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.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2019, 23:12
by wrightwing
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.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2019, 23:32
by f-16adf
The F-35C as it stands probably has more range (and far, far less drag) than a similarly loaded F-14D, or any F-18 variant (for an air to air mission). All it may need is a bit more power. There is no need to mess up a fine design.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 00:20
by spazsinbad
SpudmanWP wrote: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.

Fair enough. My comment was more for genpop - so apologies. Gotta have brekky now so I can think straight & remember.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 00:43
by usnvo
f-16adf wrote:The F-35C as it stands probably has more range (and far, far less drag) than a similarly loaded F-14D, or any F-18 variant (for an air to air mission). All it may need is a bit more power. There is no need to mess up a fine design.


I always laugh. If a 670nm combat radius is short ranged, what is long ranged? If you really wanted to make the F-35C a better fleet defense aircraft, how about a pair of 5000lb EFTs, certify the AIM-120 for external carriage, and povide a six shot internal AIM-120D capability. That would cost virtually nothing, give you something like 27klbs of fuel for greater loiter time, 10 AIM-120Ds and 2 AIM-9Xs, and not change the aircraft at all.

Or, my personal favorite, make a KF-35C to extend the range organically. A F-35C with the internal bomb bays removed and replaced with more fuel tanks, the centerline gun pod converted to a refueling pod, and a 5000lb EFT on the inboard stations and a 2500lb EFT on the outer stations and you have an aircraft with something like 36klbs of fuel. Should easily give you well over 15klbs at 500nm and be stealthy to boot. And it could still be a second day of the war bomb truck using the exterior stations.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 01:10
by marauder2048
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
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.


Or just blown flaps which was Lockheed's initial proposal for a common planform.
The third stream from an adaptive engine is an excellent source for lift augmentation.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 02:24
by steve2267
Since everyone is just snapping fingers and willing into existence (potentially) physical impossibilities with a mere post... I'll play too. :mrgreen:

Take the F-35C, *snap* give it an AETP-derived F135 powerplant with +25% thrust (cuz I say so) and 30% better fuel consumption. Redesign the weapons bays to hold three AIM-120 sized missiles and one AIM-9X on the outboard door, and the rest of the volume that had been required for a Mk84? -- yup, fill it with fuel. *snap*

Design new, flyback EFT's for the inner store locations, with a itty bitty wittul P&W TJ-150 turbojet, and some folding wings ala JSOW or JASSM. 4000lb extra fuel on each wing and an extra 4200lb in the re-designed weapons bays 'cuz I used a calculator to calculate JP-8 weight for swagged fuel volume gains 'cuz *snap* I said so. So an extree 12200lb of gas, six AIM-120D sized munitions, and two AIM-9X. :drool: Oh... I almost forgot... we're stuffing so much gas in the F-35CD... put the GAU-22/A into the left hand wing root, cuzz... y'know... dogfighting. And any self-respecting fighter pilot wants a gun, even if they won't admit it... and, well, the nasal radiators don't want to look bad compared to the Zoomies. Y'kno... TopGun3, hot babes (or studs -- or whatever gender the really beautiful person identifies with).

Launch off the cat, burn the gas in the flyback EFTs first. When necessary for range, loiter whatever... punch off the FBEFTs. (Don't forget boyz & girlz... the pylon mount? Yeah, it's not a pylon mount... it's part of the lateral stability device (aka the vertical fin) and goes with the FBEFT's... so when they leave... the F-35CD is full stelph again...) They can fly back to the boat. Now somebody is going to say... you're gonna land those suckers on the boat? What if what if whatif it crashes? X-47B anyone? Well, anyways, ok... create a SkyNet capture device that extends out from the side of the boat via a crane with a large net to capture the FBEFT. Put one SkyNet on each side of da boat. Problem solved, 'cuz *snap* I wrote it. :devil:

OR... just create a new ship that catches recovers the FBEFTs. Transfer them back to the CVN when convenient. It would be cheaper than the billions of dollars spent handicapping the F-35C strike force to fund the mythical F/A-XX Unicorn.

Dang... I haven't even stretched the F-35CD (C Dragon :twisted: ) to gain another .1 or .2 Mach and modest extra gas. Only cost ya, say, 5 knots approach speed, 'cuz *snap* I wrote it. :doh:

You could even use the FBEFT's on the F-35B. But the blue Navy could never stand for the Jarheads to be flying such long missions with the Killer Bee, so nevermind.

Oh... yeah, those FBEFTs... maybe you don't bother recovering them in a shooting war... Just punch them off... if they make it back, great. If not... no biggie. Stuff some chaff in the back, let them go make havoc somewhere. Pretend they are MALD's or something. And their cheep 'cuz of nanotubes and 3D printing and snuff, 'cuz *snap* I wrote it. :drool:

It never ceases to amaze me how people solve the military's problems because they wrote it. And it's not like trade studies are not already ongoing. It's not like risk reduction is not part of any corporation's research & development efforts.

Good grief.

:bang:

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 02:34
by steve2267
Oh wait... here's an idea...

Cancel the SuperDuper... double F-35C production rate. Keep the Growlers. Heck maybe even buy some more. When they're not growling... load 'em up with CFT's and EFT's... they can tank the F-35C's on station. Or tank the MQ-25 that will push further out to tank the F-35C's inbound to the target... :devil:

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 02:58
by wrightwing
usnvo wrote:
f-16adf wrote:The F-35C as it stands probably has more range (and far, far less drag) than a similarly loaded F-14D, or any F-18 variant (for an air to air mission). All it may need is a bit more power. There is no need to mess up a fine design.


I always laugh. If a 670nm combat radius is short ranged, what is long ranged? If you really wanted to make the F-35C a better fleet defense aircraft, how about a pair of 5000lb EFTs, certify the AIM-120 for external carriage, and povide a six shot internal AIM-120D capability. That would cost virtually nothing, give you something like 27klbs of fuel for greater loiter time, 10 AIM-120Ds and 2 AIM-9Xs, and not change the aircraft at all.

Or, my personal favorite, make a KF-35C to extend the range organically. A F-35C with the internal bomb bays removed and replaced with more fuel tanks, the centerline gun pod converted to a refueling pod, and a 5000lb EFT on the inboard stations and a 2500lb EFT on the outer stations and you have an aircraft with something like 36klbs of fuel. Should easily give you well over 15klbs at 500nm and be stealthy to boot. And it could still be a second day of the war bomb truck using the exterior stations.

And use up airframe life, like Super Hornets?

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 03:03
by spazsinbad
'StevenOfTheSNAP' said: "... Only cost ya, say, 5 knots approach speed, 'cuz *snap* I wrote it. :doh: …" The F-35C is already at max approach IAS at RCLW (required carrier landing weight) of 145 CANnots with plus 5 - so sayeth BettyBOOP. :P :roll:

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 03:12
by madrat
If you recycle F-35 tech into a new fighter you divide resources. F-35C is fine as is.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 04:06
by element1loop
madrat wrote:If you recycle F-35 tech into a new fighter you divide resources. F-35C is fine as is.


Major improvements come with a more efficient higher thrust engine within that stock airframe though (with or without CFT) as this creates higher cruise speed performance, which translates to a much improved specific-fuel-consumption for better range and much shorter flight times for longer-range missions. Then add the new standoff weapon (JASSM-X).

However, a low-drag CFT on the standard airframe can also be used to provide more buffer room to keep the tankers further back and increase loiter.

I'd do that to the F-35A too (if not do that first). Then put money into making sure external stores, cradles and pylons get improved LO and drag characteristics to improve the flexibility of the whole fleet.


EDIT: And this report will be an interesting read, if nothing else.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 06:43
by steve2267
element1loop wrote:Major improvements come with a more efficient higher thrust engine within that stock airframe though


I agree.

element1loop wrote:... (with or without CFT) as this creates higher cruise speed performance, which translates to a much improved specific-fuel-consumption for better range and much shorter flight times for longer-range missions. Then add the new standoff weapon (JASSM-X).

However, a low-drag CFT on the standard airframe can also be used to provide more buffer room to keep the tankers further back and increase loiter.


