons and 0.37 with 15,000lbs of weapons

Dassault Rafale with max tanks (3 2000l and 2 1250l): 0.52 without weapons and it could not carry any real A/G load in that configuration

Dassault Rafale with 2 2000lbs bombs and 2 MICA and Damocles pod and 3 2000l (subsonic) tanks: about 0.43
Dassault Rafale with same weapons load but 3 1250l (supersonic) tanks : 0.37

Dassault Rafale with 15,000lbs of weapons is not capable of carrying any external tanks and fuel fraction is only 0.22.

In conclusion, Rafale has only minor advantage in fuel fraction in ferry configuration. Even then the effective fuel fraction would be very similar as F-35 would carry only two external tanks vs. Rafale which would carry five and having huge amount of drag offsetting any advantage in fuel fraction. In any realistic A/G configuration the Dassault Rafale has at best having equal fuel fraction to F-35A with the best result achieved with a load that F-35A carries internally. Of course Dassault Rafale has to carry all the weapons, targeting pod and fuel tanks externally and having high drag, low performance (with subsonic tanks) and also high radar signature. In heavy configurations F-35A will have large advantage in fuel fraction. Of course it's also not that stealthy anymore and has relatively high drag.

So Dassault Rafale is definitely not capable of carrying more further away. It's not even capable of carrying more or carrying it further away in any real world configurations. Actually I've never seen Dassault Rafale carry much more than what F-35A (and C) carry all internally as it almost always carries (just like most 4th generation fighters) two or three external tanks taking away a lot of weapons carry capacity.

Re: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2014, 19:15
by hb_pencil
enrico wrote:HF - While having the greatest respect for what you think or are pretty sure about, I'd check the fuel fractions (which as Lindbergh knew are more important than fuel load). You will find that a fully loaded Rafale has a higher fuel fraction than a fully loaded F-35A at take-off, and while it may look draggy on the way out will be a lot more efficient than the JSF on the way home because it's not hauling as much tankage and has no weapon bays. ISTR that Dassault claims 750 nm hi-lo-hi on interdiction.


I'm sorry, but there is so much wrong with your estimate, even without discussing fuel fractions. I assume you're talking about the Dassault's figures for 4x 500 lbs Laser guided in a hi-lo-hi profile.In that scenario, the Paveway's effective range would be maybe 5~10 NM... essentially the aircraft would need to be right on top of the target and right within the lethal envelope of even the most basic large low-level Russian AD missiles like the S-125. So you'll need many more aircraft to conduct SEAD or just pure mission attrition to replace those aircraft as they are shot down. Even then, you'd have issues with targeting and guidance, (you're probably not going to stick around at low alt in enemy territory) as well as BDA.

The F-35's low observability and organic jamming allows it to approach a target at a higher altitude with a much greater safety. That also allows it to obtain greater range out of its weapons. At high altitude the F-35 would achieve 30nm+ from a GBU-12 paveway or GBU-34 jdam, and 70+ from JSOW or SDB. Guidance isn't an issue in this case.

However, the F-35 can probably come close to that profile with that weaponload. At a minimum it can do a ~725NM Hi-lo-hi with some ordnance (possibly 1000lbs?) which would be close to what the Rafale could carry. It may well be more than that.

Finally constantly jettisoning tanks isn't really an effective military strategy for modern aircraft. It was back in WWII, but not today. They are among the most difficult items to ship due to their bulk (modern airlift ops tend to bulk out before they weigh out), which means you'd quickly run out of tanks if you were constantly dropping them, and heavily strain your logistics chain behind the warfighters. It just wouldn't happen... so the Rafale would be carrying several hundred pounds of draggy, unstealthy pods right back to base... just like the F-35.

Re: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2014, 23:49
by Gums
Salute!

Several folks are getting to the hypothetical profiles, and should.

I'll guarantee that the Stubby will not fly in the stratosphere, like 40,000 feet. It will likely fly around 30,000 feet and STAY there unless the loadout requires a lower release altitude.

I can't see flying around at really low altitude for very long like we used to drop dumb bombs. Hell, my trusty SLUF could hit within 20 - 30 meters from 8,000 feet with dumb bombs but a smart plane ( and did this one day against a very competent IAD). Viper was about the same. However, we usually dropped at about 4,000 to 5,000 feet to get good tgt acquisition.

The CAS mission might require a bit lower, like 15, 000 feet, due to targeting accuracy requirements unless the grunts have compatible ground laser designators. The "old" CAS missions also involved repeated passes, so the gunners had practice, heh heh. We didn't have a choice, but had to stay low for the next pass. From Korat, we flew the SLUF to III Corps just north of Saigon and made repeated passes - figure 8 or 10 MK-82's. Came back with mucho gas and never got near a tanker. So 300 nm radius was extrmely easy, despit our high drag index and lots less gas than the Stubby.

Gums opines...

Re: F-35 Range

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2014, 23:59
by sferrin
enrico wrote:Faster than the F-35A can jettison 7000 pounds of metal.



You better hope so if you expect your pilots to stay alive. :lol: