F-16 Replacement

[carl]

I would be interested if somebody would comment on the range of each of the airplanes and how they would affect ops, especially in the Pacific. I have read that all the F-18 variants are short legged and also that one of the reasons the Japanese wanted the F-22 was they needed a long range airplane. What kind of range does the F-35A and C have?

I know that all sorts of games can be played with range figures, hi vs lo, load etc. But regardless of that, some planes will just go farther than others. And I know everything can be refueled in the air but some need it less than others.

I am interested in what you guys know and I ask because I haven't seen that mentioned yet.

[Cliff]

I would be interested if somebody would comment on the range of each of the airplanes and how they would affect ops, especially in the Pacific. I have read that all the F-18 variants are short legged and also that one of the reasons the Japanese wanted the F-22 was they needed a long range airplane. What kind of range does the F-35A and C have?

I am interested in what you guys know and I ask because I haven't seen that mentioned yet.

Carl-

I won't talk specifics to avoid getting classified, but I can point out the publicly advertised numbers:

The F-35 and F-16 have comparable combat radius:

F-35 vs F-16 Combat Radius Comparison

F-22 is very similar :

F-22 Combat Radius
(note this article says FB-22 would have a combat radius of 1800nm, about 3x F-22)

F-15E has a longer combat radius due to CFTs:

Eagle Combat Radius

F-18 is slightly shorter due to less gas, and being heavier to land on boats: F-18 Combat Radius

Combat radius is the best "range" number to compare - since it compares combat performance. Just "range" means just taking off and flying a given distance- but doesn't include any actual employment or fighting.

Basically, a given amount of gas will get you only so far. The specific energy of JP-8 is still the same- and the motors are not that much more efficient one way or another (only marginal effects). You would think more fuel = more range, but you know have to carry that fuel- potentially more parasite or form drag from external tanks or a larger aircraft, plus more induced drag from having to lift more weight. This is why the F-15C and F-15E have (fairly) comparable ranges and combat radii, since the F-15E has more drag even though it carries more fuel.

The F-22 (and to a lesser extent the F-15) have a slight advantage in that they can fly at higher altitudes than the other jets due to their design - in general jet engines get better fuel efficiency at higher altitudes.

The F-22 also has the ability to go supersonic without using afterburner (supercruise) which gives it a greater radius of action- the ability to accelerate quickly and travel at high speed without massively increasing fuel consumption means that it can get to where it needs to be quicker and cover a larger area than other fighters.

Hope this helps.

V/R,

Cliff

[Cole]

Carl-

I won't talk specifics to avoid getting classified, but I can point out the publicly advertised numbers:

The F-35 and F-16 have comparable combat radius:

F-35 vs F-16 Combat Radius Comparison

F-22 is very similar :

F-22 Combat Radius
(note this article says FB-22 would have a combat radius of 1800nm, about 3x F-22)

F-15E has a longer combat radius due to CFTs:

Eagle Combat Radius

F-18 is slightly shorter due to less gas, and being heavier to land on boats: F-18 Combat Radius

Combat radius is the best "range" number to compare - since it compares combat performance. Just "range" means just taking off and flying a given distance- but doesn't include any actual employment or fighting.

Well I sure won't go classified because have no such access...just like Air Power Australia Will couch my casually informed discussion in China terms as DPRK and Iran don't pose significant SAM or air-to-air threats. Russia has catching up to do on modern fighter numbers and lacks China's defense budget to catch up rapidly...and few would consider the Pak-FA a stealth aircraft or anything projected by the Chinese. India is a friend. Few threats would be able to buy large numbers of export Fak FA because their defense budgets are typically $10 billion or less annually.

Your own link shows an F-16 with external tanks and weapons has a combat radius of 630nm...and presumably will either dump the tanks repeatedly (and create a logistics problem) or live with the radar, reduced range, and performance penalty. Meanwhile, the F-35 to achieve 728nm will dump fewer tanks, then has a clean internal load profile, better turning performance, and more speed/acceleration...and can survive S300/S400 missiles and long range radar AAM. That seems to surpass the F-22 as there is no FB-22.

The F/A-18E/F will be closer to Taiwan than the F-22/F-35 that are taking off most likely from Guam since mainland Japan, Korea, and Okinawa will be too risky from a Chinese long range missile standpoint. The Naval sea-to-air threat won't last long and keeping F/A-18E/F over Taiwan just outside long range Chinese SAM range will easily handle older Chinese aircraft with AWACs vectoring F-22/F-35to the newer stuff. Would guess eventually the F-35 will have conformal fuel tanks to match F-15E and certainly would not want to try to bomb mainland China airfields or amphibious ships with an F-15E given the SAM threat.

Finally, one of these days, a KC-X tanker will be able to refuel all of the above to keep them on station and top off replacement KC-Xs before heading home. I still believe a C-17/C-130 could be modified to have a hydraulic arm extend out the rear of the open ramp and lift a missile pod under and into both the F-35/F-22...at a much cheaper price than new F-22s.

There is talk of F-35 carrying 6 AMRAAM internally and even with just four, you send two flights of four covering a wider CAP than a single flight of four F-22s. The two flights of F-35 would be close enough together that with AIM-120D capability they would be mutually reinforcing.

Its largely irrelevant anyway because in many cases, both F-22 and F-35 will be carrying just 2 AMRAAM and 8 Small Diameter Bomb 1 or 2. Surmise that you don't have to beat their numbers in the air if you bomb. JASSM-ER, and Tomahawk their runways.

Again, I love air and seapower, but suspect we have more than enough of both given our carrier and quality sub numbers and coming F-35 quantities. The counter-missile threat is more problematic (and the poor country's air force) than the counter-air threat...but that too is being addressed. Don't necessarily reject all EBO arguments in many potential conflicts. Certainly can't envision putting land forces on mainland China, and just bombing China rail lines and highways (see the recent problem with 10-day traffic jams?), ports, and establishing a fuel ship blockade in the Straits of Mallaca would be sufficient to end the war.

Good discussion.

[Cliff]

Will couch my casually informed discussion in China terms as DPRK and Iran don't pose significant SAM or air-to-air threats.

Your own link shows an F-16 with external tanks and weapons has a combat radius of 630nm...and presumably will either dump the tanks repeatedly (and create a logistics problem) or live with the radar, reduced range, and performance penalty. Meanwhile, the F-35 to achieve 728nm will dump fewer tanks, then has a clean internal load profile, better turning performance, and more speed/acceleration...and can survive S300/S400 missiles and long range radar AAM. That seems to surpass the F-22 as there is no FB-22.

F-22 combat radius, per the article, is approx 600ish nm. Which is pretty comparable to F-35... and all the rest of the fighters. The speed difference matters too.. the F-35 is not as fast as the F-22.

The F/A-18E/F will be closer to Taiwan than the F-22/F-35 that are taking off most likely from Guam since mainland Japan, Korea, and Okinawa will be too risky from a Chinese long range missile standpoint. The Naval sea-to-air threat won't last long and keeping F/A-18E/F over Taiwan just outside long range Chinese SAM range will easily handle older Chinese aircraft with AWACs vectoring F-22/F-35to the newer stuff. Would guess eventually the F-35 will have conformal fuel tanks to match F-15E and certainly would not want to try to bomb mainland China airfields or amphibious ships with an F-15E given the SAM threat.

The F-18s will be closer... but again they have a short range (369nm legacy, 520 Super Hornet - and both of those are with 3 external tanks!). The better the Chinese Navy gets, and the more anti-ship ABMs become credible, the less help the carrier can be - because you end up spending more and more effort protecting the boat and less effort projecting power. CFTs on F-35 are unlikely as it would ruin the stealth.

Finally, one of these days, a KC-X tanker will be able to refuel all of the above to keep them on station and top off replacement KC-Xs before heading home. I still believe a C-17/C-130 could be modified to have a hydraulic arm extend out the rear of the open ramp and lift a missile pod under and into both the F-35/F-22...at a much cheaper price than new F-22s.

This is not really feasible just yet... you would have to develop some way of towing the aircraft being re-armed or connecting some sort of platform to it. More likely to see some sort of directed energy weapon before you see this...

There is talk of F-35 carrying 6 AMRAAM internally and even with just four, you send two flights of four covering a wider CAP than a single flight of four F-22s. The two flights of F-35 would be close enough together that with AIM-120D capability they would be mutually reinforcing. Its largely irrelevant anyway because in many cases, both F-22 and F-35 will be carrying just 2 AMRAAM and 8 Small Diameter Bomb 1 or 2. Surmise that you don't have to beat their numbers in the air if you bomb. JASSM-ER, and Tomahawk their runways.

My point is that F-35s are going to be doing a lot of other jobs... some will be A-A configured but most will need to carry other weapons, as you point out.

Again, I love air and seapower, but suspect we have more than enough of both given our carrier and quality sub numbers and coming F-35 quantities. The counter-missile threat is more problematic (and the poor country's air force) than the counter-air threat...but that too is being addressed. Don't necessarily reject all EBO arguments in many potential conflicts. Certainly can't envision putting land forces on mainland China, and just bombing China rail lines and highways (see the recent problem with 10-day traffic jams?), ports, and establishing a fuel ship blockade in the Straits of Mallaca would be sufficient to end the war.

Agree on the effects. Not sure on the numbers... China is producing F-10s, F-11Bs, and FB-7s... Our first IOC F-35s are in 2012, with the first deployment in 2014... at best...

I think there is a window of risk over the next 5-7 years. I think you are overestimating our advantage, and underestimating the work other folks have done.

V/R,

Cliff