FBWAny news from bulkhead 496 for B variant?
https://www.ida.org/idamedia/ResearchNotes/RNSpring2016/RN2016-RecentDevsJointStrikeFighter.ashx
For post- LRIP 5 aircraft,
a bulkhead redesign, with thicker
features, is being used for production.
Similar modifications—straps for
early production and redesigns for
future production aircraft—will help
address the shortfalls identified at
7,000 hours.
For the more significant fatigue at 9,000 they are using this:
As a result, Lockheed
Martin is pursuing a special method
to strengthen these bulkhead areas—a
unique surface treatment process
referred to as Laser Shock Peening (LSP)
fatigue cracks in durability testing aren’t unique to the F-35 program btw.
FBWThanks, yes those I saw. I am assuming that the 1150L tanks for the wing are supersonic tanks?
FBWGeneral question provoked by above pictures of the Mig-29, does anyone have information on Russian/Soviet legacy external fuel tanks?
There are the: PTB-1500, 1150, 1000 series (also a 3,000L and an 800L)
Questions:
1. What are different external fuel tanks (manufacturers, series, which aircraft)? Anyone have a site for this or even manufacturer literature?
2. Which are supersonic rated?
FBWYes, I do see the different colors.. and the graphics says 728 nmiles, EOTS and radar coverage.. Which could mean the aircraft can see as far, not fly as far..
The difference (2x 135 nm) is very large and cannot be explained by lower weight of the A-A missiles compared to bombs alone.. drag of the weapons obviously plays no role here..
READ THE COMBAT RADIUS ON THE SIDE. Actually, no as explained. It has to do with speed and altitude. That easily explains the difference. If an aircraft can fly a strike mission 625 nmi, an AtA mission can be flown considerably further due to optimal altitude and speed. This is like pulling teeth, read more, post less.
Going back to the earlier comparison that you started with- the F-16C could fly a strike mission out to 380 nmi ( and that on a Hi-Hi-Hi profile), that same F-16C with two 370 gallon tanks can fly as DCA mission 500 nmi ( with a mach .9 dash out 50 miles after a 20 minute loiter). In other words, yes, the difference between a strike mission and an AtA (DCA-CAP) mission is easily that much.
FBWHe was referring to the 3% fuel use margin in the KPP comparison to USAF mission profile.
Ok, but that is not a 3% fuel reserve. That is the fuel flow factor margin, predicting burn rate.
FBW[ATTACH=CONFIG]252278[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]252277[/ATTACH]
Nope, I am actually quite serious.. it would not be the first time.. see the JSM combat radius pic..
BTW, the often quoted surveillance mission combat radius most likely includes sensor range, that is why it’s so different from the official estimates..[ATTACH=CONFIG]252273[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]252274[/ATTACH]
No, as was explained to you years ago. See the different colors? It does not take a rocket scientist to interpret those charts. Please use common sense before placing hands on keys.
Reading also helps as the charts are quite clear in meaning. Read the side of the chart. There is no ambiguity (of course the surveillance mission radius is obsolete anyway as there are no EFT’s, but it does clear up that your theory holds no merit.) Time to put this topic to rest, the reports, evidence, and concepts are quite clear. As of now the combat radius is 625nmi for the USAF strike mission and this is likely a low estimate, and (+/-) 760 for an AtA mission (likely with a minute of combat if the current estimate = 2009 report).
FBWMaybe because the 625 nm “official” figure only includes an 3% fuel reserve? It does not require a rocket scientist, does it?
Apparently it does take brains to read the thread. Where do u get a 3% fuel reserve from? The combat radius could include a 5% SDD buffer on top of standard fuel reserve requirements. In essence, the aircraft is in testing. The DoD did not allow the range estimates to include this buffer until testing is complete (at least as of last time the range is was reported).
FBWTwo things, even the most specialized A2A planes and interceptor used to carry a centreline tank when in AD role because they used this fuel to take off at full afterburner, climb to the operative quote as soon as possible and regain velocity, after it they dropped it and kept on with their full internal fuel.
Same with drop tanks on long range attack mission: once the planes would get near to the combat zone they would have dropped the now empty tanks and would have continued in a way more comfortable configuration.
This is often repeated here, and operationally not true. Look back at the RAND document I posted. They figured range with EFT dropped after empty and retained. The problem is, once the EFT is jettisoned your relying on the internal fuel to get you through “government time” of your mission. An aircraft that relied on EFT to penetrate into enemy airspace needs enough to fight it’s way out and back to tankers flying racetracks a safe distance away. In reality, with a draggy external load of weapons, that isn’t a realistic proposition in a strike mission anyway.
What are the performances of a F-15E with CFT when compared with an F-15D clean? And how much payed in terms of performances Iceland based F-15C once equipped with CFT?
Very simple use the search function and you can compare both as I and others have posted the performance of the F-15 with and without CFT several times, or look up the flight manual, it is available.
FBWBut the F-135 engine are spanking new. F110, AL-31F and many many other engines are not. Naturally that should count for something. And it does, but there is still the bitch called drag.. and in F-35 case, it will never go away.
If F-35 air-intakes would get a chock ramp for airflow installed, the jet would still struggle to get up the higher Mach numbers. Lots of AB fuel munchie and still struggeling. Squeeze out 1500kgf extra thrust from the F-135 a decade later, and it would still struggle, with more fuel consumption, but not so much more speed past the mach 1.6.I never claimed the F-35 is parity with F-16 when it comes to range, but seriously nor should it.. it should be considerable better.
The F-35 is not drag limited to mach 1.6. The description of the control laws is very clear on this. The aircraft can easily overspeed in a variety of configurations and altitudes. It is limited to 700 knots (A & C), and exceeding this will give you a “bitching betty” overspeed warning but it’s not a hard limit. The aircraft was tested to 10% over the 700 knot limit. However, I would say that the F-35C would have a difficult time exceeding that 700 knot limit.
FBWNote that actually all those different flight profiles seems me to have been substituted in the minds of military planners by: fly at optimal cruise condition, drop your Jdams on predetermined location and come back.
So I wonder if also this has to be considered in this sort of apple to cucumber comparison…
what exactly are you basing this on? Do you know what speeds and altitudes the USAF strike profile entails, or is this a guess? There has been enough guessing in the past two pages that has not held up to scrutiny. I would suggest looking at some of the information provided so far.
FBWas i said before, the Aplha Jets will be retired in 2018 with NO replacement, as pilot training will then be conducted in the US.
as for the F-16 replacement, its to early to tell and a choice is to be made by end 2018, although i can see this getting delayed.
that the F-35 is a favorite is a bit obvious, especially as Lockmart is doing some heavy lobbying for the F-35 in Belgium for the past years.as for the Rafale, i say the chances are slim, the aircraft isnt exactly NATO compatibel in terms of inter-operability and weaponry, witch kinda limits cooperation to France only.
a better choice would be the Typhoon, as 4 other NATO members (+Austria) are already operating the type, and as Belgium is a Pro-European nation, and prefers European equipment, i take the chances of the Typhoon are high, although the high price tag and maintainance costs could make it difficult.
the Gripen could be a good selection, in terms of operating and acuasition costs, they could work together with current (and possible future) European Gripen operators, but the Nuke option could kill its chances. the F/A-18E/F is one of my favorites, its affordable, low maintainance costs, growth potential and its proven in combat, and its capable of carrying nukes (B61) so that makes it the best alternative to the F-35, the only downside is that we would be the only operator of the type in Europe.what i could recommend is a possible lease of new aircraft, and join Germany in the developent of a new strike aircraft, but that could turn out to be more expensive then buying off the shelf.
as for a mixed fleet idea (F-35 + FA50), forget it, its not going to happen, as its cheaper to operate a single type then 2 types, thats the reason the F-16 also replaced the Mirage 5 in the mid-1990’s.
Reading through the RFP, several things stand out:
1. Belgium does not want to acquire all of the infrastructure and faculties to operate, upgrade, or maintain the new aircraft without a partnership. That would favor the aircraft with a broad user base in Europe, or in close proximity. That would seem to favor the F-35 or Rafale.
2. The strict need to know, and non-disclosure aspects make it unlikely that comparison data with be shared with the general public (barring a leak like in the Swiss competition)
3. Internal systems and software have to be at contract agreed upon level by end of transition period (assuming FOC around 2030). Considering the current block 4 increment schedule, who knows where the F-35 will be in 2030 (notional block 5? 6-7?), the Rafale should be at F4 standard provided schedule holds.
4. The requirement for external targeting pods, EW, and IRST (where applicable) is interesting. It would seem to favor the F-35 as these are baked into airframe costs (depending on what the EW self protection requirement is).
5. Mission data generation- (section 15.1.2.2 ) seems to be written with the requirements of the F-35 in mind. Belgium is not seeking control of MDF.
6. Average monthly serviceability to be 70%. That will be interesting, in the case of both the Rafale and the F-35 are they able to use predicted serviceability? Or demonstrated.
7. Production line lifeline and planned production capacity, estimated production closure based on current and expected orders would seem to greatly favor the F-35
About halfway through the document, it would seem to be a two horse race so far.
Edit- (con’t)
Appendix 2-
8. The combat radius flight profiles are all at mid-high level. External tanks allowed for sample missions (this part is confusing, it says configurations cannot be changed). When considering the energy-manuverablity plots, it states 50% of total fuel in the scenarios. I assume this means that the data can be submitted with or without EFT (where applicable) when considering the E-M and acceleration times per the scenario. Meaning the RFP is taking into account the impact of EFT on performance (unless I am reading that part wrong).
FBWAllright. This a is as good of an answer is i can get at present time.
My point was not to try and compare the Sukhoi with F-35 if that was what FBW insinuating.
But rather how much drag penalty LM had to swallow with their F-35 design, nothing more nothing less.Drag=/=range.
No- I was not insinuating that, I was insinuating that your repeating of the Sukhoi figure was useless for what we were talking about in actual combat radius. I don’t think anyone would be arguing over which aircraft has a larger combat radius.
On the second part, no again. In essence, you are looking for evidence to support your suppositions that can’t be found in ferry range. “I believe the F-35 is very draggy, ergo the ferry range will be short”.
Drag is only one part of the equation in figuring fuel consumption at optimal cruise, you have to consider bypass ratio (and sfc), fuel fraction, ect. The odd thing is that the higher the fuel fraction of empty weight, the higher the fuel consumption at first.
Edit- the best example for why your thinking is flawed. The TF30 powered F-14 had a lower sfc than the F110. In theory, at cruising altitude, the TF30 powered F-14 has a range advantage (reality was a different story due to afterburner usage, the F110 powered F-14 actually had the larger combat radius due to the difference in afterburner sfc). Drag did not change significantly, but powerplant characteristics did. In other words, what you are trying to decipher from ferry range and drag would only hold true given two aircraft with the same engines and fuel capacity.
FBWWut..? Divide ferry range by two.. lol.
No that would also be grossly incorrect as any metric.Cause the Sukhoi range was with four missiles attached ext, Launched half way.
To be fair the R-77 is heavier, larger and more draggier than most missile in same class.No, its actually not useless at all. It show how much drag penalty(or the lack of it) the Sukhoi have, when we talk about range.
For all the different weapons Sukhoi can carry, it seems they wont even bother to put any of this on their adv’s and i can understand why, it would be messy and take up four pages of data.
But rest assure, those whom order it knows.
I’ll just repeat what I said. It is a useless measurement of radius. It is roughly equivalent to 1/2 ferry range. I am happy that you are impressed with the Sukhoi range advertisement carrying 4 R-77’s. It is however, not a very useful measure of combat radius.
Rest assured, those who ask for actual mission combat radius (meaning services) know.
FBW^^This!
Which was part of my point earlier. To put on some “random” combat range on any advs is utterly useless for any standard. Cause you can’t use it as a metric.
There are simply no way of calculate this exact, there is dynamics in the play.Which is why i pointed out the Sukhoi range. You can’t spin it to get any better, only worse!
Anyone whom are selling their product will always shine the Pros and hide the Cons.
That is because the Sukhoi range is best case scenario, and therefore useless. If you want to know a similar metric for other combat aircraft divide ferry range by two and you get the equivalent to the Sukhoi radius. ( Note- there is no accurate information released on the F-35’s ferry range yet. And really no service is asking for it- because it really does not matter).
It isn’t a plus, that is the very definition of a manufacturer claim that is worthless in actual mission planning and action radius.
FBWMay just be time to add him to the JSR ignore fuction
Sign In
