11 Oct 2017, 05:28
Pratt & Whitney is already proposing F135 engine upgrades that promise on the order of +10% thrust with 5-7% decreased fuel burn. If memory serves, GO 2 suggests even better performance increases. A future GE or P&W 3-stream engine could see up to 30% decreased fuel burn, and possibly more thrust.
However, the old adage is that all aircraft always gain weight.
Question for discussion: do you see the F-35 being no different in this regard, and it is inevitable that it gains weight?
IMO, there is an argument to be made that the F-35 may be an exception to this "rule." Why? Two reasons:
By adopting a concurrent development program, the US and her allies are receiving an aircraft that has already been continuously tweaked and upgraded. Problems have been identified, and fixed. The (in)famous stand-down also put a HUGE emphasis on weight reduction. And the -B model has definite limits on weight owing to its STO and VL requirements. So pretty much everything you could possibly want in an F-35 is already in it. Well, except for directed energy weapons. If a tactically useful laser comes along and can fit in the F-35, then all bets are off, IMO, regarding weight.
Secondly, the F-35 is largely defined by her avionics, specifically her software. For the most part, software has no weight... or, since storage capacity seems to be ever increasing within the same form factor, one does not have to add weight to add more software. Processors are also ever increasing in speed, for roughly the same form factor. They are also tending to use less energy as they advance, so their thermal footprint decreases. I would argue that as processor technology continues to increase, the F-35 could either become lighter (!), or increased capability will be realized for the same weight.
If weight, therefore, is staying roughly the same, but engine power increases, this bodes well for increased performance -- both kinematic and range/endurance.
My arguments assume the airframe stays the same. It also assumes no major structural issues are uncovered... but given the concurrent development process, and the extensive testing to date, I assign a low risk to any such possible problems.
On the other hand, if along comes a super-duper F-135 GO2 or GE 3-stream blower... and it is decided to lengthen the airframe to stuff MORE fuel into it (or maybe some new, hypersonic A2A vundermissile that HAS to be longer, and hence the weapons bays have to be longer), then increased performance is not a given.
Thoughts?
However, the old adage is that all aircraft always gain weight.
Question for discussion: do you see the F-35 being no different in this regard, and it is inevitable that it gains weight?
IMO, there is an argument to be made that the F-35 may be an exception to this "rule." Why? Two reasons:
- Concurrent development
- Software
By adopting a concurrent development program, the US and her allies are receiving an aircraft that has already been continuously tweaked and upgraded. Problems have been identified, and fixed. The (in)famous stand-down also put a HUGE emphasis on weight reduction. And the -B model has definite limits on weight owing to its STO and VL requirements. So pretty much everything you could possibly want in an F-35 is already in it. Well, except for directed energy weapons. If a tactically useful laser comes along and can fit in the F-35, then all bets are off, IMO, regarding weight.
Secondly, the F-35 is largely defined by her avionics, specifically her software. For the most part, software has no weight... or, since storage capacity seems to be ever increasing within the same form factor, one does not have to add weight to add more software. Processors are also ever increasing in speed, for roughly the same form factor. They are also tending to use less energy as they advance, so their thermal footprint decreases. I would argue that as processor technology continues to increase, the F-35 could either become lighter (!), or increased capability will be realized for the same weight.
If weight, therefore, is staying roughly the same, but engine power increases, this bodes well for increased performance -- both kinematic and range/endurance.
My arguments assume the airframe stays the same. It also assumes no major structural issues are uncovered... but given the concurrent development process, and the extensive testing to date, I assign a low risk to any such possible problems.
On the other hand, if along comes a super-duper F-135 GO2 or GE 3-stream blower... and it is decided to lengthen the airframe to stuff MORE fuel into it (or maybe some new, hypersonic A2A vundermissile that HAS to be longer, and hence the weapons bays have to be longer), then increased performance is not a given.
Thoughts?
Take an F-16, add a dollop of A-7, a big gob of F-22, sprinkle on some AV-8B, stir well, then bake. What do you get? An F-35.
