Israel Pays for Additional F-35s

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2199
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post11 Sep 2018, 18:57

sferrin wrote:"The F-35 hasn't been tested (or even mentioned) carrying 5,000lb stores on it's inboard pylons. "

I should have been more clear and said, "munitions". I knew they were 5,000lb hardpoints but, to my knowledge, there's never been a plan to put 5,000lb class bombs/missiles there. Hell, I don't think the fuel tank weighs 5,000lbs. (Even the 600 gallon tanks on an F-22 or Eagle don't weigh that much.)

Maybe, if they ever make it into service, hypersonic weapons will fit the bill. They won't be small, or light.


I don't see any reason why the a 5,000lb bomb cannot be integrated on those F-35's 5,000lb hardpoints.

IMO, the only reason why no 5,000lb class bombs/missiles have been carried by the F-35 is because and only because no such bomb/munition weren't integrated yet since these have a very low priority regarding the list of weapons to be integrated on the F-35. If you look closely, only a small number of weapons was integrated so far on the F-35 (basically: AMRAAMs, AIM-9X, GBU-12/31/32, Paveway IV and JSOW). Many other weapons will be integrated in the future and I'm sure that if a customer (such as Israel) wishes to integrate such 5,000 bombs/munitions on the F-35 that this could be done, much easier and quicker so with the upcoming UAI.
Last edited by ricnunes on 12 Sep 2018, 12:25, edited 1 time in total.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2204
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post11 Sep 2018, 19:12

ricnunes wrote:
sferrin wrote:"The F-35 hasn't been tested (or even mentioned) carrying 5,000lb stores on it's inboard pylons. "

I should have been more clear and said, "munitions". I knew they were 5,000lb hardpoints but, to my knowledge, there's never been a plan to put 5,000lb class bombs/missiles there. Hell, I don't think the fuel tank weighs 5,000lbs. (Even the 600 gallon tanks on an F-22 or Eagle don't weigh that much.)

Maybe, if they ever make it into service, hypersonic weapons will fit the bill. They won't be small, or light.


I don't seen any reason why the a 5,000lb bomb cannot be integrated on those F-35's 5,000lb hardpoints.



Separation testing, or at least analysis of separation events? While I doubt there are any issues... it would really ruin a pilot's day if said 5,000 lb munition decided to dock with his aircraft post-release...
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

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2199
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post11 Sep 2018, 19:31

steve2267 wrote:
ricnunes wrote:I don't seen any reason why the a 5,000lb bomb cannot be integrated on those F-35's 5,000lb hardpoints.



Separation testing, or at least analysis of separation events? While I doubt there are any issues... it would really ruin a pilot's day if said 5,000 lb munition decided to dock with his aircraft post-release...


Nothing different from when those 5,000lb bombs were integrated for the first time on the Eagle, is it?
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8396
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post11 Sep 2018, 19:42

Actually, it's a little safer on the F-35 as it uses pneumatic ejectors and the 5k pylons have a slight nose-down cant.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7706
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post11 Sep 2018, 22:02

HVPW would fit the bill nicely. The Combatant Commanders had requested the AF Labs back in the day to prioritize it's development. It would appear to be ready for transition to a formal DOD program and I think it unlikely that the concept would have lost favor with it's intended users.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ng-412565/
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1404
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post12 Sep 2018, 09:49

My point was more general. It is a bollocks argument to paint the F-35 as incapable of matching the weapon payload or load-out and strike potential of an F-15, so therefore IDF must buy F-15s to get it done. That's crap. A single-engine F-16 replacement that can carry more weapon weight than an F-15E is not something you turn your nose up at.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1404
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post12 Sep 2018, 09:58

sferrin wrote: It ain't going to get far with a pair of 5,000lb bombs and 18,000lbs of gas. The Eagle can still carry a centerline 600 gallon tank and it's CFTs with a pair of 5,000lb bombs.


As I understood it F-15 carried a single GBU-28 on centerline, not two on wings.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5812
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post12 Sep 2018, 10:17

element1loop wrote:
sferrin wrote: It ain't going to get far with a pair of 5,000lb bombs and 18,000lbs of gas. The Eagle can still carry a centerline 600 gallon tank and it's CFTs with a pair of 5,000lb bombs.


As I understood it F-15 carried a single GBU-28 on centerline, not two on wings.



Regardless, the F-35 would have "far less drag" than the Strike Eagle carrying two 5,000 lbs class bombs. While, it's single P&W F135 is likely "much more fuel efficient" than the formers twin F100's.


In short we have no reason to believe the F-15E Strike Eagle has better range than the F-35A/C with twin 5,000 lbs bombs.

This is supported by comments made by Lt Col Christine Mau who has over 2000hrs in F15E and was first female F35A Pilot. Both quotes from presentation to Smithsonian.

At 1.04.33 when quizzed about CAS role and comparison to A10:

...as far as endurance goes...we’ve got a lot of gas, in fact the legs on the F35 are longer than the legs on an F15E, based on my experience. Internally we carry 18,000lbs of gas on the A model, and we’ve got one engine, it’s pretty impressive.


