Defenc(s)e analysis frommy corner ofthe Internet.
The thing won't be flying over the arctic north in the first place without A) Extrn Fuel Tanks (possibly cleared by Block IV) and B) A definitive switch in Air-refueling method (still to be developed and funded).Either way, it looks like a block IV time frame for CAF being the most realistic, regardless of any Sat comms pod being hung on the F-35.Not sure if CF-18 can fly that long and the main argument does seem to be that CAF needs replacement fighters ASAP for reliability and safety.
Eric:If what the previous poster says proves to be correct, then does this mean another 65 fewer JSF jets will be ordered, let alone built this side of 2016 or 2018 or 2020 or ...whenever?
Comms and networking with a stealth aircraft are never trivial issues (aperture capability, engineering...location...location...location of apertures etc.) Just like you can't put a drain hole or vent almost anywhere like you can with a conventional aircraft.Looks like another thing that the daddy-can't-program-manage crew can't figure out. Meanwhile.... Super Hornet meets Canada's requirements. Buddy-tanking, low cost crew transition from legacy Hornet to Super and a bunch of other things. But hey... keep pressing forward with the just-so-failed.
As I understand it, the refuelling probe designed for the B and C model can be fitted to the A model with space and electrical/plumbing provisions for it designed into the A model from the start. The integration work may not be as extensive as some would think with all variants seemingly sharing a common cockpit/forward fuselage module? In any case, the additional work would have to be funded by the customer I expect amd the same with external tanks. It may be that Canada could fund such work on it's own aircraft during the extensive period they'll be US based and used for initial training before being delivered to Canada?
And we don't even know if external tanks will be cleared. As one of the reasons it was taken off of SDD (DOD contract 2006) was that it was too much work and risky. Maybe it will see them if the glue-sniffing brigade attaches them to a plastic model. Systems engineering via Revell. This from SP.""At the start of SDD, the F-35 was expected to carry the standard U.S. Navy 480 gallon drop tank, in common with the F/A-18 Hornet. Around the time of the Preliminary Design Review in early 2003, however, at least three external stores did not meet safe release criteria adjacent to this baseline fuel tank. Instead, certain stores would rapidly yaw upon release, creating some danger of striking the aircraft or adjacent fuel tank upon their departure. Sample store separation trajectories for large stores such as a two-thousand pound Joint Direct Attack Munition (2k JDAM) and Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) are shown..."What ever tank they come up with will have to be specially designed and/or like most problems like this is even workable... special configs or release parameters.In any event, no external tanks at the end of SDD.
Maybe they can toe the EFT and stores pylons outward?Or alternatively, a CFT with built-in probe tanking would be sweet.
posting this because for whatever reason it didn't go the first time.--Horde has left a new comment on your post "Comms gear on Canadian F-35 a question mark":Eric:re External Fuel Tanks - almost certainly the case.The 426 gal C-13 configuration recommended after extensive CFD and wing tunnel work leading up to the 2006 decision had other problems. Not least of which being the CG (Full Tank) was well fwd of the 25% MAC with resulting handling/performance constraints/limitations.Case of solve one problem, create many others.Interesting response in 2006, though little value-addition in performance combined with other issues yet to be solved will likely see external fuel tanks become yet another capability put to death.That's one of the upshots of doing multiple CAIV-ings with committees lacking the requisite skills on top of ill and/or narrowly considered requirements' definition, in the first place.
Post a Comment