Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

F-35 price tag holding steady..........

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • bring_it_on
    2005-year of the RAPTOR!!
    • Jun 2004
    • 12480




    ENJOY!!!!

    The video is cool if you want to get a Front office feel of the F-35 aswell as its MMI

    P.s - Does any one know when the F-35 AA1's first Supersonic flight is going to be ??
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 4th May 2008, 21:52.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

    Comment

    • star49
      Senior Member
      • Nov 2004
      • 3686

      same amount of internal fuel as F-22 but no supercruise. 50% of structure made of composites.

      Comment

      • bring_it_on
        2005-year of the RAPTOR!!
        • Jun 2004
        • 12480

        same amount of internal fuel as F-22 but no supercruise.
        Yup , no supercruise , Not really needed to supercruise as compared to greater range and loiter time , the F-35 is supplementary to the F-22 so for missions which need supercuise they will work nicely with F-22's . Also if you read into the F-35's Cost/capability tradeoffs by RAND and others they ID'd Supercruise as one feature which will cost a lot and considered that the F-35 doesnt really need high supercruise to be able to be effective as a platform which it is designed to be , ie . Multi role aircraft specialized for fighter-strike which works in tandem with the F-22A . The USAF's dominance is clearly evident here as i am sure the USN would have wanted supercruise (maybe not as much as F-22 but something in the mach 1.2-1.3 range) .

        It would still be interesting to see the eventual T2W ration and dT2W ratio and aerodynamic performance when clean (internal weapons) , i am sure its speed when supersonic w/o burners would be double digit % better then Viper and Super hornet etc .

        50% of structure made of composites.
        Is it something wrong factually ? I ask because i really dont know how much composite they use on the L2.
        Old radar types never die; they just phased array

        Comment

        • bring_it_on
          2005-year of the RAPTOR!!
          • Jun 2004
          • 12480




          AA2 , B1 or whatever its called , pictured here testing its swivle nozzle . Check out the dude in the right (lower) aspect and how he says "YEAHHHH" with his head when the thing goes down , just thought it was funny!!
          Old radar types never die; they just phased array

          Comment

          • totoro
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Apr 2006
            • 1024

            Has the amount of internal fuel in the f-22 ever been officially disclosed? I must say it really surprised me that a test pilot would disclose such a piece of info to the public - that the f-35 carries the same amout of fuel as f-22. Could it be it was deliberate misinfomation?

            I remember i've seen various figures thrown around for f-22's fuel, ranging from 5 to 9 tons. While 5 seems a bit too little, 9 ton figure doesn't really mesh with the 'same amount of fuel as f.35' statement, as I just can't see how on earth would over 10 cubic meters of fuel fit into a f-35.

            Comment

            • bring_it_on
              2005-year of the RAPTOR!!
              • Jun 2004
              • 12480

              Has the amount of internal fuel in the f-22 ever been officially disclosed?
              Dont recall it being made public anywhere but then again it might not be public but might not also be classified either .


              Do we know for certain the Exact internal fuel of the F35 ? I mean has a FIRM FIGURE been offically released by USAF , LMA ???

              i've seen various figures thrown around for f-22's fuel, ranging from 5 to 9 tons. While 5 seems a bit too little, 9 ton figure doesn't really mesh with the 'same amount of fuel as f.35' statement, as I just can't see how on earth would over 10 cubic meters of fuel fit into a f-35.

              I think he was talking in general terms not being too specific .

              Could it be it was deliberate misinfomation?
              Seriously doubt it , Missinformation against who ? A potential enemy in IRAN? The folks that spend the money be it US politicans , bean counters and foreign officials all get classifed breifs on performance , expected performance and target performance so you cant really talk one thing and not be held accountable to it .
              Old radar types never die; they just phased array

              Comment

              • Sintra
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Aug 2007
                • 3842

                Totoro

                The internal fuel of the F-22 has never been officially disclosed, but the numbers for the F-35A/B/C were made public a long time ago.

                F-35A - 18480 Lbs (8,400 ton)
                F-35B - 14003 Lbs (6,365 ton)
                F-35C - 20085 Lbs (9,130 ton)

                http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documen...0Sept%2006.pdf

                Now, thats what i call "a decent fuel fraction".

                Cheers
                sigpic

                Comment

                • totoro
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Apr 2006
                  • 1024

                  I'm pretty sure it's classified. It is an important figure - lots of things can be deduced from it. Plus the fact there are so many different guesses about the internal fuel load around - that just confirms to me no one out of the loop really knows.

                  And even though the pilot probably was talking in general terms - when you say 'same amount of fuel' - that can't be 50% or 200%. It should be in general vicinity of the actual figure.

                  I have been seeing the figure of 18.000 pounds of fuel thrown around a lot - and i must say that coincides well with f-22's size. I've compared lots of planes in f-22's size class - plus some slightly smaller ones and some slightly bigger ones. It does seem that 18.000 is a very realistic figure. Even if the pilot rounded up f-35's fuel to compare it to the Raptor, while in fact it's a bit less - even so it should carry no less than some 15.000 pounds. And that is a HUGE amount, considering smaller, lighter plane with an engine more optimized for slower speeds and smaller fuel consumption.

                  EDIT: Sintra, thanks a lot! Didn't know about that one!

                  Comment

                  • sferrin
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Apr 2005
                    • 9981

                    The F-22's is about 20,500lbs. I've got part of an official manual around here somewhere (non-classified of course).
                    A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. - George Bernard Shaw

                    flag@whitehouse.gov

                    Comment

                    • MadRat
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Aug 2006
                      • 5033

                      Can the F-35A take off with a useful load and that full amount of fuel, or does it have to refuel after takeoff to do so?
                      Go Huskers!

                      Comment

                      • bring_it_on
                        2005-year of the RAPTOR!!
                        • Jun 2004
                        • 12480

                        Can the F-35A take off with a useful load and that full amount of fuel, or does it have to refuel after takeoff to do so?

                        I think with FULL load we can only assume that it would take off with 2 X 2000Lb LGB's + 2 Aim-120C's . With the F-135 rated at 40,000+ pounds of thrust i am sure taking off with full fuel load plus these mentioned internal weapons should be much of a problem . I know the raptor can take off with A Full load of 8 A2A missiles plus internal fuel (full) and two 600 gallon fuel tanks .


                        I also love the way you can simply just touch the area of the intended target that you want to deliver bombs too , its just so much more practical and easy and less time consuming , also i beleive that each pilot can SAVE his prefered CONFIGURATION on a DISK type TAPE and plug it into the computer so that every pilot can have his own unique set up of the MFD's etc . I think i read it in Avionics magazine or something .
                        Last edited by bring_it_on; 5th May 2008, 13:35.
                        Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                        Comment

                        • Peter G
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Jan 2000
                          • 889

                          Originally posted by MadRat View Post
                          Can the F-35A take off with a useful load and that full amount of fuel, or does it have to refuel after takeoff to do so?
                          2004 figures -
                          Quoted MTOW = 27216 kg
                          Empty = 12020 kg (also as 13170 kg)
                          Internal Fuel = 8165 kg
                          Payload/[pilot/consumables, etc = 7031 kg (also given as 7250 kg)

                          The max hardpoint load is 9843 kg in any case.

                          Comment

                          • Schorsch
                            Severely Transonic
                            • Aug 2005
                            • 3843

                            Originally posted by MisterQ View Post
                            Supersonic performance has nothing to do with the engine and everything to do with the airframe, the F135 engine + lift fan is what I'm talking about, adding weight to create thrust which can only be used for lift, whersas a F135 changed from a 0.2 bypass to a 1.2 bypass using a pegasus style main fan would generate roughly 51000lbs of dry thrust (given the current estimates and released info on the F135 of roughly 28000lbs) with some simple lightweight ducting it could also be used to provide thrust in level flight while maintaining low RCS (actually easier with a low RCS airframe due to the layout) and you can still use the same 3 bearing pivoting tail and afterburners (afterburning 3 nozzle pegasus varients have existed for more than 20 years) giving 56000lbs or so (again using released data from PW on the F135), and the weight penalty for the ststem would probably be much lower than the lift fan, gearbox, ductwork and doors of the current F-35B system.

                            Get it now?
                            No.
                            The concept of having dedicated lift engines has advantages. The high dry thrust cannot be used for anything useful. To produce these amounts of thrust the whole intake system needs to be adapted. In typical cruise the engine typically operates at RPM short above idle which does not make it more efficient (engines work best at 70-90% maximum thrust).
                            The Harrier is not the end of all wisdom. Limited specs resulting in an useful solution. The Germans tried different designs and had mixed success.

                            Besides, the F-35B is supposed to be stealthy, which would be quite a challenge with a 1m fan.

                            Originally posted by Peter_G
                            2004 figures -
                            Quoted MTOW = 27216 kg
                            Empty = 12020 kg (also as 13170 kg)
                            Internal Fuel = 8165 kg
                            Payload/[pilot/consumables, etc = 7031 kg (also given as 7250 kg)
                            Weight increases are if I remember correctly one of the biggest challenge to make the F-35 (especially B) alive, and I look forward for the first solid numbers. Those for the F-22 were never published. That aircraft is given with ~15 tons in public sources, but closer to 20t OEW following some sources.
                            Publicly, we say one thing... Actually, we do another.

                            Comment

                            • Schorsch
                              Severely Transonic
                              • Aug 2005
                              • 3843

                              Originally posted by MadRat View Post
                              Can the F-35A take off with a useful load and that full amount of fuel, or does it have to refuel after takeoff to do so?
                              The question is: what is the field performance under these conditions?
                              When you see an F-16C with 2 huge tanks, 2 AMRAAM and 2 IR-AAM, one ECM pod and not to forget 2x 2000lbs bombs as payload, you actually wonder how this little wing can lift it.
                              Publicly, we say one thing... Actually, we do another.

