One of the major raps against the F-35 is that its a short ranged fighter. But lets compare its combat radius with that of the premier fighter in the world today, the F-22. From Wikipedia.
F-22 Performance Data...
Performance
- Maximum speed:
- At altitude: Mach 2.25 (1,500 mph, 2,410 km/h)[88]
- Supercruise: Mach 1.82 (1,220 mph, 1,963 km/h)[88]
- Range: 1,600 nmi (1,840 mi, 2,960 km) with 2 external fuel tanks
- Combat radius: 410 nmi[189] (471 mi, 759 km)
- Ferry range: 2,000 mi (1,738 nmi, 3,219 km)
- Service ceiling: 65,000 ft (19,812 m)
- Wing loading: 77 lb/ft² (375 kg/m²)
- Thrust/weight: 1.08 (1.26 with loaded weight & 50% fuel)
- Maximum design g-load: -3.0/+9.0 g
Performance
- Maximum speed: Mach 1.67[269] (1,283 mph, 2,065 km/h)
- Range: 1,200 nmi (2,220 km) on internal fuel[270]
- Combat radius: 610 nmi (1,110 km) on internal fuel[270]
- Service ceiling: 60,000 ft[271] (18,288 m)
- Rate of climb: classified (not publicly available)
- Wing loading: 91.4 lb/ft² (446 kg/m²)
- Thrust/weight: **With full
fuel: 0.84;[59]
- With 50% fuel: 1.04 B:[59]
- g-Limits: 9 g[nb 4]
The F-35 is a winner!
Doesn't that really point to the short legs of the F-22?
ReplyDeleteMaybe.
ReplyDeleteYou really have to know the conditions at which those numbers were calculated at. Weights, altitudes, load-outs, burner time, all kinds of variables. That 410NM combat radius for the F-22 looks short, but it no doubt includes at least 5 minutes on AB and A-A combat maneuvering. Does the F-35 number? Or is it just fly up high, drop two JDAMS, go home.
F-35 performance is whatever LM says it is right now.
Of course some people are making a big deal out of the aircraft needing tankers to get to Edwards/Pax River, using that to show how short their legs are. If these planes were properly nomenclature'd (XF-35A/B for the flight sciences birds), people might realize that maybe they have restrictions on their flight envelopes and they're not allowed to fly at optimum cruise altitudes and speeds and routes. Just sayin'.
There are also the more mundane reasons. Aircraft early in development are not certified to fly in the National Aerospace System, and have to have a flight lead. In the Navy's case they use the FA-18B's from VX-23. They are not RVSM certified, so they are stuck at 27,000 feet and below. Modern jets are most efficient 8-10,000 feet above that. It's the little things that get you.
And really, so what if I have the same range as an F-16 with 2x2000lb JDAMS? Sensor fusion, advanced radar and network capabilities and stealth put this aircraft in a whole different plane of existence, that no F-16 will ever match.
Hope I didn't ramble too much.
i'd put some credence in the F-35 being longer ranged than the F-22. one of the planes big strengths is suppose to be loiter time over a set of coordinates.
ReplyDeletethe F-22 was always designed purely for fighter sweeps...only later did they think about adding SEAD/DEAD and other roles to it.
but yeah you helped clarify the issue, but i'm still going to bet on these numbers being close to true...if for no other reason than the F-22 boosters haven't refuted them...and for the fact that everytime the F-22 heads out its with those huge XXXXL fuel tanks strapped on it.
OK, I'll buy that. The numbers look in the realm of possibility, and I have not heard any rumblings of unexpectedly high fuel consumption anywhere. You know if there were any hints of that, it would be all over the blogs and forums.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the tanks go though, the only pictures I have seen of operational F-22 are in Alaska or on det in Guam. Both places with large expanses of nothing and fickle weather.
You only have too much gas when you're on fire.
i bow to your wisdom...just not as deep as the President in Saudi Arabia...:))
ReplyDeleteI'm a simple kind of guy and like easy to understand figures.
ReplyDeleteF-22 - 19.7t empty. 18,000lbs of fuel internally. 2x powerful engines.
F-35 - 12.7t empty. 18,400lbs of fuel internally. 1x powerful engine.
Is it any great surprise that F-35 is likely to have a greater combat radius?
I do like the "comparisons" of Bill Sweetman et al, that compare the tremendous range figures listed for Rafale, Gripen, Typhoon etc against the F-35.
Of course they deliberately overlook the FACT that the F-35 is on internal fuel only and the rest typically carry 3x enormous external jugs as well as a full internal fuel load. But of course all the Eurocanard feature such an atrocious internal fuel capacity the F-35 critics, measure the F-35A against these fighters in "flying fuel tank" configuration carrying as much external gas as they can possibly manage... It's not as if the F-35A could carry more fuel could it? Oh wait, plenty have said the Shornet can't carry CFT's, but none of these "luminaries" seemingly told Boeing this. They just went ahead and figured out how to do it anyway. But of course, there's no way the corrupt, incompetent L-M could do this, could they? I mean it's not like they designed CFT's for the F-16 or anything. Oh, wait...
As Boeing is pointing out with the Super Hornet and F-15SE at the current time, there are plenty of tricks available to a manufacturer if needed and it is illuminating that the ONLY way these critics can "prove" that anything is better than the F-35 is by "stacking the deck" against it.
The typical "50% internal fuel" argument is a cracker. The F-35A almost carries as much fuel at 50% internal, as the Rafale or Eurofighter do at 100% internal fuel and it DOES carry more fuel at 50% internal than the Gripen or does at 100%...
And so they measure agility performance at 50% fuel, knowing full well that the F-35 by virtue of it's enormous internal fuel will be some 5000lbs heavier from the get-go and then on top of which, they ignore the drag and G limit/supersonic limits of large external stores, not to mention other such real world practicalities...
Must be easy being as "informed" as some of these critics. Goon et al like to make a big deal about their "knowledge superiority" but it should be illuminating that such insight is only ever directed one way, in a negative fashion against the platform that soundly thrashed their own commercial bid...
Good to see the program rolling forward though. Can't wait to see F-35's landing at RAAF base Amberley one day. The Supers are special enough, but the Lightning II's will be that much better...
Cheers,
AD
you are farting with your mouth opened again, Sol.
ReplyDeleteSince when is JSF seriously criticized for its range? F-35 is criticized for its cost, schedule slip, noise, projected performance, program mangement and so forth --- just not range, kiddo.
Dare you to find two solid sources where JSF's range is ever mentioned as an ongoing concern.
and you can kiss my ass you stupid bastard.
ReplyDeleteyour good buddy Sweetman has done tons of comparisons of the range of the F-35.....
hard to see a dream fade away isn't it.
all the work done with APA and yet the program continues. all the skulking ... all the plotting ... all the careful recruitment ... all the bombardment of websites and individuals that disagreed with your opinion and STILL THE PROGRAM CONTINUES.
it really must suck to be you.
The F-35 is built to have the range specified in the requiremenst and as far as I understand there are no signs of LM missing any of the requirements so that is all well I assume.
ReplyDeleteAD: I would be a little carefull to compare range simply by comparing fuel load, it is not always the truth you will find there. But I agree with you on this point, the F-35 is most likely to have very long legs.