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

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.

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?

"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

"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". 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.

Some of the cutting edge programs, like Commanche and Crusader, *deserved*
to be cut. Toss the old Navy A-12 Avenger program ionto that same hopper,
along with the Seawolf SSN; if the USAF had been successful in killing Have
Nap ca couple of years ago when they wanted to, it would have fit in there
as well. As to the F-22 (Roche's belated addition of "A" being little more
than a sop to congress), yeah, we should produce enough of them to be our
silver bullet, but unless it is developed to be a better striker as well,
the 200 number look quite sufficient. Are you really worried about Chinese
Flankers? With no effective AWACS support for them, and precious little
tanking support? Not to mention the questionable quality of pilot training?


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.

The only way I see that happening is if they optimize a strike version. The
potential threats we face today are vastly different from what we faced when
we built that fleet of F-15's.


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.

It was discussed before. Again, the only reason I can see for *not* doing
that would be a bit less maneuverability with the larger wings.


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.

I am not sure the FB-22 as originally sketched would be the same as what we
could end up buying. In the end we could very well see a "steroidal" version
of the existing F/A-22, with larger wings and a fuselage plug to accomodate
a larger weapons bay that handles maybe an additional 50% increase in
carriage capacity for something like the SDB. Changing to a different
engine, while requiring some work, is not truly a major change as far as the
overall program would be concerned--witness the past engine changes within
both the F-15 and F-16 fleets. And maybe space for a second crewmember...?
(gasp!)

Brooks

"Magnus Redin" wrote in message
...
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?

I seriously doubt that. ISTR it has a bit of a range problem, and in the
air-to-air environment, the Eagle could probably still best it.

Brooks


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

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.

Some of the cutting edge programs, like Commanche and Crusader, *deserved*
to be cut. Toss the old Navy A-12 Avenger program ionto that same hopper,
along with the Seawolf SSN; if the USAF had been successful in killing Have
Nap ca couple of years ago when they wanted to, it would have fit in there
as well.


I agree.



As to the F-22 (Roche's belated addition of "A" being little more
than a sop to congress), yeah, we should produce enough of them to be our
silver bullet, but unless it is developed to be a better striker as well,
the 200 number look quite sufficient. Are you really worried about Chinese
Flankers? With no effective AWACS support for them, and precious little
tanking support? Not to mention the questionable quality of pilot training?


If all I had was F-35s? Yep. In a China / Taiwan scenario the
Flankers wouldn't NEED tanking. As far a pilot quality goes all it
would take is for someone over there to determine that they NEED top
of the line pilots and in a few years they could have them. Look what
the USN did with Top Gun during the Vietnam war. I don't doubt that
in the end we'd still win, but at what cost? We want it to stay as
close to zero loses as possible.






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.

The only way I see that happening is if they optimize a strike version. The
potential threats we face today are vastly different from what we faced when
we built that fleet of F-15's.

I agree. On the other hand China has close to 300 Flankers and
counting, have intriduce the AA-12 into service, and are working on
acquiring the J-10. I have no doubts that Russia would offer the
KS-172 to China if they asked. I wouldn't want to face a Su-30 with
THAT thing in an F-15. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible I'm just
saying that the cost in pilots and airframes lost would be higher.
This is a rhetorical question but is it worth losing F-15s, F-35s, and
their pilots to save a few bucks by not buying the F-22?



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.

It was discussed before. Again, the only reason I can see for *not* doing
that would be a bit less maneuverability with the larger wings.


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.

I am not sure the FB-22 as originally sketched would be the same as what we
could end up buying. In the end we could very well see a "steroidal" version
of the existing F/A-22, with larger wings and a fuselage plug to accomodate
a larger weapons bay that handles maybe an additional 50% increase in
carriage capacity for something like the SDB.

Something more like what they did with the F-15E than the drastic
changes GD offered witht he F-16XL? It would certainly shave $$$ off
the proposal, not to mention retain more of it's air-to-air
capability.



Changing to a different
engine, while requiring some work, is not truly a major change as far as the
overall program would be concerned--witness the past engine changes within
both the F-15 and F-16 fleets. And maybe space for a second crewmember...?
(gasp!)

Yeah, it had a second seat too.

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 13:14:12 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"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.


Well so much for Tarver being "reformed". You lasted what, four or
five days? I guess it was too much to expect for you to turn over a
new leaf.





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.

*massive eye roll* No matter how it turns out huh? Well I'm glad you
are happy in that little fantasy world you've constructed for
yourself.





The F-35 is going to have to do the job, outside some USAF
F-18E buy.

The USAF would buy more F-15s before they'd buy any "Super" Hornets.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...

I agree. On the other hand China has close to 300 Flankers and
counting, have intriduce the AA-12 into service, and are working on
acquiring the J-10. I have no doubts that Russia would offer the
KS-172 to China if they asked. I wouldn't want to face a Su-30 with
THAT thing in an F-15. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible I'm just
saying that the cost in pilots and airframes lost would be higher.
This is a rhetorical question but is it worth losing F-15s, F-35s, and
their pilots to save a few bucks by not buying the F-22?

You make an excellent case for the reliable airborn weapons platform
designated F/A-18E. The USAF could do well by tabbing to USN's application
of AFRL's parts and software reliability technology. I wonder if the
pirates at China Lake could make the F/A-18x weapons data port USAF
compatable rapidly.