F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2015, 15:38
by uclass
Can it drop the pylons as well as the tanks for stealth reasons?

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2015, 16:14
by Dragon029
As far as I'm aware, the current pylons for the F-35 can't be detached - because it uses an airframe-internal pneumatic ejection system though, it would arguably be easier to develop ejectable pylons for the F-35. The biggest issue however would be the ability to successfully clear them from the aircraft, without damaging the mounting points themselves via excessive ejection forces. At least with a drop-tank however, you can drop the tanks and pylons at the same time, with easier release dynamics.

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2015, 17:16
by SpudmanWP
The pneumatics are in the pylon, not the airframe.

Image

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2015, 18:04
by uclass
Dragon029 wrote:As far as I'm aware, the current pylons for the F-35 can't be detached - because it uses an airframe-internal pneumatic ejection system though, it would arguably be easier to develop ejectable pylons for the F-35. The biggest issue however would be the ability to successfully clear them from the aircraft, without damaging the mounting points themselves via excessive ejection forces. At least with a drop-tank however, you can drop the tanks and pylons at the same time, with easier release dynamics.

So you're saying the pylons and tanks are dropped? Sorry, bit confused with your response because of the first part.

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2015, 18:20
by cantaz
The pylons are bolt on, they cannot be dropped.

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2015, 21:16
by Dragon029
What Cantaz said; I was just stating that:

1. If you're going to create ejecting pylons in the future, pneumatic ones would be the ones to use, as you can tailor the ejection force to be very specific, which in turn, because of their aerodynamic instability, would otherwise be prone to tumbling and failing to properly separate from the aircraft.

2. You wouldn't want to drop a pylon with a bomb or missile still attached (a bomb or large enough missile may ballast and balance the pylon for separation enough to make it significantly safer), but a drop tank doesn't have any target other than the ground, so you could integrate a separating pylon into one (or make it an optional system).

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2015, 21:39
by spazsinbad
It seems the question is ahead of any drop tank developments - that we know - for now. Vaguely I recall (would be on this forum somewhere) that Israel - when intending to develop drop tanks for their F-35i variant - was going to have the pylons drop with the tanks etc. Searching the forum will probably find reference to this idea. As mentioned now several times recently, for several years there has been no official news about any drop tank development whilst Israel was the only recent party interested as noted. Below is a thread from wayback. Later there is another thread which mentions 'potential for Israel drop tanks to also include pylons and CFTs (not yet found again though).

viewtopic.php?f=54&t=11564&hilit=Israel+tanks+pylon

And here we go - on another Bob Rodgers Show (old Oz Joke) from 'eskodas' bless his cotton socks and I mean it! :mrgreen:
"13 Sep 2014 06:13
The Israelis are going to pay for it i believe with the F-22 having done the ground breaking work. http://aviationweek.com/defense/israel- ... r-fly-f-35
"To further extend the F-35’s range, Lockheed Martin is exploring an innovative concept from Israel, of using unique drop tanks, developed by Elbit Systems Cyclone. Designed in a similar concept to the F-22 under-wing drop tanks, these tanks, each containing 425 gal. of fuel, will use special attachment pylons that would completely separate from the wing, regaining full stealth capability after separation. An additional 900 gal. of fuel will significantly extend the F-35I range, enabling the IAF to operate its new stealth fighter at the “outer ring” of operation without mandatory aerial refueling."

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=26236&p=278417&hilit=Israel+tanks#p278417

For the record again:
Israel Will Be First Non-U.S. Customer To Fly F-35
26 Jun 2013 David Eshel

"...“Israel will become the first non-U.S. operator of the F-35 in the world,” said Steve O’Bryan, Lockheed Martin’s vice president for F-35 program integration and business development in an interview at the Paris air show. The first F-35I combat squadron is expected to achieve initial operational capability in 2018.

Eight other countries have already committed to the program with firm contracts.

“The F-35 fighters going into service with these users will use different initial versions that will be upgraded later into the latest version, as it becomes available,” O’Bryan said. That mean F-35s will be tailored to individual nations, he says.

“Specific capabilities developed for certain users will remain exclusive, and open to other users only with the original user’s consent. For example, the software blocks pertaining to the Norwegian anti-ship missile will not be available to other F-35 operators except Norway, unless it decides to sell those missiles to one of the F-35 users. The same goes to the Rafael Spice 1000. Similarly, the advanced electronic warfare, data links and specific software modes developed for the Israeli air force will remain unique to Israel and not delivered to any other user. These capabilities will also be fully integrated with the aircraft capabilities, adhering to the stealth characteristics of the aircraft, particularly, at specific apertures cleared for the Israeli systems integration in the lower fuselage and leading edge,” he said....

...“With the F-35 Israel is expected to receive the AIM-9X short-range air/air missile (AAM) and the Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAM Beyond Visual Range (BVR) AAM,” O’Bryan added. The F-35 currently carries the Raytheon AIM-9X Block at the outboard under-wing stations, in non-stealth configuration, as the current Block I missiles cannot be carried internally. This shortcoming will be corrected in Block II, which is to follow soon....

...In August 2012 Lockheed Martin received a $206 million award from the U.S. Navy Naval Air Systems Command, covering the development and integration of Israeli systems in the F-35A. Part of a larger package, the integration support agreement with Lockheed Martin covers a $450 million program to enhance Electronic Warfare (EW) equipment on the F-35, and integrate Israeli-unique systems beginning in 2016.

“The advantage of this F-35 for the Israel air force is not about higher performance or a specific weapon capacity, but the ability to understand the battlespace, identify, locate targets from standoff range and neutralize them before being engaged,” Brig. Gen. Hagi Topolanski, Chief of Air Staff and Deputy Israeli Air Force Commander, told Aviation Week in a recent interview.

“These capabilities are meaningful in dealing with modern fighter aircraft and advanced SAMs. While the F-35 has its limitations, it can take on and win against any threat currently available in-theater. Its ability to independently collect, assess and process a battlespace situational picture, and strike those targets by itself, from standoff range, is providing a qualitative edge over anything the enemy can confront with, in the foreseeable future.”

Israel insisted upon a number of requirements throughout the procurement negotiations on the F-35I. Those included the adaptation of the baseline F-35A including all its systems, to the Israeli air force’s operational environment, which will require some necessary additions.

“Our F-35I will be equipped with our specific networks, armament and electronic warfare, among them the Spice autonomous EO guided weapon. It will also carry the AIM-9X2 air-to-air missile, which will become the first platform in the IAF to employ this advanced air-to-air missile. We also plan to continue and pursue the development of future air-to-air missiles; we are still evaluating the cost/performance trade-off between a common air-to-air and air-to-ground missile and a dedicated AAM design,” Topolanski explained. “Assuming the F-35 will offer the capabilities it is planned to deliver, it will bring a new dimension to air battles as we know today.”

One of the advantages of the F-35 is the aircraft’s ability to fly long-range missions with internal weapons, accelerate faster and maintain higher speed, compared to current F16s or F-15s or any of the opposing force combat aircraft (flying with internal fuel).

To further extend the F-35’s range, Lockheed Martin is exploring an innovative concept from Israel, of using unique drop tanks, developed by Elbit Systems Cyclone. Designed in a similar concept to the F-22 under-wing drop tanks, these tanks, each containing 425 gal. of fuel, will use special attachment pylons that would completely separate from the wing, regaining full stealth capability after separation. An additional 900 gal. of fuel will significantly extend the F-35I range, enabling the IAF to operate its new stealth fighter at the “outer ring” of operation without mandatory aerial refueling."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/israel- ... r-fly-f-35

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2015, 22:36
by KamenRiderBlade
Leave it to the Israeli's to come up with new ways of innovating on fuel tanks.

Aren't they the only ones to put the most number of fuel tanks on a F-16?

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2015, 22:43
by sferrin
KamenRiderBlade wrote:Leave it to the Israeli's to come up with new ways of innovating on fuel tanks.

Aren't they the only ones to put the most number of fuel tanks on a F-16?


The only carry 3 tanks BUT they can carry 600 gallon tanks on the wings.

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2015, 22:30
by geforcerfx
sferrin wrote:
KamenRiderBlade wrote:Leave it to the Israeli's to come up with new ways of innovating on fuel tanks.

Aren't they the only ones to put the most number of fuel tanks on a F-16?


The only carry 3 tanks BUT they can carry 600 gallon tanks on the wings.

Plus CFTs

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2015, 20:36
by bring_it_on
Computational Optimization of the F-35 External Fuel
Tank for Store Separation
Eric F. Charltony and M. Bruce Davisz
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, 76101


https://www.scribd.com/doc/275509975/F- ... WUL6nPZXtd

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2015, 20:39
by spazsinbad
:applause: 'brung_IT_back' I've only had the first page of that screed. Many thanks. Authors are 'Charlton' & 'Davis' BTW. :mrgreen:

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2015, 21:47
by vilters
Israel will search for solutions until they get where they wanna get.

If IRAN becomes an issue, they"ll get there.

Even if they have to pump the radome full of fuel, but they"ll get there.
For the missions Israel could have in mind? Coming back is optional.

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2015, 01:34
by archeman
spazsinbad wrote:

For the record again:
Israel Will Be First Non-U.S. Customer To Fly F-35
26 Jun 2013 David Eshel


Designed in a similar concept to the F-22 under-wing drop tanks, these tanks, each containing 425 gal. of fuel, will use special attachment pylons that would completely separate from the wing, regaining full stealth capability after separation. "

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/israel- ... r-fly-f-35


I don't have the screenshot handy, but didn't we see earlier that there are small 'fillers spots' under the wing when the pylon is freshly removed that are 'plugged' by maintenance personnel. If yes, then an ejected pylon would not exactly put you back to 'full stealth' but probably far better than with the empty pylon hanging there.

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2015, 18:44
by gabriele
archeman wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:

For the record again:
Israel Will Be First Non-U.S. Customer To Fly F-35
26 Jun 2013 David Eshel


Designed in a similar concept to the F-22 under-wing drop tanks, these tanks, each containing 425 gal. of fuel, will use special attachment pylons that would completely separate from the wing, regaining full stealth capability after separation. "

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/israel- ... r-fly-f-35


I don't have the screenshot handy, but didn't we see earlier that there are small 'fillers spots' under the wing when the pylon is freshly removed that are 'plugged' by maintenance personnel. If yes, then an ejected pylon would not exactly put you back to 'full stealth' but probably far better than with the empty pylon hanging there.



A recent article quoted on another thread on this forum mentions in passing that one of the things experimented by the F-22 test force in the last while is a sliding stealth "panel" of sorts which covers the point of attachment when the pylon is jettisoned. I guess the F-35 could (and probably should, since it is more likely that it will use pylons in combat than the F-22) go in the same direction, eventually.

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2015, 21:31
by spazsinbad
:devil: Well well well... this is so obscure but wonderful indeed - whatever does it mean? You be the judge.... :doh:
Possible Revised F-35 Could Make It for Israel Easier to Attack Iran
25 Jun 2015 Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu

"Lockheed-Martin is studying an Israel request for a longer flight range that would make refueling easier.

The manufacturer of the F-35 stealth attack plane, which Israel might use to attack Iran, is examining an Israeli request to extend the flight range by 30 percent, Amir Rapaport of the Israel Defense website reported Thursday.

Approximately 1,000 miles (1,500 kilometers) separate Israel and Iran, and the current F-35 is designed to fly approximately the same distance without refueling.

The IDF has asked the range to be extended to 1,500 miles, according to Rapaport....

...Israel Defense noted that special versions of the F-15 and F-16 include additional fuel tanks, but that option is less practical for the F-35. Even adding fuel capacity by 30 percent would make the airplane larger, challenge engineers to retain the F-35’s stealth capabilities.

IAF teams reportedly are working with Lockheed-Martin in Texas before the first F-35s are due to arrive in Israel towards the end of 2016.

As in the previous planes, Israel has introduced several improvements for the stealth fighter.
Rapaport wrote that sources said:

Israel will significantly improve the aircraft as it once did with the F-15 and F-16...."

Source: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breakin ... 015/06/25/

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2015, 22:41
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote::...Israel will significantly improve the aircraft as it once did with the F-15 and F-16...."..


..as they did with the F-4 and the A-4.. :)

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2015, 06:32
by KamenRiderBlade
Is it me, or when I see Israeli's get a new aircraft, I think they're going to mount more CFT's and Fuel tanks on everything?

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2015, 07:06
by spazsinbad
There are lots of links in this forum to the Cyclone EFTs/CFTs for Israel potential. Perhaps this contract is for the work mentioned above?

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=25367&p=300265&hilit=contract+Israel#p300265
&
viewtopic.php?f=54&t=16656&p=211731&hilit=contract+Israel+cyclone#p211731

Remember the contract for 'RCS work on the pole' recently? Mebbe that is involved also?

