FBWWell you brought up Libya so i respond how many DT was dropped ( 0 )
and feel free to name any other example.
It does not matter at what time any encounter will come, most fuel is internal,
there will always be fuel to go back assuming fuel in DT are being used first, and it is.
Here are the operational issues:
1. Operation Odyssey Dawn- 80% of refueling provided by U.S. Aircraft, strikers such as the Rafale operating from Corsica (excluding those of CdG) had to refuel in air. Rafales operated with 3 2,000 litre tanks. That has a direct impact on ordinance carried, etc.
2. As EE lightning pointed out, Mirage 2000’s had emergency landings due to fuel. http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2011-04-21/news/two-french-mirages-make-emergency-landing-291087/
3. During the Gulf war, there were several occasions when F-15, F-16’s dropped their fuel tanks when engaged, or thinking they were engaged. In several of these cases, the fighters barely made it back to the tankers (fuel at combat speeds, throttle settings is expended in minutes). Even worse, every emergency refueling has a domino effect on tanker scheduling.
USAF believes that the penalty for larger fuel fraction is well worth it, one of the reasons that CFT’s are becoming so popular. They may affect drag, and increase weight (negative effect on agility, accel, turn perf), but EFTs are far worse from a drag perspective, and dropping them creates a cascade of issues. (besides the tanker, logistics, think civilian casualties, environmental concerns- sound stupid but these do come into play)
FBWI think you totally misunderstand things here @FBW
In Libya, not a single a/c was shot at, and as such not a single drop tank would have been dropped -there was no need to dodge.
Secondly fuel is drawn from a drop tank before internal tank, so there is no problem in landing in the nation you took off from,
rather the other way around with the now light load.
Great, except I was not talking about Libya specifically (I used it as an example of a protracted air campaign). I was referring to the effect on logistics and tanker scheduling caused when aircraft “dropped” EFT.
“Secondly fuel is drawn from a drop tank before internal tank, so there is no problem in landing in the nation you took off from”-
So you know that the attacker will encounter a threat only after it uses up it’s external fuel? Seems a bit precise.
I do believe you missed the point, why do you think that many manufactures are looking at CFT’s?
FBWAssuming a Rafale tries to fight with the tanks/bombs or without the tanks/bombs?
Halloweene “So which will have the best kinematics between clean F35 and Rafale + 2x1000L bombs + 1 centerline supersonic tank?
There are no free rides, either you pay a price in drag from external stores, or the increase in volume (wetted area) that will increase drag as a result of carrying weapons+ fuel internally. I’m loving the thread Andraxxus started because no matter how many times the effect of external stores was pointed out (even with numbers from the flight manual) it did not seem to sink in with some posters the way that simplified graph did.
As far as external fuel tanks, the problem becomes one of logistics… tanks are expensive, some are even RAM treated. If you can imagine the strain on the logistical train for a squadron of 12 aircraft dropping two drop tanks per sortie, for a campaign like Libya? Even worse, when the aircraft drops it’s tanks, it messes up the tanker scheduling.
With all due respect to TU-22M’s tagline: …. “large internal fuel fraction, because tanks stay on if you want to land in back in the nation you took off from”
FBWThe preferred missile for the F-35 is the AMRAAM.
AIM-9X Blk II does not need to “see” the target first, so it can be launched from a bay, like the F-22 does, with a trapeze launcher. The Aim-9 is rail launched.
I have seen studies about the trapeze launcher, but not sure what’s it’s status. I don’t think it has priority, so Aim 9 should be launched from a rail near the wingtip (not on it).
If you use AMRAAM only for both planes it will be less favourable for the F-16.
If you use Aim-9 external only for both planes it will be less favourable for the F-35.
(I guess)
Amraam and aim-9 have essentially the same drag index, Amraam’s would have a negligible impact on performance of the F-16 over Aim-9’s, a little weight increase (assuming that F-16 was carrying same # of pylons).
Edit- actually Amraam has lower DI.
FBWThe Poland competition wasn’t transparent at all…
This was a political decision.
I’m curious if you read the link, there is a political element to all weapons procurements. There was a lot of back channel communication and horse trading. That does not mean the decisions made were the result of some conspiracy. Buying and selling billions in weapons tech is not like buying a car. You are also buying/selling a strategic partnership. The seller is not going to give away tech without some leverage. The buyer wants more than a weapon.
FBWWere they good on the offsets? I’ve no idea. Certainly there was a political aspect, Poland was looking for closer ties w/nato vis a vis the U.S. The takeaway I got from the article was that: they did base part of their decision on technical/performance eval, operational cost was a major factor, decision was largely on the “up and up”, no conspiracy. Although there was definite diplomatic pressure from U.S. and France.
FBWYeah they did take the ex-German aircraft. They were worried about operating cost of replacing Mig-21 with more Mig-29. They put some ex-german aircraft in service.
though the Paper said it did lower the number of multi-role fighters Poland ended up buying.
FBWGood job andraxxus, love the post.
FBWSome time ago (couple of years) i’ve read that Poland was FORCED to buy F-16 through backstage games (same old IMF card among other veiled threats, blackmailing etc. if i’m not mistaken). They really wanted Gripen. I guess that 48 Gripens for them would likely have been not only cheaper to buy, and certainly cheaper to operate, but also the typically swedish offsets would have far exceeded what the yanks pretended to offer them … (and probably they would have had money left to do some interesting things with their MiG-29s, who knows)
Gripen-NG after 2020 to replace Su-22 and later MiG-29 would have fitted like a glove.
And for those who want the real story… Here are the details for polish decision. Gripen was 2nd behind f-16, mirage 2000-5, 3rd. Polish turned down free Mig-29 from Germany so does not look like they thought too highly of them.Mack won’t see reply because he blocked me for commenting on one of his rants… Truth apparently too much for him.
http://www.marshallcenter.org/mcpublicweb/MCDocs/files/College/F_Publications/occPapers/occ-paper_11-en.pdf
FBW[QUOTE=halloweene;He only used the aft to ente the turn. And 5g is still better than what F35 can do, afterburner or not.
Try this one also : AWST July 1999 issue 1 p. 48
[/QUOTE](This is the sound of my head pounding my desk)- Come on! Right above your post I had responded to Amega’s post about sustained turn of the F-35 here: http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?126622-F-35-News-Multimedia-amp-Discussion-thread-(2)&p=2117527#post2117527
Now we are back to this, F-35 has been out the 9.9g in testing so far. Halloweene, I really hope that this is a language barrier issue and you meant 5g with that particular load (though even that does not make sense because the F-35 cannot carry 3 EFT).
FBWQUOTE=Amiga500;2117474]and…? so…?
What did the numbers say?
Did they say the F-16 or F-15 were not better than the F-35? Or did they not?
I’m also interested in seeing how you justify the Hornet being a representative aerodynamic performer relative to other platforms. It can point its nose very well, but it can do damn all else well. Even an F-22 knows to avoid a Subpar Hornet in a very low speed engagement.
Its that not one of them refute my stated view!!
You’ve said you don’t know the weight and altitude of the F-35 – That is correct – I am not arguing with that at all….
Now, unless you think the F-35 KPP was at some altitude which is not remotely representative and that the F-35 will magically improve beyond the two teen fighters your pissing into the wind!
Your posting up stuff, but your not actually reading what I’m saying!
The numbers released for the earlier production version (240-3) of the F-35 was 4.95g at mach .8 15,000 feet. The current versions are lighter, but I’m not positive that (240-3) had the EOTS fitted. The threshold of 4.6 g is probably just that, a threshold. The true numbers could be anywhere between the 5.3 original spec and the new 4.6g. I am GUESSING, that they are setting it at a number that even if the F-35 gains more weight, that they will not have to revise the sustained g threshold down again (with all of the hair pulling and doom and gloom that would accompany that) Here is that old link: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,186349,00.html The configuration is believed to be 2 amraams and 50% or 60% fuel.
The configuration and weights for the acceleration numbers are vague (if that is what you were talking about with no having weights), but altitude is 30,000 feet. As far as how they compare with legacy fighters- I’ve got the F-15 at 6.4g at mach .8 15,000 feet clean, and around 5.6 g with missiles and pylons (Andraxxus has lower numbers F-15C gained weight). The f-16A with 2 missiles and 50% fuel will sustain around 6.5 g. The newer F-16’s, like the block 50 that the F-35 is being compared to is lower, about 6.2g clean (drag index=0) and around 5.3 at a drag index of 50 (right where the F-35 was supposed to be).
I’ve got the F-4E info too if you want to see it. Basically, the F-35 will out turn the F-18, won’t match an F-16 with two missiles and 50% fuel, but ain’t far off. What does this all mean? If you look at most aircraft out there right now, there is not a huge difference between the any of the benchmark fighters (f-16, f-15, Su-27, Mig-29) in turn rate ( Su-27 maneuverability threads got them up) assuming the 2 degree superiority rule (which matters for sh*t with high off bore sight weapons). Lastly, this is the one data point there is, largely deficient to make informed conclusions on how maneuverable the F-35 is. And yes it is a 9g fighter, again previous version achieved 9g 370 kt at 15,000 feet. We don’t know at what altitude (if at any), it can sustain that. Most likely if it can sustain 9g at all, it will be at sea level like most every 9g fighter. The Rafale and Eurofighter will best those benchmark fighters, to what degree? No idea until those charts are leaked.
All these numbers were up before so I apologize to anyone having to read them again. And Amega, I apologize for my tone earlier, it is frustrating posting the same information over and over yet hearing the same comments.
FBWThe redesigned “spring onion” tank was the baseline before 2007, I believe.
Thanks
FBW[QUOTE]
Come on FBW, even you know that is a bit of a stretch. At least for Gripen E the loss in effectiveness per gallon of added fuel is about 37% or about a third. And that is a small bird with large tanks. A large ac with relatively smaller tanks would have a better ratio… and all modern fighters are heavier and larger than Gripen.
To be honest, you could be right. I have not read or researched much on external fuel tanks, I just cross-referenced a few different links related to weight and drag of externals. I have researched how often they are dropped, their cost, complexity, and inventory. Calling external fuel tanks, “drop” tanks is becoming a misnomer.
Low Observable, do you know if the Norway study was done before the redesign of the F-35 EFT?
FBWHalloweene, cool article. I don’t see anything about the sustained turn with that configuration other than the “sustained a 60* degree banked turn at 374 knots”- 2 g’s sustained. The g’s the aircraft’s FCS allowed the aircraft to pull with that external load is impressive.
FBWIt is even older…(1999)
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/combat-ready-53125/
yeah got it, it was over at airliners.net too, thanks reading it now
Sign In
