2D thrust vectoring for the F-35A and F-35C?

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
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), the thrust to weight leaves a lot to be desired, and
how does it fair in the manueverability dept.? Sure you can add
external weapons but then there goes your stealth. Then when the
politicians start screaming because the F-35's cost is going up and
service date is getting pushed back so the required changes can be
incorporated. . .

First, you have to accept the conditional that Tom put forward--"if the
F/A-22 were cancelled". If you do that, then what are you *left* with as a
potential air-to-air fighter to replace the F-15C? Only three options are
really open to consideration-- (a) buy newer F-15's, something along the
line of the F-15K (unlikely IMO), (b) buy offshore (i.e., Typhoon)
(unlikely, and yet to be proven significantly superior to option (a)--hold
the catcalls, please), or (c) develop a more capable version (in air-to-air
terms) of the F-35 series. Of course, you could just start a whole new
program to produce a new air superiority fighter...but that would be a
non-starter. IMO, Tom's option (c) would be the most likely outcome.
Maneuverability? Apparently it will be a quite nimble aircraft; very similar
layout to the F-22, and with the thrust vectopring postulated here...
Internal weapons load? Yeah, two AIM-120's would be marginal, but if you are
going to make versions primarily AAW oriented, there is lots of room in each
bay to accomodate another AIM-120 in lieu of the bomb that would also be
carried in the current versions) if they developed a new internal bay
configuration, and four AIM-120's would be nothing to sneeze at. That
thrust-to-weight ratio also looks a bit better with the deletion of 4000
pounds of internal bomb carriage in the air-to-air role--it should be around
the 1:1 ratio in that scenario. It already will have a pretty good AESA
radar, and presumably the required LINK 16 capabilities. So why do you think
optimizing the weapons bays to carry four AIM-120's vice two AIM-120's and a
couple of big bombs would require such significant rework as to be delayed
at much greater cost?

Personally, I don't see any of this happening--the F/A-22 will be purchased,
albeit probably only in the 200 aircraft figure in its current guise, with a
decent possibility of more production in the form of a strike optimized
version.

Brooks

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...


Personally, I don't see any of this happening--the F/A-22 will be
purchased,
albeit probably only in the 200 aircraft figure in its current guise, with
a
decent possibility of more production in the form of a strike optimized
version.

No matter wht the outcome of the F-22 procurement, the F-35 will have to
fill part of the F-15 role. The 200 figue was a 180 figure 12 months ago
and it is decreased by the 17 FSDs, at the very least. A capable F-35 is
one issue, but at this point configuration control is a necessity of risk
management.

"Kevin Brooks" wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .
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), the thrust to weight leaves a lot to be desired, and
how does it fair in the manueverability dept.? Sure you can add
external weapons but then there goes your stealth. Then when the
politicians start screaming because the F-35's cost is going up and
service date is getting pushed back so the required changes can be
incorporated. . .

First, you have to accept the conditional that Tom put forward--"if the
F/A-22 were cancelled". If you do that, then what are you *left* with as a
potential air-to-air fighter to replace the F-15C? Only three options are
really open to consideration-- (a) buy newer F-15's, something along the
line of the F-15K (unlikely IMO), (b) buy offshore (i.e., Typhoon)
(unlikely, and yet to be proven significantly superior to option (a)--hold
the catcalls, please), or (c) develop a more capable version (in air-to-air
terms) of the F-35 series. Of course, you could just start a whole new
program to produce a new air superiority fighter...but that would be a
non-starter. IMO, Tom's option (c) would be the most likely outcome.
Maneuverability? Apparently it will be a quite nimble aircraft; very similar
layout to the F-22, and with the thrust vectopring postulated here...
Internal weapons load? Yeah, two AIM-120's would be marginal, but if you are
going to make versions primarily AAW oriented, there is lots of room in each
bay to accomodate another AIM-120 in lieu of the bomb that would also be
carried in the current versions) if they developed a new internal bay
configuration, and four AIM-120's would be nothing to sneeze at. That
thrust-to-weight ratio also looks a bit better with the deletion of 4000
pounds of internal bomb carriage in the air-to-air role--it should be around
the 1:1 ratio in that scenario. It already will have a pretty good AESA
radar, and presumably the required LINK 16 capabilities. So why do you think
optimizing the weapons bays to carry four AIM-120's vice two AIM-120's and a
couple of big bombs would require such significant rework as to be delayed
at much greater cost?

Personally, I don't see any of this happening--the F/A-22 will be purchased,
albeit probably only in the 200 aircraft figure in its current guise, with a
decent possibility of more production in the form of a strike optimized
version.

Brooks


What you need is an upscaled F-23 Bomber-Fighter Ultrastealth with 60
or more internal sbds or internal 14 RAMRAAMS. A ****ing fleet.

