F35 AAR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Island of Aphrodite
Age: 75
Posts: 530
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F35 AAR
A question about the air to air refueling system fitted to the F35.
The F35A has a receptacle for the boom of a USAF type tanker.
What are the F35B (primary customer USMC) and F35C (primary cutomer USN) going to have? These two services' fast jets have probes fitted for the Probe and Drogue method. I have yet to see photos of probes on the B & C.
The F35A has a receptacle for the boom of a USAF type tanker.
What are the F35B (primary customer USMC) and F35C (primary cutomer USN) going to have? These two services' fast jets have probes fitted for the Probe and Drogue method. I have yet to see photos of probes on the B & C.
Might be a bit of a problem with the flying boom method on F-35B STVOL..
... `Direct injection` through the lift fan doors might work.... if only briefly
... `Direct injection` through the lift fan doors might work.... if only briefly
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: warwickshire
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is the option to fit other variants with the probe, the C will have the probe only, and Canada and others will require this too (on their 'a's). There was a document posted some time ago detailing the fact.
And will it ever become a `buddy-buddy` tanker off the ship?
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sycamore
And will it ever become a `buddy-buddy` tanker off the ship?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am curious as to whether the receiver "plumbing" downstream of the probe/receptacle is identical in all models. If this is the case then that seems likely that either:
1. The -A is saddled with a system that can only onload fuel from a boom at rates equivalent to that from a hose.
or
2. The -B/C is lugging around a weight penalty from the heftier pipework necessary to allow the -A to take proper advantage of boom AAR.
Has Australia made a decision on probe or receptacle for its -A models? The answer to the question above would seem fairly fundamental to that choice. There would be little point in opting for boom refuelling unless there is a substantial advantage in onload rate.
1. The -A is saddled with a system that can only onload fuel from a boom at rates equivalent to that from a hose.
or
2. The -B/C is lugging around a weight penalty from the heftier pipework necessary to allow the -A to take proper advantage of boom AAR.
Has Australia made a decision on probe or receptacle for its -A models? The answer to the question above would seem fairly fundamental to that choice. There would be little point in opting for boom refuelling unless there is a substantial advantage in onload rate.
Receiver bow wave....sounds like a good excuse to use next time I'm struggling behind a tanker! In the GR4/1 we aim up and right, effectively to miss, to take into account the bow wave and thus have a graceful and smooth approach and plug.....apparently....never seemed to work......
Aren't "buddy stores" an external stores kit/module?
I find it curious that the USN did not include buddy stores capability (perhaps internal plumbing mod?) in its final JSF requirement. I thought it was in the original, but may be remembering incorrectly.
IIRC, one way to pressurize the external tanks is via a bleed air service line, though there are doubtless other methods.
I wonder if "the KC-10's will always be there" rubbish was bought.
As to V-22 acting as refueler, there is some talk about using V-22 to replace C-2 for C.O.D. mission. Not sure how many pounds of gas a V-22 could carry internally to use in AAR. Don't think it would be very much.
I find it curious that the USN did not include buddy stores capability (perhaps internal plumbing mod?) in its final JSF requirement. I thought it was in the original, but may be remembering incorrectly.
IIRC, one way to pressurize the external tanks is via a bleed air service line, though there are doubtless other methods.
I wonder if "the KC-10's will always be there" rubbish was bought.
As to V-22 acting as refueler, there is some talk about using V-22 to replace C-2 for C.O.D. mission. Not sure how many pounds of gas a V-22 could carry internally to use in AAR. Don't think it would be very much.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
USN have no need for F-35 Buddy refueling as they have Super Hornet that can do it for them (for now).
Any buddy refueling pod would have to be underwing mounted. Not sure if any of the other USN carrier aircraft such as E2/C2 can carry a pod?
Any buddy refueling pod would have to be underwing mounted. Not sure if any of the other USN carrier aircraft such as E2/C2 can carry a pod?
Not sure how many pounds of gas a V-22 could carry internally to use in AAR. Don't think it would be very much.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BP - rumour has it the configuration is per your option 1: I.e. the plumbing downstream of the receptacle is of the same geometry as behind a probe. Doubles the contact time for a pair while adding a substantial overhead in terms of tanker and crew requirements.
Not confirmed and hopefully duff gen, but current rumour on the street.
Not confirmed and hopefully duff gen, but current rumour on the street.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If that's true, then the probe-equipped F-35A is the better option for customers with multi-system tankers. It may be possible for Australia to reach this conclusion, but one suspects a mixture of dogma and sheer numbers of KC-135s will not allow the USAF to do the same.