Sounds like you’re not seeing the forest for the trees. This should make it clear as to why carrying fuel internally will have less surface area for a given volume than external tanks. (The four orange cylinders have ~1.45 the total surface area of the single green one for significantly less volume.) If you need further explanation let me know. 🙂 As for the frontal area arguement another mentioned, the higher level of internal fuel for some aircraft is simply from a better use of internal space THAT WOULD BE THERE REGARDLESS. Would the Flanker be skinnier if it didn’t have 20,000lbs of fuel inside? No. Would the Blackbird? No. With the F-35 it wasn’t a case of “hey we need lots of fuel so let’s make it fat” but “we have this internal space so let’s fill it with fuel”. Also re: external stores is you also have additional drag from the airflow around one store interfering with the air flowing around the one next to it, the wing, etc.

I think you’re oversimplifying, Scott. 😉 Internal fuel is obviously going to have less drag then external on a pound for pound basis, BUT, there comes a point where the “stuff” on the inside determines the size of the outside. (Unless of course, the Brits have actually figured out how the TARDIS is bigger on the inside then the outside, in which case we need to talk… Herself’s shoe closet needs help :diablo:)

Back on point, I think the JSF, like the Blackbird, rapidly approach or exceed the point of maximum spatial effiency, there just isn’t the “wasted space” you refer to. Any additional volume, for fuel or avionics or weapons, has to result in a larger airframe. Now, whether that condition is the result of starting with an “ideal” airframe and packing it solid, or the airframe was expanded to fit the required internal volume is a chicken/egg question. I’m not going to start scrambling hen fruit just to make a point, however 😀 😀 😀

Matt

Didn’t the RAF have another, equally horrible, turret-equipped fighter akin to the Defiant? Memory says there was something, but it could just as well have been a competing design. As far as a competition to suck at anything can be considered a competition, of course 😀

Blackburn Roc, which was even more spectacularly unsuccesfull then the Defiant.

Matt

Edit- soo slow on the trigger….

So can dead people, 😎

But only in Chicago :p

Matt

IF I’m reading the geometry correctly, having the 2 CWIS that far forward should give them more firing angle aft on each side, theoretically allowing 2 or even 3 guns to engage any given target, or three targets on the same vector. A brute force solution to saturation attacks, IMO. Probably a better solution would be a missle based system, either VLS or one launcher paired with each gun to start engaging further out, with one gun based system fore and aft to clean up stragglers.

Perhaps put a launcher in “A” position, Skyshield in “B”, move the other two positions center line with a launcher in “C”, superimposed over the other Skyshield in “D”

But, heh, what do I know… I’m as far away from the ocean as you can get in North America :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Matt

Interesting how the prey has never shot back . . . :rolleyes:

HUH!?!?!??????

Unfortunatly, a reliance on Big Brother© means more of the prey won’t take responsibility for thier own defense, but a sizable and growing portion of the populance here in the U.S.A DOES. It’s not nearly large enough, IMO but it’s a slow step in the right direction.

Matt

Through deck cruiser is a non-starter IMO.

BUT I would like to see the landing pad stressed for F-35 ops. The physical size of the pad shouldn’t be a problem, and it won’t cost much more to beef the platform structure up for the extra weight/impact.

I think the base T-45 hull and layout is as good a place to start as any, though I’m in favor of more beam, both to aid flight ops and help with overall stability.

Matt

All this reminds me of the famous quote about commitees:

“The only life form to have 10 stomachs and no brains…..”

😉

Matt (a willing participant in the madness…)