LastOfGunfightersAlso F-15 has gained weight over the years. F-15K is already in 20ton class. I am sure F-15SA will be even heavier. Su-35 is close to original Su-27 in weight class that’s why more powerful engines does not inhibit it’s range with 4AAM. There is no decade separating them as both planes got powerful engines at same time. F-15C is MIG-29 class in range and power.
The big weight gain with the F-15 came with the F-15E which had a stronger airframe due to the payloads it would often be carrying. Any weight gain in subsequent variants of the F-15E has been minor. To compare it in range and power to the MiG-29 is absolutely false. Original MiG-29 has abysmal range and is a lot closer to the F/A-18 in terms of engine power.
The USN had the F-14D that they could have chosen to keep had it wanted something larger. Even before that, there was the N-ATF that they also passed on so there were options that they chose not to exercise, primarily for the sort of mission they were gearing up for and the sort of budget they expected.
The USN couldn’t really have chosen to keep the F-14D, politics left them without the option to continue F-14 production and upgrades.
LastOfGunfightersOf course IR reduction is minimal when you compare it to all of the effort that goes into reducing RCS but you’re essentially denying that any effort was made which is pure nonsense. Meanwhile you’re presuming the F-35 is going to be one of the most visible on IR based on what, having a big engine?
Do you really think all of the work done with LOAN and elsewhere to minimize IR signature was thrown out when it came time to build the actual F-35? Yes it isn’t all that impressive compared to the scheme used by Northrop’s F-23 but it is still something versus the nothing you’ll find on most fighters.
LastOfGunfightersI seem to recall reading somewhere that the Germans were quite taken with the F/A-18 in the early 80s……………anyone else recall anything like that?
I know McDonnell Douglas tried to interest several countries (presumably including Germany) in a heavily redesigned/upgraded F/A-18 proposal as an alternative to pursuing development of the Eurofighter. The most radical of their proposals actually featured a delta-canard layout IIRC.
LastOfGunfightersThere are no IR suppression measures to speak of..
The engine nozzle likely includes some features designed to reduce IR signature to some extent that is achievable without adding too much weight/complexity. At least that was indicated to be true of the LOAN nozzle that was originally tested on a F-16 back in the early 2000s.
LastOfGunfightersThe six aam internal arrangement wasnt taken out of the development map to “someday if ever”?
Last I saw it was still in the Block 4.something list of things to integrate.
I do think they should make one of the weapon stations in each bay compatible with the AIM-9X which is supposed to be capable of LOAL. 4x BVR missiles and 2x all-aspect WVR missiles is a decent loadout for air-to-air.
LastOfGunfightersI don’t understand why the Block 50 would offer such an improvement over the Block 52. The engine may have slightly more thrust than the F100-PW-229 but that’s offset by some additional weight. Both aircraft have the same intake unlike some of the earlier F-16 Blocks.
LastOfGunfightersThose are the specs for the “A” mentioned in AVM Osley’s testimony to Australian Parliament. That was based on end of life engine assumptions, with full weapon and full load.
I have heard this testimony mentioned before as proof that those specs are one in the same but I’ve never read the actual text from that testimony, is a record available online anywhere? It just seems odd that such an old document would be referenced so many years into the program.
The F-35C…. a single engined 34,500 lb fighter that does not conform to sears-haack fineness nor particularly good area ruling is not going to have very good acceleration. The F-35A has less drag and a better thrust to weight ratio than the other two variants. The F-15 is actually a draggy shape in the transonic compared to even the F-4, but it has far more power.
I’ve got to agree about the F-35C unfortunately. It’s not a speed demon and nor is the F/A-18 for that matter. Someday I hope the USN gets something that can match or exceed the fast and high raw performance the F-14D had.
Why would a longer aircraft be significantly larger and heavier? It would be slimmer, for the same volume. Other aircraft of the same weight class (F-105, F-4, F-15) are all 19+ meters.
Yet among those only the F-105 had an internal weapons bay and it wasn’t particular large, only enough for a single tactical nuclear bomb. The F-35 seems to weigh more than one would expect due to all of the internal stores/fuel. Same reason the F-22 is over 10,000 lbs heavier than the F-15. Having no restrictions on dimensions might have enabled somewhat better performance but not anywhere near much as many seem to think.
Yes, the comparable footprint has become a factor. CALF has grown into JSF, but it wasn’t allowed to grow in length. I guess if it was an USAF only, 600nm 2x 2000lbs bomb strike fighter, length would be ~19m.
But with a length of 19 meters you’re dealing with something about the physical size of the F-15 with all of that added work even if it did have just one engine. It wouldn’t be suitable to the numbers wanted out of the entire JSF program. I think something in the range of 16 to 17 meters would be more likely.
Well I thought it was maneuver weight as in note 2. FBW has other, probably better info.
Maybe they didn’t think the C required such a big wing initially. X-35C wing area was roughly 50 m2 whereas on the F-35C its a massive 62 m2… X-35A to F-35 both around 42 m2.
I wasn’t aware of such a large difference between the wing/tail area of the X-35C and F-35C, but that could certainly explain a lot.
LastOfGunfightersNo, a voluminous fuselage is required. It only becomes fat when you’re forced to design that volume into a short fuselage.
The acceleration requirements were not the same for the 3 variants:
A longer aircraft although more aerodynamically refined would still be significantly larger and heavier. Yet the F-35 is supposed to have a comparable “footprint” to the F-16 or F/A-18. I’d guess the elevator dimensions of LHAs, LHDs, and the UK’s Queen Elizabeth class carrier did play a factor in fixing the overall length but even the earliest estimates showed the size they wanted the ASTOVL/CALF/JSF to be. Was trying to fit two 2,000 lbs sized munitions in an aircraft of such size too much? From a purely aerodynamic standpoint it may have been but from a practical standpoint this aircraft was always a bit more A2G focused than A2A.
Revised specs are 63 sec for the A, 81 sec for the B and 108 sec for the C model. I highly doubt even a clean Super Hornet takes that long. Compare that to the objective of 45 sec :very_drunk:
*If* those are the specs used officially for those acceleration numbers and as far as I am aware that has never been confirmed. Also we don’t know the aircraft’s loadout for those numbers. And expecting a mere five second difference between the F-35A and the F-35C with its larger wing and tail surfaces but same overall length? That was downright unrealistic.
Pilot comments about the F-35A say it accelerates better than an F/A-18 and that seems probable to me. I’ll try to dig up that interview where the test pilot compared the F-35C to an F/A-18E in a relatively clean configuration “no pylons, no tanks” were his words IIRC.
Of course the Super Hornet isn’t a very high benchmark to beat in terms of supersonic acceleration, but it shows that at least the F-35C won’t be any worse in that particular area.
LastOfGunfightersWithout the fat fuselage the C would have been less draggy, so would have had more acceleration and supersonic speed. The wing certainly plays a role too.
And it is mind boggling that they missed the spec by so much for the C, WTF were their aerodynamicists smoking? berk..
A “fat fuselage” is required to carry internal stores. Seemingly the specs for the F-35C’s acceleration were the same baseline specs as used for acceleration of the F-35A and F-35B which was never going to happen due to the larger wing and tail. Even so the F-35C matches a clean Super Hornet at least according to one interview.
LastOfGunfightersI am not sure but I think an FB-22 could be easier to build and put in production than an F-23, and it would complement the other aircraft better. The F-16XL was build on GD’s own funds by using an F-16 prototype. The USAF would have to give LM one of the F-22 FSD planes for LM to modify. They would get a good experience on the new airframe, so it would be relatively easy to modify the design for a next generation engine later. As much technology from the F-35 could be reused. An FB-22 with variable cycle engine would have a massive endurence, much better than the F-23, and a good supercruise. It could carry 12 ARMAAMs and 2 AIM-9s and could escort the bombers very far. Even if it doesn’t carry weapons as large as the F-35, it is not such a big drawback because the bombers and F-35s can carry these weapons.
If maneuvrability becomes relatively secondary in the future the FB-22 could have sufficient aerodynamics performances to do the a2a job. Adding a HEL would be hard however.
I think they could have it in service by 2025, which is as soon as the new engines will be available.
Northrop made their own enlarged fighter-bomber proposal, the FB-23 which would have probably matched the FB-22 in terms of payload and range. While the FB-22 might be somewhat cheaper (less so now that F-22 production was short-shortsightedly ended so early) I think the FB-23 would be preferable from an industry standpoint as Lockheed has enough to worry about with the F-22 and F-35.
If money grew on trees I think an ideal USAF future fighter mix to consist of the current F-22As and new production F-22Cs for the air-superiority mission, F-35As to haul the iron in multi-role fighter wings, and FB-23s for the long range strike/interdiction mission. There is also a need for a dedicated jamming platform that can keep up with the fighters, something like the US Navy has with their EA-18G. Yet I don’t know what would be the best airframe for such a role.
LastOfGunfightersI think in hindsight that Northrop Mc Donnell Douglas’s YF-23 could be the new JSF.
the F-35 is a complete waste of time and money when you have PAV 1 & PAV 2 sat collecting dust, when they could be developed as the new fighter bomber.
She has large weapons bays a longer range than the F-22 and is stealthier.
While I love the F-23 it isn’t a JSF alternative. First of all a STOVL variant isn’t possible and a carrier-capable variant is going to be very different from the “standard” F-23. Then consider that suppliers for all of the sub-systems would have to be found and a production line established which is going to cost a whole lot of money. Then a ton of work would still need to be done including the software portion which has caused so much trouble for the F-35. For the air-superiority mission restarting production of an improved F-22 would be the better choice.
A enlarged “FB-23” was proposed by Northrop and considered under one of the programs which preceded the Next Generation Bomber and I still think that concept has potential but if the Air Force was/is interested there is still no way they could get the funding without jeopardizing one of their other critical programs.
LastOfGunfightersI’m not 100% sure these are official DoD documents but here makes mention of the ALE-70 with the first order (318 units) budgeted for 2017.
I think it would be a mistake to presume the ASQ-239 doesn’t have some ECM functions built into the whole system. It wouldn’t be the same as a traditional jamming pod for sure but I’d wager many of these “electronic warfare suites” as they’re calling them on aircraft like the F-35, Rafale, and Typhoon are more than just glorified RWRs.
LastOfGunfightersMaybe if the Brits were to acquire Ospreys for some other role it would be a possibility but I can’t envision them ever buying the aircraft just for the COD role.
LastOfGunfightersA bit late for that now. Improved F-117 variants were proposed over the years and further upgrades for existing F-117As considering but neither occurred. Considering the disaster that was the A-12 Avenger II program the A/F-117 might have had some potential for the Navy.
In most regards even the Block 2B F-35 is an improvement. It can haul JDAMs just as well, has superior avionics, superior flight characteristics, and has a self-defense capability thanks to AMRAAM. The one downside is that it only carry smaller 500 lb Paveway series laser guided bombs internally. Eventually laser JDAM will provide most of the same capability as the 2000 lb Paveway III did but that’s not part of Block 2B.
I wonder if the GBU-27 could be adapted for use on the F-35A/C. I haven’t done the math but I’d guess it fits or almost fits. The seeker head might be too long.
LastOfGunfightersA-20 Havoc
A-26 Invader
A-10Plus, of course –
A-1
A-7Plenty of A-s flown by the USAAF & USAF.
True about the USAAF, but remember the A-1 and A-7 were originally Navy designed adapted to USAF requirements.
The A-26 Invader is messy, having first been the A-26, then re-designated B-26 (not to be confused with the Martin B-26 Marauder used in WWII) then re-designated A-26 again during its career in Vietnam.
Sign In
