The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 24, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: F-35 won't work well in hot climates?
reefdiver    4/13/2009 10:57:10 AM
from:
link
Not necessarily the best source but does bring up some points. Heat management, particulary in light of increasing electronics requirements, has always been a substantial issue for the F-35.

excepts from the article:
....will not fly properly in hot weather

...early versions of the showpiece F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter are ?very limited? in the heat.

...In America, F-35s are only doing limited flying in hot weather while the makers try to fix the problem.

...(the F-35) jets will have limited range and may even have problems landing with weapons on board. That could mean pilots having to dump any bombs that have not been used.

...The F-35 risks overheating because designers want it to be ?stealthy? ? so it won?t show up on enemy radar. That means it can?t have the usual air scoops and vents to cool its engine, since they would show up as infra-red hotspots.

So pilots need lots of fuel on board to keep the jet cool, restricting mission range.

It is an even bigger headache for the British F-35B jump jet model, which already has less range than other versions because its big fan for hovering takes up a lot of fuel space.

Defence Technology International editor-in-chief Bill Sweetman told us: ?JSF in its current form will be very limited in hot-weather performance and modifications intended to fix the problem won?t start to be tested until 2011 or 2012.

?But by that time the UK will be well down the road to building ships that can only operate JSFs.?

The Ministry of Defence admits sorting the F-35 for hot weather is ?a demanding task? but insists they are on top of the problem and ?it is not a programme risk?.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
french stratege       5/11/2009 8:39:56 PM
Soory read:
So some delays, a more heavier and costly airplane( but NOT so costly still), more power ...
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/11/2009 8:52:33 PM
For God sake FS , you 're talking about the F-35 like if it was operational with some minor troubles . This is not the case !!!
The bloody thing is still a prototype barely flying with internal loads only , it is fat , heavy , slow and has so many design problems that naming them all would take an entire page !
Just agree with me it is simpler FS ;-) : the F-35 is a dog .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/11/2009 9:06:53 PM
Just a question to the F-35 fans , a nasty question :
What is the maximum load (internals+fuel+externals) a STOL F-35 can take off with and bring back ? (without exploding or setting the deck on fire)
Ridiculous ...
 
Check the Rafale M for size ...
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Beazz       5/11/2009 11:20:12 PM

Just a question to the F-35 fans , a nasty question :

What is the maximum load (internals+fuel+externals) a STOL F-35 can take off with and bring back ? (without exploding or setting the deck on fire)


Ridiculous ...

 

Check the Rafale M for size ...


 

Cheers .



LOL.. Yea ok BW. The nation that not only wrote the book on modern day jet age carrier operations, but is the only one to even have a copy of it. The only nation on the planet that has a *super* carrier, and has 11 of them. The only NAVY in the world to have in excess of 1000 fighters, matter fact, more then just about any other nations Air Force, certainly more then those 250 or so French ones. The only nation on the planet that ALWAYS has 3-5 of these carriers at sea ALL the time, unlike one nation I know of that has ONE baby carrier by US standards that hasn't even figured out yet that it is actually suppose to be a sea going vessel and not a floating dockside motel and whose 25 or 30 super planes have to use the USN's carriers to even stay qualified. That nation, the USA,  will surely go ask the FRENCH how to operate them and what to put on them. Yea right. That's what we'll do BW. lol Why don't you tell the poor misguided USN how it should be done? lol What a joke you and the French are.. Gawddddddddd
 
Beazzzz
 
Quote    Reply

Das Kardinal       5/12/2009 1:33:24 PM




Just a question to the F-35 fans , a nasty question :



What is the maximum load (internals+fuel+externals) a STOL F-35 can take off with and bring back ? (without exploding or setting the deck on fire)






Ridiculous ...



 



Check the Rafale M for size ...






 



Cheers .









LOL.. Yea ok BW. The nation that not only wrote the book on modern day jet age carrier operations, but is the only one to even have a copy of it. The only nation on the planet that has a *super* carrier, and has 11 of them. The only NAVY in the world to have in excess of 1000 fighters, matter fact, more then just about any other nations Air Force, certainly more then those 250 or so French ones. The only nation on the planet that ALWAYS has 3-5 of these carriers at sea ALL the time, unlike one nation I know of that has ONE baby carrier by US standards that hasn't even figured out yet that it is actually suppose to be a sea going vessel and not a floating dockside motel and whose 25 or 30 super planes have to use the USN's carriers to even stay qualified. That nation, the USA,  will surely go ask the FRENCH how to operate them and what to put on them. Yea right. That's what we'll do BW. lol Why don't you tell the poor misguided USN how it should be done? lol What a joke you and the French are.. Gawddddddddd

 

Beazzzz

That was a pretty weak answer even by SP messageboards standards... 
"Huh huh FRENCH surrender monkeys ! Mighty mighty America FUCK YEAH !" basically

On topic : coud the fuel heat exchange be supplemented by an air radiator, which would only be used on the return trip (when fuel level bcomes low but the plane's out of harm's way) and be concealed the rest of the time ? 
 
Quote    Reply

SpudmanWP       5/12/2009 2:29:02 PM
The heat issue for the F-35 (when it was an issue) was related to heat buildup while idling on the tarmac and the OLD position of a heat exchanger fan on AA-1.
 
The fan position has changed on AF-1, problem solved.
 
While the F-35 is in flight, there is plenty of cooling capability.  If you are so low on fuel that you cannot cool the components of the F-35..... you are falling out of the sky because you have no gas!!!
 
Quote    Reply

PierreLeGrand       5/12/2009 2:58:38 PM

The heat issue for the F-35 (when it was an issue) was related to heat buildup while idling on the tarmac and the OLD position of a heat exchanger fan on AA-1.

 

The fan position has changed on AF-1, problem solved.


 

While the F-35 is in flight, there is plenty of cooling capability.  If you are so low on fuel that you cannot cool the components of the F-35..... you are falling out of the sky because you have no gas!!!




  Falling out of the sky is one way to do it, meltining fuel injector and ending up as a fire ball is another, this is what can happen with hot fuel...
 
Quote    Reply

FJV    Move the heat exchanger   5/12/2009 3:00:40 PM
"The heat issue for the F-35 (when it was an issue) was related to heat buildup while idling on the tarmac and the OLD position of a heat exchanger fan on AA-1."
 
The solution to this "huge" problem seemed to have been actually easier than I thought.

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

SpudmanWP       5/12/2009 3:45:43 PM
Here is the article about the fans:
 
link

 
Quote    Reply

Beazz       5/12/2009 7:47:54 PM

 




That was a pretty weak answer even by SP messageboards standards... 

"Huh huh FRENCH surrender monkeys ! Mighty mighty America FUCK YEAH !" basically


 

If the shoe fits..... When it comes to how to run a carrier, there are NO equals or even close to the USN and thats not fan boy SP nonsense. Just pure fact. And the last people the USN needs advice from on how to run them is sure as hell not the damn French!! If that hurts yur feelings or insults you, well get over it. Everyone in America is NOT that idiot Obama and going to apoligyze to you for existing or being good at something.
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/12/2009 8:33:18 PM
Beazz , you indeed did not answer my question at all . You just lost your nerves and went berserk . Not my fault ...
Being a bad looser will not make you win anything (think Poker if you play it) .
Then , you dare to post such offensive response :
""And the last people the USN needs advice from on how to run them is sure as hell not the damn French!!""
 
Damn ?? This is uncalled for unless you have a grief against the French but it is your right , this is a free World .
Still uncalled for as we ~the damn French~ are the only Nation on Earth to have a full compatibility with the USN regarding Carrier Operations . This in itself should tell you how close we are about military matters , but keep bashing away ...
 
Spudman :
""problem solved .While the F-35 is in flight, there is plenty of cooling capability""
 
Problem solved ??? Well not at all , sorry to say . The F-35 heat problem is only showing itself now because you more or less started critical test flights you should have done a year ago but you knew that it wouldn 't work .
Furthermore the B version (STOVL) has more than 3 tons less internal fuel than the A and C version , why that ?
Because the thing can 't take off with a heavy load . It is why I asked how much a F-35B could bring to the enemy (and without asking for multiple in-flight refuelings) . I let you find the answer but I still cannot believe that the UK went for such a dog . A Rafale M F3 is already doing more than any planned F-35Bs , it has almost twice the range and twice the load in deep strike heavy configuration (4.7 tons internal fuel , 5.2 tons external fuel in 3 tanks , 2 long range stand off SCALP stealth missiles , 4 Micas) and it can take back on the Carrier more than 5 tons of stores without any landing problem .
Beat that .
 
Cheers .
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Beazz       5/12/2009 9:05:41 PM

Beazz , you indeed did not answer my question at all . You just lost your nerves and went berserk . Not my fault ...

Being a bad looser will not make you win anything (think Poker if you play it) .


Then , you dare to post such offensive response :


""And the last people the USN needs advice from on how to run them is sure as hell not the damn French!!""

 

Damn ?? This is uncalled for unless you have a grief against the French but it is your right , this is a free World .

Still uncalled for as we ~the damn French~ are the only Nation on Earth to have a full compatibility with the USN regarding Carrier Operations . This in itself should tell you how close we are about military matters , but keep bashing away ...


 

Spudman :

""problem solved .While the F-35 is in flight, there is plenty of cooling capability""

 

Problem solved ??? Well not at all , sorry to say . The F-35 heat problem is only showing itself now because you more or less started critical test flights you should have done a year ago but you knew that it wouldn 't work .


Furthermore the B version (STOVL) has more than 3 tons less internal fuel than the A and C version , why that ?


Because the thing can 't take off with a heavy load . It is why I asked how much a F-35B could bring to the enemy (and without asking for multiple in-flight refuelings) . I let you find the answer but I still cannot believe that the UK went for such a dog . A Rafale M F3 is already doing more than any planned F-35Bs , it has almost twice the range and twice the load in deep strike heavy configuration (4.7 tons internal fuel , 5.2 tons external fuel in 3 tanks , 2 long range stand off SCALP stealth missiles , 4 Micas) and it can take back on the Carrier more than 5 tons of stores without any landing problem .


Beat that .

 

Cheers .


 


 


BW, if you had half a clue or were half as smart as you and your twin, lil Piggy thinks yall are, you would be something. But, you're not. You live in an outright fairytale land kiddo. As for the French, I personally have NO use whatsoever for them and it is because of arrogant clowns like you. If you think because your handful of Rafales can land on a USN carrier that makes you somehow equal and compatible with the USN, well good for you. Go on dreaming. The French have absolutely nothing to offer the USN in anything, especially how to operate a *real* carrier. What arrogance on your part.
As for the F35 and its so called heat problem. Why don't you google a little more before you go get yourself all wet thinking the US may screw the pooch on it. The F35 meets ALL heat requirements. The program leaders are just looking at ways to *increase* the margin is all. If no change at all is made, the program will still go forward as is and on time. I know that's a tuff concept for you French to grasp. But it happens with other nations outside the mighty France.
 
Your 30 Rafales will be all out of missiles and whatever other wonder weapons the French undoubtly have in a matter of minutes and the 600+ USN F35's & 400+ F18E/F/Gs will be swarming all over the enemy like a swarm of locust relentlesly around the clock for days, weeks, months on end if necessary.
 
Beat that fairytale boy.
 
Beazz
 
Quote    Reply

SpudmanWP       5/13/2009 11:29:06 AM

Spudman :

""problem solved .While the F-35 is in flight, there is plenty of cooling capability""
 
Problem solved ??? Well not at all , sorry to say . The F-35 heat problem is only showing itself now because you more or less started critical test flights you should have done a year ago but you knew that it wouldn 't work .

Furthermore the B version (STOVL) has more than 3 tons less internal fuel than the A and C version , why that ?
 
Because the thing can 't take off with a heavy load . It is why I asked how much a F-35B could bring to the enemy (and without asking for multiple in-flight refuelings) . I let you find the answer but I still cannot believe that the UK went for such a dog . A Rafale M F3 is already doing more than any planned F-35Bs , it has almost twice the range and twice the load in deep strike heavy configuration (4.7 tons internal fuel , 5.2 tons external fuel in 3 tanks , 2 long range stand off SCALP stealth missiles , 4 Micas) and it can take back on the Carrier more than 5 tons of stores without any landing problem .

Beat that .
 
Cheers .
Beat that???  Ok, but I need to be blindfolded and one hand tied behind my back in order to make it fair
 
The Heat problem as, related to the cooling fan, was a one-off problem related to the AA-1 design.  this was the pre-weight reduction design of the JSF.  From AF-1 onwards, the fan is located in a completely different location and that heat problem is no longer there.
 
As to the F-35B having 3 tons less fuel... there are a couple of things about the F-35B that you may not be aware of.  The B model is a STOVL aircraft.  That means that it is meant to takeoff using a Short TakeOff (the STO part of the name) and has the ability to do a Vertical Landing (the VL part of the name). 
 
In order to achieve this miracle of flight, the B model has a shaft driven fan (Info Here) that is located behind the cockpit.  The fan draws power from the engine, via a driveshaft, and spins a series of blades (think compressor section of a jet engine). This fan is HUGE and takes up a significant amount of space behind the pilot.

The A and C models do not have this fan. In place of the fan, these models have an additional fuel tank, hence their additional range. Is this a problem for the B model? No, since this is what was required by the Marines.

The B model will be deployed from forward bases or carriers thereby reducing the range required. Also, the B?s primary mission is not Deep Strike but CAS. This again reduces the need for the amount of fuel in the A and C models.
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/13/2009 12:41:52 PM
Beazz , where did I say that the MN is as powerfull as the USN ??? I never said that as it cannot be .
I said that we are the only two capable of mix carrier operations , so please try to read what I say .
 
""The F35 meets ALL heat requirements.""
 
No it doesn 't .
Furthermore , the aircraft has still to be tested in many configurations never tried yet and some more heat problems might come to light and something is telling me that it will happen . Anyway , no engine worldwide runs as hot as the F-35 engine and the aircraft IR signature is enormous since it has no acting cooling whatsoever . I don 't think such IR sig is part of the requirements .
Then , the fuel heat exchange is nowhere to be fixed yet . If the heat exchangers and pumps installed all over the aircraft are failing as it is the case now , a complete redesign is a real possibility .
 
Spudman , are you trying to tell me what a STOVL aircraft is ? Please ...
 
""Also, the B's primary mission is not Deep Strike but CAS""
 
False .
Oh well , just try to explain to the UK that they will not be able to to deep stike missions with their Carriers ...
 
Cheers .
 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    BW   5/13/2009 1:22:07 PM
RN carriers haven't been running deep strikes for DECADES now, so I doubt they'll notice the difference.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy