China Thread

#3,151
#3,151
VolStrom said:
"Just in time" has been a complete disaster everywhere it was deployed. It is a one-time reduction in inventory and gives a one-time boost to the bottom line, but when the SHTF if you don't have any inventory, guess what, you can't do squat.
They adopted that mickey mouse Toyota approach to manufacturing where I used to work, and the first part they implemented was JIT inventory management. Once they figured out that the first breakdown meant they couldn't ship any product, they decided that we needed to focus on maintenance.
When they decided to focus on maintenance, they figured out they didn't have enough people to do the work needed. It was a never ending cycle of idiots making decisions in conference rooms that were, at the end of the day, still idiots.
Click to expand...

You figure some people got fat bonuses for the one time hit when they used up what was in warehouses. Beyond that, you still order the same amount of stuff and then pay additional logistics staff to keep track of shipments. Just never made much sense beyond the conceptual stage. I'll have to admit bias because my job was all about diagnosing failures and getting stuff running again, and the management who believed that everything could be planned and all should go according to plan were a major PITA. I hated budget time. I was like "If we could predict the failures for the upcoming year to know what staffing and equipment use would be needed, then surely we'd be smart enough to prevent the failure from happening at all."
 
#3,152
#3,152
hog88 said:
Just looked up the F-14 range, it's double that of the F-35.
Click to expand...

Non stealth fighters can just add external tanks. I watch (YouTube live) Japanese F-15s flying from Naha, Okinawa with two wing tanks and a belly tank - seems like their normal configuration; there's a lot of water, so range is important. However, external tanks degrade combat ability. That thing in physics class about holding weights out and bringing them in and how it adjusts your spin rate - for a plane that's roll moment of inertia - like how quick the plane can bank and turn to get out of trouble. The F-15EX was first not going to have conformal tanks that fit against the fuselage; now it looks like they will be configured that way. That moves the mass in but still affects flight characteristics ... and they cannot be jettisoned apparently. There are no easy answers, but the F-35 looks to be a contradictory mass of compromises - guess we'll see when the time comes. If I were the Chinese, I think my strategy would center first around killing airborne tankers and carriers.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst and hog88
#3,153
#3,153
AM64 said:
The more I look, the more I see the same 670 nautical miles for both the F-35A and C variants. I thought I read sometime ago the C was more limited because it was more rugged to handle carrier operations.
Click to expand...
No the C has larger wings and carries more fuel - it has a range over 1,000 nmi

It is “sturdy” to take the pounding associated with catapult and the subsequent controlled crashes we call “landings”.

The A is definitely more “agile” as a result of that.
 
#3,157
#3,157
85SugarVol said:
No the C has larger wings and carries more fuel - it has a range over 1,000 nmi

It is “sturdy” to take the pounding associated with catapult and the subsequent controlled crashes we call “landings”.

The A is definitely more “agile” as a result of that.
Click to expand...

Remember range is effectively half the combat radius that I was quoting - except I did mix terms and call it combat range instead of radius. Since it's not a one way trip, you can fly out at most half the total range if you plan to reuse the plane. If the Chinese concentrated on definitely unstealthily airborne tankers, that really makes limited combat radius a big factor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
#3,158
#3,158
85SugarVol said:
No the C has larger wings and carries more fuel - it has a range over 1,000 nmi

It is “sturdy” to take the pounding associated with catapult and the subsequent controlled crashes we call “landings”.

The A is definitely more “agile” as a result of that.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen the 1K mile number..thought it was only a few more miles..like 750m
AM-The C has a bigger wing for better lift for better carrier handling with slightly increased parasitic drag.

More bad news

The Pentagon will have to live with limits on F-35’s supersonic flights
 
#3,159
#3,159
AM64 said:
Remember range is effectively half the combat radius that I was quoting - except I did mix terms and call it combat range instead of radius. Since it's not a one way trip, you can fly out at most half the total range if you plan to reuse the plane. If the Chinese concentrated on definitely unstealthily airborne tankers, that really makes limited combat radius a big factor.
Click to expand...
We have a serious range problem - that’s a fact.

But the C has longer legs than the A, regardless of whether we’re talking range or radius.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
#3,160
#3,160
AM64 said:
Remember range is effectively half the combat radius that I was quoting - except I did mix terms and call it combat range instead of radius. Since it's not a one way trip, you can fly out at most half the total range if you plan to reuse the plane. If the Chinese concentrated on definitely unstealthily airborne tankers, that really makes limited combat radius a big factor.
Click to expand...

Maybe we can treat them like Doolittle B-24's and doubling their range by making them one way trips! Edit: radius
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and 85SugarVol
#3,161
#3,161
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#3,163
#3,163
AM64 said:
Non stealth fighters can just add external tanks. I watch (YouTube live) Japanese F-15s flying from Naha, Okinawa with two wing tanks and a belly tank - seems like their normal configuration; there's a lot of water, so range is important. However, external tanks degrade combat ability. That thing in physics class about holding weights out and bringing them in and how it adjusts your spin rate - for a plane that's roll moment of inertia - like how quick the plane can bank and turn to get out of trouble. The F-15EX was first not going to have conformal tanks that fit against the fuselage; now it looks like they will be configured that way. That moves the mass in but still affects flight characteristics ... and they cannot be jettisoned apparently. There are no easy answers, but the F-35 looks to be a contradictory mass of compromises - guess we'll see when the time comes. If I were the Chinese, I think my strategy would center first around killing airborne tankers and carriers.
Click to expand...
The F-35C can carry drop tanks too.

In theory they could fly on tanks out as far as they would take them, drop the tanks, and go “dark” the rest of the way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#3,168
#3,168
Orangeburst said:
The B's might be the only tac air left after all the bases are wiped out.
Click to expand...
The B gets a bad rap.

Yes, it is expensive
Yes, it lacks compared to it’s sisters
Yes, it is difficult to operate

But it can literally take off and land from anywhere - that’s what it does.
 
#3,171
#3,171
Give me 50 SSGN's with hypersonic and cruise missiles capable of deploying smart sub munitions
 
#3,173
#3,173
85SugarVol said:
We have a serious range problem - that’s a fact.

But the C has longer legs than the A, regardless of whether we’re talking range or radius.
Click to expand...

Every place I look I keep coming up with numbers something like this

Range:
F-35A: 2,800 km / 1,700 mi / 1,500 nmi
F-35B: 1,700 km / 900 nmi
F-35C: 2,200 km / 1,200 nmi

Combat range:
F-35A:
1,239 km / 770 mi / 669 nmi - on internal fuel
1,410 km / 870 mi / 760 nmi - interdiction mission on internal fuel, for internal air to air configuration
F-35B: 935 km / 505 nmi
F-35C: 1,241 km / 670 nmi
Click to expand...

And you are right the C carries more fuel than the A

F-35A: 8,391 kg / 18,498 lb internal fuel
F-35B: 6,045 kg / 13,326 lb
F-35C:13,326 lb19,624 lb / 8,901 kg
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol and Orangeburst
#3,175
#3,175
85SugarVol said:
Yes. The larger wings are to keep it “up” for slow speed carrier landings.

But they fill those wings with fuel. More wing = More fuel.
Click to expand...

Is there fuel in the folding part of the wing? I've never thought about that before; but as an engineer, I don't think I'd want to add that complexity.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top