Plus, comments made by "Lt. Col. David “Chip” Berke, USMC (Ret), former F-22 and F-35B pilot now the Force Management Branch Chief on the Joint Staff J-8, and Lt. Col. Scott “CAP” Gunn, USAF, the commander of the 33rd Operational Support Squadron at Eglin AFB, Fla., discuss the capabilities of the F-35 Lightning II fighter with Defense & Aerospace Report Editor Vago Muradian after the conclusion of a panel discussion on 5th generation combat aircraft sponsored by the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies at the US Capitol."

Q: "How's the range of the aircraft from an operator perspective?"

CAP: "I think people that say it doesn't have the range are someone that probably looks at a single-engine aircraft and think so it's just an F-16. It aint an F-16.

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

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

So it's got legs, it's got really long legs."
Last edited by Corsair1963 on 12 Sep 2018, 10:25, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23474
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post12 Sep 2018, 10:25

Here is the MURADIAN Berke Gunn Video for Quotes: viewtopic.php?t=52482 OR

USMC & USAF Pilots on Capabilities of F-35 Lightning II Fighter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTgDTC8_PM0

A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23474
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post12 Sep 2018, 11:21

Muradian at his best for sure - what an excellent 18 mins or less spent watching this great interview. Meanhile…. RANGE.

F-35A Range Quote Pilots Berke Gunn + Muradian 10 Nov 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX-rlGDcU9A

A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5443
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post12 Sep 2018, 16:48

element1loop wrote:
sferrin wrote: It ain't going to get far with a pair of 5,000lb bombs and 18,000lbs of gas. The Eagle can still carry a centerline 600 gallon tank and it's CFTs with a pair of 5,000lb bombs.


As I understood it F-15 carried a single GBU-28 on centerline, not two on wings.



You can see on the picture I posted above that it had a 5,000lb bomb on each inboard pylon. One is being dropped and the other is still on the aircraft on the far side.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5443
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post12 Sep 2018, 16:52

spazsinbad wrote:Muradian at his best for sure - what an excellent 18 mins or less spent watching this great interview. Meanhile…. RANGE.

F-35A Range Quote Pilots Berke Gunn + Muradian 10 Nov 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX-rlGDcU9A



Sure, but that's an F-15C with both aircraft in air-to-air configuration. How's it match up using an F-15E, with it's CFTs, and a pair of 5,000lb bombs on each aircraft?
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2204
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post12 Sep 2018, 16:52

Within the context of Israel wanting additional F-15's, this desire may very well stem from the need to carry 5,000lb munitions such as the deep penetrating GBU-28.

From the last Weapons Carriage Requirements slide I had downloaded from this forum, the GBU-28 does not appear to be slated for carry by the F-35. So if Israel needs to deliver those somewhere, the F-15 appears to be their ride.

Based on comments by Gunn, Berke, Mau et al, it seems clear that the F-35 has much better legs than the F-15C. However, even if the GBU-28 could be carried by the F-35, and while there does not appear to be any show-stopper preventing the Lightning from being able to do so -- other than dot-your-i-and-cross-your-t's engineering work, it is not clear the F-35 with GBU-28's would have better range than F-15E's hauling one or two GBU-28's with external 600gal tanks. (As I'm editing this post for written clarity... the only thing that causes me pause is... the GBU-28 is quite long: could there by any fitment / separation issues / aero issues with such a long munition extending backwards from the F-35 wing towards the stabilator?)

From what I can tell, an F-15E may be able to haul
  • two GBU-28 on STA 2 & 8 with a 600 gal tank on STA 5 for 27430lbs of gas total --OR--
  • one GBU-28 on STA 5 with two 600 gal tanks on STA 2&8 for 31510lbs of gas total

I have no idea how far a Strike Eagle could deliver that payload, or how it would compare to an F-35 with two GBU-28's on STA 3&9.

But in the context of why Israel may be interested in more F-15s... it may be to lug GBU-28's around Iran...
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

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8396
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post12 Sep 2018, 16:57

On of the reasons why Israel has talked about extra F-15s is that the deal will also have to include upgrading all of the existing F-15s to whatever new standard is decided upon.

All of that will be paid for by US aid funds.

If Israel upgraded their own F-15s, they would have to pay for it with hard cash with a little aid money for US based items.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4530
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post12 Sep 2018, 17:58

sferrin wrote:Sure, but that's an F-15C with both aircraft in air-to-air configuration. How's it match up using an F-15E, with it's CFTs, and a pair of 5,000lb bombs on each aircraft?

Are you purposefully ignoring LtCol Mau's statement? "the legs on the F35 are longer than the legs on an F15E"

Also, do not think that because the F-15E carries 50% more gas than the F-15C that it has 50% more range. It doesn't. It chugs gas like there is no tomorrow once loaded. The F-15E has a lot of weight on a little wing. It is not an unstable design either. It carries a not insignificant induced/trim drag penalty. Look up the optimum cruise information for both.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests