F-35A runway requirements

>>34185796

2400 meters is the length that Australia requires but that's not necessarily the absolute minimum distance.

>>34185796
I just remember that the last one somehow ended in 300 replies of Gripen-posting and Sven-memes. That being said, seems like an interesting topic

>>34185846
I am aware, part of the reason I am asking is that there's one highway base here in Finland with a runway I know for a fact to be at most 2400m, on one end the runway narrows down into a regular "one lane in each direction" -road & the runway can't really be extended any further in that direction while at the other end the road makes a steep dive almost immediately after the part widened to be used as a runway ends, I can't say for certain how it compares to the other highway bases, but I doubt the others are much longer.

>>34185860
>I just remember that the last one somehow ended in 300 replies of Gripen-posting and Sven-memes.
these threads always do

>>34185796
>by which I mean how much runway does it need to abort takeoff after reaching takeoff speed with full combat load
should have double-checked what I wrote: how much runway is needed to go from a dead start to takeoff speed and then to a full stop at full combat load.

Probably similar to an F16. Sure it's heavier, but I bet the gear/breaks are more robust.

Also consider if it's a problem they can just take off with min fuel to reach a tanker.

>>34185933

The main consideration is noise. The F-35 is much louder than the F-16. The longer runway allows for low-power take-offs which hopefully will reduce noise complaints.

>>34185946

Oh...
Gay.

>>34185933
>Probably similar to an F16. Sure it's heavier, but I bet the gear/breaks are more robust.
>Also consider if it's a problem they can just take off with min fuel to reach a tanker.
I know it could be hard to comprehend but not every country operates a fleet of tankers.

Let's assume that the country in question has a need to be able to launch fighters from strips of highway, let's also assume that things like "minimal fuel on takoff" and "refueling in the air" aren't options for this country because A) they don't have tankers B) even if they had/they could rely on a friendly country's tankers they couldn't hope to guarantee air superiority to allow for aerial refueling to be viable.

>>34185796
i would guess that you could operate f-35
from 800 m long runway, the things is huge noise concerns for such a short runways

minimum take off distance for a i seems to be around 200m

>>34186026
>I know it could be hard to comprehend but not every country operates a fleet of tankers.

Sucks to suck.

>>34185946
>crying about the noise of fighter jets when you're living right next to a fucking military airport

>>34186059
the question is can it attempt a takeoff at full load, abort at takeoff speed and come to a full stop within, say, 2400m from the start of the runway without arresting cables or drag chutes, we are talking "we need to get these fully loaded fighters to the air & can't have an aborted takeoff delay the takeoff of the others"

Well the F-35C is a heavier version of the F-35A and it launches off a short runway.

>>34186059
The minimum take of distance is not 200m.

One obvious limiter is of course civilian air safety (which does affect the length of which the military builds runways) which means that pretty much all runways will be 2200/2400m (youll also need longer runway to operate other aircraft, such as transport aircraft).

The only place that a shorter takoff/landing distance matters would be if you planned on using your aircraft from road bases, which afaik is a gripen-only focus at the moment.

>>34186096
>Well the F-35C is a heavier version of the F-35A and it launches off a short runway.
the C model achieves the short takeoff by being CATOBAR.

>>34186070
>buy a house in 19xx
>military builds an airfield in 20xx
>this is somehow your fault

>>34186098
>The only place that a shorter takoff/landing distance matters would be if you planned on using your aircraft from road bases, which afaik is a gripen-only focus at the moment.
OP here, coincidentaly the use of highway bases is precisely why I asked in the first place, currently FiAF operates Hornets from highway bases & ability to operate the replacement from the same highways is most certainly going to be a non-negotiable requirement, Gripen NG fills the requirement but LocMart shills keep insisting it doesn't carry enough weapons and/or it's not stealthy enough to be an option as a replacement for 4th gen fighters, so I am asking if the LocMart's trillion-and-a-half dollar wonder can meet the requirement

>>34186142
if hornet can do it f-35A can do it as well

>Gripen NG

if you dum dums have plans to fight russians with anemic light fighter without heavy ewac support, you might just not bother

>>34186137
>>34186137
>implying it's not the other way around 99% of the time

Airfields are not built in cities in the vast majority of cases, cities spring up around airfields.

>>34186163
>if you dum dums have plans to fight russians with anemic light fighter without heavy ewac support, you might just not bother

firstly: we aren't going to fight Russia, we are going to fight The Yellow State that just happens to be a carbon copy of Russia

secondly: found the LocMart shill

>>34186191
>yellow state that is a carbon copy or russia

China?

>>34186280
no, Yellow State is a neighboring country, uses Russian equipment and Russian doctrine & their troops speak Russian but the country totally isn't Russia, Russia is a peacefull nation who would never attack her neighbors any more than try to annex ex-Soviet clay.

