A longer aircraft although more aerodynamically refined would still be significantly larger and heavier.

That is not sure at all.

I even wonder if a delta canard wouldn’t have been a better choice, given the fact that they wanted a CV variant and a lot of internal fuel. Canards probably have a minimal extra impact on RCS compared to an HT, otherwise the naval F-23, the J-20, and even the 6th gen Boeing F/A-XX wouldn’t have canards.

Also:
– canards can be plane aligned with the wing
– they can be programmed to be fixed when maximum maneuvring is not required to maintain the plane alignement.
– they increase STR
– they carry much more fuel inside the wing, which would have helped increase the internal fuel.
– and most importantly, better low landing speed, which would have helped the CV variant, so no need for the large wing of the F-35C which destroys the perfs in transsonic and supersonic. And the CTOL would have have better STOL ability.

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.

The 2000lbs weapons and the JSOW were maybe too much for a plane that size. But even at that, the fuselage is very bulky because of the STOVL variant. The air ducts have to go around the lift fan, so it’s impossible to put the main bays right next to the center of the plane like on the F-22. The result is that the side of the plane is very bulky. The preferable way would have been an F-22 design with the air ducts going right over the bay towards the centerline. The aircraft would still have been rather thick vertically because of the heigth of the JSOW and the air duct, but the plane is thick vertically close to the center anyways, so it is not that bad. The bay doors could have had a bump like on the F-35 to help carry the JSOW maybe.

Also the main landing gear is massive, much more so than the F-22’s, because it is located at the angle of the wing and not in the fuselage. Had it been put in the fuselage it would have weighted significantly less.

Leave off the “lol” and all the other foolishness in your posts and actually make an attempt to learn before spouting off about things you’ve no idea about. The thrust reversers were eliminated for several reasons of which money was not one.

Now go and look up why the ATF program removed the requirement.

I can replace the lol with AHAHAH if you want AHAHAH!

The bottom line is that the requirement was here initially for a reason, and removing it if it was technicaly feasable is a dumb idea. If the planes cannot be deployed or if it can’t operate from short runways it is a big disadvantage. It is well Worth 1-2% more weight.

Second, yes, as I said a parachute to reduce landing distances is much more practical and economical. That’s one reason you commonly see them, and not thrust reversers like you claimed. (on fighter aircraft, obviously commercial aircraft are a different story)

That is not the only concern and 200-300 lbs is a massive amount of dead weight to add to a project with tight weight tolerances.

This is just plain stupid. So, you are postulating that it is easier to add thrust reversers than a parachute? You really need to think, research, and then think again before you post.

What? I didn’t say it is easier to add a thrust reverser than to add a ‘parachute’ ( you can use the term, it’s perfect in french LOL ) to the airframe, of course it is not, I say that a plane with thrust reversers is more practical to use! Geez why can’t you think before you post? AHAHAH!

This is completely muddled. The issues the “C” has are less related to the STOVL constraints imposed by the “B” and have far more to do with the massive increase in drag from the extra 200+ sq ft of wing area and 2 1/2 tons of extra weight.

Without 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..

Yes, Because magic. The harriers are basically at their limit right now, and even the II+ birds need the more powerful engine variant thanks to the additional weight of the Radar and Cooling. You can’t just wave a magic wand and throw a bunch of additional avionics weight onto an aircraft that is barely under its max as it is. It also wouldn’t fix any of the harriers problems, it would still be hard to handle, have ancient control systems, the best 1960s era engine and a still be subsonic. The Safety would not improve which is an issue. Harriers like to crash. The “next level stealthy harrier” from the same people who did the Super Hornet is basically the X-32. Thats about as good as direct lift gets.

Magic? Then I guess the super hornet should have been considered magic and should never have been attempted. Same for the silent eagle. You seem to have a small mind when you don’t like certain ideas. It is obvious it would have been possible to build an upgraded harrier. Maybe it would have been heavier, but the Pegasus has been improved many times, there’s no reason it couldn’t have been improved again. Maintaining a commonality of components with the super hornet would have improved the cost effectiveness of the program. Spending 3-5 billion for a production of 300+ planes would have been a good deal.

The F/A-18C can be upgraded with the APG-79, so there is no reason a harrier couldn’t have had it too:
http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newsraytheon-successfully-tests-apg-79vx-aesa-radar-on-fa-18cd-hornet-4487787

Just the APG-79 would have been a massive improvement.

when DARPA approached the skunk works the objective was simple. The Marines said they wanted an F/A-18 level of performance that could also do STOVL and operate from the L ships. Harrier can’t do what F-18s can obviously they can’t carry the same weight, can’t go super sonic, etc.

Because the Marines “wants” X and Y capability doesn’t mean they should have it if it means having serious impact for the USAF, and USN and also other countries that don’t need a stovl plane.

Oh absolutely! The Navy would not have issues over the type or amount of engines, they wouldn’t emphasize slow speed handling for ease behind the boat over combat performance, they wouldn’t throw on toed out draggy pylons and would definitely definitely not put forth an aircraft that doesn’t even pull 8G they would get along with the USAF, they have such a a great history after all. One look at the Super Hornet and the first that comes to mind is “higher performance!”

The Marines actually are more aligned with the Air Force (starting with pre JSF), and the Navy was added to the program last; Where it instantly started butting heads with the USAF who wanted the JSF to be more on the simple side (having F-22 lined up) and the Navy wanted more on the advanced/expensive side (having the Super hornet lined up) thats where the fight was. Simple vs sophisticated. The Marines basically put the USAF in the drivers seat and said “so long as it can do STOVL, we are happy” and sat back. You will notice the Navy Variant is the most different variant, and the USMC and USAF versions are more common. The Air force was fine with 1000 lb bomb bay, navy wanted 2000 lb and won for example so the USAF version has 2000 lb. but the USMC variant stayed at the original 1,000 to save weight. There was also furious debate about how many F-35s should be equipped with EODAS, originally it was 1/3, Now its all.

