A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 3rd 04, 06:56 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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. . .


We can hope the F-35 folks will stand their ground.


  #12  
Old March 3rd 04, 07:10 PM
Grantland
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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), 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. . .


I used to despair.. Bradley, Sgt. York, Osprey, Crusader, The F-22
selection disaster.. - Oh Hell, they're falling like the Brits.. But
now I rejoice. DIE Commanche! DIE Raptor. May you blunder in your
rotten moral failing forever. May all your thumbs be left. May F-35
be interminably cursed by your obese, contemptible innate rottenness..
I turn away, I turn away in promise to the fast rising and glorious
East.. I turn away, and behind me..may the rotted Whore of Babylon die
soon! Rotted, rancid and befouled, forever.

Grantland
  #13  
Old March 3rd 04, 07:44 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


  #14  
Old March 3rd 04, 07:56 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #15  
Old March 3rd 04, 08:00 PM
Grantland
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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

  #16  
Old March 3rd 04, 08:06 PM
Grantland
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(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

  #17  
Old March 3rd 04, 08:27 PM
Thomas Schoene
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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)




  #18  
Old March 3rd 04, 08:50 PM
Thomas Schoene
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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)




  #19  
Old March 3rd 04, 09:05 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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



  #20  
Old March 3rd 04, 09:36 PM
Magnus Redin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi!

"Kevin Brooks" writes:

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?


F-18E?

Best regards,

--
Titta gärna på http://www.lysator.liu.se/~redin och kommentera min
politiska sida.
Magnus Redin, Klockaregården 6, 586 44 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)70 5160046
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.