F-35 with drop tanks question

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

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7561
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post26 Apr 2021, 01:46

lamoey wrote:
magitsu wrote:This Norwegian article seems suspect. 2 hour flight time?!?

When Norway decided to acquire F-35 as a new combat aircraft, the requirement was that the new combat aircraft should be able to stay in the air for at least 4.5 hours per trip. In an internal defense memorandum, the Air Force states that it is hardly realistic with more than two hours.


https://translate.google.com/translate? ... edit-text=

This is less suspect, but quite interesting about what the chute option might entail.

https://translate.google.com/translate? ... edit-text=


Google translate is not your best tool here, nor is perhaps the website. They are a tad conspiratorial in their articles.

What the Norwegian article is saying is that an average mission length of 4.5 hours is not realistic without airborn refuling. It further is saying that for the purpose of calculation how much hours will be put on the aircraft, average mission length used is 2 hours. The article further makes the deduction that the aircraft therefore only can fly for 2 hours, which is not at all what the quoted article is saying. The 2 hours is more a number used for accounting to calculate all the associated costs of using the F-35.


Do we know the typical cruise speed for the F-35A???
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3572
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post26 Apr 2021, 07:29

lamoey wrote:
magitsu wrote:This Norwegian article seems suspect. 2 hour flight time?!?

When Norway decided to acquire F-35 as a new combat aircraft, the requirement was that the new combat aircraft should be able to stay in the air for at least 4.5 hours per trip. In an internal defense memorandum, the Air Force states that it is hardly realistic with more than two hours.


https://translate.google.com/translate? ... edit-text=

This is less suspect, but quite interesting about what the chute option might entail.

https://translate.google.com/translate? ... edit-text=


Google translate is not your best tool here, nor is perhaps the website. They are a tad conspiratorial in their articles.

What the Norwegian article is saying is that an average mission length of 4.5 hours is not realistic without airborn refuling. It further is saying that for the purpose of calculation how much hours will be put on the aircraft, average mission length used is 2 hours. The article further makes the deduction that the aircraft therefore only can fly for 2 hours, which is not at all what the quoted article is saying. The 2 hours is more a number used for accounting to calculate all the associated costs of using the F-35.


It really depends on what kind of flying they are doing. I bet that most of those missions are serious training missions with a lot of maneuvering and high AB time. AFAIK, their training areas are also close to their air bases. I doubt that Norwegian Air Force spends a lot of time doing transit flights or other long distance/endurance flights. Another regular mission type for them is intercepting Russian aircraft which also means using a lot of power and thus fuel. Neither or these mission types is going to last very long and I think 2 hour average mission time is actually extremely good.

https://sofrep.com/fightersweep/length- ... r-mission/

Actual Sortie: One to nearly two hours. This is the fun part, but it’s still missionized. You’re not just goofing off.

We fly with specific training objectives in mind based on the mission we’re flying. For dogfighting, we’ll do specific set-ups to practice various phases (offensive, defensive, or neutral). For Close Air Support, we’ll go out and work with Joint Terminal Attack Controllers in specific scenarios.


Of course long distance missions are totally different thing and can last far longer than a BFM training mission near home base.
Offline

timmymagic

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 60
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2019, 19:48

Unread post26 Apr 2021, 15:06

hornetfinn wrote:It really depends on what kind of flying they are doing. I bet that most of those missions are serious training missions with a lot of maneuvering and high AB time. AFAIK, their training areas are also close to their air bases. I doubt that Norwegian Air Force spends a lot of time doing transit flights or other long distance/endurance flights. Another regular mission type for them is intercepting Russian aircraft which also means using a lot of power and thus fuel. Neither or these mission types is going to last very long and I think 2 hour average mission time is actually extremely good.


The Norgies do a lot of their training (certainly with F-16 and more than likely with F-35) in the North Sea. Used to be using the UK run Air Combat Manoeuvering Instrumented Range, but now using RAID or ACMI pods.
Previous

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests