Forum: Program and politics

battleshipagincourt wrote:

the F-35C is also considerably heavier and the larger wings are added drag. The additional 2k of fuel just barely compensates for this.

So the F-35C's range should be comparable to that of the F-35A.

F-35C will have a longer range than the F-35A; how much longer really depends on the degree to which its mission profile takes advantage of that larger wing. However, the F-35C is still quite a ways off at this point, so it's gonna be awhile before we have a clear picture.

F-16.net Sponsor

In my book it is best to stick to the official LM combat radius figures because anything else is just speculation. Yes there are ways that loadout and flight profile may enhance the radius but once again that becomes even more nebulous speculation.

Nothing but the 13 March 2012 LM Fast Facts: http://f-35.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/ ... 3-2012.pdf

madrat wrote:

If they do revert to F-35B then it seems like retiring Harrier GR was dumber in hindsight. Its hard to believe they would revert when F-35C is the best fit.

Never underestimate stupidity in UK defense procurement.

The F-35B KPPs specify a 600-ft. STO distance and a VLBB of 2 x 1000lb JDAMs, 2 x AMRAAMs and reserve fuel. Assuming full internl fuel and aforementioned internal weapons, how much more payload can you hang under the wings and still do a STO? Obviously you could achieve the MTOW given a long enough runway on land.

The F-35B KPPs specify a 600-ft. STO distance and a VLBB of 2 x 1000lb JDAMs, 2 x AMRAAMs and reserve fuel. Assuming full internl fuel and aforementioned internal weapons, how much more payload can you hang under the wings and still do a STO? Obviously you could achieve the MTOW given a long enough runway on land.

'popcorn' asked: ".... how much more payload can you hang under the wings and still do a STO?..."

This would be the 64K Question eh. Very Happy

Send me the NATOPS and I'll figure it out for ya! Very Happy

However increasing the WOD, decreasing the temperature and increasing the T/O distance available will make the answer easily known to those with the figures (but not me). Sad

spazsinbad wrote:

'popcorn' asked: ".... how much more payload can you hang under the wings and still do a STO?..."

This would be the 64K Question eh. Very Happy

Send me the NATOPS and I'll figure it out for ya! Very Happy

However increasing the WOD, decreasing the temperature and increasing the T/O distance available will make the answer easily known to those with the figures (but not me). Sad

Oh, OK.. I was just wondering if it was public knowledge and I ad missed it somehow.. we'll get an idea eventually..

Take off in STO form will vary from deck to deck for other reasons, too. There is no magic deck length or width. Clearance between objects on the deck affect takeoff.

With the reduced internal dimensions the actual maximum payload probably will not matter so much as the fuel.

What are you implying here 'madrat'? "...There is no magic deck length or width. Clearance between objects on the deck affect takeoff...." What clearance between objects, what objects?

The KPP states full fuel load [or enough to achieve the required KPP combat radius of 450NM) as well as full internal load so I'm not sure what you mean by 'will not matter so much as the fuel'. Please explain.

There are several [identical almost] versions of the KPP for F-35B with this one having the most detail while others (SAR) suggest 'enough fuel to fulfil KPP'; but anyway I'll repeat:

Scorecard: A Case study of the Joint Strike Fighter Program
by Geoffrey P. Bowman, LCDR, USN — 2008 April

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-14791.html

"...The USMC has added STOVL performance as a service specific key performance parameter. The requirement is listed as follows: With two 1000# JDAMs and two internal AIM-120s, full expendables, execute a 550 [now 600] foot (450 UK STOVL) STO from LHA, LHD, and aircraft carriers (sea level, tropical day, 10 kts operational WOD) & with a combat radius of 450 nm (STOVL profile). Also must perform STOVL vertical landing with two 1000# JDAMs and two internal AIM-120s, full expendables, and fuel to fly the STOVL Recovery profile.

The Marine Corps has used the more limiting deck launch, rather than a simple expeditionary airfield, to frame its requirement...."

spazsinbad wrote:

What are you implying here 'madrat'? "...There is no magic deck length or width. Clearance between objects on the deck affect takeoff...." What clearance between objects, what objects?

The KPP states full fuel load [or enough to achieve the required KPP combat radius of 450NM) as well as full internal load so I'm not sure what you mean by 'will not matter so much as the fuel'. Please explain.

There are several [identical almost] versions of the KPP for F-35B with this one having the most detail while others (SAR) suggest 'enough fuel to fulfil KPP'; but anyway I'll repeat:

Scorecard: A Case study of the Joint Strike Fighter Program
by Geoffrey P. Bowman, LCDR, USN — 2008 April

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-14791.html
In
"...The USMC has added STOVL performance as a service specific key performance parameter. The requirement is listed as follows: With two 1000# JDAMs and two internal AIM-120s, full expendables, execute a 550 [now 600] foot (450 UK STOVL) STO from LHA, LHD, and aircraft carriers (sea level, tropical day, 10 kts operational WOD) & with a combat radius of 450 nm (STOVL profile). Also must perform STOVL vertical landing with two 1000# JDAMs and two internal AIM-120s, full expendables, and fuel to fly the STOVL Recovery profile.

The Marine Corps has used the more limiting deck launch, rather than a simple expeditionary airfield, to frame its requirement...."

What are "full expendables"?

spazsinbad wrote:

What are you implying here 'madrat'? "...There is no magic deck length or width. Clearance between objects on the deck affect takeoff...." What clearance between objects, what objects?

The KPP states full fuel load [or enough to achieve the required KPP combat radius of 450NM) as well as full internal load so I'm not sure what you mean by 'will not matter so much as the fuel'. Please explain.

There are several [identical almost] versions of the KPP for F-35B with this one having the most detail while others (SAR) suggest 'enough fuel to fulfil KPP'; but anyway I'll repeat:

Scorecard: A Case study of the Joint Strike Fighter Program
by Geoffrey P. Bowman, LCDR, USN — 2008 April

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-14791.html
In
"...The USMC has added STOVL performance as a service specific key performance parameter. The requirement is listed as follows: With two 1000# JDAMs and two internal AIM-120s, full expendables, execute a 550 [now 600] foot (450 UK STOVL) STO from LHA, LHD, and aircraft carriers (sea level, tropical day, 10 kts operational WOD) & with a combat radius of 450 nm (STOVL profile). Also must perform STOVL vertical landing with two 1000# JDAMs and two internal AIM-120s, full expendables, and fuel to fly the STOVL Recovery profile.

The Marine Corps has used the more limiting deck launch, rather than a simple expeditionary airfield, to frame its requirement...."

What are "full expendables"?

Are "expendables" ammo, flares, and chafe?

Whatever else 'full expendables' includes it would be also FUEL and OIL/Liquids of all types required. There was a thread about weight which had a definition of various weights - empty or whatever. I'll look to see what 'full expendables' might be officially.

Whether the pilot is counted as 'expendable' I don't know although some seem to think that they have that attribution. Very Happy

Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms 2001

http://jitc.fhu.disa.mil/jitc_dri/pdfs/jp1_02.pdf (3Mb)

"expendable supplies and materiel — Supplies that are consumed in use, such as ammunition, paint, fuel, cleaning and preserving materials, surgical dressings, drugs, medicines, etc., or that lose their identity, such as spare parts, etc. Also called consumable supplies and materiel."

So, in theory, expendables could include a couple of JASSMs on external pylons..,or a pair of 2000lb JDAMs..

I guess the KPPs refer to a minimum requirement to be met. Some readings suggest that only enough fuel needs to be carried to go the required distance (450NM) or get airborne within required distance with required load. One day all will be revealed. [Great line from a Led Zepplin song BTW.] Very Happy

http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/ ... 870004A244

Forum: Program and politics

UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C