![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Scott Ferrin wrote:
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 03:19:41 GMT, "Thomas Schoene" wrote: Scott Ferrin wrote: Nope. The X-32 would have but not the 35. My guess is they could have but maybe Lockhhed didn't want it competing with the F-22. Or they didn't want to pay the weight penalty in an aircraft designed for strike over air-to-air. I recently suggested that if the F/A-22 were canceled, the Air Force might look at an air-to-air version of JSF. An axi-symetrical thrust vectoring nozzle would be high on the list of desirable modifications for such an aircraft, I suspect. I'd think they'd have to make quite a few changes to make it good enough to be the primary air to air fighter. Internal weapon load is tiny (2 -120s) But the bays also have space for a pair of 2,000-lb bombs. If you can't find a way to get another AMRAAM in each bay, you're not trying. Two more in each bay would be harder, but seems doable. A total load of four AMRAAM woudl be small, but acceptable. A toal of six would match the F/A-22. , the thrust to weight leaves a lot to be desired, The F135 is officially a "40,000-pound class" engine, against a max-fuel weight of just under 50,000 pounds. Depending on how much rnage that thrust actually covers, the plane has a max-fuel thrust:weight of around 0.8:1 to 0.9:1. With less fuel (say partway through a flight) it might approach 1:1. (And as Kevin says, taking out the bomb rakcs would help a lot) As a real widlcard, Rolls Royce says the F136 can put out 56,000 pounds of thrust. If that number is even remotely close to right, there's a lot of surplus power potential there. Might have to rethink the inlet design, but that's not impossble for a dedicated air-to-air variant (certainly cheaper than a new plane). http://www.paksearch.com/br2002/Jul/...%20have%20huge %20thrust.htm and how does it fair in the manueverability dept.? (Fare) The Air Force says its instantaneous and sustained g capacities are already comparable to an F-16. They don't say which version of the F-16 or under what loads, but it's a hint that maneuveravility are not too bad. Sure you can add external weapons but then there goes your stealth. Well, there are degrees of stealth here. Wingtip AIM-9Xs might not impose horrible RCS penalties. -- Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|