What is up with the F-35? Part II

[JA Boomer]

Pew, pew, pew. Haha. Looks like someone in the air force has a sense of humor!

[jlvfr]

Meanwhile, in the canadian "F-35 soap opera"...

Boeing sweetens a possible deal for Super Hornets with extra work for Canada. Which would come in handy, considering Lockheed has threatned to remove F-35 work from Canada...

[SteveDaPirate]

Boeing sweetens a possible deal for Super Hornets with extra work for Canada. Which would come in handy, considering Lockheed has threatned to remove F-35 work from Canada...

That would help in the short term at least. However, Boeing is getting out of the fighter business.

When the new head of defense at Boeing Co. laid out her priorities for the business in April, making jet fighters didn’t make the cut.

Leanne Caret has made waves inside and outside the company with the stark admission that a company which has produced fighters for decades won’t be making them beyond the early 2020s.

The early 2020s is when F-35 production should be hitting full steam. Still, it's better than nothing I suppose.

[JA Boomer]

What's the pod underneath this F-35C?

[SteveDaPirate]

What's the pod underneath this F-35C?

It's the optional GAU-22A 25mm gatling gun used on the B and C models.

[JA Boomer]

It's the GAU-22 25mm gatling gun.

Ah, thanks! I forgot the C doesn't have an internal gun.

[citanon]

So, the F35 may have just gone 8:0 vs F15E aggressors in simulated fights:

https://theaviationist.com/2016/06/2...ed-deployment/

This was apparently and official USAF graphic:


:D

[Doktor]

Official? Geez...

[jlvfr]

Love seeing technical documentation done well... use of proper terms is trully vital...

And love how they brag about beating what is, in essence, a 30+ year old fighter... let's see it fighting vs a Rafale, or an F-22 or a Typhoon, or a Grippen E...

[SteveDaPirate]

And love how they brag about beating what is, in essence, a 30+ year old fighter... let's see it fighting vs a Rafale, or an F-22 or a Typhoon, or a Grippen E...

Should be getting to that soon in Red Flag.

For the time being, facing IADS and F-15 aggressors is pretty representative of what F-35s would encounter in the South China Sea or Eastern Europe with S-400s and Sukhois.

[citanon]

Should be getting to that soon in Red Flag.

For the time being, facing IADS and F-15 aggressors is pretty representative of what F-35s would encounter in the South China Sea or Eastern Europe with S-400s and Sukhois.

The F15-Es at Mountain Home are capable of equipping the latest IR sensor pods and depending on the exact aircraft could have been the ones upgraded with AESA.

So depending on the exact load out they could actually have been the most challenging thing you can throw up besides an F22.

Here's an article from a couple years back indicating AESA upgrades were slated to be completed by 2017 at Mountain Home:

http://www.airforce-technology.com/n...rcraft-4321475

[SteveDaPirate]

The F15-Es at Mountain Home are capable of equipping the latest IR sensor pods and depending on the exact aircraft could have been the ones upgraded with AESA.

So depending on the exact load out they could actually have been the most challenging thing you can throw up besides an F22.

Here's an article from a couple years back indicating AESA upgrades were slated to be completed by 2017 at Mountain Home:

http://www.airforce-technology.com/n...rcraft-4321475

Yep, but that's not all. The F-15E has more powerful Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229 engines than F-15Cs do as well as a WSO to assist the pilot during engagements.

There's also this as yet unofficial claim.

F-15E Strike Eagles unable to shoot down the F-35s in 8 dogfights during simulated deployment

[SteveDaPirate]

Moved from the tank thread. I think there may be a few points where we miscommunicated and a few where we disagree.

I think you may have misread what I said.
The 'C's increased fuel doesn't give it greater range. That fuel is there to help it land. You don't have to trap with the B. That means there is no penalties with regards to going around yet again, hitting after burner again, changing the landing pattern to get the aircraft back on deck etc. The RN's carrier size is revolved around putting together a strike package.

I don't understand what you mean when you say the fuel is there to help it land. That's what the larger control surfaces are for, and the extra fuel is a byproduct of the increased internal volume.

The F-35C has larger wings and control surfaces to allow it to maintain control to trap at slow speeds when heavily loaded with fuel and munitions. The B version doesn't have to trap as it can land vertically, but I don't think it can land vertically with a full load of fuel and 18,000 lbs of ordnance.

Again... the actual range difference is in the order of 100nm at most between the B & C after the traits of the C variant are factored in. Operationally this has practically no effect. What it does mean is that the difference being under 2000lb of fuel between the A & C variant don't give the C a longer range unless land based. This is an engine that uses about 28000lb fuel per hour in DRY thrust and the C has less than 2000lb more than the A. edit: This means the a out ranges the C operationally.

The numbers I've seen stated for combat radius is 625 nmi for the A, 467 nmi for the B, and 630 nmi for the C. This doesn't mean the B model is short legged since a Shornet gets about 390 nmi, but the A and C models of the F-35 have about 35% additional range to play with over the B.

Where did you get 28,000lbs per hour dry?

The numbers I've seen say the F-135 uses .7 lbs of fuel per hour, per pound of thrust. Which would give a maximum of 19,600 lbs per hour at max dry thrust.

You have to list what is actually used in the weapons bay and when is it actually needed. PGM's like brimstone and SDB ... of which both the RN and USMC are far more likely to use than 2000lb bombs.

The B should be able to handle 2000 lb bombs just fine, but the UK had to give up on integrating the Storm Shadow missile for internal carriage on the F-35 when they swapped back to the B model for example.

If USN aviators shit themselves getting back on deck and the RN can operate in higher sea states, can sortie at higher rates, can generate strike packages 24 hours a day, what does that tell you? At worst the B Lands at 1/4 of the speed a C does, if it's not landing at 0 relative. It doesn't have the same problems that landing at 135 knots at 11 feet per second does. Additionally the RN is happy with the bring back at 5000lb's they've slated - 2 AMRAAMs and 2 Paveways, that was before developing rolling recovery which enables another 2000 - 5000lb's depending on amospheric conditions. Additionally, it's only really a cost metric. Operationally it never has been a problem.

USN aviators aren't shitting themselves any more than their RN counterparts, they train together afterall. As I mentioned earlier, the B can land vertically, but not with lots of additional weight onboard.

1) If you're operating from short runways, chances are you're closer to the action anyway.
2) It's not the case with the LPH/D's which operate closer in anyway, and the range is only a factor when operating land based. The C Variant operationally doesn't have much greater range at all, if any. Operationally negligible.
3) Pliable waters of CVN's may affect the range practically anyway. They may or may not.
4) You're going to need outside infrastructure to supply something that uses 28000lb's of fuel per hour dry thrust.

The difference in infrastructure is a full sized runway/cats and traps for the C model, where the B only needs a short strip of pavement and a couple of trucks with fuel and munitions to get rearmed and back in action.

The USN wanted an aircraft that can allow the carriers to conduct deep strikes from far away. Thus their choice of the C model that allows them to fly long distances loaded for bear and recover without having to drop missiles in the sea. C's can also fold up the wings to allow more birds on the ship.

The RN and Marines got a harrier replacement in the B model that is more versatile in where it can operate from at the cost of range and bringback compared to the C model.

[JA Boomer]

I don't understand what you mean when you say the fuel is there to help it land. That's what the larger control surfaces are for, and the extra fuel is a byproduct of the increased internal volume.

He means that in an operational environment, a US Navy aircraft deployed from the boat must have a certain amount of fuel remaining when it returns to the boat to trap. Because there's no guarantees you're going to hit the wires on the first attempt. So although the F-35C carries more internal fuel than the F-35A, since a portion of this fuel must be reserved for trapping .. the operation range of the F-35C and F-35A will be very similar. If the F-35C is operated from a land based runway, it's greater fuel capacity will provide it with greater range than the F-35A because the fuel reserve is not required.

The B should be able to handle 2000 lb bombs just fine, but the UK had to give up on integrating the Storm Shadow missile for internal carriage on the F-35 when they swapped back to the B model for example.

For years I've heard one of the compromises of the F-35B was that the weapons bay had to be made smaller to accommodate the lift fan, and therefore it was limited to 1,000 lb class weapons internally. Is this not the case?

[SteveDaPirate]

He means that in an operational environment, a US Navy aircraft deployed from the boat must have a certain amount of fuel remaining when it returns to the boat to trap. Because there's no guarantees you're going to hit the wires on the first attempt. So although the F-35C carries more internal fuel than the F-35A, since a portion of this fuel must be reserved for trapping .. the operation range of the F-35C and F-35A will be very similar. If the F-35C is operated from a land based runway, it's greater fuel capacity will provide it with greater range than the F-35A because the fuel reserve is not required.

Is the fuel reserve not a requirement for the F-35B when operated in a naval environment? Granted, it doesn't have wires to miss, but may still require multiple attempts to land in heavy seas.

For years I've heard one of the compromises of the F-35B was that the weapons bay had to be made smaller to accommodate the lift fan, and therefore it was limited to 1,000 lb class weapons internally. Is this not the case?

I don't believe there is a different weight limitation on the weapon station, but the weapons bay is shorter. It could be that the 2000lb class doesn't fit.