Bager1968Exactly my point (the PR aspect).
Remember this from my post #129
“It took the need for PR nice-nice with the UK to get it on the F-35, or we might have been stuck with Hawk (the T-45 is the GosHawk, so no conflict in the US), Tiercel, Skua, Owl, or some such thing.”?
And my reference to Lock-Mart having tried to get the F-22 the “Lightning II” name first? That one would have had no Brit link, and without outside support had no chance against the “Bird-of-Prey” lobby.
All driven by political necessity… not logic.
“I had always thought that the JSF would eventually be called JEFF but for some unexplicable reason that didn’t happen.”
The Brits are pretty consistent with calling it “Dave”… as in “Dave-A for the USAF; Dave-B for the RAF, RN, USMC, etc.; Dave-C for the USN”!
All stemming from one commentor’s statement from before the official naming: “It doesn’t matter what they call it… they could call it ‘Dave’, and it wouldn’t change anything.”.
That caught on, and you can see references to “will the RN buy Dave-B or Dave-C”, etc. on dozens of forums like this one. 😎
Bager1968“Ring, Solstice Bells… Ring out those Solstice Bells!
A Joyous Yule to one and all, may the All-Father smile on you and yours this coming year.
Bager1968I know the GosHawk is a Bird-of-Prey, I was referring to the Dictionary’s description of the etymology of the name:
Middle English – goshawke; from Old English goshafoc; from gos (goose) + hafoc (hawk).
Bager1968Well, the head of Lock-Mart certainly acknowledged the EE Lightning at the official naming… not surprising, with BAE (created in a series of mergers which included EE) as the primary partner on the F-35:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=17754&rsbci=0&fti=112&ti=0&sc=400
LOCKHEED MARTIN JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER OFFICIALLY NAMED “LIGHTNING II”
FORT WORTH, Texas, July 7, 2006 —
The Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was officially named Lightning II, in a ceremony held today in Fort Worth, Texas.
The name echoes those of two formidable fighters from the past: the World War II-era Lockheed P-38 Lightning and the mid-1950s Lightning supersonic jet, built by English Electric.
“The F-35 Lightning II will carry on the legacy of two of the greatest and most capable fighter aircraft of all time,” said Ralph D. Heath, president of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. “Just as the P-38 and the British Lightning were at the top of their class during their day, the F-35 will redefine multi-role fighter capability in the 21st century.”
Attendees at the event included U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England and U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley, who announced the F-35’s new name. Also in attendance were U.S. Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn of Texas, U.S. Congresswoman Kay Granger of Fort Worth, and representatives from the eight nations that are partnering with the U.S. in the F-35’s development: the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Norway.
“The F-35 Lightning II will be the centerpiece of airpower in the 21st century for America and our allies,” Secretary England said. “Congratulations to the talented team of aerospace workers both in the United States and from our many international partners on reaching this important milestone.”
Gen. Moseley added, “This aircraft represents the fruits of lessons learned over a hundred years of flight and aerial combat. We’re excited about bringing it into our inventory, and warfighters around the globe are excited about flying it in defense of freedom.”
English Electric, maker of the Lightning jet, later became BAE Systems, a principal industrial partner on the JSF program. With its afterburners lit, the twin-engine jet could reach speeds of 1,500 miles per hour. Like the F-35, the Lightning in its day represented a profound leap ahead in capability compared to the aircraft it replaced. It remained in service until 1988, largely because of its exceptional performance.
Likewise, the P-38 Lightning was built by Lockheed, now Lockheed Martin, the JSF program’s prime contractor. During World War II, the P-38 scored the most aerial victories of any U.S. Army Air Forces fighter in the Pacific theater. Designed as a high-altitude interceptor, the sleek P-38 evolved into a versatile aircraft that was also used for dive bombing, level bombing, ground strafing and photo-reconnaissance missions.
Bager1968The benefit that a more powerful engine brings is four-fold:
1. Better take-off performance, especially with a heavy ordnance load. This also applies to safety margins at low altitudes.
2. Higher payload capabilities. Allows take-off with more weight, and also keeps airspeed from degrading as much from the extra drag.
3. Better sustained maneuverability. This is where the “energy” in “energy fighter tactics” comes from, and means longer sustained fighting before you have to disengage due to airspeed drop.
4. Quicker acceleration. This is useful in both ground-attack and dogfighting scenarios.
More power has little to do with top speed, but a lot to do with maintaining and regaining airspeed in combat.
A higher-payload Strike-fighter version, which it sounds like they are proposing for the new version, would need more power. The fuselage/wing redesign to move the landing gear to the wing would do three things here:
1. Make more room in the fuselage. This means you can fit larger intake ducting for the higher-power engine, as well as more fuel.
2. Allows for new, higher-strength landing gear, which is needed for the heavier fuel-load anyway.
3. Requires a stronger wing structure to support the landing gear. This also allows for a higher weapons payload on the redesigned wing.
I like the idea of a “Strike-Gripen”… AJS-39?
Bager1968“So, Australia is only going to have three AWD’s in exchange for both the Adams Class of DDG’s and Perry Class of FFG’s!”
In terms of “hulls in the water”, 3 of the Anzacs “replaced” the 3 “Adams family” DDGs… not in mission, of course… the AAW mission was defaulted to the FFGs.
But yes, it looks like there will be 3 AWDs and 8 ASW/ASuW frigates (11 ships) in the late 2010s, where there were 3 DDGs, 4 FFGs, and 5 ASW FFs (12 ships) in the last half of the 1980s!
Bager1968Especially since Jeanne d’Arc, unlike Vittorio Veneto or this Escort Cruiser, was designed to carry up to 700 troops (as a troop transport, less if their combat gear and supplies are with them)… thus can act as a self-contained task force… ASW, ASuW, and small-scale Amphib ops all in one hull!
Say ~300 troops, 3 Super-Frelon transport helos & 3 Wasp/Lynx ASW helos for self-defense.
“Jeanne d’Arc is to go on combat missions, either in anti-submarine warfare with 8 WG 13 Lynx helicopters, either in external missions by carrying Puma or Gazelle helicopters from the light aviation of the French Army, or to carry landing troops (with Super Frelon helicopters).
Jeanne d’Arc can carry about 10 light or heavy helicopters. She can simultaneously handle the take-off and landing of 3 helicopters.”
Of course, I have a question… when she was building, the plan had been to install a twin Masurca SAM launcher on the bow, but this was not fitted to save money… the Exocets were fitted later. Could a light point-defense SAM system (such as Sea RAM or ESSM be fitted forward and below of the Exocets (in a “bolt-on” module, say)? If France got into a shooting war with a coastal nation before she decommissions?
Bager1968“The AWD’s are replacing the now retired Perth, Hobart, and Bribane DDG’s of the RAN…………………:rolleyes: “
In the La-La land of Aussie MOD PR types, maybe. :p
Since the FFGs will decommission as the AWDs come on line, and since the AWDs will be manned by the crews of those retiring FFGs….. 😉
Nothing “replaces” something that has been gone for over 10 years (by the time they enter service), it can only “replace” something that is in service but going away at that time.
They just don’t have the courage to say the correct words: “Restoring a capability we let go away several years ago”!
Bager1968Thanks, OPIT… I geuss the differences have less to do with overall size and more to do with the air-flow, then.
Ok, a larger intake & ducting, and the Super-Grippen is a go, then!
Bager1968I agree with both points… but I still think that the F-22 fit the “21st-century P-38” concept and name better.
But, with the USAF’s fixation on bird-of-prey names for its fighter, that had no chance. It took the need for PR nice-nice with the UK to get it on the F-35, or we might have been stuck with Hawk (the T-45 is the GosHawk, so no conflict in the US), Tiercel, Skua, Owl, or some such thing.
Raptor, Eagle, Falcon, Harrier, Osprey, & NightHawk were taken, and Kite, SeaGull, Merlin, Peregrine, Vulture, & Buzzard wouldn’t be acceptable. (yes, I know that a Peregrine is a female falcon & a Tiercel a male falcon)
BTB, why did the Brits name their aircraft “Sea Skua”?
My dictionary lists “Sea Hawk: noun; Jaeger, Skua”.
Therefore, Sea Skua = Sea Sea Hawk!
CC-Hawk?
Of course, GosHawk = Goose-Hawk, so the USN trainer is a Goose?
And Raptor is a generic term, not a specific genus or species, so is the F-22 a generic fighter?
OK, yes… I DO have nothing better to do at this moment than blither on about carnivorous avians! 😀
Bager1968Here are some numbers: without afterburner (with afterburner)
F404-GE-400: Thrust 10,800 lb.s.t. (16,000 lb.s.t.); W=1,830 lb (2,180 lb); L=94”/159”; Dia=35”
F/A-18A/B
F404-GE-402 EPE: Thrust 11,800 lb.s.t. (17,700 lb.s.t.); W=1,955 lb (2,315 lb); L=94”/159”; Dia=35”
F/A-18C/D
RM12: Thrust 12,140 lb.s.t. (18,100 lb.s.t.); W=1,955 lb (2,315 lb); L=95”/160”; Dia=35”
JAS39
F414-GE-400: Thrust 14,756 lb.s.t. (22,000 lb.s.t.); W=2,060 lb (2,445 lb); L=94”/154”; Dia=35”
F/A-18E/F
I have read statements about the “larger fan”, but the sites I have seen, including an official Volvo Company site (Volvo makes F414 parts for GE) all give the same diameter for the F414 as for the F404.
If anyone has other numbers, or a good description of the external differences (shape, etc) between the 414 & the 404, please post them… along with your source reference.
Bager1968Right now, I really wish they had made the F-15N!
A F-15(N)E with all the bells & whistles would be better than the -F model UberBug for carrier-based strike, that’s for sure.
That would be a worthy replacement for my “Sky Pigs” (A-6E)… not like the overgrown insect currently trying vainly to do so.
The A-6E could reach targets with a full ordnance load (no external tanks) that the F/A-18E/F cannot reach even with 3 external tanks!
Bager1968Ok, now I see where you were going, Scooter! 😮
Yes, as soon as the USAF brass decided they needed to refuel their fighters as well, they should have fitted the KC-135 with wing-mounted Drogue systems!
2 wing stations for fighters and the boom for bombers & transports would have worked very well, I think.
The Lightning was not just named for the P-38… it was also specifically named for the English Electric Lightning… you know, that Mach 2 RAF interceptor?
Funny… a Fighter-Bomber designed for an “attack first, fighter second role” being named for 2 aircraft designed as high-speed bomber interceptors!! :rolleyes:
Bager1968From Joe Baugher’s site:
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/uscombataircraft.html
“Problems were encountered with the engine bearings and with the aircraft’s afterburner fuel system.”
“Beginning in 1962, about 700 F-100Ds and Fs were subjected to a series of modifications under *Project High Wire*, a major standardization and upgrading program.”
“Even after *Project High Wire* was completed, some problems persisted.”
“Malfunctions of the landing gear and the unreliability of the drag chutes accounted for a number of accidents. Compressor stalls of the J57-P-21 engine still occurred with high regularity. A solution to the compressor stall problems eventually was obtained by installing F-102-type afterburners on the F-100D.”
“A succession of in-service difficulties and problems beset the F-100D throughout its career. The safety record of the F-100D left a lot to be desired. Over five hundred were lost in accidents between mid-1956 and mid-1970, far more than were lost in combat in Vietnam. A lot of these accidents were due to pilot error, the F-100 being a relatively unforgiving aircraft, especially on landing. Compressor stalls were an big problem, as pilots would try to firewall the throttle too rapidly, producing a compressor stall.”
“Engine: One Pratt & Whitney J57-P-21/21A turbojet, 10,200 lb.st. dry and 16,000 lb.st. with afterburning. “
Perhaps *Project High Wire* should have just replaced the -21 engine with the more powerful -20 installed in the USN’s F-8D starting in 1960.
The WW conversion of the F-100F in 1965 could have included the newest -420 model just being fitted in the USN’s RF-8s.
J57-P-20: 10,700 lb.s.t. dry, 18,000 lb.s.t with afterburning. (+5%/+12.5%)
J57-P-420: 11,650 lb lb.s.t. dry, 19,600 lb.s.t with afterburning. (+14%/+22.5%)
Or even the -25 version fitted in the F-102 from ~1955, if only a USAF engine will do:
J57-P-25: 11,700 lb.s.t. dry, 17,200 lb.s.t with afterburning. (+14.7%/+7.5%)
Fitting the J75 would be a problem, due to its larger size and weight:
J57: W=4,750 lb; L=167″ (235.2″ with afterburner); Dia=40.02″
J75: W=5,875 lb; L=144″ (214″ with afterburner); Dia=43″
The thrust increase is so great (+68%, +53% in afterburner) that the airframe would need considerable strengthening as well: 17,200 lb.s.t., 24,500 lb.s.t. with afterburning.
At this point, you might as well just buy the YF-107… which was a development of the F-100 with the J75 and a nose-mounted radar (and chin air intake)!
I would just prefer to put aside the USAF pride, and install the USN J57 versions… it would solve the problems without much fuss or cost!
After all, the Navy’s F4D (F-6) Skyray and F-8 Crusader never had compressor stall problems with their J57s… maybe an intake reshaping is needed also?
A minor one, just to allow for faster throttle-ups… nothing major.
Bager1968AardPiglet is a nickname for the Aussie F-35… since it is to replace the F-111 Aardvark (the “Pig”), but is much smaller.
“Most tankers are being equipped to operate both types as the USAF uses the flying boom. While most of the free world uses the drogue basket………..including the USN. So, of course the F-35 would need both types. Just another way the US spends its tax dollars………”
Scooter, Scooter, Scooter… don’t you remember?
The hose (Probe & Drogue) method is too slow to refuel B-52s and C-5s (remember how long the Vulcan took to tank up?)… while it is not possible to make a functional boom to fit in a buddy store drop tank due to how much volume it would require.
I seem to remember that the F-15 takes about 1/2 the time per 1,000 lbs of fuel to fill from a boom than does an F/A-18 from a hose. Larger aircraft show an even greater differential (due to a less-critical weight/balance shift per 100 lbs of fuel), and the USAF has a lot of large aircraft.
Sign In