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2015, 08:24
by jessmo111
OK I thought the F-35A was built with a 600NM combat radius(1200Nm 1 way)? That Number includes engine performance at the end of its life, Plus a HI Hi Hi profile+ likely some comabt . How did we get back to 1000Nm miles being the range?
Is this just bad reporting? And wouldnt it be easier, to just add a cruise missile capability to cover the extra 300 mile range rather than, the diminishing returns of adding more, drag along with more tanks? Jassm-ER would get the job done.
Crap man, put the fuel probe in all of your varients, and have a F-35 or somthing else buddy tank the planes, to get an extra 300 miles.

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2015, 08:31
by spazsinbad
Reading the article says this: "...Approximately 1,000 miles (1,500 kilometers) separate Israel and Iran..." This distance is not suggested as the maximum range of the F-35A. Perhaps this next bit is misleading but we know different: "... and the current F-35 is designed to fly approximately the same distance without refueling...." In any event it is realistic - IF the aircraft is going to go beyond maximum unrefuelled range then it needs to refuel before reaching that max. range. That will take time/distance depending on circumstances.

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2015, 10:21
by jessmo111
I read an articile on THIS very site someplace that, in some instances in can take as much as 1/2 of the fuel in the drop tanks, to make up for the induced drag penalty. CFTs are good but they will come with thier own penalities, since the plane is already considered stubby. Im suggesting that there is more than 1 way to skin a cat.

1. A cruise weapon: One that can cover the distance of 300 miles while remaining internal. Im sure this will be difficult since the JSF from Norway, has a 250LB warhead, and can only travel over 100 miles Yes the physics are daunting, But this would be the close to the ideal solution.

2. External cruise missiles: that cover the distance. BUT the Jassm-ER probably wont be sold, and has its own drag penality.

3. Use buddy tanks: ALL F-35s come with the probe as an option. Here you can have a super FAT stubby with a buddy tank kit off load about 500Nms out, or fuel them agian on the return trip. The strikers, still stay 100% clean, and need very little to no modification.

4. Super fat conformal tank stubbies: I like this idea, but Im concerned about what happens when the super fat stubby gets bounced, but is suffering a serious weight penality. Lets assume the Russians are chomping at the BIt to sell Iran S-300s, and SU35s

IMHO I would take 3 since its the safer solution, and you need not modify ALl of your F-35s

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2015, 11:01
by popcorn
Just have their 707 aerial tankers top off their tanks on the way in and meet them on the return trip.

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2015, 13:42
by basher54321
spazsinbad wrote:Reading the article says this: "...Approximately 1,000 miles (1,500 kilometers) separate Israel and Iran..."


Guess Google maps measure tool is up the duff then because range from Hatzor to the Iran/Iraq Eastern border is 650 miles
- going to Tehran is 996 miles.

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2015, 13:55
by delvo
popcorn wrote:Just have their 707 aerial tankers top off their tanks on the way in and meet them on the return trip.
Over what country?

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2015, 13:58
by reaper
delvo wrote:
popcorn wrote:Just have their 707 aerial tankers top off their tanks on the way in and meet them on the return trip.
Over what country?


The Persian Gulf? It's not the shortest route but you could refuel off the Iranian coast on the way in and back out.

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2015, 14:18
by spazsinbad
There are different stories on the web about how Israel may go to Iran - via Turkey perhaps? But anyway less to do with the overall question of this thread - "F-35 with drop tanks question". NestPa?

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2015, 14:50
by vilters
If Israel wants to get in Iran, to do what we think they want to do?

- Getting there is mandatory.
- Return with the A/C to Israel is optional.
- Eject on the way home is a possibility.
------------------------------------------------

Also :
Building CFT's can be done "in house".

Using half of the internal storage for an extra internal fuel tank can be done "in house".

Take OFF and climb out at reduced weight with an airborne "top-up" before leaving home country is the easy solution.

When Israel wants to get "there"? => They will.

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2015, 20:36
by zerion
Doesn't Israel have planes stationed in Azerbaijan? How far is that from Iran?

Never mind looks like it's about the same.

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2015, 06:11
by spazsinbad
I'm sorry to have put the 'Israel info' in this particular thread because there is no need for any political discussion about 'drop tank range increase or whatever'. So I'm sorry again to post this info but hey - I started it....
Eyeing Iran, Israel Readies for Stealth Strike Fighter
05 Sep 2015 Barbara Opall-Rome

"...In interviews here and in the United States, program officials said prime contractor Lockheed Martin, at Washington’s behest, is working with state-owned Rafael to adapt locally built air-to-ground weaponry for the belly of the plane.

Similarly, the contractor is assessing Israeli concepts for external wing tanks to augment the 18,000 pounds of fuel carried internally by the F-35.

“We’re studying proof of concept trade studies on carrying extra fuel,” a Lockheed Martin program official told Defense News. “After you own the air space, you won’t have to worry about stealth. So then you can add external tanks because you won’t be worried about being detected.”

Israeli defense and industry sources said that ultimately they hope to develop F-35 conformal fuel tanks that are stealthy. Nevertheless, they say it is well worth the effort given that it will more than double the range with very low risk of detection.

“It’s short-sighted to expect that all the smart people working here on conformal fuel tanks will not manage to make them stealthy," the IAF officer said...."

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /71608464/

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2015, 17:42
by SpudmanWP
I think something was lost in translation as there is NO WAY IN HELL anyone can "double" the range of an F-35 by adding conformal fuel tanks. There is just too much fuel in the F-35.

You would need to to carry more than 20,000 lbs of fuel in the CFTs and the F-35's max payload is only 18,000 lbs.

-------------------------------------------------

Here is the source story from June 25th where they are only talking an increase of 30%, which seems a lot more doable.

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/possible-revised-f-35-could-make-it-for-israel-easier-to-attack-iran-video/2015/06/25/

Approximately 1,000 miles (1,500 kilometers) separate Israel and Iran, and the current F-35 is designed to fly approximately the same distance without refueling.

The IDF has asked the range to be extended to 1,500 miles, according to Rapaport.

They seemed to even confuse 1500 km with 1500 miles from one sentence to the next. This is the likely source of the "double the range" confusion.

-------------------------------------------------

Here is the original report mentioned above and they only talk in km.

http://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/content/exposure-will-flight-range-f-35-be-extended-israeli-version

Lockheed Martin and the IAF are in negotiations to examine the possibility of extending the flight range of the Israeli version of the future fighter aircraft F-35 by 30%.

...

The current flight range of the F-35 stands at approximately 1150 kilometers (larger than the range of the F-15 and F-16). Extending the flight range may allow the IAF to action also against Iranian targets. Nevertheless, even the longer flight range (1,500 km) would not allow the aircraft to reach Iran and back without refueling, since Iranians targets are located at a range of at least 1000 km.

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2015, 21:14
by spazsinbad
The article at the bottom of previous page mentions both external drop fuel tanks and conformal fuel tanks. Perhaps the reference to 'double the range' was meant to infer using both types of fuel tanks at the same time? Being vague about the capability of the F-35 is a 'blood sport' [ http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meanin ... bloodsport ] I reckon. :mrgreen:

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2015, 22:09
by spazsinbad
As a fr'instance 'allowcowboy' said this here 01 Jan 2012 in the 'F-35 External Fuel Tanks?' thread:

viewtopic.php?f=54&t=16656&p=211735&hilit=calculation#p211735
"['alloycowboy']: Just did a quick calculation and a pair of 426 gallon tanks gives following increase in range.
F=35A 31% (1572 nautical miles range drag neglected)

F=35B 43% (1287 nautical miles range drag neglected)

F-35C 29% (1 806 nautical miles range drag neglected)"

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2015, 22:50
by spazsinbad
In same thread referenced above there was a link to this Nov 2011 AvWeak article which mentions an Israeli requirement for 600 gallon EFTs (not 425 gal or whatevers). Perhaps these are back in the wind also? Full article from the multi-coloured text blog reference (which makes me ill) is reproduced below so that no one else may feel same. :mrgreen:
Israel reaffirms plans to take F-35 before USAF declares it operational
28 Nov 2011 Alon Ben-David, Aviation Week & Space Technology

"Israel stands behind the F-35.
The Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter program may face a lot of uncertainty in the U.S., but the Israeli air force (IAF) is fiercely rejecting any suggestion that it explore other alternatives to the new fighter jet and is closing around plans to take deliveries of the F-35 “at the earliest date possible.” The IAF is scheduled to receive its first F-35s for training in the U.S. in late 2016, with plans to deploy them in Israel the following year. “We will deliver Israel a fully capable Block-3 F-35A,” Dave Scott, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 business development director tells Aviation Week. Yet, with the U.S. Air Force declaring that the JSF will become operational only in 2018, it is not clear whether the first aircraft for the IAF will have full JSF software or will only allow for flight training.

Moreover, unlike most program partners, who plan to procure a limited number of aircraft from the low-rate initial production (LRIP) line while deferring massive procurement during serial production, Israel’s first squadron of 19 F-35s will be fully procured out of the LRIP line. Five aircraft in LRIP 8 are to be delivered in 2016, seven in LRIP 9 in 2017 and seven more in 2018 out of LRIP 10.

“Procuring an LRIP aircraft is like buying a prototype,” one senior Israeli defense source tells Aviation Week. “You have to assume that these aircraft will suffer from childhood diseases and will require future changes.” “It will not be different from the F-15As that Israel received in 1976,” notes a senior air force officer.

“They also had some problems of an early version but provided Israel with a critical qualitative edge over its neighbors, just like we need now with the F-35.”

Israel is still negotiating the contract for developing the unique capabilities it requires for its first F- 35 squadron under a $2.75 billion budget. Those include the installment of Israel’s Blue Cedar C4I system, as well as rewiring to accommodate Israeli electronic warfare (EW) systems in Apertures Band 2 and 5 in the belly and wings of the JSF. Israel also is planning to install an external EW pod on its F-35s.

Additional Israeli requirements, such as installing Rafael’s Python-5 air-to-air missile and Spice air-to-ground bomb in the F-35s internal weapon bay were deferred as costs of adjusting the aircraft and weapons to fit together were enormous. Israel also postponed its requirement to add a 600-gal. external fuel tank. The final contract for the first F-35 squadron should be inked by mid-2012.

As with much of Israel’s defense spending plan, developments in Iran are believed to be a consideration. Reportedly, Israeli leadership considers 2012 as the last window of opportunity to stop Iran’s suspected ambitions to develop nuclear weapons. But if the IAF is sent to launch a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities then, it is clear the F-35 would only reach Israel after the showdown, which many experts believe could trigger a regional war.

Yet, the IAF persistently refuses to consider buying a different fighter like Boeing’s F-15s in the interim to bolster its capabilities despite repeated pleas from other defense officials. “The only potential fighter is the F-15 and it costs almost like an F-35,” said the IAF officer. “In any case, even if we place an order for new F-15s today they will arrive no earlier than the F-35.”

Instead, the IAF will upgrade its fleets of F-15A/B/C/Ds and Lockheed Martin F-16C/Ds to improve their capabilities and extend their lifespan. It will be forced to decommission its aging F-16A/Bs, as maintenance costs are skyrocketing. While the IAF is eager to start earmarking the budget for its next F-35 squadron, Israel is not ready to commit to another buy with uncertainty surrounding the future of U.S military aid to the country.

Still, beckoning Israel is Lockheed Martin’s carrot in the form of proposed contracts for Israeli industry in the F-35 program, totaling $4 billion, and the stick of canceling them. Elbit Systems’ share, in developing and manufacturing the helmet-mounted displays for the F-35, appears secure, unless the company cannot overcome the technical difficulties that recently emerged during development. Lockheed’s suggested contract with Israel Aerospace Industries — to manufacture 811 outer wings for the JSF — is more in jeopardy.

“Clearly we will not start a production line at IAI to manufacture wings for only the 19 Israeli aircraft,” said Scott. “Our proposal has the prospect of more than 15 years of IAI participation in the program.”

Sourc: http://blog.daum.net/trent/8213146

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2015, 00:38
by archeman
neptune wrote:
spazsinbad wrote::...Israel will significantly improve the aircraft as it once did with the F-15 and F-16...."..


..as they did with the F-4 and the A-4.. :)


Hey I would upgrade my car too......if somebody else was paying for it.

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 25 Nov 2017, 00:37
by alloycowboy
Question? Has the F-35 been spotted in the wild with external drop tanks installed?

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 25 Nov 2017, 01:38
by spazsinbad
Nope - AFAIK. Israel MoD Defense Directory 2015_16.pdf
"...Cyclone also is in the process of developing, in cooperation with Lockheed Martin, a new type of EFT."
http://www.sibat.mod.gov.il/Industries/ ... ts/Defense Directory 2015_16.pdf (43Mb)

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2018, 18:11
by magitsu
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=

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2018, 18:23
by SpudmanWP
That's why you buy spare chutes

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2018, 18:25
by wrightwing
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=


2 hours is false.

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2018, 18:27
by magitsu
wrightwing wrote:2 hours is false.

Obviously. Just trying to find a proper source to a more accurate number.

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2018, 18:37
by wrightwing
magitsu wrote:
wrightwing wrote:2 hours is false.

Obviously. Just trying to find a proper source to a more accurate number.

4.5 is much closer to accurate (and perhaps understated.)

Re: F-35 with drop tanks question

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2018, 20:09
by lamoey
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.