F-35 Loadout question: More internal AtA missiles

F-35 Armament, fuel tanks, internal and external hardpoints, loadouts, and other stores.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Raptor_One

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1092
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 08:19

Unread post12 Aug 2006, 00:00

With only 4xAIM-7 the F-15C w/PW-220 (do operational F-15Cs now have PW-229's???) does about Mach 2.4 as opposed to 2.45 clean for a standard day at like... 42,000 ft. With all the pylons and launchers/adapters for the AIM-9s and fuel tanks (minus any fuel tanks and missiles), maximum speed is reduced to Mach 2.35. And if anyone is wondering where I'm coming up with this, FOIA requests were filed for the data and granted a while back by people in the flight modeling group of the "F4 Unified Team" that developed the SP1/2/3 patch for Falcon 4.0. We tried to do the same thing a while later for the F-16 (after 9/11) and were told that things had changed and they weren't giving it up so easy anymore.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5639
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post14 Aug 2006, 00:32

dwightlooi wrote:An F-15C with F100-PW-220 engines will do Mach 2.2 at altitude with 4xAIM7 (or AIM-120 I suppose), 4xAIM9, and a centerline pylon. If you include the centerline tank, there is a limit airspeed of Mach 1.8. The F-15C is capable of breaking past this limit... especially on a cold day. Not advisable to exceed the stores limit though. The pilot would simply punch the CL tank if extra speed was truly required.

The recessed AIM-7s or AIM-120s have minimal drag impact. The four AIM-9s, their twin rail launchers and the pylon probably has much more drag penalty than the recessed AAMs.

In any case, if the centerline tank itself costs 0.4 Mach. One wonders how planes like the Rafale and the EF can ever have operational supercuise capability since they typically carry one to three tanks on missions. That, plus recessed and not recessed AAM armament. The EF has a pair of 20,500 lbs engines (70% that of the Eagle's thrust with F100-PW229 engines) and weigh roughly 70% as much as an F-15C (empty). Both have variable intakes and convergent/divertgent nozzles. So there shouldn't be any significant static or dynamic thrust/weight advantage either way. The only major difference being that the EJ200 is a lower bypass engine than the F100 and hence makes more dry thrust -- not a lot more though, 65% vs 60% of AB thrust @ full military power.

[/i]



Of course another very important question is how long can a F-15C or Typhoon for that matter maintain such speeds? :roll:
Offline

Raptor_One

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1092
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 08:19

Unread post14 Aug 2006, 06:02

At high altitude starting with a full tank of internal fuel (assume the drop tanks get punched off once at 40,000 ft and external tank Mach limit), a fair amount of time. While certainly not fuel efficient, using the afterburner at high altitudes is the best possible place to do it for extended periods of time. Your fuel flow is much lower (even in AB) at high altitudes than it is at, say, sea level.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5639
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post14 Aug 2006, 15:11

Raptor_One wrote:At high altitude starting with a full tank of internal fuel (assume the drop tanks get punched off once at 40,000 ft and external tank Mach limit), a fair amount of time. While certainly not fuel efficient, using the afterburner at high altitudes is the best possible place to do it for extended periods of time. Your fuel flow is much lower (even in AB) at high altitudes than it is at, say, sea level.



It's highly unlikely that External Tanks would be jettisoned except in a emergency. Also, the External Tanks have to be empty and the Internal Tanks Full? Sounds Great yet how likely is your enemy going to show up at that precise in your flight?
Offline

Raptor_One

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1092
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 08:19

Unread post14 Aug 2006, 18:03

Huh? If you are engaged in wartime by enemy fighters or if you are intercepting enemy fighters, you will use as much of your external fuel as possible to get up to altitude and speed (below the external tank's Mach limit). Once it comes time to fire missiles and then possibly mix it up, the tanks are going to come off. Enemy fighters that you have to engage in wartime IS an emergency! If you're not going to dump the tanks for that, what would you dump them for?
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5639
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post14 Aug 2006, 18:30

Raptor_One wrote:Huh? If you are engaged in wartime by enemy fighters or if you are intercepting enemy fighters, you will use as much of your external fuel as possible to get up to altitude and speed (below the external tank's Mach limit). Once it comes time to fire missiles and then possibly mix it up, the tanks are going to come off. Enemy fighters that you have to engage in wartime IS an emergency! If you're not going to dump the tanks for that, what would you dump them for?



Well, exteranl tanks are very limited and considering most combat is at BVR what's the point? :roll:
Offline

Raptor_One

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1092
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 08:19

Unread post15 Aug 2006, 06:25

External fuel tanks are not as limited (or as expensive) as an F-15 itself, so if dumping the tanks significantly decreases the chances of an F-15 being shot down by a missile or whatever, it will be done. What would you define as an emergency? The fuel tanks limit the F-15C's top speed, acceleration, and maneuverability. If maximum speed, acceleration, and maneuverability are of utmost importance to surviving an engagement or successfully intercepting/downing enemy aircraft, the tanks will come off. I'm not saying that the tanks are going to come off once they're empty no matter what the circumstances. If an F-15 gets to the point where enemy missiles may be in the air or a BVR engagement might transition to a WVR engagement, the tanks will most likely come off. Perhaps a real Eagle driver is around to chime in.
Offline

LordOfBunnies

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 588
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2005, 05:28
  • Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Unread post15 Aug 2006, 06:30

Here's a curiosity that I thought of. If you're flying a stealth aircraft, have tanks, and are detected outside of your normal detection range (the tanks add so the range of detection skyrockets) if a missile were launched at you and you punched the tanks. Would the missile track and destroy the tanks or stay on you until getting close enough to do terminal radar stuff?
Peace through superior firepower.
Back as a Student, it's a long story.
Offline

Raptor_One

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1092
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 08:19

Unread post15 Aug 2006, 06:52

I don't think jettisoned fuel tanks are very good decoys. Also, unless you're firing at a target from near-visual range, your active radar missiles will be on either inertial guidance (if the uplink is down) or uplink guidance from the shooter aircraft until close enough to track the target with its own onboard radar. I think it's unlikely a couple of fuel tanks would screw up the shooter aircraft radar or missile radar's logic. That's what towed decoys and self protection jammers are for.
Offline

JCSVT

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 76
  • Joined: 19 Jul 2006, 21:39

Unread post20 Aug 2006, 00:25

JCSVT wrote:"Dozer" is Lt.Col. Shower who is a commander of a Raptor sqadron at Langley and test pilot for the F-22 since '03. :wink:


Forgot to add that he has over 2K hours in the F-15C and shot down a MiG-29 in the war over Bosnia. 8)
Offline

Raptor_One

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1092
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 08:19

Unread post20 Aug 2006, 01:01

Was I supposed to know that? It's usually best to assume that people don't already know who you are talking about unless one is talking about a big name public figure, celebrity, etc.
Offline

toan

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 535
  • Joined: 27 Nov 2004, 16:14

Unread post20 Aug 2006, 08:11

A nice new conception for the F-35. If this can be realized and exported to the foreign customers in the near future, then F-35 shall surely be the most attractive choice of NG fighters in the world ~ perhaps even more attractive than the exporting variant of Raptor.
Attachments
46_76124_d922db8ecda96ca.jpg
Offline

Raptor_One

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1092
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 08:19

Unread post20 Aug 2006, 09:04

8xAIM-120D + 4xAIM-9X all carried internally? Holy heatseekers, Batman! Holier radar homing missiles, Batman!!! Looks like they've drawn in a thrust vectoring nozzle on this badboy too. Not sure if that fly... especially for an export version. It would drive the price way up, don't you think?
Offline

toan

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 535
  • Joined: 27 Nov 2004, 16:14

Unread post20 Aug 2006, 10:12

A stealthy air-defense fighter which can carry 12 AAM internally with the combat radius (subsonic one, of course) that are even longer than F-22A ~ I think many foreign customers would be interested in this kind of conception.

The only problem is that US government might not like to export this kind of upgrading F-35, which is too stealthy and too powerful, to other foreign customers............
Offline

Scorpion1alpha

F-16.net Moderator

F-16.net Moderator

  • Posts: 1623
  • Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:47

Unread post20 Aug 2006, 10:18

Toan,

Where did you find or get this image from?
I'm watching...
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: sferrin and 3 guests