Forum: General F-35 Forum

Last edited by maus92 on Jul 16, 2012 - 08:23 PM; edited 1 time in total

A3D / A-3 Sky Warrior aka "Whale" was probably the heaviest aircraft normally operated, not sure about the wingspan though.

F-16.net Sponsor

deleted

Just saw this thread and I have got to say that it contains probably the worst case of extreme JSF support out on the internet today. People here are seriously arguing to create a dual engined F-35? That is utterly insane. We know the plane doesn't have much weight margins and we know that it has been designed as a single engined fighter. Adding a second engine is utterly, totally, ridiculous. Its much better to try and make the argument that single engined fighters are just as safe as two engined fighters. Note, I am not claiming that the previous statement is true or not.

As mentioned in a previous thread, these sort of comments indicate that many persons on this board completely accept a Lockheed monopoly on US fighter production.

As for the F/A-XX, given that the Navy has severe budgeting problems in the short run, and that we're not sure about the next leg of Chinese military development, its probably far too soon to guess what the program will be like. Though, Boeing's models are probably the closest to the mark, given that Boeing would be the most aggressive in trying to meet what it preceives to be the Navy's need.

"As mentioned in a previous thread, these sort of comments indicate that many persons on this board completely accept a Lockheed monopoly on US fighter production." So this is your crusade 'arkadyrenko'?

It is a personal crusade, because I don't want to see the US military face a monopoly situation, even if it is of its own making. (Which would be just in a Grecian tragedy sense.)

My personal sentiments don't change the point that arguing for a dual engined F-35 is utterly ludicrous.

You can say: stretch the airframe, get rid of the vertical stabilizers by adding thrust vectoring, improve fuel by going to a delta wing. Those are all legitimate mods to make the F-35C into a F-35+ variant, and I suspect we'll see some of them in the future. Especially the delta wing for improved internal fuel storage.

spaz,

I'm open to that interpretation. High post counts on the same topics reach a threshold where we can largely discard the opinions. It's not like these guys post actual content. :p

The USN doesn't have a budget shortfall, the DoD is squeezing every brach's budgets. These aren't shortfalls, they are reassignments of mission. No money then no mission. It doesn't matter what the platform is if there is no mission. Look for budgets to increase when they have a mission.

arkadyrenko-

I don't think a monopoly is a good thing either; however, if Boeing, NGC, can't out design and out bid LM, why is that LM's fault. On the F-22 LM and Boeing teamed to beat a NGC, McDD team. On the F-35 LM, NGC, and BAE teamed to beat a Boeing (now merged with McDD) team. LM happened to team with the right companies and won the competitions. F-22 you can argue was politics, but both planes were outstanding (I think USN should have taken the F-23). JSF, X-35 won, the X-32 had issues and in my opinion the Boeing team did a half-way job.

I hope Boeing or NGC can come up with a better design for F/A-XX, but if LM wins the competition, so be it. I don't want to put our pilots in an inferior plane to prevent a monopoly.

Additionally, There are already a number of monopolies in the DoD, Tankers, Aircraft Carriers, Abrams Tanks, Virgina Class (all but a monopoly). Aside from C-130J, there is only one large aircraft producer for the DoD, and that is Boeing, so if LM should not have a Fighter Monopoly, why should Boeing have a Large Aircraft Monopoly.

Sufa Viper

Also, before F-22, LockMart hadn't designed a winning fighter in decades. (They're the current producers for F-16, but only because of a merger with the company that had beaten them in that competition. And that competition had been seen as their chance to get back into the fighter business after a long time out, even back then.) So the idea that losing one or two competitions means a company can never again make & sell another thing of the given type is just silly.

arkadyrenko wrote:

My personal sentiments don't change the point that arguing for a dual engined F-35 is utterly ludicrous.

You can say: stretch the airframe, get rid of the vertical stabilizers by adding thrust vectoring, improve fuel by going to a delta wing. Those are all legitimate mods to make the F-35C into a F-35+ variant, and I suspect we'll see some of them in the future. Especially the delta wing for improved internal fuel storage.

You're right there's zero sense in making a two-engined F-35. But there's also no sense in changing the wing.

A delta wing would break the planform alignment. Why pay for a stealth fighter, then break the stealth? The F-35C already has broken area ruling too; a delta wing would only break that even worse. Indeed, the F-35C already shows why messing with the plane's wing was a bad idea in the first place. Its range is barely greater than the F-35A despite significantly greater fuel capacity. It's slower than even the F-35B. It guzzles more fuel than either the F-35A or F-35B, meaning you need to haul extra fuel on the carrier and its support ships.

It would make more sense to return to the F-35A/B wing shape, and use the roll post ducts (or their volume as a place to put something else) for some sort of adaptive aerodynamics as a means of reducing the landing speed without a larger wing. E.g., blown flaps, Coanda effect retardation of stall, some sort of adaptive wing geometry, or something similar.

In addition to the improved fuel efficiency and consequently greater range obtained by scrapping the Navy's wing design, it would also make sense to develop a more efficient engine. Not a more efficient F135 necessarily (though fine by me if that's what it turns out to be), but something with the same physical dimensions that extends the range and increases the speed by burning less fuel, and maybe sending less air through the compressor to retard Mach stall, while achieving the same or greater thrust. Pulse detonation, variable cycle, etc. Whatever technology they can make work to do it, use it.

sufaviper wrote:

LM happened to team with the right companies and won the competitions. F-22 you can argue was politics, but both planes were outstanding (I think USN should have taken the F-23). JSF, X-35 won, the X-32 had issues and in my opinion the Boeing team did a half-way job.

About that...
YF22 was 5 tons lighter than the F22 (missed at least one KPP, according to public data and possibly a few more)...LM didn't deliver the capabilities, which got it the ATF contract, in the first place.
The history's repeating itself, with the JSF.

I find this quite disturbing, don't you?

cola wrote:

I find this quite disturbing, don't you?

Undoubtedly. The F-22 is clearly a piece of crap. Who would want to fly that useless overweight bathtub?? Oh, wait a minute....The USAF F-22? The one that takes on multiple F-15's and defeats them? THAT F-22? Rolling Eyes

Quote:

count to 10
How exactly would you put two engines on the F-35 without re-designing it from the ground up?Wouldn't you be better off just increasing the size of the single engine?

I don't think you would try. It would end up virtually a new aircraft and I assume they would not require a STOL version.
Take what you have got and do it better and more cheaply where possible. Don't go into new areas.
It is only airframe we are talking about. Go back to the F22 - new better composites [probably cheaper]- better Ram etc. - lighter airframe - upgrade and lighten the engines a bit in terms of performance and economy. Put the newer Systems from the F-35 in that airframe. You would have plenty of room for upgrades for 50 years then. The airframe probably could be a bit smaller?
I am no Engineer but I am certain now it would be possible with newer technology and better materials to design a new F-22 type airframe that was easier to maintain etc. and relatively cheaper to build without much risk and at reasonable cost - or depending on how far Boeing has advanced with the F15SE continue with it. Probably though it would end also virtually a new aircraft. Cost? I don't know - could it be only $20m more expensive than the F-35 in to-days $.

madrat wrote:

The USN doesn't have a budget shortfall, the DoD is squeezing every branch's budgets. These aren't shortfalls, they are reassignments of mission. No money then no mission. It doesn't matter what the platform is if there is no mission. Look for budgets to increase when they have a mission.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Come on now madrat. Are you trying to say that we should spend money on weapons in such a way as to address vital missions and real potential threats? You silly man. Didn't you know that without the F-35, any day now, all ten of our carriers are going to be obsolete due to the aged aircraft and weapons they have on board? I mean, the threat Tac Air and ADA capability is SOOOOO formidable. Iran for example has some good missiles, and more are on the way. And those fast patrol boats??? OMG! They may sell some to Venezuela. Then this clear and present danger will be in BOTH HEMISPHERES! North Korea is very advanced as well. Very advanced. And China! By God China is just about to stop one of the greatest economic machines in history of the world cold in its tracks and turn on their prime customer! The sad fact is, these countries certainly enjoy a much greater advantage over us in military hardware and systems than say the axis countries did in 1939-41. I mean.....it's not like we've got, oh........10 carriers loaded with 4.5 gen aircraft, an Aegis system that is unmatched, 40+ nuclear submarines that are unmatched, huge advantages in satellites, UAVs, tanking, AWACS, and a huge and advanced air force with 100 times more combat hours flown all other air forces in the world combined. And we have no allies with advanced equipment either. The F-35 MUST be bought, and in large quantities, OR WE ARE DOOMED!

Never mind, that combined with our very real fiscal crisis, this unstoppable procurement machine causes gaping holes in other parts of our defense budget. Madrat, this thing is too big to fail. You apparently didn't get the memo. Look at the jobs it creates. Without this program, unemployment will skyrocket from 8.3% to something like 8.4%! We can't have that!

Now. Whether we have money to pay for it or not................is totally irrelevant. We'll just borrow some more, like we always do. What's another 300 or 400 billion when you are 15 trillion in the hole?

redbird87 wrote:

Now. Whether we have money to pay for it or not................is totally irrelevant. We'll just borrow some more, like we always do. What's another 300 or 400 billion when you are 15 trillion in the hole?

I don't think spending on the F-35 is the budget problem RedBird. Take a look through these charts to see where our money is being spent, when it went out of control and what the projections are if we don't make some major changes to our spending patterns:

http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/

(Specifically, see this for a defense versus everything chart: http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/b ... -programs)

(Here's the sequestration plan: http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/b ... ntrol-act)

Note also that INTEREST ALONE on our debt is equal to 3/5 of total defense spending!!

maus92 wrote:

A3D / A-3 Sky Warrior aka "Whale" was probably the heaviest aircraft normally operated, not sure about the wingspan though.

72ft wingspan 76ft long 82,000lbs max takeoff.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

Navy admiral hints at jettisoning F-35 fighter