Traditionally older aircraft like the Phantom need to be on the burner to get supersonic. Lots of larger modern aircraft like the Eagle will need it if they’ve got a big load. But lighter aircraft with good thrust/weight even dry, like the F-16, Hornet and MiG-29 or late version MiG-23 presumably don’t have much of a problem unless carrying bombs.

The F-15 can do it, maybe with 4 AAMs on the fuselage stations. F-16 and F-18 probably only with wingtip missiles. The MiG-23 should have no problems with a modest load with its turbojet engine and swept wings.

The F-22s maximum speed at dry thrust is around M1.8, or roughly two times subsonic cruise. Range isn’t that impressive for an aircraft its size.

You’re right, the Gripen would be the best option. But Austria fits your description aswell and look what they got. I know, different circumstances, but you never know what the government comes up with. Much better but only slightly more expensive was the idea in Austria… 😉

Maybe the Slovaks want something different and better than Hungary has? They’re not really that close afterall.

– I think that they could make the F119 work.

Sure they could but that would result in a supercruising monster or the F119 doesn’t make sense. 😉
Let’s take the F-22 as starting point, which has maybe a 550-600nm radius. So you obviously would want to increase that way beyond the 35s 700-750nm. Doing that adds a lot of weight. Plus carrier capability, second cockpit, and high lift devices to bring down approach speed all adds up. My guess is you’d quickly become too heavy/big for naval use.

– Many F-35’s systems were developed from SH equipment, so yea it’s feasible to migrate some avionics and systems to NGAD / F/A-XX.

If money is an issue (rhetorical question 😀 ), I definately would pursue the F-18C/F-18E Block 1/Block 2 route.

– a 1.5m A-7 in 1965 would be 10.38m today, vs. ~55m for a rhino, and who knows for a F-35C – but you can bet it won’t be less than a SH (even though it was originally promised to be less expensive.)

You’d have to look very hard to find a jet for 10mio these days… around 20mio for a T-50 or 15mio for an M346 is the bottom, and these are still trainers. Maybe something made in China will do.
The F-35 cheaper than the SH… probably not, but it’s also better equipped. FLIR and IRST pods add some millions f.e.

– I imagine that some Navy command tracks the numbers for engine failures / precautionary shutdowns – doesn’t necessarily have to have resulted in a crash (which is really the point.)

– I am a huge fan of safety, and the ability to get back on deck.

– Never too late to have a civil discussion.

Yeah, those would be interesting numbers. But I can’t imagine that the SH suffers noticable more engine failures compared to land based fighters. So numbers for single engined land based jets shouldn’t be too far off for the F-35C too.

———

Thanks to its larger wing, the F-35C looks less fat in these pics. Not a bad looking bird, but no beauty either.

– About the numbers: The numbers are from the Department of the Navy -Research, Development and Acquisition. PEO Joint Strike Fighter (the JSF program office) is part of this organization – which certainly lends a lot of credibility to the numbers that they publish. The threshold numbers do not appear to be projected final performance figures, rather milestones or goals that the aircraft must meet to move forward in the acquisition process. I have seen specs for the F-35 from various sources, some more optimistic than others. Currently I consider the LM’s 2010 specs the most current, and find these Navy stats interesting.

threshold vs. projected numbers are pretty solid:
A: 590nm / 626nm
B: 450nm / 499nm
C: 600nm / 648nm

Even if those USN numbers are the lowest I’ve seen, its still more than required.

– I would expect that a 125m aircraft would exceed the performance of a 30m F/A-18C or a 55m -E/F, and it will. But is it worth the cost for the modest increase in performance that the F-35C offers vs. the F/A-18E/F on the 2nd and subsequent days of war? Would it be more cost effective to buy just enough F-35C’s to fill a few squadrons to use on the initial strikes?

If the F-35 turns out to cost 125mil a piece compared to a 55mil SH (i.e. same year dollars), it failed. It really shouldn’t cost much more than the SH to be a success imho… lets see how that turns out. 😉
Re performance, the F-35 is said to offer twice the payload/range compared to the legacy Hornet. The SH had a requirement for 35% more range vs legacy and whether it met that is not sure, so the F-35 should compare well too. I’d say thats more than a modest increase.

