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.

http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/7...35testb041.jpg

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 ;)

Ref the vid, are they even making the aircraft wear Hi Viz vests now :confused:

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.

Nice to see that even TPs lunge at the basket and can't keep a smooth line on the hose!! ;)

"Direct injection through the lift doors" = plenum burning on the cheap as discussed in the Carrier thread

And will it ever become a `buddy-buddy` tanker off the ship?

It's not cleared to carry tanks currently, making it a bit difficult, however Israel is planning on developing, as are Lockheeed.

Been discussed several times on numerous threads. The USA does not require it and if we want it, we pay for all the costs of the full development of the aircraft and looking at the way the MoD are throwing out silly numbers then no doubt these costs would be in excess of £2bn :ooh::=

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.

30mRad

There's usually a reason why the TP's are making a lunge at the basket. Receiver Bow wave comes to mind.

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......:E

"And will it ever become a `buddy-buddy` tanker off the ship? "

And how about using a V-22 as a tanker? I know they are expensive but they have other uses.

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. :p

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.

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?

In theory much more than F-35B, 9000kg internal cargo, I assume with a rolling take off.

What's the airflow like behind a V-22? Can't imagine its smooth enough for AAR.

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.

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.