Military Review

F-35A refueling in the air (video)

84
During their first transatlantic flight to the UK, American fighters refueled 7 once in the air, reports resource Popular Mechanics.




It is noted that "three times the fighters refueled with KC-135 Stratotanker, which unfolded after refueling and flew back to the US, and four times with the KC-10 Extender (captured on video) that accompanied the fighters the rest of the flight to England.

"This number of refueling was done so that in case of malfunctions the fighter could reach the airport for an emergency landing."

Despite the world-famous problems that have arisen in the newest aircraft, all three vehicles participating in the flight will be shown at many European exhibitions and air shows.

Photos used:
http://www.popularmechanics.com
84 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. St Petrov
    St Petrov 7 July 2016 14: 32
    +12
    guys are thrilled! Israel will defeat the Palestinians soon! Wow! Such a feint can be performed by a child prodigy which is just wow!

    Refueling in the air is not a camel to feed you on the go!

    Glory to the American military-industrial complex! Shekels do not have enough gratitude to express!

    1. Baikal
      Baikal 7 July 2016 14: 36
      +1
      ... all three the cars participating in the flight will be displayed at many European exhibitions and air shows.

      For such a powerful country as the USS, 3 aircraft for "many exhibitions" is somehow not solid, or something. The rest could not raise or did not deign?
      1. DIMA45R
        DIMA45R 7 July 2016 14: 43
        +3
        No, they will not reach us, 7 times for a flight across the Atlantic ... There should always be a refueling member in the group, of course, a lot of things have been announced, but in reality so far ...
        1. Skubudu
          Skubudu 7 July 2016 16: 03
          +3
          You don’t need to fight with this fighter, bring down the refueling aircraft, after 20 minutes the F-35 itself will collapse without fuel.
        2. Bayonet
          Bayonet 7 July 2016 16: 16
          +4
          Quote: DIMA45R
          No, they will not reach us, 7 times for a flight across the Atlantic ...

          You are laughing in vain. Such numerous refueling, due to the fact that in case of emergency the car had a sufficient supply of fuel and could fly to the airfield.
          They wrote about this. hi
          1. xetai9977
            xetai9977 7 July 2016 17: 54
            +12
            A good plane, that would not write about it here! All planes have childhood illnesses. Consider, correct. Will go into a large series, the price will drop. What-what, but the Americans know how to count money, you won’t be denied this. They wouldn’t sweep so much money into a useless car. Technology at the most modern level. You should always speak objectively. Taunts and chuckles are the lot of wimps. There are opportunities and brains, please do even better. You can’t be silent like that. Some kind of kindergarten!
            Technique is technique, moreover, OUR or IHNAYA? There is good and there is bad. We need to discuss this aspect, and do not grin in vain.
            1. kotvov
              kotvov 7 July 2016 18: 08
              +2
              We wouldn’t swell so much money in a useless car. ,,
              so what? can you tell me where is the F-117?
              and there’s still a lot of gas stations, or gluttonous or tanks flow lol
            2. quote
              quote 7 July 2016 20: 06
              +5
              Quote: xetai9977
              You should always speak objectively. Taunts and chuckles are the lot of wimps. There are opportunities and brains, please do even better. You can’t be silent like that. Some kind of kindergarten!

              And objectivity is as follows:
              Netherlands - 2 F-35A as of 2016
              UK - 3 F-35B as of 2016
              Australia - 2 F-35A as of 2016
              Israel - 1 F -35I as of 2016
              Canada is a denial.
              The first flight on October 24 2000 year
              The cost planned for the start of full-scale large-scale production in 2019 (19 years old !!!) year:
              F-35A: $ 83,4 million
              F-35B: $ 108,1 million
              F-35C: $ 93,3 million
              We will see further.
              1. xetai9977
                xetai9977 7 July 2016 20: 42
                +2
                Procurement Plans F-35 USA-2443, UK-138, Australia-100, Turkey-100, Italy-90, Norway-52, Japan-42
                , South Korea-40, Netherlands-37, Israel-33, Denmark-27. This is pre
      2. Sharapov
        Sharapov 7 July 2016 14: 49
        +15
        Quote: Baikal
        a powerful country like the USS, 3 aircraft for "many exhibitions" is somehow not solid,

        You probably mixed up the exhibition with a parade?
        At the same time, 3 aircraft in the air - even a lot for the exhibition.
        Taking into account that "many" of these exhibitions are - once a quarter, or even half a year.