                              Comment

                              • Sintra
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Aug 2007
                                • 3842

                                Originally posted by Peter G View Post
                                2004 figures -
                                Quoted MTOW = 27216 kg
                                Empty = 12020 kg (also as 13170 kg)
                                Internal Fuel = 8165 kg
                                Payload/[pilot/consumables, etc = 7031 kg (also given as 7250 kg)

                                The max hardpoint load is 9843 kg in any case.
                                The empty weight of the F-35A went to 13200 kg.
                                sigpic

                                Comment

                                • Sintra
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Aug 2007
                                  • 3842

                                  Originally posted by Schorsch View Post


                                  Weight increases are if I remember correctly one of the biggest challenge to make the F-35 (especially B) alive, and I look forward for the first solid numbers. Those for the F-22 were never published. That aircraft is given with ~15 tons in public sources, but closer to 20t OEW following some sources.


                                  http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documen...0Sept%2006.pdf
                                  sigpic

                                  Comment

                                  • MisterQ
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Jan 2008
                                    • 475

                                    Originally posted by eagle View Post
                                    I see. But then the problem with the air intake remains. I dont think a supersonic jet is possible without intake. I'm no expert, but I think air needs to be slowed down to subsonic speed so the engine cannot face the air directly.

                                    I'm not actually all that sure what you're driving at with this one, duct size of course would need to increase, but since all jet engines have the same problems with airspeed entering the LP compressor, and it's been solved for every supersonic plane in existance I don't think it'll be that big of a deal


                                    Originally posted by eagle View Post
                                    The lift fan adds those 47 inches to the engine which gives you a way bigger bypass ratio than possible with a single engine.
                                    All the lift fan does is add 2 50 inch LP stages to the engine and then directly bypasses that air downwards, it is still being powered by the main engine, so to say that they bypass ratio it gives is impossible from a single engine is to miss the point of the design, it is a sinle engine, it just has an extra 2nd divorced 2 stage LP compressor


                                    Originally posted by eagle View Post
                                    The ones you mentioned aren't exactly the benchmark for fighters. And I dont know the bpr of the Harrier or the F-35 with engaged fan. But its probably more than 1:1.
                                    Harrier Bypass ratio is about 1.3:1, from given figures it would seem that F-35Bs F135+ lift fan and roll posts sum total bypass ratio is about 1.38:1, not exactly a different ballpark.




                                    Originally posted by Schorsch View Post
                                    No.
                                    The concept of having dedicated lift engines has advantages. The high dry thrust cannot be used for anything useful. To produce these amounts of thrust the whole intake system needs to be adapted. In typical cruise the engine typically operates at RPM short above idle which does not make it more efficient (engines work best at 70-90% maximum thrust).
                                    The Harrier is not the end of all wisdom. Limited specs resulting in an useful solution. The Germans tried different designs and had mixed success.

                                    Besides, the F-35B is supposed to be stealthy, which would be quite a challenge with a 1m fan.

                                    Uh, you do realise it has a 4ft diameter LP already (check out the pics/vids of engine installation if you don't believe me), like I said, the lift fan is just 2 extra LP divorced from the rest of the engine and run through a gearbox, all of which then becomes dead weight after takeoff, and more complex than just sticking those 2 fans on the front and bypassing the air downwards through swiveling ducts, then ducting the air to the rear in level flight.

                                    You guys seem to be having a hard time getting my point, next time I think I'll come back with illustrations

                                    Comment

                                    • Schorsch
                                      Severely Transonic
                                      • Aug 2005
                                      • 3843

                                      Originally posted by MisterQ View Post
                                      You guys seem to be having a hard time getting my point, next time I think I'll come back with illustrations
                                      So, you think you have seen a "vid" and know you know that Lockheed Martin has build a totally crappy aircraft? Sorry, I think you are overrating your judgment a bit.
                                      Publicly, we say one thing... Actually, we do another.

                                      Comment

                                      • Schorsch
                                        Severely Transonic
                                        • Aug 2005
                                        • 3843

                                        Indisputably official numbers on the key parameters, but "solid numbers" are per definition the weight of the first delivered operational aircraft. Nobody knows currently where that stands. All the test aircraft LM currently produces are far away from the figures projected for the final aircraft.
                                        Publicly, we say one thing... Actually, we do another.

                                        Comment

                                        • bring_it_on
                                          2005-year of the RAPTOR!!
                                          • Jun 2004
                                          • 12480

                                          but "solid numbers" are per definition the weight of the first delivered operational aircraft. Nobody knows currently where that stands. All the test aircraft LM currently produces are far away from the figures projected for the final aircraft.

                                          You can have PREDICTED NUMBERS for FULL CONFIG aircraft at this stage made by computer modeling , however REAL no.s will come when the FIRST FULLY REPRESENTATIVE version (the one that just started assembly IIRC) is weighed . That is usually what happens in most weapons programs that i have come across .
                                          Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X