Canadian CC-150 Polaris air-refueling tanker / transport, based on an Airbus A310.
It is OK to be critical of the F-35 program. It is OK to report on the F-35. However when some get it wrong we should point that out too.
This article reports that there is a concern that the air-to-air refueling method used by Canada won’t be compatible with the F-35. Not so. The F-35 (if it ever gets sorted out) that the current Canadian government wants to waste taxpayer dollars on, will work fine with either boom or hose-and-drogue refueling methods; as per customer requirements.
UPDATE- After looking at this more, could the Canadian DND really be this stupid? To order their F-35 with boom only refuel capability? If so does that mean that they will depend on the U.S. only for tanking? Will they really purchase a tanker with boom capability? They aren’t cheap you know? Then again, DND “analysis” (read LM briefings and hopes of rent-seeking) on this fiasco has always been faulty. It will be interesting to see where this goes.
Hey, they’re gonna replace ten year old A-300 MRTT in the 2020s, don’tcha just wish the USAF could do that with 40 year old KC-135s?!
I do wonder about the northern STOL fields though. The F-35 has a good wide stance and a long wheel base and it’s hard to imagine that it’s combined aero-braking is less effective than the CF-188′s (Hornet) single slab. Since a carrier jet is not a STOL jet ‘just because’ (approach on the F/A-18C is about 140), if the Hornet doesn’t need short field assist, then the assumption that the F-35A will needs some explaining.
My problem with chasing the panty is that, even if they’ve got the doors arranged so that you don’t rip one off (major stealth owie), you still have an angled fuselage and a 3-4ft wide basket bouncing around within about a yard of the canopy.
Why anyone would want that kind of “I know, let’s do it the hard way!” option if they could go hermaphrodite like the F-105, I do not understand. I assume there are some volume trades going on for power and plumbing vs. avionics but if you are _really_ into FDOW support of Joint Force Operations as a justification for selling 65 jets at 16-21 billion (that’s 246-323 million each btw., at a time when the CAD is about .99 of a USD…) while cutting principle U.S. inventory buy by _two thirds_, then don’tcha think it would be polite to have the option to use the refueling method of the nation most likely to AOD ‘sponsor’ the majority of the ordnance use and support missions, _including_ gas-pass?
Of course, by the time this thing gets to flying, we may be looking at AAR (Automated Air to Air Refueling) technologies whereby a drone surrogate can chase a drogue through a 9ft swing using a combination of DGPS and a video camera. If so, it becomes more of an issue on configuring the tankers with wingtip hose reel pods and making sure the airframe doesn’t come apart in the vortices.
I still don’t like it there are too many shots of people coming home with 20ft of hose wrapped around the forward fuselage…
But if there is a major flaw here it is indeed in the mission profile.
The F135 burns a -lot- hotter than the F404 which means you are pretty much on a cruise control schedule for miles per minute vs. cruise speed and altitude, to make range. The ADIZ mission doesn’t always work that way (podiddling along next to a Tu-9MS watching them crank back the power until you can see the individual props go around) and while the F-35 has a lot more internal gas, it remains to be seen if the jet will fly the profile that the threat _dictates to it_, in the air sovereignity mission.
And if the ‘but it’s supposed to be a fighter!’ crowd get a chance to go with the F136 (with more massflow) to try and crutch the 1.3 cripple up to Mach 1.6 or whatever, then your fuel burn is going to be significantly higher yet.
Possibly requiring external tanks which are not now scheduled to be qualified as part of the basic clearances (remember, the Canucks were the first to go to the 485 gallon jugs on the Hornet, this back of beyond fuel state stuff is -serious-…).
Add to this a single engine over some pretty harsh terrain (leave the jet and you’re dead, more or less) and that massive price tag issue everytime the one pilot light goes out and it seems like everything the CF-100, 101 and CF-188 was bought for is being abandoned.
And as the Alaskan fighter pilots would jokingly say; the purpose of the 9mm pistol in the survival kit is if you run into a bear, you can shoot yourself.
Eric:
This actually is a valid point (and criticism).
The internal (fuel) plumbing of the F-35A (boom refuel) is quite different to that of both the F-35B and F-35C (probe/drogue refuel).
So much for commonality.
Anon:
The approach speed of the F-35A is more than just a tad more than that of the Hornet. Try 160 to 190, depending on the approach weight/configuration.
Actually a customer can specify the hose and drogue refuelling system on the F-35A if they should choose. Space and weight has been reserved within the airframe for it. Nt sure what happens to the boom refuelling receptacle on top of the airframe then. Perhaps it will remain built in to the aircraft and these aircraft would be flexible enough to perform either type of refuelling?
My solution would be to get air to air missiles “fin” and electronic control. Rip out the mechanism and put the fin on that flying fuel hose.
Basically, now the hose can fly/be controlled with little fin instead of flopping around like crazy.
seriously how hard can this be? They can put wind correction mechanism on dumb bomb but they can’t duck tape the exact same mechanism to a fuel hose?