– 10 years is very optimistic on my part, I agree. But the Navy has fast-tracked aircraft programs before, so if they started development next year, they could field a NGAD / F/A-XX type by the 2024 timeframe. Lower the risks by picking the right engine, incorporate proven F-18/35 avionics and systems, and don’t go too crazy on the stealth.

Maybe, but the Navy (like anyone else I guess) has also a record to screw up procurements. Like A-12, NATF or many (most? all?) ship programs…
Engine might be a problem because 2 F135s are to much, 2 F414s maybe not enough, the F119 is only good for faster jets. F100/110 too old?
To inherit the complete F-35 avionics suite is a good idea, as was done with F-18C to F-18E Block 1.

– According to Vought, the “A-7A’s cost a little over one million dollars each.” (the A-7 was an A-4 replacement.) They also say “Unfortunately, DOD’s desire for multi-role supersonic fighter/attack aircraft with stealth capabilities spelled doom for the A-7 and for low-cost combat aircraft in general. The day of the single-purpose combat aircraft that cost under $5M gave way to the $50M fighter/attack machine, at least in the United States.” Little did they know that the F-35 will cost more than twice that figure.

But the A-7 wouldn’t cost 1m in todays money would it. 😉 The idea that a single purpose plane costs only 1/10 of a multirole fighter bomber is also hopelessly optimistic.

– The latest engines have an impressive reliability rate according to the USAF Safety Center and I’m sure that stat played prominently into the design decision to make the F-35 series a single-engined aircraft (along with range / fuel consumption considerations.) I have not seen similar studies about naval aircraft engines – does their operating environment make them any less reliable? Anyway, I share the belief that a naval aircraft requires two engines simply because it operates in a unforgiving and unique maritime environment. I will grant you that it is probably less expensive for land air forces to operate a single-engined fleet – but interestingly enough, some of the most recent european designs are twin-engined – case-in-point the French Navy’s Rafale.

Would be interesting to have data about naval aircraft engine related losses. Problem is, there’s no modern single engined naval fighter in service.
For the Eurofighter, my guess is it was easier and cheaper to develop a 90kn class engine based on previous experience with the RB199 (no one had 180kn engines back then). Same might be true for the French, which operated mainly single engined jets before the Rafale (Mirage F1 and 2000, F-8 and Etendard). The F135 around a decade later would be the first fighter turbofan to offer the required thrust. I’d say safety was a bonus rather than the decisive factor for the euros.

A bit late, I know. 😮

– Fact: The F-35C is designed to have more range than the F/A-18A-D. However, the Navy Acquisition says:

“Range: Current assessment 499 nm (Threshold 600 nm)”

Source: https://acquisition.navy.mil/rda/home/programs/air/f_35_jsf

Check out the other variants:
F-35A: 626 nm
F-35B: 648 nm
F-35C: 499 nm
They mixed up the B and C figures.

In any event, it does not promise the range of the A/F-X design – and the long range is what will be needed against enemies armed with coastal / long ranged ASM’s and coastal subs. The A/F-X should have been developed, but was not – and leaves the Navy with a range problem. Instead, the Navy’s requirement was changed when the A/F-X program was closed and merged with the MRF program to eventually become the JAST (JSF.) The F-35C, even if it meets its design goals, is the wrong aircraft for the Navy. The Navy should buy more Supers in the interim, and begin development on the NGAD (F/A-XX) now – not in 2015. Buy as few F-35C’s as possible. Yesterday, the GAO posited just this sort of approach, sans the NGAD which was not part of their study.

Yes, F-35 is shorter ranged than A/F-X. But its not its fault as it wasn’t designed as A/F-X but as an F-18A-D replacement. As such, it is the right aircraft because it offers significantly more range. The Super Hornet is the wrong aircraft if you want.
If money wasn’t an issue, I bet the USN would have ditched the F-35C, or even better, developed an A/F-X replacement at the same time to get an F-35/F-X airwing.

About the single engine issue: A-4, A-7, F-8 were good enough and if the USAF would have chosen the F-17 over the F-16, the YF-16 might have ended up as F-18 😮

The F-15 doesn’t need to go to full A/B trying to match the F-22;s top speed. In the end, the resulting difference would hardly make the risks and cost of deployment of the F-22 feasible.

A Strike Eagle carrying weapons probably won’t reach F-22’s top speed at all.

m/ Holy Diver! m/
RIP Ronnie 🙁