The F-35C has poor speed and acceleration. Without a stovl variant the plane would have been designed differently, it would probably have been longer and with a reduced cross section. But I guess you’re probably one of those who think the STOVL variant didn’t have much impact, which is ridiculous.

Its funny when people with no knowledge of the different propulsion systems post ignorant silliness on forums as if outing themselves and how far away from reality they actually are, and think they are knowledgeable. I am embarrassed for you. I guess its easier to call one side “fanboy” and celebrate your own ignorance rather than doing a basic google search or even worse, cracking open a book and actually learning about the subject!

Honey guess what!? I called him a “fanboy!” So satisfying!

Meuh… No company would spend money to acquire more expertise if they consider it useless. Thinking otherwise is plain stupidity. The F-35 uses a different propulsion system, but uses the same principles as the Yak. And btw,it is much easier nowadays to design airframes with all the software available, so LM didn’t do something extraordinary even if the STOVL variant is more complex. The credit goes to the engine manufacturers.

You call yourself a saab_god lol, if that’s not arrogance and fanboyism I don’t know what is… Funny!

Why are you only criticizing the F-35s time on station, and not taking speed into account? How fast will the A-10 travel at cruise speed? How fast will The F-35 travel?
The B has the best of both worlds with both decent cruise speed, and the ability to sit in a parking lot around the corner.

Speed if useless when the F-35 is trying to searchfor targets. The B can operate from close but requires a big logistics. The A-10 can operate from small strips of roads and requires less logistics. But anyways the point is that a drone would be much more cost effective that a tactical plane for surveillance.

Hi Hotshot and thank for reply.
Of the two alternatives I forwarded you replied just to the second, so I presume the first one we can take it as granted: as soon as even a potential AD system is present they wouldn’t put any consistent external load on a stealth plane.

About the second you made it a problem of discovering and identifing existing targets, something that is not an issue even now with existing systems while instead the problem lie on a deliberate tactics, well oiled and combat proven, to pourposely negate anything that can be considered like such.
Also in Kosovo 1998 Serbian army reacted hiding all heavy ecquipment in the woods and keeping just light troops in the cities as garrison.
It worked for a certain time also there but it was when was used by M.E. non state actors that such tactics showed all their effectiveness as in those cases also targeting logistical chain and civil infrastructures (i.e. bridges and roads not people) turned out to be largely ineffective against them.
So, no one deny the ability of F-35 or other planes to autonomously discover and engage targets (something even a decades old Su-24 can do): it is just that there would not be any target rich environment there or anywhere as soon as there wouldn’t be an army moving on terrain and forcing them to pop out from hiding and fight.

Also in this case, I would still consider more convenient to carry on more fuel and less weaponry instead of carrying an overload of them without having targets available.

In the case where enemy forces are well camouflaged, you may be right that it would be hard to find targets, even though the F-35 is said to have special capabilities to find concealed targets. In any case if the enemy can’t move because of the F-35s, it can’t attack and defend effectively so you can attack on the ground with more chances of success.

In case where there are not a lot of targets that can be engaged it would make more sense to have more fuel onboard than more weapons. Unfortunately EFTs would ruin the stealth so it is not really possible if the F-35 is to approach sufficiently to find targets. The F-35 doesn’t have much loitering time, that’s a drawback.

I is certainly possible to have some F-35s in stealth mode in front to find targets while others stay further behind to drop their SDBs carried on external stations. The SDB1/2 have a 100km range so it might work to attack targets relatively far behind the FLOT. And it is probably possible to relay targetting data to the artillery.

I think the F-35 would be particularily good at destroying the enemy artillery thanks to its DAS.

Maybe one day they will make smaller bombs than the SDB to increase the internal capacity. The miniaturization of weapon might allow that at some point.

What? I’m not Mercurius and I’m not from Cantabringean sea.

But if you want a contribution from me, here is it.
IMHO the maximum number of SDB that the F-35 can potentially carry would be of not any practical importance.
In case of even a potential (i.e. hidden) AD threat like in Kosovo 1998 they wouldn’t carry any such items outside the bomb bay.
In the case of an enemy like the IS now or even Hezb in 2006 that instead hide, disperse and bury itself into tunnels problem would be or better ACTUALLY IS to found a viable target whatsoever, eight in a row would be more difficult than winning the federal lottery.

Hi Marcellogo,

The F-35 might be able to detect a lot of targets per sortie. The DAS can detect any enemy weapon that opens fire, and the EOTS and radar are immediately cued for identification. Any armored vehicle or artillery piece could be immediately engaged.

Also the EOTS can probably be programmed to search with a precise search pattern. Check the new global scope capability of the sniper for instance, the pod can scan an area by using a precise map.

With sufficient computing power the targets could be automatically identified as the EOTS and radar scan.

It is hard to say how many targets the F-35 could find per sortie, but in a target rich environment it could be a lot.

I think is not the best moment not just for hotshot but for the whole thread, last few pages were a collection of rantings, unsubstantiated affimations, deluded hopes, Pavlov dog’s replies and so on…
Come on crew, you can do much more better than that :eagerness:.

Probably F-35 is really a sort of Jack of all trades, master of none thing but if the alternative is resuming the production of the Queen of Hangar Queens…

You’re part of the crew too don’t forget, ‘Mercurius Cantabrigiensis’, hahaha!