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

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)

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.

I was thinking more about the cost to make the changes. I suppose it
would matter WHEN the F-22 got cancelled so they could make the
changes upfront.




, 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.

Is that with no external stores?



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).

Yeah I've been hoping that's more than a pipedream on RR's part.
Apparently they say they're real numbers though. I know the X-32's
engine hit 52k in max AB.



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.


I wouldn't be surprised if they were downplaying it either. Back in
the early days of the F-16 they didn't exaclty encourage comparisions
to the F-15 for fear of not being able to buy all the F-15s they
wanted.




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.

Hard to say. In Ben Rich's Skunk Works he related an incident where
one screw not completely tightened down made the difference between
not being detected and EASILY being detected on Have Blue. ISTR the
screw protruded 1/8". And that's with late 70's radar. Then again
there were some pretty glaring goofs in the book so who knows?