F-35B mid-air refuel back ramp C-130 video

Variants for different customers or mission profiles
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2885
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post28 Mar 2015, 04:10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3NJQ33rDeI

Published on Mar 23, 2015

Marines stationed aboard Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort observed a KC-130 aerial refueling of a F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, March 19, 2015. Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort is the center of excellence for F-35B training for Marine Corps Installations East.
:)

..forgot to mention the glimpse (@ 2:30 mark) of the air refueling probe "light"..enjoy! :)
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23156
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post24 Apr 2015, 23:46

The F-35 FMS is certified to teach ARF/IFR (air refuel/in flight refuel) so that will help a lot before actual flying it. One story for the F-35A at URL and I believe for probe/drogue qual as well: http://www.eglin.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123349605 & http://archive.defensenews.com/article/ ... 5-Training & http://www.nwfdailynews.com/military/to ... ng-1.96767
The Fuel Light’s On in My F-35. Now What?
22 Apr 2015 f-35.com

"...How does an F-35, shooting through the sky at 240 knots (275 MPH), fly up beside a KC-130J or another tanker and plug in to a 93-foot fuel hose via a circular “basket” only about a foot-and-a-half in diameter? The precision of the task itself seems daunting. So here’s the breakdown of how aerial refueling works.

Rendezvous and Pre-Contact
The first step to aerial refueling is finding a rendezvous point. [This could be difficult in WX in the OLD A4G!]

“In some cases, this may be somewhere over the ocean if a squadron were transferring to an oversea base,” explains Bugsy, “or it could be a rendezvous point or tanker track normally published in the Air Tasking Order if the aircraft was performing air refueling as part of their mission.”

In the case of the F-35, it’s usually either a point somewhere over the middle of the U.S., when the aircraft are flying cross-country for a base transfer, or somewhere near one of the many training bases. Once the F-35 pilot locates the tanker, they make contact with the pilot and initiate intercept. The flight lead will join closest to the tanker while the wingmen line up in an echelon formation. Next, while the planes are in what is called “pre-contact,” the fighter pilot will adjust mission systems to ensure their radar isn’t interfering with the tanker. In legacy fighters, this involves pushing a few buttons and turning a few knobs. But in the F-35, explains F-35 Contract Instructor Pilot Oscar “Speedy” Alvarez, “it’s simply a matter of selecting the “pre-contact” option selection button (OSB) on the cockpit’s touchscreen, which puts the radar into standby mode.”

Refueling
Once in position, and still in communication with the tanker pilot, the F-35 pilot selects the “Refuel” OSB from his flight control display. On the F-35B and F-35C variants, which use a probe-and-drogue system, this will deploy the refueling probe so that it can connect to the basket on the end of the hose. Once contact is made, the fighter pilot will move the basket up about 10 feet or so and the refueling begins.

For the F-35A variant, which uses a flying boom aerial refueling, the pilot flies in a tight formation with the tanker. An operator at the back of the tanker and the F-35 pilot work together to ensure the boom aligns with the aircraft and is inserted directly into the fuel tank opening.

From there, it’s just a simple matter of starting the fuel flow.

Training
Aerial refueling is “part of the basic training pilots go through,” Speedy says. Before going on a refueling mission, the pilots have already been through most of the learning syllabus at the Pilot Training Center, and have already flown the jets to get some experience. After a lecture explaining the basics of aerial refueling mission planning, aircraft limitations, tanker rendezvous and departure procedures and tanker-specific capabilities, the pilots are sent back to their squadrons to give it a try.

“One of the hardest parts of aerial refueling is learning to fly the probe into the basket smoothly. At times when there is turbulence it’s not as easy as it looks as the basket is relatively light and moves around,” explains Bugsy. “It takes some practice to learn to fly the probe into the basket without too much closure [how fast you are approaching the basket] or angular rates (up/down, left/right) which could damage the basket or the probe on the aircraft.”

Pilots have to complete six “plugs” to achieve their initial “qual” – or qualification – for aerial refueling.
"

SEVERAL PHOTOS at the SOURCE URL: https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/imag ... __main.jpg

Source: https://www.f35.com/news/detail/the-fue ... .-now-what
Attachments
4xF-35BsARFkc-130J.jpg
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23156
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post16 Feb 2017, 01:47

Lordy Lordy the sky is falling again - the F-35 is raining fuel on SOLOMON parade - SAY WUT?! 0+0 = NOTHING y'all hear...
F-35 issue. It's a GAS HOG!
15 Feb 2017 SNAFUman

"via Aviation Week. [ http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/how ... eed-refuel ]
A recent, lengthy journey by U.S. Marine Corps F-35Bs traveling from Arizona to Japan has sparked a quiet debate within the Pentagon about how often the stealthy fighter needs to refuel during ocean ...


