The F-35 uses its fuel as a cooler. The surprising result is that a fuel tank that is too hot can trigger a refusal to start in order to prevent overheating.
In summary
The F-35 is a fighter jet designed as a sensor hub. This density of electronics dissipates a lot of heat, even on the ground before takeoff. To evacuate this heat flow, the aircraft relies on a common but highly advanced technique: using fuel as a coolant. The jet circulates kerosene through heat exchangers to absorb the energy produced by the avionics and other systems, then expels this heat by burning the fuel or via other means of dissipation. The practical consequence of this, observed at very hot bases, is that if the fuel delivered by a tanker truck has been overheated by the sun, it loses some of its ability to act as a heat sink at the most critical moment: during start-up and ground checks. The US Air Force has recognized a “fuel temperature limit” that can lead to malfunctions, to the point of repainting trucks white to reduce kerosene heating. This mechanism is not unique to the F-35, but the aircraft combines heat, compactness, and discretion requirements, which makes the issue more visible.
The unusual fact and what it really means
The story is well known because it is counterintuitive: a state-of-the-art fighter jet may refuse to start if the fuel is too hot. The important point is not that “the aircraft is fragile.” The important point is the thermal equation.
On the ground, a modern fighter jet consumes energy to start its turbines, power its computers, align its sensors, check its connections, and stabilize its systems. This energy is not only converted into useful power. Some of it becomes heat that must be dissipated immediately. On the F-35, the cooling system is so integrated into the energy chain that if thermal equilibrium is not guaranteed at startup, the safety logic can prevent startup or trigger a protection mechanism.
This mechanism was publicized in 2014 at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona, where the US Air Force explained that it had painted tanker trucks white to reduce the heating of the fuel delivered, specifying that the F-35 has a fuel temperature threshold above which it may not function properly. The important detail: the solution was not to “change the aircraft” at the time, but to cool the fuel delivered, thereby improving the fuel’s ability to absorb heat in the first few minutes.
The physical reason behind choosing fuel as a cooler
On an aircraft, heat is a silent enemy. It degrades reliability, distorts measurements, reduces component life, and imposes operating limitations. “Highly electric” platforms have amplified the problem: AESA radars, data fusion computers, electronic warfare systems, links, and onboard computing power.
Why use fuel as a solution? Because it is already there, in large quantities, and it circulates. A liter of fuel can absorb a certain amount of thermal energy before becoming too hot. As long as the fuel remains within an acceptable temperature range, it can serve as a mobile thermal reserve. This is exactly what modern architecture is looking for: an available fluid, without adding a heavy cooling system with external radiators, which are vulnerable and detrimental to stealth.
But this strategy has a simple limitation: if the fuel is already hot, it has “less margin” to absorb heat from the systems. Worse, it can become a source of heat that spreads instead of removing it.
The general operation of the F-35’s thermal chain
The F-35 relies on an integrated system often described as a PTMS (Power and Thermal Management System). The objective is twofold: to supply energy and manage heat. In the F-35’s architecture, this integration is associated with a key component, the Integrated Power Package, which combines functions that were more separate on older aircraft.
Without going into classified diagrams, the logic is as follows:
- Equipment and computers generate a thermal load.
- This heat is captured via exchangers, often through an intermediate fluid (oil, equipment coolant, air conditioning), and then transferred to the fuel.
- The “heated” fuel is then either consumed by the engine or returned to areas where it can lose some of its heat, depending on the usage profile and configuration.
- Final dissipation can occur through combustion (the fuel is used by the engine) and through heat exchange with the air, depending on the flight phases and the systems in use.
This is a dynamic process. It depends on the fuel flow rate, the initial temperature, electrical requirements, the outside temperature, and the time spent on the ground.
The critical phase of ground start-up
Why does the “hot fuel” incident occur mainly on the ground? Because on the ground, the aircraft does not have the advantage of the relative airflow it will have in flight, and because the start-up sequence may require a power increase in the systems even before “natural” heat dissipation is optimal.
The logic is brutal:
- During start-up, the aircraft needs to stabilize its systems and power its electronics.
- These electronics heat up quickly.
- If the fuel is too hot, it absorbs less.
- The thermal management system may estimate that the temperature of certain subsystems will rise too quickly and activate a protection mechanism.
The US Air Force did not publish a precise temperature figure in its 2014 communication, but it acknowledged the existence of a threshold. Above all, it confirmed the operational effect: shutdowns or an inability to meet sortie requirements if fuel heating is not controlled.
The difference between “start refusal” and “aircraft unusable”
Two realities must be distinguished.
The first is start-up protection. Here, the issue is immediate: avoiding starting a chain that could overheat before it has stable cooling capacity.
The second is thermal performance during a mission. Here, the issue is broader: an aircraft may take off, but certain sensor modes may be limited, or operating times may be reduced in high heat conditions. These “thermal margin” issues have been discussed publicly in relation to developments in the F-35, particularly with the arrival of new software and sensor capabilities, which increase the demand for cooling. This is also why the industry is talking about improvements in cooling and power, with laboratory demonstrations of solutions aimed at significantly higher cooling capacities.
The bottom line is that the more electronic capabilities are added, the greater the thermal debt becomes. If dissipation is not scaled up, we end up flying an aircraft that is “restricted” by temperature instead of flying it tactically.
The technical constraints of heated fuel
Using fuel as a coolant is not “free.” Two constraints dominate.
The first is the thermal stability of the fuel. Overheated kerosene can form deposits in hot areas, a phenomenon often referred to as coking. This causes clogging, reduces flow sections, and degrades heat exchangers. In an architecture that circulates fuel in thermally stressed areas, this risk is central.
The second is flow management. To absorb more heat, fuel flow is required, which means choices have to be made about recirculation and routing. However, these choices have an impact on pressure, engine fuel supply operation, and safety. It is easy to understand why safeguards are in place: at certain times, the system margin is too low to accept fuel that is already very hot.
Other aircraft that use fuel as a heat sink
The F-35 did not invent this concept. Many aircraft use fuel as a heat sink, via fuel-oil or fuel-air exchangers, particularly to cool engine oil, certain equipment, or air conditioning systems.
What changes with the F-35 is the intensity and dependence: the density of electronics, the desire for integration, and constraints of discretion (fewer visible air intakes or radiators) make the architecture more sensitive to initial conditions.
Technical publications on aircraft such as the F-22 describe architectures where fuel is used to reject heat, with exchangers and a logic of transfer to the outside air. And, more broadly, the literature on aeronautical thermal management reminds us that fuel is a classic “thermal reservoir” on modern aircraft, particularly those that increase their onboard electrical power.
So yes, there are other aircraft “like that.” But the F-35 has made the subject popular because the constraint has become visible in daily operations, even influencing ground practices such as the color of refueling trucks.
Very concrete operational implications
On a hot base, fuel stored in a tanker truck can gain several degrees due to solar radiation and ambient temperature. This warming reduces the thermal margin available at the time of refueling. The F-35, which relies on this fuel to dissipate some of its internal heat, can then find itself close to its limits within the first few minutes.
The most pragmatic response is logistical:
- better protect trucks from the sun,
- limit waiting times,
- choose reflective paints and coatings,
- organize procedures to prevent fuel from “cooking” in the tank.
This is exactly what the US Air Force explained in 2014: repainting in white to reduce heating, in order to limit the risk of shutdowns or malfunctions related to fuel temperature.
This illustrates an often underestimated reality: an aircraft’s performance is not only in the aircraft itself. It depends on the ecosystem on the ground.
The editorial interpretation behind this technical detail
This topic is interesting because it breaks a reflex: the belief that a heat problem is an “engineering detail.” In a digital weapons system, heat is a strategic factor. It determines availability, output rates, and the ability to withstand a crisis over time.
The fact that an aircraft can be disrupted by fuel that is too hot is not absurd. It is the logical consequence of an architectural choice: maximizing electronic capabilities in a compact volume and using existing resources, including fuel, to manage thermal energy. When everything is going well, it’s elegant. When the margin is small, a truck parked in the sun becomes a factor in operational readiness.
And it is also a warning for the future: future programs, which will be even more “software-defined,” will have to integrate the thermal issue from the outset, or accept that availability will be dictated by the weather.
Sources
- U.S. Air Force, “Luke AFB changes refueling truck color, mitigates F-35 shutdowns,” December 6, 2014
- Air Education and Training Command, “Luke changes refueling truck color, mitigates F-35 shutdowns,” December 5, 2014
- Breaking Defense, “The Tale Of The F-35 And Hot Jet Fuel,” December 10, 2014
- The Aviationist, “Fuel Trucks for the F-35 Painted White to keep the Jet Fuel Cool,” December 10, 2014
- Collins Aerospace (RTX), EPACS / Power and Thermal Management System for F-35 page (cooling capacity demonstration)
- Honeywell Aerospace, “Power and Thermal Management System (PTMS)” and F-35 PTMS information
- Lockheed Martin, “F-35 Air Vehicle Technology Overview” (technical summary document)
- SAE International, “F-22 Environmental Control/Thermal Management/Fluid Transport Optimization,” 2000
- NATO STO / RTO Educational Notes, “Aerothermal Design of an Engine/Vehicle Thermal Management System” (FTMS and fuel as heat sinks)
- Cranfield University (repository), “Aircraft thermal management: practices, technology, system integration and challenges” (review of fuel as heat sinks)
Live a unique fighter jet experience