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

"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