CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Variants for different customers or mission profiles
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 22665
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post19 Feb 2019, 23:07

That may well be however if the 'flimsy' by your account reasoning is that used by USN then that is the reason - doanwerk.

Meanwhile HOW ASW gets into this thread is beyond me - perhaps redesigning the F-35C for ASW means another thread?

Meanwhile just to keep this thread OFF TOPIC perhaps segue here is a modified A-12 AVENGER graphic - does anyone have info on the planned Naval Aviation Carrier Approach aspects of the A-12? I have looked around with not much luck so far.
Attachments
A-12avengerCutawayNoText.jpg
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

tomcattech

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 16
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2017, 18:11

Unread post20 Feb 2019, 02:25

ricnunes wrote:it's also important to notice that the same feature (sweep wings) is also one of the main culprits for the F-14 high maintenance requirements.


Small note here based on my experience and my experience only:

The swing wings were not a huge, "hangar common" issue... (at least not in the way that you think) and was not a critical man hour suck on the aircraft on a daily\weekly basis.
(However, I do agree that the concept itself lends more failure points than a fixed wing design, and when there were issues it sucked considerably)

There were MANY more gripes with the flaps\slats (as well as overall hydraulic system issues) than the "wing mechanism\servo\actuator".

Most assuredly, any next-generation Tomcat would have been fly by wire, negating a lot of maintenance hours and down time.

However, as many have said on this thread... coulda, shoulda, woulda....

Let's get the F-35Cs on the flight deck and move on.
Last edited by tomcattech on 20 Feb 2019, 02:50, edited 3 times in total.
Hornets by mandate. Tomcats by choice!!
Offline

crosshairs

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2018, 19:03
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post20 Feb 2019, 02:35

spazsinbad wrote:That may well be however if the 'flimsy' by your account reasoning is that used by USN then that is the reason - doanwerk.

Meanwhile HOW ASW gets into this thread is beyond me - perhaps redesigning the F-35C for ASW means another thread?

Meanwhile just to keep this thread OFF TOPIC perhaps segue here is a modified A-12 AVENGER graphic - does anyone have info on the planned Naval Aviation Carrier Approach aspects of the A-12? I have looked around with not much luck so far.


As long as this if off topic, then I would imagine that before the program was funded, that they would have to have flown a demonstrator(s) to work that out, before spending billions on prototypes. Recall this was all pre B-2 and the last flying wings flown were the lifting body x-planes, but I am not sure they qualify as flying wings. No ground effect I would imagine in the same zip code as a true flying wing. They would not spend billions to get prototypes flying and go Oh s**t, can't land 'em on a carrier. Even the USAF thought for a time they might need special or auxiliary controls to land the B-2.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 22665
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post20 Feb 2019, 03:33

Thanks for input. PDF page reproduced edited: https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFA ... 200299.PDF
Attachments
A-12 Avenger 1992 - 0299 PDF PRNbw TIF.gif
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 22665
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post20 Feb 2019, 09:12

Page 8 this thread has talk of the CANARD of CANARDs - now TEJAS 2 might get 'em - I wonder if NAVALe version also?

viewtopic.php?f=61&t=55005&p=411476&hilit=RUBBA#p411476

IMAGE: http://alert5.com/wp-content/uploads/20 ... 144047.jpg Michael Jerdev
From:
Proposed Tejas Mk2 will get canards 20 Feb 2019 ALERT5
http://alert5.com/2019/02/20/proposed-t ... t-canards/
Attachments
TEJAS2canards.jpg
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5310
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post20 Feb 2019, 09:45

Never going to happen. Hell, I have my doubts about the AMCA???
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1911
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post20 Feb 2019, 12:30

disconnectedradical wrote:Also the A-12 was apparently not a good design at all with pretty bad stealth, and was part of the reason it got canceled.


This I didn't know.
Could you share a source for this? I'm asking this (for a source) because I never read something in this regard.

What I read about the reasons that lead to the A-12 cancellation was basically (and resuming) due to delays and cost overruns which were mostly related to a combination of immature technology (the AESA radar for example would be one of the reasons) and with obscure/shady politics (and political decisions) at the time.

Anyway, the reason why I mentioned as "A-12 comeback" was because the immature technology problems that "plagued" the A-12 back then (early 1990's) are now solved.
And speaking of this, wouldn't modern and mature technology of today (including new materials) solve or help solving the stealth/RCS issues that the original A-12 design might have back then?
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1911
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post20 Feb 2019, 13:26

spazsinbad wrote:Meanwhile HOW ASW gets into this thread is beyond me - perhaps redesigning the F-35C for ASW means another thread?


I admit that I may got carried away about the ASW role on combat aircraft such as the A-12 (or tentative A-6F).

However "in my defense" there are a few points that lead me to mention the addition of such roles (ASW):
- The tendency today is multi-role. You have an aircraft that fills several roles. Of course that I don't believe that we will ever have an aircraft that can fill all and every possible role.
- However, advancements in technology have allowed that a single aircraft can perform a myriad of roles which in the past was unthinkable. As such and with the all the modern technological advancements wouldn't it be possible to add ASW functionalities on some aircraft, namely on multi-crew (2 men) aircraft such as the A-12 or a modern variant of an A-6?
Resuming the second crewman would man the ASW instruments such as listening to SonoBuoys and even release Torpedoes on the vicinity of enemy detected Subs. On the other hand, perhaps were still aren't there in technological levels?



tomcattech wrote:
ricnunes wrote:it's also important to notice that the same feature (sweep wings) is also one of the main culprits for the F-14 high maintenance requirements.


Small note here based on my experience and my experience only:

The swing wings were not a huge, "hangar common" issue... (at least not in the way that you think) and was not a critical man hour suck on the aircraft on a daily\weekly basis.
(However, I do agree that the concept itself lends more failure points than a fixed wing design, and when there were issues it sucked considerably)

There were MANY more gripes with the flaps\slats (as well as overall hydraulic system issues) than the "wing mechanism\servo\actuator".

Most assuredly, any next-generation Tomcat would have been fly by wire, negating a lot of maintenance hours and down time.


Thanks for your insight tomcattech!



tomcattech wrote:However, as many have said on this thread... coulda, shoulda, woulda....

Let's get the F-35Cs on the flight deck and move on.


Yes, you're absolutely right.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3279
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post20 Feb 2019, 14:58

ricnunes wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:Tomcat 21 won't have survivability of F-35C or A-12 but I think it would be better than Super Hornet. Super Hornet isn't stealthy either, it doesn't have any real stealth shaping in the fuselage and wings and most of RCS reduction is from angled panels and radar blockers for the engines, which can easily be applied to Tomcat 21 airframe (both Super Hornet and Tomcat 21 airframe are pretty much new). Also Tomcat can have a much bigger radar and has built in IRST. Though Tomcat 21 would be much more expensive to maintain than Super Hornet, no denying that.


I tend to agree with your assessment above in general.

However I don't believe that the Tomcat 21 RCS couldn't be lowered to similar levels as the Super Hornet RCS.

The main culprit here would IMO be the sweep-wings, which as I'm sure you know in the case of the F-14 its wing angle varies automatically depending on factors such as the F-14's speed. As such, I would say that this is likely a source for a big RCS that probably can't be lowered at all.
And if I'm right about the potential cause and effect between sweep-wings and larger RCS then it's also important to notice that the same feature (sweep wings) is also one of the main culprits for the F-14 high maintenance requirements.

So the main problems of the Tomcat (-B or -D) would still be carried over to the Tomcat 21, this independently of how many improvements the Tomcat 21 could have had.

Chances are, if a stealthy carrier fighter was given swept wings, it would be designed to be stealthy with them swept back, and only sweep them forward for landings and maybe WVR combat.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1911
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post20 Feb 2019, 16:42

count_to_10 wrote:Chances are, if a stealthy carrier fighter was given swept wings, it would be designed to be stealthy with them swept back, and only sweep them forward for landings and maybe WVR combat.