>>34186191

>secondly: found the LocMart shill

no you are just as dum as your nation and its rather simple, if you are on budget and those fighters will be active well into 2050 you just cant afford buying fighters are already are outclassed then operate them from position with huge energy disadvantage and expect anything more than buttfuckery

hell even f-35 will be hard pressed to operate from front-line against competent adversary

>>34186163
>if hornet can do it f-35A can do it as well

do you have a source to quote that states that a fully loaded F-35A can go from a cold start to takeoff speed and full stop in less than 2400m without drag chute or arresting cables?

>>34186163
*shoots down your precious f-35 with a Meteor*

>heh, nothing personell, kid

>>34186640
>Implying anyone using a meteor will ever be fighting F-35s
Vatnik please.

File: Hornet_replacement.jpg (736KB, 2000x768px) Image search: [Google]

736KB, 2000x768px

bump

>>34185894
Our (Sweden) highway bases are just 800 meters. But then again, the Gripen (and before that Viggen) was designed with that in mind.

>>34185860
I remember that thread, it boiled down to a Hornet fanboy refusing to acknowledge the difference between doctrine runway requirements and what aircraft actually need.

>>34187588
>it boiled down to a Hornet fanboy refusing to acknowledge the difference between doctrine runway requirements and what aircraft actually need.
as I recall it was actually a retard misunderstanding everything the 'hornet fanboy' tried to say, which was that since

A) Australia decided on a 2400m runway for Hornet
B) Finland's highway bases are also coincidentaly around 2400m

it means both countries arrived to the conclusion that a 2400m is the minimum they need with Hornets, I don't remember how the argument got there though.

Before we start the argument from where it was left last time, while noise levels may very well be part of the reason RAAF has 2400m runways, that isn't the case with FiAF as the highway bases are in the middle of nowhere & as such the noise the fighters make is a non-issue when the fighters are operating from the highway bases, meaning there must be some other reason FiAF's highway bases have 2400m long runways.

>>34187728
No, most air bases have runways that are 2400m. Even swedish ones, because other things than fighter jets land and take of from them.

>>34187728
In other words you got BTFO on what F-35's actually need and changed the subject.

>>34187728
Those finish roadbases was built long before the finns got F-18s tho...

>>34187767
Infact one of the airbases in Sweden has the longest runway in all of europe

>>34187767
>No, most air bases have runways that are 2400m. Even swedish ones, because other things than fighter jets land and take of from them.
the biggest thing I know FiAF has operated from a highway base is Learjet & biggest thing FIAF *has* is CASA C-295, so I doubt the requirement is based on the idea of operating the three C-295s/before CASAs Fokker F.27 in FiAF inventory

>>34187588
It was fun to read, though. Didn't even Dragon come by and try to calm the autism?

>>34187783
>In other words you got BTFO on what F-35's actually need and changed the subject.
nope, the conversation was about F-35 when someone derailed the conversation & I got pulled along.

>>34187789
>Those finish roadbases was built long before the finns got F-18s tho...
the one I have been using as an example is maybe 10 years old.

The only facts which are public are about the B variant which is currently in the following state:

https://fas.org/man/eprint/F35-sar-2016.pdf

>Execute 558 ft. STO with 2 JDAM(internal), 2 AIM-120(internal), fuel to fly 467nm

Unfortunately, if you want a proper STO capability, you need to get the B variant. Though 170m take off distance with a combat load is pretty good.

>>34188153
>558 ft. STO
Plenty on an 844' LHA deck.

>>34185796
>What is the minimum safe runway length for F-35A, by which I mean how much runway does it need to abort takeoff after reaching takeoff speed with full combat load
I'm gonna stop you right there... there's no such thing as a balanced-field takeoff with a single engine airplane.

>>34189843
>I'm gonna stop you right there... there's no such thing as a balanced-field takeoff with a single engine airplane.
are you implying that a critical engine failure is the only reason to abort a takeoff?

File: a69430cea70164eb_800x800ar.jpg (23KB, 800x519px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 800x519px

>>34189843
Dayly reminder that the 4th gen aircraft with the fewest lost airframes due to engine-failiures (number of incidents divided by total number of flighthours) is a single engine jet.

Twin engine as a safety mesure is a meme

>>34186137
Thats life nigga deal with it or deal with the Russians

>>34189980
>it's using the singular version of a twin jet engine
>the other place this engine is commonly used is the fucking ocean

>>34190262
>Thats life nigga deal with it or deal with the Russians
that reminds me: I heard a story once where the teller was waiting for a bus in Tampere (one of our air wings was located there back then) when a Hornet flew over, a man complained about teh noise the fighters "kept making", to which an elderly woman (easily old enough to remember teh wars) replied "I don't mind as long as they don't have red stars on them", shut the man right up.

>>34190300
The RM12 is quite modified compared to the baseline F404, and the F/A-18 has a much worse incident ration than the Gripen...