The rest is behind a paywall but gives a tantalizing tease to the next F-35 issue. It's a freaking GAS HOG! It's really very clear now. Have you wondered why this so called long range fighter has prompted the USMC to fast track a refueling system for it from the V-22? The same V-22 that is supposedly a low quantity, high demand airframe? It never made sense to me. How could General Davis talk about how he needed many more V-22's and at the same time work toward transforming some of them into tankers for the F-35 that supposedly out ranged anything currently in the Navy/Marine Corps inventory.

Long short. They/He/Lockheed Martin lied.

Whats especially tantalizing about this story? Lockheed Martin published what I thought was a throw away story in 2015 that talked about refueling the F-35. [THAT STORY or excerpts is above here - SoloDoodleDodle makes no connection]

Source: http://www.snafu-solomon.com/2017/02/f- ... qus_thread
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2153
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post16 Feb 2017, 02:01

Spaz, wouldn't your post have been better over in the basement dewllers' thread? I followed your link to Solomon's drivel, and other than feeling like I suddenly need to shower, I don't know how to respond? You can't argue with the guy, nor with his sycophantic followers. You (we, anybody) can't know if the "F-35 is a gas hog" without the SFC numbers... and I can't seem to find my F-35 PM / AIM...
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1346
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post16 Feb 2017, 02:05

In case you hadn't noticed, that thread is locked.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2153
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post16 Feb 2017, 02:18

:wtf: I hadn't noticed... :doh: Do we need a new one? Dweller's redux perhaps?
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23156
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post16 Feb 2017, 05:03

The weird sayings are out again - I dunno... 'coronet' [ http://wiki.radioreference.com/index.ph ... t_Missions ]
New Fighters Rely on Aging Tankers
16 Feb 2017 Brian Everstine

"The first overseas deployment of the military’s newest fighter grabbed headlines across the world, but behind the F-35B deployment was a huge team of planners, pilots, and maintainers flying some of the oldest aircraft in the military’s inventory.

Nine tankers enabled the deployment of 10 US Marine Corps F-35Bs, flying from the continental United States, across Alaska and the Pacific Ocean, before touching down at MCAS Iwakuni, Japan, on Jan. 25.

The tankers flew a total of 250 air refuelings on the coronet[?] mission, passing 766,000 pounds of fuel. Air Mobility Command and Air Combat Command crews spent three weeks planning the mission, AMC spokesman Col. Chris Karns said.

“Fighters are thirsty aircraft and the F-35 is no exception,” Karns said. “The F-35 affords a tremendous capability, but the effects-enabling tanker piece is equally important to national defense. Without it, the F-35’s global reach on demand does not occur.”

USMC Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, the Marine Corps’ deputy commandant for aviation, said his service is looking to change tanker plans for long-distance F-35 flights in an attempt try to cut back on the number of refuelings needed. [SHIRLEY this means there is something awry with the tanker plans as they stand at moment?] The aircraft in this case did not use fuel pods, and flew much of the time with their refueling probe exposed. [Wut Why?]

The ACC Air Operations Squadron plans the refueling schedule, looking at variables such as route, fighter configuration, altitudes, airspeeds, and timing. The AOS serves as an air operations center for all combat aircraft, for all services, Karns said. This deployment was planned just like any other coronet mission—a flight where aircraft cannot land to refuel. [learn somefing new every day: http://wiki.radioreference.com/index.ph ... t_Missions ]

While there were minor delays because of weather, the aircraft arrived on time.

Davis also highlighted the 2016 flight of F-35s to the Royal International Air Tattoo airshow in England as another flight that required a lot of refueling. During this deployment, two KC-10s and one KC-135 refueled three F-35s a total of 30 times during a flight from Luke AFB, Ariz., to RAF Fairford, England. About 168,400 pounds of fuel was transferred during this flight.

As the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy adopt the F-35, that means there will be an increased demand for USAF tankers. This shows the need for the KC-46 Pegasus to come online and help carry this load, Karns said.

“As the fighter force increases, it is apparent that global tanker demand and potential future threats will drive an increase for the next generation of tankers,” Karns said."

Source: http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... nkers.aspx
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2153
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post16 Feb 2017, 06:13

spazsinbad wrote:
New Fighters Rely on Aging Tankers
16 Feb 2017 Brian Everstine

"The first overseas deployment of the military’s newest fighter grabbed headlines across the world, but behind the F-35B deployment was a huge team of planners, pilots, and maintainers flying some of the oldest aircraft in the military’s inventory.

Nine tankers enabled the deployment of 10 US Marine Corps F-35Bs, flying from the continental United States, across Alaska and the Pacific Ocean, before touching down at MCAS Iwakuni, Japan, on Jan. 25.

