Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 program

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

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6773
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post08 Feb 2021, 18:33

luke_sandoz wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Let's hope the CFT issue with the Super Hornet can be resolved. As in the case of the USN Fleet. They need all of the range that they can get!

OLD info about Shornet Block III from AIR International Jul 2018 magazine 4 page PDF of article attached whence diagram.



Might be a silly idea, but. . . . Could a supplemental fuel tank be carried in the weapons bay?

Just for ferry flights etc but without an external tank the drag issue goes away.

Does/could the weapons bay have the required plumbing?


nah, they wouldn't have it plumbed. It could be added though, i bet.

Image

It could be shaped very awkwardly as well, as it wouldn't have to be aerodynamic. one could simply shape it to fit the maximum volume of the bay (space for AAM optional, recertifying weapons testing would have to happen though to ensure AAM seperates and works cleanly) or simply make a tank without it.

From there, you can carry 2 AAMs in the other bay, or 3 with sidekick or a bomb and one AAM

It was reputable Canadian analyst who said that F-35 could be doing northern patrol missions with just a pair of internal (IIRC he said even just one) AMRAAM(s)

Remember that all F-35A "combat stats" are with a pair of 2000 lb bombs and 2 AMRAAMs and a loaded cannon. other airplanes "combat loads" lets say "vary greatly" when it comes to "combat stats." you can bet they're not hauling a pair of 2000 pounders when writing about how their bird will outrange the F-35 in "combat". They carry 4 AAM and bunch of tanks that they then jettison. Then if youre Saab, you add a zero to that number :mrgreen:

So long story short, an additional internal tank would be seemingly possible. easier than Super hornet CFTs anyway :mrgreen:

A pair of AAMs is nothing to an F-35A who "normal" load throws a pair of 2000 lb bombs in as well.
Choose Crews
Offline

zhangmdev

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 220
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post08 Feb 2021, 18:43

Internal fuel tank? Feel like it would be too small to make a difference. Those 426 Gallon Wing Tanks are far bigger than 2000 lb bombs.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2161
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post08 Feb 2021, 19:10

If you look at the changes made to internal weapons bays over the years (including adding tanks) usually just comes down to budget and the will.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3219
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post08 Feb 2021, 19:29

Lotsa orange wire in that jet (flight test aircraft).
Online
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6773
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post08 Feb 2021, 22:03

zhangmdev wrote:Internal fuel tank? Feel like it would be too small to make a difference. Those 426 Gallon Wing Tanks are far bigger than 2000 lb bombs.


Well yes and no, between 30-40 percent of the fuel in an EFT is lost to drag. I'm not saying it would be "game changing" or anything. but there would be no drag, it could be made to fill the volume of the bay. How much that is exactly I do not know,

Image

2000 pound bombs aren't "big" but theyre not exactly small, plus the tank doesn't have to be "pointy front" and a tapered rear, moreover, theres a couple spare inches to play with because JDAMs have additional fins around the body that also fit in the bays.

you could have something that very much resembles a giant "log" or better a rectangle that simply fills up the max volume of the bay. no aerodynamics needed, just filling as much space as can be practical. Bonus if you can remove the bomb hardpoint and fill even more area. (when the bombs is loaded there is free space "above" the bomb. Basically a giant long coffin shape.

Image

So It would be bigger than a 2000 lb bomb, and shaped to fit. Game changing? well no. But for a northern mission, where 2 AAMs and no bombs are carried, that could make a difference . more fuel, no drag, less weight.

how much one gets exactly out of that? well I don't know because I have no idea how big the tank could be made, and the capacity exactly or any other tradeoffs.

Image

hornets have fuel tanks in their tailfins... F-35 was supposed to, but I heard that was abandoned? once upon a time someone said "hey look theres some room in the tailfins!" and wedged some more fuel in LOL


just size THOTS

Image

Image
Choose Crews
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2492
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post09 Feb 2021, 01:56

The CFT issue seems to be restricted to carrier ops, it may not have an impact to SH owners who aren't using it off carriers. For carriers, MQ-25s may be the best way forward esp since that also benefits the F-35Cs.
Online
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6773
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post09 Feb 2021, 02:36

weasel1962 wrote:The CFT issue seems to be restricted to carrier ops, it may not have an impact to SH owners who aren't using it off carriers.



but the only people interested in paying for it were the people using it from carriers.

If some other country wants to front the money to make it happen, be my guest. Northrop Grumman and Boeing won't fund it themselves after years of talking about how great it is, which should be a clue that they're not interested in funding it either. 218 million dollars couldn't make it work.

its nothing more than cool slides in a power point and some dummied up structures for a concept airplane now. hell they only Debuted the "Advanced Super Hornet" back in 2008, and it took 10 years for someone to fund it, the USN gave them a contract to start official development in 2018. I get the impression it is a no-go endeavor now. it was seemingly a deal-killer and an insurmountable problem from my interpretation.

Image

Historical fiction is fun though.
Choose Crews
Offline

luke_sandoz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 519
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 20:25

Unread post10 Feb 2021, 18:34

zhangmdev wrote:Internal fuel tank? Feel like it would be too small to make a difference. Those 426 Gallon Wing Tanks are far bigger than 2000 lb bombs.



Quick back of the envelope . . .

Two NSM/JSMs fit internally. Say 10 ft of the length is useable and they look to be about 1.5ftx1.5ft . . . Ballpark of 22cubic ft.

One cubic ft is about 4.5 gallons of Jet A so round it off at 100 gallons each tank

200 gallon/1300lbs ferry tanks capacity without the drag component.



Fun games to play but I doubt the numbers justify the needed $$investment.
Attachments
EA3A5507-E6D0-4459-BD78-9D1F86B2B4D3.png
Online
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6773
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post10 Feb 2021, 18:57

luke_sandoz wrote:
zhangmdev wrote:Internal fuel tank? Feel like it would be too small to make a difference. Those 426 Gallon Wing Tanks are far bigger than 2000 lb bombs.



Quick back of the envelope . . .

Two NSM/JSMs fit internally. Say 10 ft of the length is useable and they look to be about 1.5ftx1.5ft . . . Ballpark of 22cubic ft.

One cubic ft is about 4.5 gallons of Jet A so round it off at 100 gallons each tank

200 gallon/1300lbs ferry tanks capacity without the drag component.



Fun games to play but I doubt the numbers justify the needed $$investment.


well put, well put
Choose Crews
Online
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2986
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post11 Feb 2021, 00:48

XanderCrews wrote:Image

Historical fiction is fun though.


I have to admit that F-32 concept art doesn't look as ugly as the "Monica" :mrgreen:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2492
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post11 Feb 2021, 00:57

In a room without lights, everything looks the same. The irony is stealth is supposed to create that dark room.

Internal fuel tanks also makes less sense from an operational angle. Once internal fuel tanks are used, the plane can't be used for stealthy combat ops other than ferry missions. In a ferry mission, there's no reason why it can't lug EFTs.

The only operational mission I note is where 1 bomb is needed just outside the unrefuelled combat radius in which case the 1 tank tops up the difference. 100 gal means its really a matter of a few miles (and it again may be easier just to use a longer ranged missile). Again operationally, one could just carry a drop tank, drop that early and its the same thing.

Agree with posts here. I don't see the need.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7150
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post11 Feb 2021, 04:26

luke_sandoz wrote:
zhangmdev wrote:Internal fuel tank? Feel like it would be too small to make a difference. Those 426 Gallon Wing Tanks are far bigger than 2000 lb bombs.



Quick back of the envelope . . .

Two NSM/JSMs fit internally. Say 10 ft of the length is useable and they look to be about 1.5ftx1.5ft . . . Ballpark of 22cubic ft.

One cubic ft is about 4.5 gallons of Jet A so round it off at 100 gallons each tank

200 gallon/1300lbs ferry tanks capacity without the drag component.



Fun games to play but I doubt the numbers justify the needed $$investment.



Unless the F-35 was performing a pure ISR (Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) Mission. I assume you would need to carry at least some weapons internally. (i.e. PGM's)

Then in that case you could only carry one external tank internally in the F-35's Weapons Bay. So, in reality your 200 gallon/1300 lbs would be cut in half....

Nice idea but not likely practical....Yet, I would never say never!
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7150
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post11 Feb 2021, 04:59

luke_sandoz wrote:

Fun games to play but I doubt the numbers justify the needed $$investment.



How about this.........an external pod that was conceived as an alternate method of inserting and extracting special forces (or wounded soldiers) Which, was reportedly tested on both the Harrier and the AH-64 Apache.


So, why couldn't you carry such a pod internally???

GRIER (Ground Rescue Insertion Extraction Resupply)


https://theaviationist.com/2013/12/06/e ... ying-pods/


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exint_pod


X3.jpg



X1.jpg



X2.jpg



X4.jpg
Offline

alloycowboy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 837
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2010, 08:28
  • Location: Canada

Unread post11 Feb 2021, 20:26

:poke: Why wouldn't you carry these pods internally? Because the F-35 internal weapons bays get extremely warm espically when taxiing so you would end up like a roasted turkey.
Offline
User avatar

linkomart

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 445
  • Joined: 31 May 2010, 07:30
  • Location: Sweden

Unread post12 Feb 2021, 09:30

And besides, the door of the pod opens forward, and will probably not be able to be opened inside the weaponbay. So you have to fly the groundcrew to the insertionpoint first to get the special forces guy out... :wink:
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ricnunes and 12 guests