Sure, that could be a possibility indeed.
But now the question is: Would such arrangement (wings swept back) give the Tomcat 21 a useful agility during most combat situations?
IMO I don't think it would since and if I'm not mistaken, the F-14 would only fly with its wings completely swept back when flying at high speed, i.e. supersonic.
So, for optimal turning agility in the F-14B/D Tomcat, the wings are not completely swept back and while the Tomcat 21 would be a "new" aircraft, it would still be completely based - namely airframe wise - on the older Tomcats.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Online

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4108
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post20 Feb 2019, 17:11

Right, max range and max endurance cruise speeds are with the wings swept nearly all the way forward.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 627
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: Fort Worth, TX

Unread post20 Feb 2019, 18:09

ricnunes wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:Also the A-12 was apparently not a good design at all with pretty bad stealth, and was part of the reason it got canceled.


This I didn't know.
Could you share a source for this? I'm asking this (for a source) because I never read something in this regard.

What I read about the reasons that lead to the A-12 cancellation was basically (and resuming) due to delays and cost overruns which were mostly related to a combination of immature technology (the AESA radar for example would be one of the reasons) and with obscure/shady politics (and political decisions) at the time.

Anyway, the reason why I mentioned as "A-12 comeback" was because the immature technology problems that "plagued" the A-12 back then (early 1990's) are now solved.
And speaking of this, wouldn't modern and mature technology of today (including new materials) solve or help solving the stealth/RCS issues that the original A-12 design might have back then?


Something about the A-12 trailing edge being straight means there's a big RCS spot right in front. Apparently neither Northrop or Lockheed wanted to bid so General Dynamics got the contract but at that time they didn't have the stealth experience.
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 628
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post20 Feb 2019, 20:49

ricnunes wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Meanwhile HOW ASW gets into this thread is beyond me - perhaps redesigning the F-35C for ASW means another thread?


I admit that I may got carried away about the ASW role on combat aircraft such as the A-12 (or tentative A-6F).

However "in my defense" there are a few points that lead me to mention the addition of such roles (ASW):
- The tendency today is multi-role. You have an aircraft that fills several roles. Of course that I don't believe that we will ever have an aircraft that can fill all and every possible role.
- However, advancements in technology have allowed that a single aircraft can perform a myriad of roles which in the past was unthinkable. As such and with the all the modern technological advancements wouldn't it be possible to add ASW functionalities on some aircraft, namely on multi-crew (2 men) aircraft such as the A-12 or a modern variant of an A-6?
Resuming the second crewman would man the ASW instruments such as listening to SonoBuoys and even release Torpedoes on the vicinity of enemy detected Subs. On the other hand, perhaps were still aren't there in technological levels?



I think it's legit since it steers us back to the CSBA study as a whole, rather than Stupid Stephen Trimble's headline
hijacking. Or maybe I'm just partial to the study since it embraces CVW fighter escorts of land based bombers.
Offline

lbk000

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 259
  • Joined: 04 May 2017, 16:19

Unread post20 Feb 2019, 22:21

ricnunes wrote:...

I also recall reading that the A-12 had major LO issues with the trailing edge (really, its a planform issue). AFAIU the aircraft's skin will retain the incoming energy which nevertheless needs to go somewhere, so when it hits a discontinuity it'll get radiated, which is why in LO designs you see serrations along edge lines to radiate at oblique angles. The A-12's trailing edge would basically catch radar waves and then kick them straight back at it, a pretty big booboo for the design. I believe they tried to bandaid it with RAM solutions to dissipate the traveling waves, but the trailing edge was a fundamental problem baked deeply in the design.

The USN received little or no input from the USAF about LO design, and GD did not have the experience of LM and Northrop.
Last edited by lbk000 on 20 Feb 2019, 23:33, edited 3 times in total.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 22665
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post20 Feb 2019, 22:56

Corsair1963 wrote:Never going to happen. Hell, I have my doubts about the AMCA???

Not to derail the thread too much <sigh> go here for Indian Navy LCA Tejas Mark II hell. I guess it will be clear? later. :roll:

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2018/12 ... -deck.html 03 Dec 2018
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Variants and Missions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests