Navy 6th Generation Fighter

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3359
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post03 May 2021, 21:49

mixelflick wrote:It's interesting to see how US combat aircraft internal fuel volumes have flunctuated over the years. Yes, I know drag is another big one when figuring range, but consider the following..

F-14D 16,200lbs
F-15C 13,500lbs
F-16C 7,000lbs
F/A-18E 14,700lbs

F-35A 18,250lbs
F-35B 13,500lbs
F-35C 19,700lbs




I kinda disagree with your assessment that the internal fuel volumes/capacity of US combat aircraft have 'fluctuated' over the years since I believe you can't reach the conclusion that the internal fuel of US aircraft lowered (fluctuated on the low side) by comparing the F-14 with the F-15 and later with the F-16 because:
- While the F-14 and F-15 have similar sizes and the F-14 carries more 'internal fuel' than the F-15, the F-15 was designed from the very beginning to carry FAST fuel packs/tanks (CFTs) with which the F-15 will carry even more fuel than the F-14 without both aircraft carrying External Fuel Tanks (EFTs).
- The F-16 can't simply be compared to the F-15 since the former was designed to be much smaller and thus a cheaper complement to the later which of course means that the F-16 would always carry much less internal fuel than the F-15 (and the F-14).
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

zhangmdev

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 299
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post03 May 2021, 21:52

The thrust increased with increase in bypass ratio while the specific fuel consumption decreased with increase in bypass ratio. For those very high bypass ratio turbofan on airliners, most of the thrust is generated by the fan. The extreme example is a turboprop. The propeller is good at moving a large amount of air, although the operating speed and altitude is limited. The other extreme is a turbojet. Good at high speed and high altitude, but performs very poorly at low speed and low altitude.

The point of the adaptive cycle engine is to decrease fuel comsuption during cruise, by increasing bypass ratio, while increase thrust in combat situations, by micmicing a straight turbojet. The following is a paper about some computer simulation of the adaptive cycle engine. It shows the the adaptive cycle engine has a much better fuel economy than the F-119 engine, while having higher thrust at high altitude and high speed.

https://rc.library.uta.edu/uta-ir/bitst ... sequence=1
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5680
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post05 May 2021, 17:28

ricnunes wrote:the F-15 was designed from the very beginning to carry FAST fuel packs/tanks (CFTs)


The F-15 didn't get FAST packs until the F-15C. The A/B did not have them and they also had less internal fuel than the C/D.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

strykerxo

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 454
  • Joined: 21 Mar 2008, 04:40

Unread post05 May 2021, 19:04

The F-35 has double and nearly triple the amount of fuel of the legacy F-16/18, with all the characteristics of a 5th gen. AC. The Su-35/57 have 25k of fuel in a heavy fighter, with ranges +1000k combat radius, and extremely maneuverable.

6th gen AC will be a blended wing delta, cranked arrow, minimum 25k lbs. worth of fuel and whatever else they want to cram inside, ie EW, Laser, Fuel, Weapons?????
You can't shot what you can't see - Unknown
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3359
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post05 May 2021, 19:46

sferrin wrote:
ricnunes wrote:the F-15 was designed from the very beginning to carry FAST fuel packs/tanks (CFTs)


The F-15 didn't get FAST packs until the F-15C. The A/B did not have them and they also had less internal fuel than the C/D.


The FAST fuel packs were first tested on the F-15B in 1974, two (2) years before the F-15A/B entered in service and only two (2) years after the F-15 first flight.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

eagle3000

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 97
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2016, 17:17

Unread post05 May 2021, 22:41

They were tested but not introduced. The F-15A/B unmodified could not carry CFTs.
Not sure if the CFTs on the F-15B test aircraft were plumbed.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3359
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post06 May 2021, 13:36

eagle3000 wrote:They were tested but not introduced. The F-15A/B unmodified could not carry CFTs.
Not sure if the CFTs on the F-15B test aircraft were plumbed.


The FACT that CFTs (FAST fuel packs) were tested very early during the F-15 development (on a F-15B) or more precisely before the first F-15A entered in service is more than enough evidence that the F-15 was projected/planned from the very beginning to carry CFTs and that's my point above!

As to why the F-15As and F-15Bs never carried CFTs operationally, I'm sure there are several/myriad reasons or at least a few reasons for that but this is something which IMO should grant a thread of its own.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2330
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post06 May 2021, 18:35

ricnunes wrote:As to why the F-15As and F-15Bs never carried CFTs operationally, I'm sure there are several/myriad reasons or at least a few reasons for that but this is something which IMO should grant a thread of its own.



Isreali F-15A/Bs used them from a certain time period - have several photos undated.

Israeli Historian Shlomo Alomi makes out they first got some CFTs in 1980 and were needed to make the Osirak raid trip in 1981. He mentions 2 of the F-15s were Bs with CFTs.

Unfortunately unlike the Osirak F-16s where photos and serial numbers exist have not seen the same for the F-15s used yet.


Part of a 1970s report on FAST Packs but not that much info:

FAST-PACK-Report-P1.jpg
When Obi Wan logged onto Twitter: "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious"
Offline
User avatar

jetblast16

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 895
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2004, 00:12
  • Location: USA

Unread post06 May 2021, 18:45

Have F110, Block 70, will travel
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3359
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post06 May 2021, 20:59

Thanks for the reply basher (and also jetblast) :thumb:

That proves what I suspected but wasn't sure - that the F-15A/B were also able to carry FAST fuel packs (CFTs) and thus prove my point that the F-15 was designed from the very beginning to carry them.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4492
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post07 May 2021, 16:06

Given all they carry is fuel today (that we know of), the acronym move from FAST packs to CFT's was warranted. The extra fuel looks to be what the EX will carry them for as well, although I'd think USAF might re-visit the other payload options for special missions. Yes, I know $ is probably the issue but as an example...

If you're going to carry the Sniper or Legion pods, why not carry those in the FAST packs and then fill the rest with fuel? If you look at the "strike assist" configuration below, it seems to be what the engineers were building towards.

A bit less gas but a whole lot less drag might just yield some surprising numbers. I hope they were at least looked at..
Attachments
F-15 FAST PACKS.jpg
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2908
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post07 May 2021, 17:38

mixelflick wrote:If you're going to carry the Sniper or Legion pods, why not carry those in the FAST packs and then fill the rest with fuel? If you look at the "strike assist" configuration below, it seems to be what the engineers were building towards.

A bit less gas but a whole lot less drag might just yield some surprising numbers. I hope they were at least looked at..


Becuzz engineering...

oh, and testing...

oh, and that all costs money. Last I hurd 'Murican engineers don't work for free.

Looked at? Nah. Why bother with trade studies?
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

jetblast16

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 895
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2004, 00:12
  • Location: USA

Unread post08 May 2021, 16:17

The "Augmented Thrust" one is intriguing :)
Have F110, Block 70, will travel
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3359
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post08 May 2021, 16:34

jetblast16 wrote:The "Augmented Thrust" one is intriguing :)


That one would have its name changed from FAST changed to FART :mrgreen:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

strykerxo

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 454
  • Joined: 21 Mar 2008, 04:40

Unread post08 May 2021, 16:51

Augmentation tank = rocket assist

Spray tanks?????????????

worlds most expensive "crop duster"

I like the imaginative effort.

Now, that's a "Super Eagle"
You can't shot what you can't see - Unknown
Previous

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 53 guests