        The enemy and his capabilities need to be sober and objective, and not capricious.
        1. iwind
          iwind 7 July 2016 15: 22
          +3
          Quote: Sharapov

          You probably mixed up the exhibition with a parade?
          At the same time, 3 aircraft in the air - even a lot for the exhibition.
          Taking into account that "many" of these exhibitions are - once a quarter, or even half a year.

          If exactly there are 6. 3 f-35A and 3 f-35b.
          Just 3 US Air Force 3 English Air Force.
          Quote: jjj
          It seems they themselves did not expect everything to reach Europe

          It was already expected 4 transatlantic flights in recent times.
      3. Leto
        Leto 7 July 2016 14: 52
        0
        Quote: Baikal
        The rest could not raise or did not deign?

        Are you for fun or sarcasm?
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 7 July 2016 14: 37
      +9
      "Soon Israel will defeat the Palestinians!" ////

      Thanks for your kind words drinks At least someone supports ... fellow
      1. St Petrov
        St Petrov 7 July 2016 14: 40
        +8
        and if you kill all Palestinian children, then you will have no problems at all with the next generations! Think about it!

        And if someone blunders about genocide, you can always say that it wasn't you who first started the Holocaust and they will immediately forgive you!

        And they will give money! But I think I'm not the only one so smart, and you have long since begun to rid "your" lands from all sorts of different Arabs there that get confused under your feet



        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 7 July 2016 14: 56
          +15
          "and if you kill all Palestinian children" ///

          What bad thoughts come to your mind? stop Take a walk in the fresh air, your head will ventilate ...
          1. Starik72
            Starik72 7 July 2016 15: 46
            +10
            voyaka uh. I understand you, Alexey, you kind of defend your state of Israel. But ventilate your brains and turn on the memory of how many YOU destroyed the Palestinians, and how much land you grabbed from them, during the time from which YOU were allowed to form a state on the TERRITORY of PALESTINE. YOU remember and honor the "HOLOCAUST" well, and completely forget about the Palestinian Holocaust.
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 7 July 2016 17: 00
              0
              "how many Palestinians have YOU destroyed" ////

              Destroyed - very few. Expelled - a lot. More
              they fled themselves, afraid of the 1949 war.
              We have a dispute over the land. Someday (when the Islamists
              weaken) divide the land (West Bank) on the negotiation table,
              in love with mutual compensation.
              1. other
                other 7 July 2016 21: 21
                -1
                yes Petrov will not understand this! he dreams of children!
            2. The comment was deleted.
            3. miru mir
              miru mir 7 July 2016 17: 35
              -1
              Well, how much? I would like to ask you to expand the topic, but the article is on a completely different topic smile
          2. miru mir
            miru mir 7 July 2016 17: 34
            0
            I hardly laughing
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. other
          other 7 July 2016 21: 16
          0
          are you in a good mind?
      2. Prisoner
        Prisoner 7 July 2016 15: 27
        +1
        That is unlikely. Palestine for Israel as gravity. It’s hard and hard to do anything. request
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. vodolaz
      vodolaz 7 July 2016 14: 42
      +6
      But wasn’t it cheaper to drag a transporter, or was there such a PR campaign?
    5. Amnestied
      Amnestied 7 July 2016 14: 48
      .
      Quote: s-t Petrov
      guys are thrilled! Israel will defeat the Palestinians soon! Wow! Such a feint can be performed by a child prodigy which is just wow!

