User avatar
kanban
Topic Author
Posts: 3647
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

More Bad F-35 News Range Minimum Not Met

Sat May 14, 2011 12:02 am

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..
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: More Bad F-35 News Range Minimum Not Met

Sat May 14, 2011 12:20 am

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.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: More Bad F-35 News Range Minimum Not Met

Sat May 14, 2011 2:22 am

6nm? Better cancel the whole thing....  
 
User avatar
kanban
Topic Author
Posts: 3647
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: More Bad F-35 News Range Minimum Not Met

Sat May 14, 2011 4:13 am

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....
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: More Bad F-35 News Range Minimum Not Met

Sat May 14, 2011 5:45 am

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.  
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: More Bad F-35 News Range Minimum Not Met

Sat May 14, 2011 6:42 am

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.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: More Bad F-35 News Range Minimum Not Met

Sat May 14, 2011 7:23 am

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.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: More Bad F-35 News Range Minimum Not Met

Sat May 14, 2011 11:12 am

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 avatar
par13del
Posts: 6688
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: More Bad F-35 News Range Minimum Not Met

Sat May 14, 2011 1:06 pm

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 avatar
kanban
Topic Author
Posts: 3647
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: More Bad F-35 News Range Minimum Not Met

Sat May 14, 2011 3:52 pm

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...
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: More Bad F-35 News Range Minimum Not Met

Sun May 15, 2011 1:57 am

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.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: More Bad F-35 News Range Minimum Not Met

Sun May 15, 2011 7:32 am

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.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: atsiang, Mortyman and 7 guests