F-35 D (Not an actual plane)

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
Active Member
Active Member
 
Posts: 154
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 15:35
Location: US

by exorcet » 07 Oct 2009, 15:44

Hey, I was comparing the F-22 and F-35 a while ago and this idea popped into my head. How feasible would an Air Superiority focused F-35 be? Something in between the current F-35 and F-22.

I envisioned the wing and control surfaces of the F-35 C on the F-35 A, and additional weight savings by cutting out some of the air to ground stuff. After that, I'm not sure how much differentiation is reasonable. Going only this far will keep costs down, but will retain the limits of the original F-35.

Some possibly costly but beneficial changes would be:
-Intakes (prohibit supercruise/engine choice as far as I know)
-Nozzle (thrust vectoring/stealth)
-Weapons Bay (additional AMRAMM capability [Can F-35 hold AIM-120 D?])


Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 8407
Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
Location: California

by SpudmanWP » 07 Oct 2009, 15:52

What weight savings??? The F-35C wings and control surfaces are larger and thereby heavier.

Larger intakes would mean more weight

TVC would mean more weight?

Cut out what A2G stuff?
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."


Active Member
Active Member
 
Posts: 154
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 15:35
Location: US

by exorcet » 07 Oct 2009, 16:00

The F-35 C is heavier than the A because of strengthening due to carrier landing stress, etc isn't it?

Yes about intakes

Yes about TVC

By weight savings, I didn't necessarily mean lower net weight. And larger wings offset their weight because of wing loading.

Use weaker hard points since they won't need to carry 2000 lb JDAM's, A2A specified avionics/cut out some A2G systems (I admit, I'm of limited knowledge here)


Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 8407
Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
Location: California

by SpudmanWP » 07 Oct 2009, 16:18

Your weight savings would be minimal at best since the avionics are software driven.

If you are talking about changing the internal structure to get the C wing without the reinforcement, you are basically redesigning the fighter.

Also, even the F-22 has 5000lb rated wing hardpoints, so reducing those is not in line with established design criteria.

If your talking about the internal harpoints, they are part of the frame and cannot be reduced without weakening the structure.

A question.

What role do you think an A2A only F-35 would play and how do you think that the current F-35 cannot fulfill that role?


Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 9792
Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

by Corsair1963 » 07 Oct 2009, 19:25

Really, the current F-35 is very capable in the Air Defense Role. It wouldn't need to be re-design to excel in such a role........


Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 8407
Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
Location: California

by SpudmanWP » 07 Oct 2009, 19:50

Just accelerate Block 5's 6+ internal AAMs and accelerate JDRADM.. done.


Active Member
Active Member
 
Posts: 154
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 15:35
Location: US

by exorcet » 08 Oct 2009, 00:28

SpudmanWP wrote:What role do you think an A2A only F-35 would play and how do you think that the current F-35 cannot fulfill that role?


It's merely a hypothetical question. After reading the heavily, heavily anti F-35 biased APA online articles (which IMO are still a good read), I just got my head thinking about an F-35 that would satisfy them, as nothing more than an amusing thought. I was wondering if a specialized F-35 could provide advantages over the current F-35 without reaching F-22 cost.

I don't think the F-35 is insufficient for air to air. It either won't have to worry because of the F-22 or it will take advantage of being a stealth fighter in a world where there are no enemy stealth fighters.

And of course, asking stupid questions can (potentially) lead to knowledge, as it has in this case for me already.

If no one is interested in continuing this though, there is much more going on in the forum. Some of which I could move on to.


Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 8407
Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
Location: California

by SpudmanWP » 08 Oct 2009, 01:11

Questions to ask yourself:

1. Who will the customer be?

Since the US has the F-22, they will not buy it. That leaves Foreign sales. What are other countries buying? Multi-role fighters since dedicated Air Superiority fighters are really only good for the first few days of combat..

2. What will it cost?

Well, since we are talking about new inlets, wings, tails, engines (TVC), and avionics... your SDD cost just went through the roof. This, combined with a very low customer base means that it will be prohibitively expensive.

No F-35 will satisfy APA.. it's either stealth F-111 & F-22's or nothing.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."


User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 28404
Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
Location: Australia

by spazsinbad » 08 Oct 2009, 01:35

SWP: "No F-35 will satisfy APA.. it's either stealth F-111 & F-22's or nothing.' You forgot the mythical Russian equipment. :-)


Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 8407
Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
Location: California

by SpudmanWP » 08 Oct 2009, 01:45

They don't want the Russian planes.... they just say that the F-22 is the only thing that stands a chance.

But other than that.. you're right.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."


Elite 1K
Elite 1K
 
Posts: 1289
Joined: 07 Oct 2007, 18:52

by Scorpion82 » 08 Oct 2009, 01:57

Weren't there thoughts about a USAF specific version of the STOVL variant, actually be redesignated to F-35D? I mean to remember that I have read something like that a few years ago.


Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 8407
Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
Location: California

by SpudmanWP » 08 Oct 2009, 02:03

There was talk of a USAF STOVL, but it was dropped.

A quick search found this:
The USAF has reportedly investigated buying up to 216 STOVL F-35s, enough to outfit three wings. One option discussed and discarded was a fourth, F-35D, variant that would have a different propulsion system to increase emphasis on STOL capability over that of VTOL, a larger wing to allow more fuel, an interior cannon (as opposed to the USMC external gun pod), and changes to in-flight refueling (sacrificing compatibility with Air Force KC-135 Stratotankers, which only use the flying boom in-flight refueling system, but not the KC-10 Extender). Should USAF's new tanker program include substantial hose-and-drogue refueling capability, the feasibility of the Air Force operating the F-35B will increase.

http://en.allexperts.com/e/f/f/f-35_lightning_ii.htm


User avatar
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
 
Posts: 637
Joined: 29 Sep 2006, 03:07

by PhillyGuy » 08 Oct 2009, 02:23

Pfft, we're already at the F-35E

Image

Courtesy of Dwight Looi
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."


User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 28404
Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
Location: Australia

by spazsinbad » 08 Oct 2009, 03:00

Either after the F-35 is 'splashed' or the submarine F-35sub could make use of this missile: (honest - only kidding - never happen) :-)

Underwater AIM-9X Posted by David A. Fulghum at 10/7/2009 2:09 PM CDT

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... d=blogDest

"In the open ocean, a submarine can be stealthy – by using depth and maneuverability – to avoid air attack. But tactical options have become more limited in littoral operations that require operating in shallow water where evasion is difficult.

The new AIM-9X is an air-to-air missile, but with a special underwater shroud (in a combination called the Littoral Warfare Weapon), it can be carried in an unmodified configuration and fired from a submarine’s vertical launch tube, says Michael Sharp, Raytheon’s director of advanced maritime technology and a former submarine commander.

It provides a defense in situations “where running away from the threat doesn’t work,” Sharp says. “The submarine needs to be able to stand and fight,” Sharp says. “That is a mission that the submarine force needs – to defend itself in areas where it can’t maneuver.”

More broadly, the U.S. Navy is looking at a wide variety of air-breathing systems that can be launched by submarines including UAVs with an assortment of payloads. While UAVs have been launched from the bridge and bottom of submarines, interest is focusing on the potential for more varied ways to launch UAVs – while moving and underwater – and in parallel with other sub-launched, littoral warfare weapons.

The genesis of the program rests in the reassessment of funding priorities over the last decade. Submarine force planners took a hard look at payloads and sensors that could see beyond the horizon as they contemplated the requirements for littoral warfare.

“The littoral warfare weapon concept [which kicked off about 2005] of launching not just missiles but unmanned air vehicles and any kind of air-breathing object out of a submarine tube started becoming a reality,” Sharp says.

The intended mission for the AIM-9X is still somewhat broad. Sharp talks of attacking manned aircraft, but cruise missiles could become part of the target set. Anti-submarine platforms – whether fixed wing, helicopter or small, high-speed, surface ships – would be viable targets for the missile’s infrared seeker. The U.S. Air Force also is looking at using AIM-9X for a combined air-to-air and anti-ship role.

If the risk reduction phase is successful, the sub-launched missile would become a program of record in 2012 with an initial operating capability in 2015-17, depending on the cost- and technology-driven pacing of the project.

Stage one was to prove the missile can lock on after launch, that it can arm itself after launch (and some distance away from the submarine) by an electronic arming system and that it can also attack surface ships.

Pictures of the first test show a short-burn rocket motor on an AIM-9X shape being launched out of the water at about a 30-degree angle from the horizontal. In combat, the low launch angle submarine tube orientation toward the approaching enemy also would shorten flight time to the target compared to a vertical launch.

Stage two involved introduction of the launch canister – dubbed the Stealthy Affordable Capsule System – which is being developed in partnership with Northrop Grumman, Sunnyvale, Sharp says. The missile will be integrated with the capsule once they prove that a wooden shape can be launched safely without any risk of a misfire falling back on the ship. The missile rides on a rail inside the SACS with a gas generator fitted below the projectile and rail. Once the canister is out of the water and oriented in the direction of the target, both end caps blow off and the missile ignites and launches itself out of the tube, he says.

“The canister is designed to launch a variety of other vehicles such as UAVs or communications systems,” Sharp says. “The only limitation is that it fit into the [20-in. diameter, 14-ft.-long launch package]. That’s why risk reduction has been more about the capsule and submarine parameters than the missile. We’ve not had to modify the AIM-9X. The capsule protects it from the environment so you can use it off-the-shelf.”

The third and final stage of the risk-reduction program will focus on moving, underwater launches of capsule/missile shapes to ensure they stay on track underwater."


Active Member
Active Member
 
Posts: 106
Joined: 14 Apr 2009, 00:52

by 07763 » 08 Oct 2009, 18:51

The 2 ATG stations on the current F-35 are also for ATA so the F-35A already has air superiority capabilities. No Need for an F-35E or D.


The F-35A already has been built to incorporate all that for air dominance missions.

If 187 F-22s is not enough then 2500 F-35s will sure do the job.


Next

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests