Lockheed Martin brochure c.1998 Posted on 03/31/2010 4:44:27 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
F-35 vs. F-16 Range - The Ghastly Truth
Posted by Bill Sweetman at 3/31/2010 5:49 AM CDT
Since the last T-50 post degenerated into the 110th Ares JSF flame war, I thought I'd continue the discussion in a separate thread. In particular, Solomon wanted to know my source for a 630 nm range figure for the F-16. Here it is:
Lockheed Martin brochure c.1998
The best F-16 you could get today - like a Block 60 or the Israeli F-16I (also sold to Singapore) should do better than that, because lots of people will sell you an internal active jamming system, permitting you to ditch the ALQ-184, an F110-GE-132 engine will get you to best altitude quicker, and JDAMs are slicker than GBU-10s.
As for the F-35A, let's look (once again) at LockMart data, from the executive summary provided to Norway in 2008:
Ah, you say, 728 nm is still better than 630 nm. Well, yes, but there's a catch. Another chart from the same document gives more detail:
No low-altitude penetration - just a drop below the cloudbase to ID a maritime target. Smaller 500-pound bombs and two fewer missiles - with maximum external fuel. Only the inboard pylons can carry tanks, and the "18,000 pounds" includes all external and internal stations - and there are 11 total, not external, stations. So you can't "load the aircraft like an F-16" and extend the range.
The only options beyond the configuration here are to carry more or heavier weapons, but that will degrade the range. And the reduction, beyond substituting 2000 pound internal JDAMs for the GBU-12S, may be rapid. As noted here before, the F-35 gains suprisingly little range - only 8 per cent - from the 30 per cent fuel load increase that you get from external tanks. That tells us that the drag is very sensitive to external stores, increased weight or a combination of the two.
How does this happen with a bigger, more powerful, much more expensive and newer-technology airplane? Part of the answer is that external fuel is a pretty good way of cheating the range equation, because as you use up the fuel you shed the weight and wetted area of the tanks. Also, the structure that accommodates the F-35A's internal fuel has to be stressed to 9g and 8000 hours. Drop tanks don't. Less easily estimated factors for the F-35: a broad forward fuselage and relatively short-span wing (ten feet less than the similar-weight Super Hornet), both dictated by the STOVL version.
Which brings me back to this post from last year....
I need to watch myself. I’m tired of the blatantly false information being spread around and will probably get myself in trouble if I’m not careful.
Yesterday there was some “article” about a simulated fight between a flight of F35’s and F/A18’s engaging a flight of Flankers and the outcome was 1 Flanker down and the two flights of good guys (8 total) all going down.
Utter BS. The F35’s and F/A18’s engaged them visually vs. using their OTH capabilities.
The misinformation/disinformation war against the F35 is in full swing. This is how the F22 fleet size got cut so badly and how the Presidential helo program got axed.
Yes that was from Air Power Australia. They are down on the F-18E/F Super-Hornet and the F-35 (because they did not get the F-22), so the article is not surprising.
They make some absurd comparisons of the F-35 to other airplanes, such as our F-105 for one.
I have read most if not all of that website. And they were also in love with the F-111, wanted to keep it flying to 2015 and longer with advanced versions if I recall correctly.
If the USA is not going to allow the F22 to be built and sold for FMS, why the tantrum?
It’s not like the Aussies can overturn the decisions on their own. I suspect they’re doing this to put more pressure on their pols to in turn put more pressure on the USA to allow FMS sales to Australia?
I don’t know that I would mind that so much, the Aussies have always been dependable allies. I would feel the same about the Brits as well except for their hard lurch to the left recently. The muzzie thing there (GB) has me a bit concerned as well.
I really don’t know what to believe save to say that the data does not favor the F-35 claims.
Instinctively, it feels improbable to build a quality tool that fits all tasks.
It also feels like we are in trouble with not enough airplanes, not enough of the right types and what appears to be an increasingly demoralized air force who feel doomed to fly radio controlled airplanes.
Bookmarked.
F-16 ping.
Wow....
Delta wings/Low Aspect Ratios have more sweet spots than people realize, one being the ability to have high internal fuel stores, especially if the airfoil gets a high % thickness.
I read a while back, Lockheed Martin had Solid Modeled the Saab Drakken Double Delta to run it within their CFD software.
One may ask a real curious, Why?
http://www.ndu.edu/press/jfq_pages/editions/i57/kopp.pdf
Save the PDF document and bookmark the Air Power Australia homepage website on your browser.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.