      And now, - the halachic Luftwaffe: Goering drank the descendants of the unfinished "harsh" mishlinges - approve! laughing
      1. jjj
        jjj 7 July 2016 14: 50
        +4
        It seems they themselves did not expect everything to reach Europe
      2. Koshak
        Koshak 7 July 2016 17: 30
        +4
        Quote: Amnestied
        And now, - the halachic Luftwaffe: Goering drank the descendants of the unfinished "harsh" mishlinges - approve! laughing

        Some kind of drunk nonsense. I myself realized that I wrote. Before thumping - turn off the computer.
    6. Prisoner
      Prisoner 7 July 2016 15: 24
      0
      And what the hell is the refueling? Israel, Palestine do not pull half the world. winked There, a quarter of the tank is more than enough to arrange a war. laughing Unless, of course, the device is capricious.
      1. ravend
        ravend 7 July 2016 16: 24
        +1
        like pouring into a kettle
    7. Приговор
      Приговор 7 July 2016 16: 16
      +4
      Now half of Israel will come running here masturbating: oooh, F-35 .. laughing
    8. miru mir
      miru mir 7 July 2016 17: 32
      0
      Hehehe laughing I recognize the nasty grin of a Nazi. The article does not say a word about Israel, but Petrov is on guard wassat
      1. Skifotavr
        Skifotavr 7 July 2016 20: 18
        0
        Quote: miru mir
        Hehehe laughing I recognize the nasty grin of a Nazi. The article does not say a word about Israel, but Petrov is on guard wassat

        But when I saw an article about the F-35, I specifically looked at a Nazi party. Well, just don’t feed us with bread, but just give me an anti-Semite in every article about F-35. Miracles and more! Coincidence? Or what is anti-Semitism for the Jewish people now? laughing
        1. miru mir
          miru mir 7 July 2016 20: 58
          0
          And the devil knows him laughing
      2. other
        other 7 July 2016 21: 22
        +1
        fact !! everywhere with our flag runs!)
  2. Coconut
    Coconut 7 July 2016 14: 42
    -2
    Quote: Baikal
    ... all three the cars participating in the flight will be displayed at many European exhibitions and air shows.

    For such a powerful country as the USS, 3 aircraft for "many exhibitions" is somehow not solid, or something. The rest could not raise or did not deign?


    The price of 1 F35 in the base is 112 million green ... although 100 pieces even for mattresses will cost a pretty penny ... and 100 pieces is not enough recourse
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 7 July 2016 15: 37
      +1
      Already 177 were built and 120 are being completed.
      1. quote
        quote 7 July 2016 19: 28
        +3
        Quote: Vadim237
        Already 177 were built and 120 are being completed.

        Shouting "Urya"!

        This is for you, so simple to think about.
        Distance flight:

        maximum:
        F-35A: 2200 km
        F-35B: 1670 km
        F-35C: 2520 km
        Thrust:

        with a combat weight (50% fuel):
        F-35A: 1,07
        F-35B: 1,04
        F-35C: 0,91
        at normal takeoff weight:
        F-35A: 0,74
        F-35B: 0,81
        F-35C: 0,70
        at maximum take-off weight:
        F-35A: 0,57
        F-35B: 0,67
        F-35C: 0,57

        Well, these numbers make me very, very happy. Let them stamp as much as you like, efficiency in numbers!
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 7 July 2016 20: 44
          0
          The question arises from these numbers - when will our, golden, T 50 enter the troops and it will also be mass-produced.
  3. Not served
    Not served 7 July 2016 14: 46
    +7
    And it wasn’t easier not to tear them off the “nipples” at all, so they would fly.
    1. GELEZNII_KAPUT
      GELEZNII_KAPUT 7 July 2016 14: 53
      +6
      Their boobs are just one ... bully
    2. In100gram
      In100gram 7 July 2016 19: 29
      +1
      Quote: Didn't serve
      And it wasn’t simpler not to tear them off the “nipples” at all, so they would fly

      Well yes, the fuel tank flies ahead and a little higher lol
      But seriously, the refueling system is working, and can use it if necessary. They know how. The video is boring in my opinion. I wonder how much fuel pumped during this time (9 minutes)
      1. Alex_Tug
        Alex_Tug 7 July 2016 19: 36
        0
        I wonder how much fuel pumped during this time (9 minutes)

        Dofiga, see formula 1. Shikoko seconds there are running a car.
  4. pavelty
    pavelty 7 July 2016 14: 48
    +6
    I think that not everything is so bad really. And especially do not throw caps at them. Engineers there are also not just eating their burger ...
    1. 73bor
      73bor 7 July 2016 15: 07
      +3
      Yes, engineers there are not just eating a hamburger, they know which side to cut the budget on and for as long as possible!
  5. VNP1958PVN
    VNP1958PVN 7 July 2016 14: 53
    +3
    During the Vostok-2010 exercises, two Su-24M and Su-34 fighter-bomber set a unique record, flying without a single landing from the European part of Russia to the Far East.
    This was stated by the Chief of the General Staff of Russia Nikolai Makarov during a meeting attended by President Dmitry Medvedev.
    According to the military, the SU-24M during the flight thrice refuel in the air, the SU-34 needed two refueling. The flights went normally.

    So what are they bombers request laughing bully
  6. Izotovp
    Izotovp 7 July 2016 14: 56
    +5
    And for what reason gloating? When the airliners of the Tu-95, the MiG-31 pairs and the tanker (I don’t remember the type) scared the amers, everyone applauded, and when did we spend the ordinary private flight that our people make during the hauls or trainings, do you need to throw some shit? It’s just work going on and you need to watch how they organize this logistics and take notes in the fields. But the fact that they can refuel the turntables in the air, but we do not, is worthy of a comprehensive discussion and analysis.
    1. kotvov
      kotvov 7 July 2016 18: 21
      +1
      But the fact that they can refuel in the air turntables, but we do not,
      But do we need it? Or do you suggest, they can destroy countries, but we don’t. As far as we know, we can pull out their helicopters, but they don’t.
      1. Izotovp
        Izotovp 7 July 2016 22: 31
        0
        Come on ?! How nice to feel exceptional, right?
        1. Izotovp
          Izotovp 7 July 2016 22: 36
          0
          Yes, and sea-based helicopters, the possibility of refueling would be out of place: search and rescue operations, special, anti-submarine, drlow ...
    2. Alex_Tug
      Alex_Tug 7 July 2016 18: 46
      0
      But the fact that they can refuel in the air turntables
      Plz, in more detail about technology. You can’t write about twin-screw Sikorski, standard refueling is possible there.
      1. iwind
        iwind 7 July 2016 20: 32
        0
        Quote: Alex_Tug
        Plz, in more detail about technology. You can’t write about twin-screw Sikorski, standard refueling is possible there.

        There is no particular technology. Standard cone hose. And this is one of the reasons why it is still in use. Booms are noticeably better both in terms of refueling speed (4500 liters per minute, against 1500 liters per minute) and in convenience and safety. US Air Force - use mainly the barbell. ILC and fleet cone as they often need to refuel helicopters.
        1. Alex_Tug
          Alex_Tug 7 July 2016 21: 02
          0
          Everything is clear, there is only a problem in the speed of the tanker.
  7. bober1982
    bober1982 7 July 2016 14: 57
    +7
    Class! - and the level of what is called mastery, and the shooting itself. We also have enough of our own masters.
  8. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 7 July 2016 14: 59
    +2
    Fly doves, fly. Pigeons of the world, damn it ... No bottom to you, no tires.
    1. Izotovp
      Izotovp 7 July 2016 15: 05
      +3
      Dove of Peace ... an interesting expression. I feed pigeons at work out of kindness (I’m surprised myself!). It is very interesting to watch their fights, especially when there is a lot of food and the largest chases everyone else instead of eating. Hmm ... an interesting stamp stuck.
      1. Ezhaak
        Ezhaak 7 July 2016 16: 14
        +1
        Quote: Izotovp
        I feed pigeons at work because of my kindness (I’m surprised myself!)

        But I do not feed them. For I can not stand them. One of the most vile birds. I do not know other birds that kill weak relatives to death. Once I had to see such a picture in the early morning. Plus besides, the terrible ones got dirty and over with their knapsacks. They mess up everything where they sat.
        1. Izotovp
          Izotovp 7 July 2016 16: 27
          +1
          Yes, I also do not like them, damn it, proud mountain birds, but still some kind of living creatures. And about the cruelty of the pigeons, I completely agree!
  9. Engineer
    Engineer 7 July 2016 15: 05
    0
    KC-135 with a barbell is good of course. It is strange that we don’t want to use refueling rods. The pilot needs less skill to get into the cone due to the stiffness of the rod and greater stability in the stream. True, the flight process itself during refueling with a sleeve is safer. But the KC-135 can refuel both from the bar and from the sleeve.
    1. Leto
      Leto 7 July 2016 15: 11
      +2
      Quote: Engineer
      True, the flight process itself during refueling with a sleeve is safer.

      Than? The cone dangles, and look and it’s pounding on the cockpit, and the bar is rigid. Well, the rest of the fuel in the hose gives a lot of pleasure when filling the lantern, and the neck for the rod is usually located behind the lantern and American pilots (except naval aviation) are deprived of such a thrill of keros to sniff.
      1. corporal
        corporal 7 July 2016 15: 29
        +3
        Quote: Engineer
        KC-135 with a barbell is good of course.

        Quote: Leto
        The cone hangs, and look and it’s pounding on the cockpit,

        Well, I don’t know, in my opinion the shtanga-cone is easier. However, I respect professionalism, and in this video, I respect the pilot and the refueling operator.
        1. Bayonet
          Bayonet 7 July 2016 16: 30
          +1
          Quote: Corporal
          Well, I don’t know, in my opinion the shtanga-cone is easier.

          When refueling through a flexible hose, the pilot of a refueling aircraft has to maintain a distance with jewelry accuracy, when using a rod, a rigid coupling is obtained and the tanker pulls the refueling aircraft.
      2. Alex_Tug
        Alex_Tug 7 July 2016 18: 56
        0
        the neck for the rod is usually located behind the lantern and American pilots (except for aviation of the Navy) are deprived of such a thrill of keros to sniff.

        Doubtful argument. In real life (combat) it is easier to leave the hose than the boom. Sniffing keros is non-lethal than getting a rocket in the balls.
    2. Bayonet
      Bayonet 7 July 2016 16: 24
      +5
      Quote: Engineer
      True, the flight process itself during refueling with a sleeve is safer.
      In 1985, the crew of the 79th TBAD commander Stepanov got into a very difficult situation. While pumping fuel, the hose at the refueller broke off, whipped over the Tu-95 cockpit, broke one of the blisters and began pounding on the steering wheels, threatening a disaster. Then the commander decided to shoot off part of the hose from the upper installation, which was done. Since then, the ninety-fifths have been flying to refueling with a full ammunition load of the upper cannons. A little later, a similar case occurred with the Tu-95MS, the crew of which, having no means to shoot the hose, was forced to land with such a hindrance.
  10. Leonid Har
    Leonid Har 7 July 2016 15: 06
    0
    And what about the lack of an additional tank in the F35 design in previous articles? And why refuel 7 times, if you can hang additional tanks and refuel 3 times. True, then stealth will suffer.
    1. Alexei-
      Alexei- 7 July 2016 17: 14
      0
      nothing affects the stealth. They fly with lenses.
      http://nortwolf-sam.livejournal.com/572203.html
    2. Alex_Tug
      Alex_Tug 7 July 2016 19: 03
      0
      there are no suspension nodes, the stealth somehow doesn’t care to fly to the exhibition.
  11. Tatar 174
    Tatar 174 7 July 2016 15: 06
    +2
    Different air refueling systems, we have one, they have a different one. Pilots well done, this is how much perseverance you need smile fellow , so that with seven refueling and across the Atlantic "to overcome space and expanse"! Well, ours fly no worse and not only fly, but also successfully perform combat missions! And they wonder if they have something like our glorious Aviamarsh?
  12. Banishing liberoids
    Banishing liberoids 7 July 2016 15: 08
    -1
    It is not right!!! The plane had to refuel the tanker from the water, and the hose should be extended to the ship for the whole flight !!! It remains to solve a real trifle — to disperse the refueling vessel to a speed equal to the speed of the fighter.
  13. Taygerus
    Taygerus 7 July 2016 15: 19
    0
    and, what’s surprising, well refueled so what?
    1. corporal
      corporal 7 July 2016 15: 31
      +1
      Quote: Taygerus
      and, what’s surprising, well refueled so what?

      And you, dear pilots, ask a question: is it easy or do you have to sweat?
  14. vadimtt
    vadimtt 7 July 2016 15: 44
    +1
    It is strange that they still have not automated this process. In theory, it should lend itself well to automation, which will significantly reduce the load on the pilots, and there will be less risks.
    Or is everything on autopilot done?
    1. Izotovp
      Izotovp 7 July 2016 16: 09
      +1
      There are such vibrations and chatter that only pilot skill, only handles.
  15. Abbra
    Abbra 7 July 2016 15: 56
    -1
    Damn, we would like our man to sit in the tanker. And I would pour 76 th gasoline diluted, for courage, with moonshine into his throat! drinks
    1. Abbra
      Abbra 8 July 2016 10: 19
      0
      This is me an American pilot minus set .... wassat
  16. Corsair0304
    Corsair0304 7 July 2016 16: 03
    +2
    Well, how much did they fly? Neither go out nor stretch or stretch. In our Su-34s, you can even stand up in the cockpit, whirl around or something, warm up the borscht in the microwave, and set up different needs .. But what about these diapers? What if it’s an adult?
    Although I will not say anything - the video of refueling in the air is even nothing.
  17. BABA SHURA
    BABA SHURA 7 July 2016 16: 05
    0
    Did he get sick on the needle? Why so long?
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 7 July 2016 16: 32
      0
      Well, to pump a few tons of fuel, how long does it take? there you will not get lost.
  18. bolgove
    bolgove 7 July 2016 16: 57
    0
    Straight pestle and stamen ....))

    But seriously, without stopping the engine, how then will they drop the readings of the fuel level on the dashboard?)))
  19. evge-malyshev
    evge-malyshev 7 July 2016 17: 13
    +2
    I did not read other comments, but I will say the following from myself:
    - for merikos, refueling in the air is a fairly routine procedure;
    - but I was surprised by a rather long refueling time: from the moment
    Forging refueling before undocking with the refueling machine passed the order
    7,5 - 8,0 minutes With a filling capacity of 1000-1200 l / min, this
    7500 - 9600l with an F-35 fuel tank capacity of about 10000l.

    Question: Can the Merikos really allow such a tiny amount of fuel before refueling? Brave guys.
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet 7 July 2016 18: 55
      0
      Quote: evge-malyshev
      Question: Can the Merikos really allow such a tiny amount of fuel before refueling?

      On the contrary, they made 7 refueling so that the car constantly had a sufficient supply of fuel allowing it to fly to the airfield in case of an emergency. They wrote about it.
  20. Vladimir 1964
    Vladimir 1964 7 July 2016 19: 33
    +1
    Refueling was done at a good level, urya-patriots can instruct at least a bag of minuses, do not care. No matter how someone treats the Americans, a smart person will understand that the refueling is almost perfect. On a rigid boom, the pilots practically did not make a single mistake, and a couple of times the fighter "chattered", I honestly did not understand the reasons, but in general the level of training of the fighter pilot is high.
    1. Alex_Tug
      Alex_Tug 7 July 2016 19: 47
      0
      On a tough boom, the pilots made virtually no mistakes

      No one denies the skill of the operator, on the hose 2 aircraft could refuel at the same time. Pure refueling technology.
  21. Vasyan1971
    Vasyan1971 7 July 2016 20: 56
    -1
    "This amount of refueling was done so that in the event of a malfunction, the fighter could reach the airport for an emergency landing."
    Dressed and prayed, prayed, prayed ...
  22. INF
    INF 7 July 2016 21: 33
    -1
    All gas stations in the world, the crew must know ...
  23. clidon
    clidon 7 July 2016 22: 32
    0
    Cool, what can I say ...