Grantland

(Grantland) wrote:

"Kevin Brooks" wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
. ..
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), the thrust to weight leaves a lot to be desired, and
how does it fair in the manueverability dept.? Sure you can add
external weapons but then there goes your stealth. Then when the
politicians start screaming because the F-35's cost is going up and
service date is getting pushed back so the required changes can be
incorporated. . .

First, you have to accept the conditional that Tom put forward--"if the
F/A-22 were cancelled". If you do that, then what are you *left* with as a
potential air-to-air fighter to replace the F-15C? Only three options are
really open to consideration-- (a) buy newer F-15's, something along the
line of the F-15K (unlikely IMO), (b) buy offshore (i.e., Typhoon)
(unlikely, and yet to be proven significantly superior to option (a)--hold
the catcalls, please), or (c) develop a more capable version (in air-to-air
terms) of the F-35 series. Of course, you could just start a whole new
program to produce a new air superiority fighter...but that would be a
non-starter. IMO, Tom's option (c) would be the most likely outcome.
Maneuverability? Apparently it will be a quite nimble aircraft; very similar
layout to the F-22, and with the thrust vectopring postulated here...
Internal weapons load? Yeah, two AIM-120's would be marginal, but if you are
going to make versions primarily AAW oriented, there is lots of room in each
bay to accomodate another AIM-120 in lieu of the bomb that would also be
carried in the current versions) if they developed a new internal bay
configuration, and four AIM-120's would be nothing to sneeze at. That
thrust-to-weight ratio also looks a bit better with the deletion of 4000
pounds of internal bomb carriage in the air-to-air role--it should be around
the 1:1 ratio in that scenario. It already will have a pretty good AESA
radar, and presumably the required LINK 16 capabilities. So why do you think
optimizing the weapons bays to carry four AIM-120's vice two AIM-120's and a
couple of big bombs would require such significant rework as to be delayed
at much greater cost?

Personally, I don't see any of this happening--the F/A-22 will be purchased,
albeit probably only in the 200 aircraft figure in its current guise, with a
decent possibility of more production in the form of a strike optimized
version.

Brooks


What you need is an upscaled F-23 Bomber-Fighter Ultrastealth with 60
or more internal "little bombs" or internal 14 RAMRAAMS. A ****ing fleet.

Grantland

Plus gun and internal sidewinders, of course. Of course.

Grantland

Kevin Brooks wrote:
[big snip]

So why do you think
optimizing the weapons bays to carry four AIM-120's vice two
AIM-120's and a couple of big bombs would require such significant
rework as to be delayed at much greater cost?

Thanks for the assist Kevin. We seem to be thinking along the same lines
here.

Personally, I don't see any of this happening--the F/A-22 will be
purchased, albeit probably only in the 200 aircraft figure in its
current guise, with a decent possibility of more production in the
form of a strike optimized version.

Agreed. I wasn't putting this forward as something that is likely to happen,
just what might happen if the Raptor program was terminated.

I suspect you're right that the F/A-22 will be built in limited numbers,
though I woudl also not be surprised to see produciton continue after the
intial batch is bought. We've bought far more F-15s than originally
planned, after all.

I'm not entirely convinced about the FB-22 or other strike-optimized
version. It would have to have a lot of range to justify not simply using
an F-35 derivative, IMO. Again, a possible variant comes to mind: A hybrid
with the F-35A fuselage and the F-35C big wing ought to yield even more
range than the 700+nm radius of the C version.

--
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)

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
[big snip]

So why do you think
optimizing the weapons bays to carry four AIM-120's vice two
AIM-120's and a couple of big bombs would require such significant
rework as to be delayed at much greater cost?

Thanks for the assist Kevin. We seem to be thinking along the same lines
here.

Personally, I don't see any of this happening--the F/A-22 will be
purchased, albeit probably only in the 200 aircraft figure in its
current guise, with a decent possibility of more production in the
form of a strike optimized version.

Agreed. I wasn't putting this forward as something that is likely to
happen,
just what might happen if the Raptor program was terminated.

Yeah, I figured as much, which is why I pointed out the big conditional "if"
in your post; not sure Scott caught that.


I suspect you're right that the F/A-22 will be built in limited numbers,
though I woudl also not be surprised to see produciton continue after the
intial batch is bought. We've bought far more F-15s than originally
planned, after all.

I'm not entirely convinced about the FB-22 or other strike-optimized
version. It would have to have a lot of range to justify not simply using
an F-35 derivative, IMO. Again, a possible variant comes to mind: A
hybrid
with the F-35A fuselage and the F-35C big wing ought to yield even more
range than the 700+nm radius of the C version.

I don't know. I see the FB-22, or something similar, offering a couple of
advantages; it provides a solution to the "what do we use to start replacing
the Mudhen in 2015-2020" problem, and it could bring down the unit cost for
a reduced F/A-22 buy as long as significant commonality remains.

I believe you and I discussed the F-35A vs. F-35C issue before over in SMN,
IIRC. I have long wondered why the USAF did not take the larger wing of the
C model, as well. They could delete the wing fold requirement, thus shaving
a few pounds from it, and get that increased range you mention. The only
cost I can think of would be in maneuverability, but that would not be
critical in the strike role. But F-35 users that don't have the luxury of
having a more capable/dedicated AAW platform in addition to their F-35's
(unlike both the US and UK) would likely prefer retaining the smaller wing
and its improved maneuverability. Maybe what we really need is a fourth
version--the current A model for those international users described here,
the STOVL version for the US (both USMC and USAF), the CV version for the
USN, and your A-version-with-C version wings for the USAF CTOL
requirement... Not that there is a chance in hell of that happening, of
course.

Brooks


--
Tom Schoene

Agreed. I wasn't putting this forward as something that is likely to
happen,
just what might happen if the Raptor program was terminated.

Yeah, I figured as much, which is why I pointed out the big conditional "if"
in your post; not sure Scott caught that.

Yeah I got it. I think I was overwhelmed by the spots in front of my
eyes and the onset of tunnel vision at the thought of "cancelled
F-22". I just don't see how we could maintain the degree of
superiority we've enjoyed without it. IT probably wouldn't be the
disaster that I see it being but it's dismaying to see so many cutting
edge programs cancelled and the idea of hoping the F-35 would be far
superior to the latest Chinese Flankers. . .well my money wouldn't be
on it.





I suspect you're right that the F/A-22 will be built in limited numbers,
though I woudl also not be surprised to see produciton continue after the
intial batch is bought. We've bought far more F-15s than originally
planned, after all.

IIRC the original number for F-15s was 729 and F-16s was 1388 or
thereabouts. Both were far exceeded. I think it's just going to
depend on how the F-22 does in service. If they can get the kinks
worked out it wouldn't surprise me if they found a way to buy more
beyond the cost cap.





I'm not entirely convinced about the FB-22 or other strike-optimized
version. It would have to have a lot of range to justify not simply using
an F-35 derivative, IMO. Again, a possible variant comes to mind: A
hybrid
with the F-35A fuselage and the F-35C big wing ought to yield even more
range than the 700+nm radius of the C version.

ISTR that being discussed here before. I'd have thought the USAF
would jump on that too but I guess not.




I don't know. I see the FB-22, or something similar, offering a couple of
advantages; it provides a solution to the "what do we use to start replacing
the Mudhen in 2015-2020" problem, and it could bring down the unit cost for
a reduced F/A-22 buy as long as significant commonality remains.


Just from what they've shown so far it doesn't see like there would be
a significant amount. Maybe the forward fuselage. The FB-22 as
they've showed around has different intakes, would use different
engines, completely different wing, long weapon bays, different
landing gear, etc. etc.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...

Agreed. I wasn't putting this forward as something that is likely to
happen,
just what might happen if the Raptor program was terminated.

Yeah, I figured as much, which is why I pointed out the big conditional
"if"
in your post; not sure Scott caught that.

Yeah I got it. I think I was overwhelmed by the spots in front of my
eyes and the onset of tunnel vision at the thought of "cancelled
F-22".

Even if the USAF gets the 160 F-22s, the F-35 will have to pull much of the
F-15's current duty. It is not as though the F-35 with a high level of
capability is optional.

snip of completely unqualified opinion

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 13:31:57 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .

Agreed. I wasn't putting this forward as something that is likely to
happen,
just what might happen if the Raptor program was terminated.

Yeah, I figured as much, which is why I pointed out the big conditional
"if"
in your post; not sure Scott caught that.

Yeah I got it. I think I was overwhelmed by the spots in front of my
eyes and the onset of tunnel vision at the thought of "cancelled
F-22".

Even if the USAF gets the 160 F-22s, the F-35 will have to pull much of the
F-15's current duty. It is not as though the F-35 with a high level of
capability is optional.

snip of completely unqualified opinion

As determined by Splapsy.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 13:31:57 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .

Agreed. I wasn't putting this forward as something that is likely to
happen,
just what might happen if the Raptor program was terminated.

Yeah, I figured as much, which is why I pointed out the big
conditional
"if"
in your post; not sure Scott caught that.

Yeah I got it. I think I was overwhelmed by the spots in front of my
eyes and the onset of tunnel vision at the thought of "cancelled
F-22".

Even if the USAF gets the 160 F-22s, the F-35 will have to pull much of
the
F-15's current duty. It is not as though the F-35 with a high level of
capability is optional.

snip of completely unqualified opinion

As determined by Splapsy.

As defined by your lack of any connection to the discussion at hand, Ferrin.

Any way the F-22 program turns out now, I will have been correct in my
agreement with the Congressman for California that the program should have
died in '98. The F-35 is going to have to do the job, outside some USAF
F-18E buy.