Forum: General F-35 Forum

HaveVoid wrote:

So, rather than have the three distinct versions you have now, you would have us create an F-35C (AF) that has been structurally de-rated? So we would be looking at new fatigue and structural testing, which isn't free, some possible re-engineering work which isn't free, and then there is the whole Lack on internal canon issue which I doubt the USAF would accept. I highly doubt there is anywhere near enough power to enable the F-35B to use the C's wing either

Having three distinct F-35 models isn't a Cadillac option, it's how the program was conceived. I guess, in the interest of cutting out all these Cadillac features, everyone should just fly the F-35B.

When it comes to anti-F-35 arguments, people are so fixated on their arguments that they overlook rigid, non inconsequential, facts.

Well put. However, I think madrat and checksixxx mean to solve the B's lift problem w/r/t the extra wing and structural weight of the C by saying "scrap the B model altogether." OK. For the sake of argument let's say we scrap the B and discuss only the C vs. the A.

Madrat maybe didn't go back to the previous post to see, and and this is critical, the C's wing is a huge problem. Pun sort-of intended. It's not really the weight, it's the volume and distribution of said volume. The C is the only variant that can't substantially beat (actually loses to) legacy fighters in transsonic acceleration. It has equal thrust, weight within range of the other two (so induced drag pretty similar to the other two; bigger wing but probably slightly less alpha for the same lift) and the same center body profile. Also, it beats legacy fighters in subsonic acceleration just like the A and B, so it's not likely the added structural weight or the skin drag of the larger wing. Importantly, despite carrying 1,500 lbs. more fuel than the A, it barely surpasses the A in range by about 15 miles.

The conclusion is that the F-35's area ruling is almost certainly broken by the C's larger wing. The C is a transsonic fighter with mediocre transsonic performance and much higher transsonic drag. If you give up that extra fuel tank to move the canon internal, you cut at least 100 miles off the plane's range, putting it in F-35B territory. To fix that doesn't mean only new fatigue and structural testing, it means re-designing the center body shape completely to rework area ruling to the C's wing size.

The F-35C is certainly not without advantages over the F-35A. The only consequential advantage is, though, it can operate from a CATOBAR carrier. There's talk of "better low-speed handling" but seriously, does anyone think that its handling is closer to A-10 than to F-35A? Or that any variant of F-35 is going to pretend to be an A-10 and perform CAS low-and-slow? The marginal improvement in "low-speed handling" is meaningless for CAS. But the greatly increased drag at transsonic speeds is a meaningful detriment to everything, including CAS. If you move the canon internal and throw away 1,500 lbs. of fuel stowage, the greatly decreased range/loiter time relative to the A is a meaningful detriment to everything, including CAS.

The F-35A is the better CAS plane, even compared to a hypothetical structurally lightened F-35C with an internal cannon. The F-35C is a necessary kludge to make the F-35 operate from a carrier, but otherwise detrimental.

F-16.net Sponsor

I agree with river_otter on all points. F-35 is no A-10 by ANY measure of ANY of the variants, but I believe it is foolish to say that the F-35A will be playing the A-10's game considering the enormous disparity between all F-35 variants and the A-10. The way I see it is that the F-35A will just stand by at high altitudes and slant ranges and just drop precision guided munitions like SDB II in order to eliminate the threat to the troops. By remaining at higher altitudes it remains out of harms way AND it doesn't need to wade through high density air all the time which can damage the airframe structure due to stronger wind turbulence triggering more damaging responses in the airframe. Less air density means less drag too even if lift must be sacrificed so range and loiter time should be improved to reasonable levels by letting the F-35A operate at its intended altitude design point. It won't be an A-10, but it doesn't need to be if the tactics employed in CAS get reinvented.

F-35C is, like previously mentioned, dependent on the larger wing and reinforced airframe structure and undercarriage only for the sake of taking off and landing on a carrier. The larger wing reduces take off speeds by virtue of simply being larger to provide more lift and the airframe is designed to accommodate rough landings without destroying the airframe but all of those advantages harm its actual flight handling and maneuvering performance (especially at high speeds) thanks to high wave drag among other things. Getting rid of the fuel tank in the centerline would only ruin its range performance to the point where the C becomes worthless compared to the other two variants.

megasun wrote:

Interesting.
Why does B come with signifiant more sorties? Its range short? It's built more reliable and requires less maintain?

Shorter range CAS missions, closer to battlefield. If on the same mission profile, the sortie rates are the same, it just has to hit the tanker more frequently with the lift fan replacing a major fuel tank.

When it comes to maintenance, its far harder to maintain due to the myriad of working parts and the stress of the lift-fan. In fact, when it comes to actual up time compared to the simple and easily repairable A-10, the Hog would probably have a higher overall sortie rate based on up time.