The tankers flew a total of 250 air refuelings on the coronet[?] mission, passing 766,000 pounds of fuel. Air Mobility Command and Air Combat Command crews spent three weeks planning the mission, AMC spokesman Col. Chris Karns said.

...

Davis also highlighted the 2016 flight of F-35s to the Royal International Air Tattoo airshow in England as another flight that required a lot of refueling. During this deployment, two KC-10s and one KC-135 refueled three F-35s a total of 30 times during a flight from Luke AFB, Ariz., to RAF Fairford, England. About 168,400 pounds of fuel was transferred during this flight.

Source: http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... nkers.aspx


Luke AFB --> RAF Fairford
(3) F-35A's with 18000lb each + 168400 / 3 = 74133 lbs fuel (each)
Flight Time: 5224 mi (GC) @ 0.8M ~ 10 hrs
2016_KLUF-EGVA.JPG

Fuel Consumption = 74133 / 10 = 7413 lb/hr.
TEG had estimated F135 fuel consumption in MIL @ ~0.7lb/lbf-hr. So this would put F-35 throttle setting ~10600 lbs.

MCAS Yuma --> MCAS Iwakuni
(10) F-35B's with 13000lb each + 766000/10 = 89600 lbs fuel (each)
Flight Time: 6324 mi @ 0.8M ~ 12 hrs (I swagged a route up the west coast and across Alaska.)
2017_USMC_F-35B_Yuma-Japan.JPG

Fuel Consumption = 89600 / 12 = 7470 lb/hr. (Remarkably close to the estimate for the F-35A hop across the pond.)
With MIL fuel consumption of 0.7lb/lbf-hr, the F-35B would be putting out around 10670 lbs.

These numbers seem reasonable to me, but I'm unfamiliar with turbine ops / performance at altitude. Do these numbers make sense?
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2153
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post16 Feb 2017, 06:34

Hmmm... more numbers...

Luke AFB --> RAF Fairford
(3) F-35A's each took 56133 lbs of gas via 10 refuelings = 5613 lbs per hookup. If burning gas around 7400lb/hr, then they were tanking every 45 minutes.

MCAS Yuma --> MCAS Iwakuni
(10) F-35B's each took 766000/10 = 76600 lbs of gas via 25 refuelings = 3064 lbs per hookup. If burning around 7470lb/hr, then they were tanking every 25 minutes. How long does it take for an F-35B to move into position, hookup, take gas, then move out of the way for the next guy? One minute into position + hookup, 2 minutes for gas, one minute to get out of the way? Four minutes each? Then it takes forty minutes to gas up ten Killer Bees. But each plane is supposed to refuel every 25 minutes. Hmmm... if they used KC-10s with the duel hose/reel on each wingtip, then you could do five on each wing in 20 minutes. Man... it sounds like if there were one tanker for each leg, that you would constantly have chicks feeding off the momma bird all the way across...

How fast can you IFR with the birdie? Can a KC-135 / KC-10 basket refuel @ M0.8?

Also sounds like they were keeping all the Lightnings constantly topped off -- probably so if anyone had to divert he had enough gas in the tanks.

If it were me, I'd want at least two tankers with the Killer Chickadees at all times, in case one tanker broke. But that's just me (maybe).
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23156
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post16 Feb 2017, 06:38

Probably we would need to know a few more details such as 'wind/temp at cruise altitude' for starters. You have assumed the flights were non-stop. Were they? What is the assumption about landing fuel weight? Then there is the time refueling which may not be optimal cruise for the F-35B (perhaps this aspect is what is being misunderstood by reporters interpreting the comments of the briefing). Anyway my head hurts from a zillion hours of poring over NATOPS fuel charts trying to figure out how to get the most out of the A4G with flight restrictions or whatever. Thank goodness for computers.

STEVIE has added more numbers whilst I typed.... He has added a lot more detailed questions which are probably relevant but are the assumptions correct? Dunno. STEVIE needs to be an accredited aviation reporter to get into the F-35 briefings to ask detailed questions. Will these questions be answered? Dunno.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23156
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post16 Feb 2017, 07:16

To refresh our memories a little. All the ten USMC F-35Bs did not go to MCAS Iwakuni at the same time. Exactly who went where when I would have to go to the appropriate threads to make a detailed list of the details - most of which are unknown and they will probably remain that way for many years to come. The quote below is from AirForces Monthly magazine dated March 2017.
"...first four of its F-35Bs arrived at Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, Japan, assigned to Marine Aircraft Group 12, 1st Marine Aircraft Wing, III Marine Expeditionary Force. The aircraft left MCAS Yuma, Arizona, on January 9, crossing the Pacific with support from four US Air Force KC-10A Extenders from Travis AFB, California, and Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey...."
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1346
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post16 Feb 2017, 07:28

A guy from Elmendorf mentioned to me that at least some of the USMC jets overnighted there.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2153
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post16 Feb 2017, 14:09

Intermediate stops will increase fuel consumption compared to just staying at cruise. However, if the stops were only one or two, then over such a long trip, and with the numbers provided (total lbs of fuel transferred per so many aircraft), they should give us a decent 1st order cut at cruise fuel consumption for a clean Lightning. But without enginer and specific flight parameters, no detailed insight into SFC is available.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23156
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post16 Feb 2017, 14:16

AvWeak are weird but hey the formerly locked article is now unlocked (see above) so here 'tis: [& it is a stupid question]
How Often Does The F-35 Need To Refuel?
14 Feb 2017 Lara Seligman

"...It took seven days [this is misleading claim if one remembers that NOT ALL aircraft flew at same time NOR did they fly under the same weather etc but staggered their small group departures] for 10 U.S. Marine Corps F-35Bs to fly from Yuma to their new home at Iwakuni, Japan, a flight that on a commercial airliner normally takes less than 24 hr. [Lara seems to be channeling that tosspot from the car blog re 'commair' times] Many factors contribute to the time it takes a military fighter to get from point A to point B: weather, terrain and pilot fatigue, to name just a few. But on this particular voyage, the U.S. Air Force’s conservative refueling model required the Marine Corps aircraft to refuel with accompanying tankers a grand total of 250 times, a number the Marine Corps’ top aviator says is far too high for an efficient ocean-crossing.

“The airplane has got longer legs than an F-18 with drop tanks, so why are we going with the tanker so often? We don’t need to do that,” said Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, Marine Corps commandant for aviation. “We are tanking a lot more than we should, maybe double [what we should.] We could be a lot more efficient than that.”

While Davis says the tanking model for refueling the Joint Strike Fighter is “off in an overly conservative manner,” it is ultimately up to the Air Force to set the rules—and the air arm is not budging.

An often overlooked piece of the air logistics puzzle is tanker refueling, a critical enabler for operations around the world. Fighters are thirsty aircraft, and the F-35 is no exception, said Air Force spokesman Col. Chris Karns. During the Jan. 18-25 crossing to Iwakuni, nine tankers flew with the 10 F-35Bs, transferring a total of 766,000 lb. of fuel over 250 aerial refuelings, or 25 per F-35, according to Karns....

...It comes as no surprise to Air Force Brig. Gen. Scott Pleus that the Marine Corps jets needed to refuel so many times during the crossing to Iwakuni. The Air Force sets up ocean crossings assuming the worst-case scenario, so that if any aircraft is not able to get fuel at any given time during the journey—whether due to weather or a technical malfunction—the entire group has enough gas to land safely, Pleus explained. For instance, the F-35Bs flew with their refueling probes out during the entire voyage, which significantly increases drag on the aircraft, to simulate a scenario in which the operator is not able to retract the probe. [WOW it is true - who'da thunk]

“So when we plan these things we take the worst winds, we take the worst configuration of the airplane, and we say: at the worst time, what would happen?” said Pleus, a former F-16 pilot who now heads the Air Force’s F-35 integration office. “It is very conservative, and the reason why we’re so conservative is because it’s a life or death decision.”

Traditionally the Air Force refuels “almost continuously” when crossing a large body of water, as often as every 30 or 40 min., Pleus said. An F-35B, which carries 5,000 lb. less fuel than the Air Force F-35A, likely needs to hit the tanker even more often than that, he noted.

Pleus pushed back on Davis’ criticism, stressing that extending time between refuelings during an ocean crossing would mean more risk to pilots...."

:doh: :mrgreen: :shock: 'StevieWonder' [we luv u] posted something meanwhile but I'll ignore it to post this. :roll: :mrgreen: 8)

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/how-oft ... eed-refuel
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23156
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post16 Feb 2017, 14:28

'steve2267' you probably think I'm not serious however the old NATOPS for the A-4E/F/G has charts (perhaps not so easy to read in PDF format) with explanations about how to calculate fuel usage for every part of a mission from GO to WHOA. The A-4 is single engine and there are two engines cited in the best quality NATOPS I have seen online (I know because I scanned the bastard myself over many many days). Having some insight into the method to calculate fuel usage and being able to compare engines, one can get an insight into the variables noted - altitude, airspeed, weight & drag and suchlike.

Back in dem olden daze there wuz A-4M NATOPS extract PDF downloads as an example: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=24027&p=310800&hilit=NATOPS+Skyhawk#p310800
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Next

Return to F-35 Variants and Missions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests