CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

element1loop · by **element1loop** » 09 Feb 2019, 10:59

steve2267 wrote: You only get to do these things if you *snap* your fingers.

If you can't manage to discuss anything without being a total jackass then try a little STFU, eh?

citanon · by **citanon** » 09 Feb 2019, 11:13

wrightwing wrote:ACE motors, MQ-25s, and stand off weapons will more than meet the 1000nm stand off range. The Navy needs the full buy, and to develop the FA-XX, more than some F-35D variant.

I was thinking the same. Isn't the F-35C + MQ-25 pretty much the same capability as what the analyst is proposing?

quicksilver · by **quicksilver** » 09 Feb 2019, 14:23

citanon wrote:
wrightwing wrote:ACE motors, MQ-25s, and stand off weapons will more than meet the 1000nm stand off range. The Navy needs the full buy, and to develop the FA-XX, more than some F-35D variant.

I was thinking the same. Isn't the F-35C + MQ-25 pretty much the same capability as what the analyst is proposing?

This.

quicksilver · by **quicksilver** » 09 Feb 2019, 14:27

vanshilar wrote:Well guys here's the problem

Chiseled in granite...

:roll:

Jerry Hendrix wrote some similar numbers back in 2015 iirc. He even claimed that the A-4 had more range/radius that SH or the C (another eye roll).

Like some posters above have noted, there are many design trades already on the shelf when the first article of any design is first delivered; same/no different for the C. Many of these will emerge in C2D2 over the next 7-8 years. I’m surprised Mr Clark doesn’t know that. Perhaps his real intent is to get the C buy truncated again (at the behest of some other corporate interest) by suggesting another crazy idea just in front of Congressional testimony season.

Here’s link to previous upgraded engine discussion.
viewtopic.php?t=53143

quicksilver · by **quicksilver** » 09 Feb 2019, 16:25

citanon wrote:
wrightwing wrote:ACE motors, MQ-25s, and stand off weapons will more than meet the 1000nm stand off range. The Navy needs the full buy, and to develop the FA-XX, more than some F-35D variant.

I was thinking the same. Isn't the F-35C + MQ-25 pretty much the same capability as what the analyst is proposing?

And think about it...why should they truncate the buy of their newest, most capable asset instead of the Super-dupers?

I note for the record that they suggested such a thing in one of their ‘balanced’ options. Steve Trimble is the one who made this all about F-35. There are 170 pages in the CSBA pdf.

mixelflick · by **mixelflick** » 09 Feb 2019, 17:12

Well, this certainly blows the whole "any F-35 variant is equal to or better than any 4.5 gen design in kinematics" thing out of the water. If that's so, why the re-design?

It's air to everything, so what's wrong with an F-35C loaded out with 6 AMRAAM's internally, and maybe 2 9x externally for fleet air defense? Dogfights aren't going to happen, right? So why the need for more thrust (already the single most powerful engine ever put into a fighter)? It's going to detect anything that moves with it's super SA, and kill them before they even know what hit them.

For the record, I believe most of what LM is saying. So these people calling for a re-design... why aren't they being crucified the way some are here when suggesting the F-35 should have a bit more thrust, all variants should have internal gun etc etc. just in case they get into a dogfight?

We can't have it both ways..

My 2 cents: Leave the F-35C alone and put the money into F/A-XX. And for once god dammit, do it right (for fleet air defense).

quicksilver · by **quicksilver** » 09 Feb 2019, 17:34

“any F-35 variant is equal to or better than any 4.5 gen design in kinematics" —mixedup

Who, with any credibility whatsoever, has ever said that?

“So why the need for more thrust”— mixedupagain

Because it is on record as the most kinematically challenged of the three F-35 variants.

mixelflick · by **mixelflick** » 09 Feb 2019, 17:51

[quote="quicksilver"]“any F-35 variant is equal to or better than any 4.5 gen design in kinematics" —mixedup

Who, with any credibility whatsoever, has ever said that?

Glad you asked!

The people who build it...*

"Lockheed Martin is claiming that all three versions of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will have kinematic performance better than or equal to any combat-configured fourth-generation fighter."

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... er-382078/

*NOT "Mixedup"

F-16ADF · by **F-16ADF** » 09 Feb 2019, 18:20

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.

mixelflick · by **mixelflick** » 09 Feb 2019, 19:05

f-16adf wrote: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.

Sure, it's a good thing. A VERY good thing. But the modifications go well beyond just up-rating the engine. They're talking about stretching the fuselage to carry more fuel, etc.. To me, this is a tacit admission that the F-35 (C, anyway) isn't as capable in the air to air arena as we've been led to believe. For if that really were the case, why modify it at all?

FOR THE RECORD: I'm in full agreement with up-rating it (on multiple levels). As you noted, the F-35C is the most kinematically (sp?) challenged of the bunch, so it makes total sense. Lord knows the Hornet (Super, Super Duper etc) isn't cutting it for fleet air defense..

F-16ADF · by **F-16ADF** » 09 Feb 2019, 19:16

I agree with you. But most people seem to forget the Navy F-4 did CAP usually with 4-6 missiles (granted sometimes in SEA the load out was 8, usually about 6). And the F-14 seems like it flew more often than not with 6 missiles on it, 8 was not the norm. I'd bet my shorts that the F-35C with 6 missiles has far better range than the Tomcat or SH.

quicksilver · by **quicksilver** » 09 Feb 2019, 19:19

mixelflick wrote:
quicksilver wrote:“any F-35 variant is equal to or better than any 4.5 gen design in kinematics" —mixedup

Who, with any credibility whatsoever, has ever said that?

Glad you asked!

The people who build it...*

"Lockheed Martin is claiming that all three versions of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will have kinematic performance better than or equal to any combat-configured fourth-generation fighter."

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... er-382078/

*NOT "Mixedup"

I know Billy and I know the context of his remarks. Dave Majumdar said it; you’re trusting that he got the quote right and he has a track record of getting it wrong.

quicksilver · by **quicksilver** » 09 Feb 2019, 19:21

f-16adf wrote: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.

There’s no such thing as too much power. :wink:

quicksilver · by **quicksilver** » 09 Feb 2019, 19:26

“To me, this is a tacit admission that the F-35 (C, anyway) isn't as capable in the air to air arena as we've been led to believe. For if that really were the case, why modify it at all?”

Because that’s what happens to all fighters in US service.

marsavian · by **marsavian** » 09 Feb 2019, 19:31

They're talking about stretching the fuselage to carry more fuel, etc.. To me, this is a tacit admission that the F-35 (C, anyway) isn't as capable in the air to air arena as we've been led to believe. For if that really were the case, why modify it at all?

The F-35C already has more radius/range on internal fuel than any fleet fighter before it but the OP was about making it extra rangy to escort long range bombers in case no USAF fighters could which is a bit of a wild assumption already. This is about satisfying the USN F/A-XX requirement which is their equivalent of the USAF PCA which are both new levels of performance going beyond in range what has existed before for a traditional fighter/bomber. Stretching the fuselage is some of our ideas, not the OP Analyst who wants CFTs instead.