Page 1 of 16

CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2019, 19:40
by spazsinbad
CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign [BEST READ at SOURCE]
07 Feb 2019 Steve Trimble

"A U.S. defense expert [Center for Strategic and Budgetary Analysis (CSBA) analyst Bryan Clark] says the U.S. Navy should redesign the Lockheed Martin F-35C to perform a future role as a fleet defense fighter and long-range bomber escort.

…the Navy will also need a more capable frontline fleet defense fighter, he adds. The F-35C and the F/A-18E/F were designed to perform a multirole mission. Clark argues that the carrier air wing needs an aircraft optimized to perform as an air-to-air fighter. The so-called F/A-XX could perform long-distance fleet defense missions and escort Air Force bombers if Chinese missiles disable the runways on land bases for F-22s, F-35s and F-15s.

Instead of designing the F/A-XX from a clean-sheet, Clark suggests that Lockheed could redesign the F-35C to perform that role. It would require integrating a more efficient propulsion system and conformal fuel tanks, he says. The funding would come from truncating the Navy’s planned F-35C order after half the aircraft are delivered, he says, but the development phase should begin now.

“That would allow the Navy to get the more specialized aircraft it needs for a higher threat environment we’re facing in the future,” Clark says."

REGAINING THE HIGH GROUND AT SEA: Transforming the U.S. Navy’s Carrier Air Wing for Great Power Competition 14 Dec 2018 Bryan Clark, Adam Lemon, Peter Haynes, Kyle Libby, Gillian Evans https://csbaonline.org/uploads/document ... n=download (18.5Mb) Graphic is ONE of many in this 144 page PDF


Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/csba-an ... c-redesign

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2019, 20:06
by marsavian
CFTs and a new more fuel efficient engine is hardly a redesign more like upgrade options for existing F-35C. A redesign would be a stretched less draggy airframe that contained more fuel. If they could redesign a F-35C with the same or less drag as a F-35A so it accelerates as well, the USAF and export countries might be interested in a CTOL variant making the business case strong for LMT to do it.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2019, 20:11
by SpudmanWP
The funding would come from truncating the Navy’s planned F-35C order after half the aircraft are delivered,
:doh:

Did he forget that the F-35C replaces the F-18C/D?

If they truncate the F-35C by 50% and make the F/A-XX focus on A2A, then they severely cripple the USN's strike assets.

Why not fund the dev from existing F/A-XX funding?

Also, if you are redeveloping it, why bother with CFTs, just design it with larger internal fuel tanks.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2019, 20:40
by sprstdlyscottsmn
marsavian wrote:If they could redesign a F-35C with the same or less drag as a F-35A so it accelerates as well,

That is a physical impossibility, sorry. You want to redesign the C to have the same drag as the A? Give it the wing and tail from an A. Oops, now it can't fly slow enough to get back aboard the boat.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2019, 21:00
by SpudmanWP
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:That is a physical impossibility

Would not a body stretch improve it's ratio leading to lower drag?

Giving it the proposed "advance 3 stream engine" should keep the power to weight ratio in he same range as the F-35C.

For a lower approach speed, would not retractable canards (so that RCS is not compromised) allow for that?

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2019, 21:02
by spazsinbad
SpudmanWP wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:That is a physical impossibility

Would not a body stretch improve it's ratio leading to lower drag? Giving it the proposed "advance 3 stream engine" should keep the power to weight ratio in he same range as the F-35C. For a lower approach speed, would not retractable canards (so that RCS is not compromised) allow for that?

IIRC having CANARDs on the TYPHOON for Carrier Landings SEVERELY reduced pilot view over the nose, which is essential.

Lots of ladedah - mostly negative - about the proposed Sea Typhoon: Deliberations on the Typhoon Project
"...the Typhoon pilot’s view of the landing sight and deck during the extensive simulator tests carried out continued to be minimal (or in some cases nil, due to the location of the aircraft’s fore-planes)…." https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... 60/m3a.pdf (0.6Mb)

"...Delta-Canard design was considered not optimal for carrier landings because of how its shape restricted the pilot’s visibility...." http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot ... phoon.html

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2019, 21:09
by marsavian
SpudmanWP wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:That is a physical impossibility

Would not a body stretch improve it's ratio leading to lower drag?

Giving it the proposed "advance 3 stream engine" should keep the power to weight ratio in he same range as the F-35C.

For a lower approach speed, would not retractable canards (so that RCS is not compromised) allow for that?


Indeed tune the generic F-35 fuselage for the F-35C wing for area rule and fineness ratio to reduce wave drag, after all the F-35 variants are basically designed around the original stovl X-35 prototype body which had to be voluminous/wide enough for the lift-fan and short enough so it wasn't too heavy.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2019, 21:15
by sprstdlyscottsmn
SpudmanWP wrote:Would not a body stretch improve it's ratio leading to lower drag?

For a lower approach speed, would not retractable canards (so that RCS is not compromised) allow for that?


You can stretch the body to improve the fineness ratio which will help a little with wave drag, but the dominant factor is the wing. That body stretch will add weight, thousands of pounds of it. That will need a bigger wing to make it back to the carrier. That increases the wave drag again.

Where are you going to put these retractable canards? How much will they weigh? How much maintenance would they require? (The glove vanes on the F-14 were bolted shut for a reason)

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2019, 21:46
by SpudmanWP
spazsinbad wrote:IIRC having CANARDs on the TYPHOON for Carrier Landings SEVERELY reduced pilot view over the nose, which is essential.

If only there were some system that would allow for the pilot to see "through" parts of the aircraft :mrgreen:

Combine that with JPALS and it's a non-issue, not to mention that the Typhoon's canards are forward of the pilot while the F-35D could place tehm next to or even behind the pilot's view.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2019, 21:49
by spazsinbad
Again IIRC there are quotes that DAS will not be used for carrier approaches. Sure DFP Delta Flight Path with JPALS for an automatic approach might work; then there are all the other considerations for carrier aircraft to CONSIDER again. <sigh>

Remember the F-35C was designed to operate from a CVN 'as is' with only cosmetic changes to extraneous infrastructure. Now there might be a chance to redesign future FORD class (EDSEL?) for this SUPAdupa Sea Lightening (yes I know). :drool:

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2019, 21:55
by SpudmanWP
LM has started to use CNRP in non-structural areas of the F-35. Take some of the FA-XX dev money and start doing risk-reduction studies now. On using it in load-bearing structural areas. If successful, this will greatly reduce the empty weight of aircraft.

Image

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2019, 22:03
by SpudmanWP
There is plenty of room for grown in the F-35D aboard a CVN. Remember that these used to have F-14s (62ft long) and A-5s (76ft long) aboard.

A clean sheet FA-XX would certainly longer than an F-35C so a stretched C should not be an issue.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2019, 22:46
by spazsinbad
SpudmanWP wrote:There is plenty of room for grown in the F-35D aboard a CVN. Remember that these used to have F-14s (62ft long) and A-5s (76ft long) aboard. A clean sheet FA-XX would certainly longer than an F-35C so a stretched C should not be an issue.

I'm always amazed at the simple solutions devised by people wanting to have an aircraft carrier approach and deck land with a catapult thrown in to boot. IF ONLY... I would point again to the various PDFs that contain info for considerations needed by a carrier operating aircraft; I don't have time to relocate them in this forum, again right now. Will find them later.... IF ONLY the physical size or weight were the only requirements - I can go on and on and on and on and on.... :roll:

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2019, 22:53
by sprstdlyscottsmn
If the Navy cared about super-sonic performance as much as some NavAv fans do they never would have gotten rid of the F-14, or they would have specified super-sonic performance in the spec for the F-35C. What spec did the Navy drive? twin 2k bombs internal. What spec did the Navy change mid-competition? Approach Speed.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2019, 23:03
by SpudmanWP
I was not implying a simple way of making it happen, just saying that spot space on a carriers would not be the limiting factor.