CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

[lbk000]

Well, how can the F-22 fill the capability gap when it can't even fill the range gap? Haha

[marauder2048]

Well, how can the F-22 fill the capability gap when it can't even fill the range gap? Haha

It was going to be a derivative (F-22E) with a fuselage plug that resulted in a 30% increase in range.

[popcorn]

The OCA mission seems to be the primary driver to justify an extended range fighter. For DCA it would appear that F-35C partnered with UCAV missile mules can handle inbound aerial threats.

OCA is being justified as possible ezcort's for US Bombers (B-21) in penetrating a hostile IADS. The escorts themselves may be constrained in how much A2G ordnance they can haul over long distances.

For consideration:
Will the USAF bombers armed with lasers need OCA support?
Navy is developing a hypersonic glide weapon. This would be the primary long range offensive weapon, complemented by LRASM, Tomahawk, etc.

F-35C/CAVscan fulfill the other CBG missions, in addition to.
DCA.

:

Of course, Navy won't be happy being relegated to a secondary role and one that undercuts the justification for CVNs.

[marauder2048]

Navy is developing a hypersonic glide weapon. This would be the primary long range offensive weapon, complements by LRASM, Tomahawk, etc.

For consideration :

Of course, Navy won't be happy being relegated to a secondary role and one that undercuts the justification for CVNs.

Similarly, a very heavy investment in fast jet delivered long range standoff
undermines the value proposition for the CVNs in the high threat environment:
arsenal ships, for example, begin to look more attractive.

[ricnunes]

Here is some more explanation about traveling waves:

https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavion ... ermeasure/



And of course this picture:

Thanks for the links and images botsing.

To be honest with you, I feel pretty much stupid right now since I now remember to have posted that second image of your post in here in F-16.net (but in another thread) in a discussion which I participated in the past (several months ago)

Anyway, that explains the problem regarding the A-12 trailing edge and how it affects (negatively) its RCS.

[ricnunes]

It would have required extensive changes to the design...

Yes, I'm now convinced of that too.

Nevertheless, I still think or believe that even an extensively changed A-12 would still be much cheaper than a newly designed supersonic F/A-XX while at the same time being far more survivable than the Super Hornet and also at the same time (and more importantly so) keeping that Boeing fighter/combat aircraft production line at St. Louis opened and manufacturing relevant aircraft.

Don't be mistaken, I'm strongly believe that the F-35C alone is more than enough for fulfill the US Navy needs in terms of combat aircraft! However I'm also "cynic" enough to believe that keeping the Boeing production line opened is something like a top priority in the USA, namely or mainly for (some/many) politicians and IMO this is by far the main reason why the Super Hornet is still and will be procured/manufactured (instead of F-35C's only for the US Navy).
A modified A-12 or something along those lines would at least give Boeing something to build which would be relevant for future warfare instead of the Super Hornet. Maybe getting Boeing to team up with Northrop Grumman (NG) would be a good solution since the project would benefit from NG's extensive knowledge about Stealth flying-wing aircraft designs and at the same time this would give work not only to Boeing but also to NG.

[crosshairs]

Well, how can the F-22 fill the capability gap when it can't even fill the range gap? Haha

It was going to be a derivative (F-22E) with a fuselage plug that resulted in a 30% increase in range.

Is that what it ended up as, an "E" and not F/B-22.

[marauder2048]

Well, how can the F-22 fill the capability gap when it can't even fill the range gap? Haha

It was going to be a derivative (F-22E) with a fuselage plug that resulted in a 30% increase in range.

Is that what it ended up as, an "E" and not F/B-22.

I believe the F-22E was a separate and distinct proposal but was later recast as one
of the F/B-22 variants.

[steve2267]

Well, how can the F-22 fill the capability gap when it can't even fill the range gap? Haha

It was going to be a derivative (F-22E) with a fuselage plug that resulted in a 30% increase in range.

So... a little less than the F-35, which can lug dual 2000lb-ers, then?

[marauder2048]

Well, how can the F-22 fill the capability gap when it can't even fill the range gap? Haha

It was going to be a derivative (F-22E) with a fuselage plug that resulted in a 30% increase in range.

So... a little less than the F-35, which can lug dual 2000lb-ers, then?

They were essentially assuming an F-15E profile (subsonic) so up to 780 nautical miles
There was a payload bump on A2G: up to 4 x 2000 lb. But I can't find payload @ range figures.

[mixelflick]

F-22E?

So we've had the F-22A, the F/B-22 and.... the F-22E proposed.

This brings up the possibility of an F-22C. D doesn't make sense, no 2 seat trainers of 5th gen birds. So.... was the F-22C perhaps the F-22/F-35 hybrid Lockheed was proposing?

It's getting confusing, LOL. Would have like to have seen the F-22A's upgraded to C's through MSIP and F/B-22's flying that niche strike between an F-15E and B-1B. More survivable that either, wouldn't require any fighter escort and retains some commonality with the F-22C (up-rated engines)?

I just think for all the upgrades the F-22 has had/is scheduled to have - the F-22C label is warranted.

[blain]

A long range fighter will have a different planform optimized for range and likely not have the same characteristics we associate with fighters - maneuverability.

If that is the case then could the B-21 with a low observable loyal wingman loaded with AAMs fulfill part of that requirement. You wouldn't necessarily have to establish air supremacy but suppress enemy fighter opposition in order for the B-21s to complete their mission.

[blain]

If the F-35C gets more thrust isn't that a good thing? What's the big deal, you're just making a great jet even better.


Most seem to forget the original Strike Eagles had -220s. And this was back in 1989 at SJ.

Typically, improvements in engine thrust have been used to offset the growth in weight as the aircraft is upgraded. This is what happened with the F-16 as it matured from the A model to the Block 50.

[SpudmanWP]

It's a good thing that in the case of the F-35, all of the expected avionics & sensors were part of the initial build. If anything, newer components will get lighter as tech improves (ie the EODAS improvements).

[blain]

I haven't been here in a while so I missed the initial discussion of the CSBA report. When the study was published I thought it was a good attempt at providing an cogent assessment of the threat and the need to have the CSG fight at longer ranges. That being said Clark and his team concocts a risky, inefficient, and I think an unrealistic plan to refocus the CVW on countering the A2/AD threat.

1. Choosing a paper design - the FA-XX and a UCAV - over a fighter in production seems foolish. The services have already invested billions in the development of the F-35. I don't really understand why the Navy has not fully committed to it like the AF did years ago. To fund R and D and not trying to get a return on your investment by producing the aircraft in efficient number and reducing fly away costs is idiotic. It's not the best solution to fight at 1,000 nm but it can serve as an 80% solution until a better solution can be developed.

2. UCAVs - I don't know if they can replace manned strike aircraft in the near term. I really don't see how Clark can realistically think that development can begin anytime soon. How will a UCAV be different than a Tomahawk or a Reaper? Will they be semiautonomous? Be remotely commanded on the ground or as a loyal wingman? Can we insure secure command and control? Are we confident that they can operate in a contested Battle Space?

3. Range - By its very nature carrier air will be limited by range due to the need to operate off of a carrier. Putting a plug in the F-35 is not the best solution as a larger aircraft will weigh more, have larger wings, produce more drag, and consume more fuel. We discovered that with the Super Hornet. Even with improved engines, range improvement will be at the margins. A carrier based tankers also isn't the most efficient solution. You are limited by the number of tankers you can purchase and base on a carrier. If a CVW carries 6 MQ-25s you might be able to support 4 to 6 F-35Cs out to 1,000 nm - less payload than one B-2A. A 4 CV CSG could send out between 16 and 24 F-35s, a more respectable numbers.

If you want a fighter than can operate up to 1,000 nm from the carrier you need to design one with a planform that is optimized for range - keeping in mind the you are going to trade off maneuverability. Is there a more cost effective solution than a new manned fighter program?