HaveVoid wrote:

Having three distinct F-35 models isn't a Cadillac option, it's how the program was conceived. I guess, in the interest of cutting out all these Cadillac features, everyone should just fly the F-35B.
HV

Technically it was conceived as three different programs. Congress combined them into one airframe. One could argue that added a lot of needless weight.

Since when has Congress done anything prudent regarding major defense programs?? Yet another nail in the coffin for civilian control of military procurement, in my opinion.

southernphantom wrote:

Since when has Congress done anything prudent regarding major defense programs?? Yet another nail in the coffin for civilian control of military procurement, in my opinion.

Other then the airframe which is slightly different for each varient, all the F-35's benifited from there sibilings fighters being in the JSF program by getting much improved software, sensors, systems and sub systems then had each varient been in it's own fighter program.

Additionally each varient will benifit from future aircraft upgrades that would have been cost prohibitively impossible out side the Joint Strike Fighter Program. So gentlemen rather then the F-35 being a lessor fighter because of its siblings varients in the JSF program it is a much better fighter because of them.

Keeping in mind that, more and more, drones are giving the Army the ability to do the down and dirty part of the A-10's job without the Air Force.

The F-35B is basicly needed to hit the moving targets you can't hit with a M982 Excalibur smart shell or some other piece of smart artilery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M982_Excalibur

count_to_10 wrote:

Keeping in mind that, more and more, drones are giving the Army the ability to do the down and dirty part of the A-10's job without the Air Force.

CAS is about the last thing the army would want to have automated. Just think of all of the difficulties with connection instabilities with the drones, lag, and other various sensitive issues with UAVs that a flesh and blood pilot doesn't have to worry about but would compromise a CAS mission for the infantrymen.

CAS is exactly where you want drones. Not only do you not have to worry about loosing a pilot in this dangerous environment, but small disposable drones can allow infantry to direct the CAS themselves instantly, without waiting for support to arrive or require a human to loiter for hours waiting action.
Not only that, but you have much less risk of connectivity factors coming into play than on penetration strike missions.

The three things that made the A-10 a potent CAS weapon:
* Low speed agility. The pilot can actually eyeball targets and make repeated gun passes to hit it, assess damage and hit it again. And the ammo is cheap!
* An ability to absorb small and medium caliber gunfire without getting shot down or killing the pilot. That's a useful quality, especially on a battlefield.
* It's primary weapon is a GUN. The A-10 can lay down fire 100 meters in front of infantry, repeatedly. And accurately. Who wants to call in a BOMB strike from 30,000 feet (10,000 meters) to a target 100 meters away? Shocked

stereospace wrote:

Who wants to call in a BOMB strike from 30,000 feet (10,000 meters) to a target 100 meters away? Shocked

With Laser & GPS guidance... anyone who wants to live to fight another day.

river_otter wrote:

But as explained, adding a cannon to it internally takes away the extra fuel tank it needs to meet range KPP. That renders it all-around less capable than the A, and for far more money. With a podded gun it keeps its fuel tank, so at least its range remains comparable to the A. Just for far more money.

You do realize the A model has a fuel tank under the gun, right??

SpudmanWP wrote:

stereospace wrote:

Who wants to call in a BOMB strike from 30,000 feet (10,000 meters) to a target 100 meters away? Shocked

With Laser & GPS guidance... anyone who wants to live to fight another day.

A few years back I was reading the A-10 was the platform of choice among the NATO partners in Afghanistan. They were all tired of getting their own positions bombed by the fast movers. They were even saying 'No Thanks!' to their own A/C while under attack, they'll wait for the A-10's. I guess they wanted to live to fight another day.

Questions to ask about those situations:
1. What were the weapons used? Since the SDB is relatively new and the SDB2 is not even out, it was more likely a 500lb, 1k or 2k JDAM/LGB or a dumb bomb. JAGM is also coming which will provide fast movers with a PGM that has low collateral damage.
2. What was the timeline involved? Was it an emergency and they needed CAS ASAP or could they wait a while for the A-10 to arrive?
3. Were they NATO or US jets?
4. Do you have any sources to the "No Thanks!" quote?

They were NATO jets being waved off. I don't have a source for a magazine article I read online a few years ago (unfortunately) but I do remember it was a Brit unit in Indian Country under attack along their front who waved off their A/C. They'd already taken friendly fire from them twice and didn't want any more. They said the fire they got from the A-10's was always accurate and deadly. And best of all, none of it was on them!

Forum: General F-35 Forum

USAF: F-35B cannot generate enough sorties to replace A-10