LowObservableCB – lets pretend a super hornet had 21,760lb internal fuel
And if my aunt had a **** she’d be my uncle. So what? You just made your F-18 into an F-35C.
Obviously, every pound of fuel you load on an aircraft gets you less range than the pound before it (because you increase weight and induced drag), and tanks retained add drag. (They are called drop tanks for a reason.) But quite clearly, in the real world, EFTs normally add a significant amount of range to a mission profile. That’s why they are used universally.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]226103[/ATTACH]
And how (logically) can adding tanks reduce range, as long as they are dropped? Even if your drop tanks only get you 100 miles out, you’re still 100 miles out and at altitude with the same full tanks you’d have started with otherwise.
LowObservableOr at least, training tanks with chutes and airbags, and war tanks with more gas.
LowObservableBy 2025 a lot of air forces will want a stealth fighter. The question is whether there will be any stealthy fighters by then.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]226061[/ATTACH]
LowObservableThere’s a lot of faith-based engineering happening in this thread.
The much-cited Norwegian range chart, for example, indicates quite clearly that F-35 aero efficiency declines sharply if weight and drag are above clean conditions. Indeed this was openly admitted to as the reason for ditching EFTs from Block 3 KPPs for the A & C. So what will happen when I add weight and drag but with no extra fuel? The range will dive into the ****er. Moreover, LMT has said that 90 per cent of missions will be flown clean.
So all this talk of 15,000 pounds of ordnance is not very practical because the range will be short; in any event, I believe that’s the pylon limit, and rather hard to reach in reality.
The other faith-based piece is “internal fuel good, external fuel bad”. Not necessarily. My internal fuel tankage is stressed to max g and an 8000 hour life – that, the bomb bays and the STOVL penalty are reasons why the F-35A is heavier than Typhoon but has a smaller wing. It’s there all the time – in high-energy air combat, in transonic acceleration, and when it’s empty. I don’t have the choice of big “bomber” tanks and smaller, supersonic-cleared air combat tanks.
Drop tanks, in short, are a good way to adapt the fighter to different missions (CAS, cruise-missile launch, interception, CAP, recce &c) and to cheat the Breguet range equation by changing the empty weight in flight (for extreme examples see the MiG-25RB and B-58). In fact, it’s the only proven way to provide an agile, small aircraft with a decent range and a large, usable supersonic envelope.
As for cost: there are very few training missions that involve dropping tanks, and training is what modern fighters spend most of their lives doing.
LowObservableAurcov – You didn’t get it. A Rafale will need EFTs in order to match the combat radius of a clean F 35. Or, in the configuration you posted, a rafale will be no match for an F 35.
We were talking about the relative ability of the two aircraft to carry and deliver weapons, whether internal or external. Sure, with two configurations (2 x AMRAAM + 2 x 2k bombs, or 2 x AMRAAM + 8 x SDBs) the F-35 can go further/carry more than a clean conventional fighter – but that says little because conventional aircraft were designed to carry drop tanks (as most supersonic fighters have been).
But then again, since you obviously aren’t even reading your own posts, any further discussion is a waste of time. Ignore list for you!
LowObservableThe redesigned “spring onion” tank was the baseline before 2007, I believe.
LowObservableThe 8 per cent/30 per cent relationship is not normal (by your rule of thumb they should get a 15 per cent range increase) and the range of the aircraft on internal should have nothing to do with the outcome. It has been stated by LMT officials that they expect 90 per cent of missions to be flown clean. This is partly good (result of internal weapon bays and fuel fraction) and partly bad (indicating a lack of payload/range flexibility).
LowObservableFBW – Have you thought of checking the data?
See pp2-3 of this document:
http://norway.usembassy.gov/root/pdfs/volume-1—executive-summary—part-1_dista.pdf
It shows that external fuel increases range by 8 per cent even though it adds 30 per cent to the fuel load. Note that external fuel was dropped as a KPP for the F-35A/C around the time of this document, the reason being that it added relatively little to performance.
So what is happening? I’d be interested in any physically plausible explanations, other than the obvious: That operation above clean TOW has non-linear effects on aerodynamics and performance, due to both greater weight and reduced efficiency. That could manifest itself as more A/B use needed for takeoff and initial climb; slower climb; and lower initial cruise altitude. The principal culprit is probably the high wing loading calculated on net area (that is, the actual wings and not the body between them, which generates negligible lift at cruise).
If that’s the case, then external stores will have the same deleterious aero effects, but without adding fuel, so the range will drop off quite rapidly with any external load.
LowObservableAurcov
And wake me up when the Rafale will match the F 35 performances in that configuration. I doubt that in these conditions the Rafale will make 0.6M in dry thrust and 1.2 M in AB. Meanwhile the F 35 will go 1.6M…
Actually, F-35 can’t match Rafale’s performance in that configuration (six L/MRAAMs and six bombs larger than SDB) because you can’t get that on the aircraft and still carry any external fuel, let alone 6600 l.
Of the F-35’s 11 store stations, five (1,5-7,11) are single-purpose. 4 and 8 are either single-weapon or SDB. Only 3 and 9 are wet. And as the weak range increment with external fuel shows, something nasty happens to the aero efficiency above clean maximum weight.
LowObservableThere is adequate information on the F119 out there, if you care to do research and investigate facts.
LowObservableOr what about the Korean air force? The Japanese air force?
Well, the Koreans did a full, formal acquisition process based on the requirements written by the AF, and selected (drum roll) the F-15SE, a decision that was reversed politically. Japan was looking for a bomber, as is Israel.
Another thing to keep in mind is that although you could say that you don’t believe people in the Norwegian, US, UK, Dutch, Italian, Turkish air forces because they are “committed” already; if there were some doubters in there about the F-35 capabilities don’t you think there is a pretty good chance that at least one or two might “leak” and for instance anonymously express their doubts through media?
There are lots of doubters, certainly in Israel, the US and UK – the most public being the USN. However, exemplary retribution has been exacted in some cases and, these days, tracing leakers is not that hard.
Hopefully the jump in cost will not be as big, because if it is, it will become unaffordable, and that is the main issue not the technical specs of the a/c itself.
Operating costs are already unaffordable – as admitted to by the JSFPO. However, despite talk of “war rooms”, there is little to be done to reduce them. Bogdan’s proposal to introduce competition to support has gotten exactly nowhere in a year and a half. And (see B-2 and F-22) there is no such thing as a successful military aircraft that fails affordability.
PS Canada’s SOR was condemned by the nation’s public auditor as a hastily ginned-up, post-facto document that was written to justify the F-35 decision. If you read it, you will find arbitrary requirements specifically selected to close out all alternatives.
LowObservableSpit9 – A good observation on the circular arguments deployed by F-35 supporters.
Loke –
This does not change the fact that the F-35 sensors are far superior to the Rafale; sensor fusion is far superior to Rafale
I would refrain from talking about “facts” when at best these are claims that have yet to be validated by testing, and the test program itself has not maintained a stable schedule since Day One (and indeed the IOC dates announced less than a year ago are already at risk).
Also, do we really know about F-35’s IR stealth? Any real reason to believe it is better than anything else? Note that the competition and adversaries are (1) working to bypass radar stealth via IRST and (2) working to negate F-35-level RCS reduction through VHF AESA early warning radars.
Can you please point us to some professionals that have expressed the opinion that 4.5 gen a/c like Rafale or the SH are anywhere near the F-35 in above-mentioned capabilities?
Can you point to any professionals who have proclaimed the F-35’s all-round superiority who are not working either for the contractors or for governments who committed to the program when the expected price was half the real number?
However for more demanding missions e.g. involving double-digit SAMs then I would like to see the pilot who would prefer the Rafale to the F-35! (perhaps some French pilots would make such statements but if they do I would take it with a few buckets of salt…)
I am not a professional pilot. If I was, however, I might be very tempted to go against S-300s and such with something that has a today/real/combat-proven precision cruise missile capability. Call me a coward if you want.
LowObservableThis is why Flopsalot is on my ignore list.
However, just this once… Wake me up when any F-35 flies with equivalent fuel fraction (fuel load divided by TOW), four MRAAMs, two LRAAMs and six >500-lb standoff PGMs.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]225869[/ATTACH]
LowObservableAs long as it’s Anglo/Irish bacon. American bacon is a pale imitation.
LowObservableLife imitates art…. or, alternatively, the Eurocopter/AgustaWestland moles strike again.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]225844[/ATTACH]
Sign In
