Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
More Bad F-35 News Range Minimum Not Met  
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3856 posts, RR: 27
Posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6128 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

more bad news... http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...&feedName=industrialsSector&rpc=43

may be able to fly only 85 percent as far as originally projected, a Pentagon document shows.

"The radar-evading aircraft's "A" model is currently estimated to have a combat mission radius of 584 nautical miles, just short of the required 590 nautical miles, a Dec. 31-dated report to Congress said.

Program officials originally estimated that the F-35A would be able to hit targets 690 nautical miles away, unrefueled, or 15 percent more than now, the Department of Defense's "Selected Acquisition Report" showed."

this on top of costs going through the ceiling, and software being 4 years late one wonders when enough will be enough

I suppose this also tanks the Canadian version unless they buy some tankers too..

11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1854 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6116 times:

Quoting kanban (Thread starter):

I suppose this also tanks the Canadian version unless they buy some tankers too..

Nope, ours will have probe and drogue refueling installed. However, we were asking LM to see if both boom and probe and drogue refueling systems could be installed.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6044 times:

6nm? Better cancel the whole thing....  

User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3856 posts, RR: 27
Reply 3, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 5983 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 1):
Nope, ours will have probe and drogue refueling installed.

What I was implying was you're going to have to refuel more often meaning more equipment in the air.. or maybe you can equip them with radar masked skis....


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5945 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 3):
What I was implying was you're going to have to refuel more often

Why would we need to do that? Our CF-18's that carry less fuel overall do just fine without the need of a tanker for most missions. If you are talking about the north, we either get our own support or use USAF tankers. This is a non-issue for the most part as missions will be planned accordingly based on tanker availability and final range, just like they always are. 6nm is not something to get all concerned about - pilot will just have to turn off the A/C or lose a few pounds.  


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1854 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5918 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 3):
What I was implying was you're going to have to refuel more often meaning more equipment in the air.. or maybe you can equip them with radar masked skis....

A combat loaded F-35 from the range being stated will still fly further than a similarly equipped CF-18 ever will, to the tune of twice further. From our standpoint, any range that can be achieved beyond that of a CF-18 will be a major bonus.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1854 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5907 times:

And according to other sources, they are essentially looking at very small mods to get that 6nm back, such as tweaks to the software to maximize fuel taken onboard, or raising shut-off valves higher inside the fuel tank to get that extra couple of pounds of fuel. More significant mods include more internal fuel tanks in hollow spaces inside the airframe that are not planned for future expansion.

Or they could change how the range is calculated to eliminate a buffer margin of 5% of the fuel capacity which was added during the testing phase. This change alone will apparently add 72.4km to the aircraft’s combat radius.

But in the end, it could be much-ado-about nothing, as the range estimates right now are educated guesses on estimates for bleed usage, aircraft performance, and fuel capacity that are not yet fully known. So in short, the given range right now is at best a guess based upon unvalidated and untested numbers on fuel capacity, performance, and fuel consumption.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5777 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 5):
will still fly further than a similarly equipped CF-18 ever will, to the tune of twice further.

Just checking. You really mean 3x the range of a CF-18? So a CF-18 has a radius less than 200 nm?


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7637 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5708 times:

This is news how, I'm betting the range in the current documentation is lower than what was initially requested and agreed on when the a/c was first proposed and requirements given for RFP. Range like other "capabilities" are the items that are adjusted as program development takes place, the a/c is not as fast as initially requested, not as stealthy as initially requested, does not carry as much ordinance as initially requested, does not manuever as initially requested, is not as cheap as initially requested.

Where the a/c has hit the mark and is performing superbly is in the economic benefit and prestige to the OEM building the a/c, until the company starts taking financial penalties its all good, besides, has any military a/c in recent history ever hit its range requirements, anyone remember the critics of the F-18 and her supporters duking it out on time of the deck to altitude, speed, range and a bnunh of other comparisons to a/c that were currently in Navy inventory, all those short comings were deemed irrelevant compared to the primary benefits provided, lower maintenance and new technology.
If I can find any documentation I would not be shocked that the range of the new Super Hornet is what was requested and envisioned when the a/c was originally purchased, it only cost a few hundred frames and more speed before they got it right.  


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3856 posts, RR: 27
Reply 9, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5625 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

now maybe we read differently south of the border... however I see the original goal was 690 and with the now expected range of 584 it's about 106 nm short... plus weren't some wanting to add another engine? so unless it was only fired up when one failed, the range could be down to 292 nm... plus or minus. (all is intended as light humor)

the real issue is still: at what point do we consider terminating the program...


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5370 times:

Quoting kanban (Thread starter):
I suppose this also tanks the Canadian version unless they buy some tankers too..

Air Command has 2 hose and drogue equipped CC-150 Polaris (A313s) plus I believe 5 similarly equipped CC-130H Hercs. Not sure there will ever be new money for more modern tankers, such as the Airbus MRTT. Replacing the CC-150s would give greater lift overall and more fuel transfer capability. One might also assume the MRTT would be cheaper to maintain - could in fact be contracted out to AC as they operate a small fleet of A333s.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1854 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5262 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 10):
Air Command has 2 hose and drogue equipped CC-150 Polaris (A313s) plus I believe 5 similarly equipped CC-130H Hercs. Not sure there will ever be new money for more modern tankers, such as the Airbus MRTT. Replacing the CC-150s would give greater lift overall and more fuel transfer capability. One might also assume the MRTT would be cheaper to maintain - could in fact be contracted out to AC as they operate a small fleet of A333s.

Major maintenance of the CC-150 fleet is already contracted out to Air Canada Technical Services (now Aveos Fleet Performance Inc). The CC-150 fleet however is not doing significant amounts of fly; of the 6,500 flying hours per year that the fleet is supposed to be available for, around 4,700 hours are actually utilized.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic More Bad F-35 News Range Minimum Not Met
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
More Problems For The F-35? posted Thu Nov 12 2009 07:06:19 by 747classic
Why Not More KC-10s? posted Mon Oct 26 2009 21:34:50 by Woodsboy
Bad News From Ireland - No S92 posted Fri Jul 5 2002 18:49:13 by Kaitak
U.S. Not Happy With F-35 Engine Cost Overruns posted Thu Apr 14 2011 17:55:57 by AirRyan
Norway Buy's 4 F-35 For Training posted Thu Apr 7 2011 12:53:11 by OyKIE
More F-35 Problems posted Fri Mar 25 2011 15:35:45 by kanban
F-35 Software To Be At Least 4 Years Late posted Tue Mar 15 2011 10:18:03 by kanban
Canada F-35 Order Facing Scrutiny posted Thu Mar 10 2011 22:18:37 by ac788
Why Not Just To Build New Space Shuttles posted Sat Jan 1 2011 06:20:55 by flyglobal
Avon Park Range, FL posted Fri Nov 26 2010 06:39:08 by airplaneguy

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format