lookieloo
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2013
- Messages
- 468
- Likes
- 264
Re: ADA LCA Tejas Mark-II
2. Again, tanks can always be dropped if required. Also, don't be surprised if you eventually see F-35Cs flying with external stores most of the time. Of course, when it first enters service, it will likely be kept in its VLO configuration; but as it becomes more common, the flexibility advantages of external fuel for routine operations will change that. And as for costs, saving money isn't much of an advantage with an old fighter design. Hungary has been trying to sale its Mig-29s for two rocks apiece and still can't find a buyer.
3. I never said the F-35C is currently slated to replace the SH (it isn't as the SHs still have too much useful life to simply throw away and replacing the ABCD Hornets alone will take long enough). However it it still has the advantage in practical range (along with other capabilities) and the USN is unlikely to get a clean-sheet design in the F/A-XX's stated timeline.
1. About 1/4 of external fuel is lost to drag alone, and it's even worse for the Shornet due to toe-out of external stores (a cheap fix for an early design error). Sorry, but the F-35 still has it beat range-wise for all practical purposes.This is why you should read what I post.
1) SH with tanks will out-range F-35, in both range and combat radius. We are talking about 10.5 tonnes of fuel on SH vs 8.8 tonnes of fuel on F-35C.
2) The reason why I give 3 tanks to SH while none to F-35 is for the simple reason that the F-35 will lose a lot of its advertised capability.
If you combine points one and two you will notice two things. SH's advertised capabilities give it greater range and radius. F-35s advertised capabilities do not allow it the advantage of EFTs which will render it less capable at the cost it is being procured for. If you really want to fly F-35s with tanks, then USN is better off replacing SH Block 2s with SH Block 3s with EFTs, CFTs and EWPs at a lesser cost instead of buying the more expensive F-35C. That will give you more range at lesser cost.
3) USN will want an aircraft that can match SH's flexibility with F-35s capabilities. F/A-XX is the answer, in any form, be it LM's F-35C Mk2 or Boeing's SH replacement program. LM can always make the F-35 larger than it is. My point being, F-35C isn't a direct replacement for SH.
2. Again, tanks can always be dropped if required. Also, don't be surprised if you eventually see F-35Cs flying with external stores most of the time. Of course, when it first enters service, it will likely be kept in its VLO configuration; but as it becomes more common, the flexibility advantages of external fuel for routine operations will change that. And as for costs, saving money isn't much of an advantage with an old fighter design. Hungary has been trying to sale its Mig-29s for two rocks apiece and still can't find a buyer.
3. I never said the F-35C is currently slated to replace the SH (it isn't as the SHs still have too much useful life to simply throw away and replacing the ABCD Hornets alone will take long enough). However it it still has the advantage in practical range (along with other capabilities) and the USN is unlikely to get a clean-sheet design in the F/A-XX's stated timeline.