Forum: F-35 Lightning II

popcorn wrote:

maus92 wrote:

popcorn wrote:

quicksilver wrote:

maus92 wrote:

The difference is that these were planned upgrades vs. everything at once. The Super Hornet was designed from the beginning to incorporate emerging technologies as they develop, meaning the availability of excess electrical power, cooling, and bays to accommodate additional equipment, etc. You are correct that the next block upgrade is not funded, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be done - there is room for further development. The choice to proceed depends on what happens with other programs.

'...everything at once...' In modern terms, what aircraft would that be? What have we ever delivered and planned no upgrades/follow-on development?

There is no funding because there isn't any "block upgrade"in the Navy's SH roadmap. The current configuration is basically the end of the road for the SH the Navy invests in the f-35.

Doubtful. The SH will be around until 2030.

That's what I mean by "current configuration" i.e. those enhancements that have already been identified and the Navy is funding.. none of the other International Hornet stuff. If there's another Cold War and money starts flowing like honey, then there may be money to invest in legacy systems.. but then why would you?

If the Japan feedback is correct, the F-35 is already very price-competitive with the SH. So do the math, add the cost of $3B or so ( what it cost for the UAE to modify the Viper to Blk 60 standard and likely not even as radical an upgrade as the International SH)) and the Navy is obviously not going to buy a lesscapable jet for a lot more money.Why pay to go backward?

The Navy will be upgrading Supers beyond the Block II+ configuration, likely adopting some enhancements envisioned for the "International Roadmap" version and adding them to the flight plan. They cannot afford stop further development when the plane will be in service until 2030, and is the only SLAM-ER / Harpoon shooter on carrier decks when legacy Hornets time out.

F-16.net Sponsor

quicksilver wrote:

maus92 wrote:

The difference is that these were planned upgrades vs. everything at once. The Super Hornet was designed from the beginning to incorporate emerging technologies as they develop, meaning the availability of excess electrical power, cooling, and bays to accommodate additional equipment, etc. You are correct that the next block upgrade is not funded, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be done - there is room for further development. The choice to proceed depends on what happens with other programs.

'...everything at once...' In modern terms, what aircraft would that be? What have we ever delivered and planned no upgrades/follow-on development?

Ummm, the F-35? The F-35 was planned to have all its core / major capabilities incorporated from the start, and that's good because there is no capacity for future weight growth. I certainly never said that improvements are not planned for aircraft, but the huge difference is that the designers of SH anticipated and planned for substantial future development, incorporating design features that allow the aircraft to be readily upgradable. Legacy aircraft, like F-15/16/18 & AV-8 were not built with the same design philosophy that provided accommodations for growth on the scale of the SH. That is the difference.

Both the F-22 and F-35 are software defined aircraft. New features will be added in software, much more than hardware.

They're not alone on this. The V-22 needed 5% more lift in hover mode so they added it, with a software patch.

Another view of 5th Gen Optimisation.

Pratt Raises Stakes In JSF Engine Battle Aug 27, 2010 By Guy Norris

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... line=Pratt

"...Pratt & Whitney Military Engines President Warren Boley says the F135 result proves “we have demonstrated margin” and that “we have the right core size.” Thrust growth is not a specific requirement for the Lockheed Martin F-35; however, the provision of additional margin — either for trading for longer operating life or for future growth...

..."Boley [said]... the baseline thrust assumption for the F-35 “is that it is not going to grow and grow like the F-16.”...

...The F-16 thrust requirement, like other fourth-generation fighters such as the F-15, has grown in lockstep with heavier weapons and stores payloads. This is not the case with the F-35, Boley says, which for stealth reasons is designed to accommodate the majority of its payloads and future growth internally. “Fifth-generation fighter optimization is different from the optimization used for the fourth generation...."

hcobb wrote:

Both the F-22 and F-35 are software defined aircraft. New features will be added in software, much more than hardware.

They're not alone on this. The V-22 needed 5% more lift in hover mode so they added it, with a software patch.

V-22 engines are underated or derated, meaning the can produce more power than specified, but are limited by controls. So in this case, a software change can increase performance.

Careful with the software solution. There are hardware specific capabilities that cannot be changed with software only updates. A perfect example is with the current HMDS issues, that will require hardware changes to upgrade image sensors, MRU's, processors, and possibly EO-DAS components.

F-22 is proving to be a bear to upgrade, and very expensive to boot.

Curiously, many of the updates to the SH involve software. In fact, software changes can drive hardware upgrades - the Super Hornet will be receiving its 4th mission computer type in the next few years.

Clearly systems that can be updated by software to counter changing conditions is advantageous, but there will always be a need to upgrade hardware.

And there is space internally in the F-35 for extra bits and pieces AFAIK within whatever weight limits are imposed plus any benefit to that weight limit increased through engine / lift fan upgrades.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Wow and How!; Japan F-35