You only get to do these things if you *snap* your fingers. Previous statements by F-35 crew / USAF generals that have appeared here on F-16.net have alluded to the fact that the F-35 (and F-22) optimally cruise as high as 0.9 Mach. The F-35 is already noted for having a relatively poor fineness ratio (it is "fat"), and the naysayers love to b*tch about it being "slow" to accelerate through the Mach. So now you are going to magically make if fatter with CFT's, but that's alright, it's OK, because they are low drag CFT's. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over? I must have missed where you pulled out your magic CFD wand and waved it over the F-35 with these Unicorn CFT's. Thousands of CFD hours you've racked up, have you? Hundreds of wind tunnel hours? So I'm curious how you are going to achieve a higher cruise speed, since it is already cruising in the lower transonic range, by making it fatter and increasing it's wave drag as it approaches the Mach? The OML of the aircraft has not changed. There have been no airfoil changes (or did I miss another *snap*?), so the L/D hasn't changed, so the optimal cruise speed hasn't changed. Even if you do NOT put CFT's on it... if you try to cruise faster, you're simply going to burn more gas. Cruising faster is just going to push the airframe harder against that b*tch, known as the transonic drag rise. Also, I'm missing the part where cruising at a faster speed improves specific-fuel-consumption? The engine burns what the engine burns. AETP will bring new technologies that improve the aero- and thermodynamic properties of the engine... but what has that got to do with lower SFC because you're going faster? :doh:

element1loop wrote:I'd do that to the F-35A too (if not do that first). Then put money into making sure external stores, cradles and pylons get improved LO and drag characteristics to improve the flexibility of the whole fleet.


Absolutely! Because those damn aero guys have been slacking and don't give a sh*t about drag. And it's a d*mn pylon, for Flynn's sake... it's not supposed to be LO, said the LO engineers as they headed for an extended lunch with lots of beer. :doh:

:bang:

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 06:59
by steve2267
We're the JPO! We've only been shepherding this aircraft through a looooooong, concurrent development program. We're just happy the thing flies. Optimization? What's that. We don't need no steenking optimization.


We're Lockheed Martin! We've only been milking the US Govt and all its friends for billions of dollars through the ultimate hoodwink known as concurrent development. Why didn't we think of this before? We're just happy the plane flies! Optimization? What's that? Low drag? Who cares! Stelph? What's that? We just hacked the gummint's computers for the tests.

[/rant=off]

The F-35 has to be one of the most compromised yet optimized designs ever created.

Statements to the effect of "oh, if we only spend some money on X, we can improve Y" is frankly insulting to the hardwork of thousands of engineers. There's a development plan in place which the JPO, LM and all it's subs are hard at work on. It's not like anyone hasn't given this sort of forward look into the future any thought.

uh oh... [rant=on]

But some Nimrod comes out of the woodwork and says, cancel half of the F-35C buy, and use it to fund an F-35 derivative, cuz, you know... the Navy misses it's F-14 fleet defense interceptor... and everyone is suddenly an expert because, *snap* they have an idea that will make it even better. So, forget trade studies... just spend the money, forget design compromises, forget design cause-and-effect-spirals (we'll just stretch it to improve the fineness ratio, to lower wave drag, and carry mo gas -- and mo gas is much mo betta, but the airplane weight will go up, so we'll need a bigger wing to keep that approach speed down, but a bigger wing means more structure, and more drag so...)... just optimize it!

Jimeny crickets. I am amazed at the optimization that LM has achieved so that the F-35 design meets so many competing and contradictory requirements.

But hey, just *snap* spend the money and make it faster! *snap* make those pylons low drag, and LO!
[/rant=off]

:bang:

Gums... where'd you put the bottle of Weed? I could use some right about now...

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 08:36
by vanshilar
Well guys here's the problem...

CSBA Page 26.png

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 08:44
by optimist
marsavian wrote: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.

can't stretch it, it won't fit on the boat.
big wings for controlled slow landing means drag.
The wings are draggy and the supersonic shock cone (or whatever they call it) hits the edges. It's not all enclosed within.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 10:59
by element1loop
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?

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 11:13
by citanon
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?

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 14:23
by quicksilver
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.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 14:27
by quicksilver
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

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 16:25
by quicksilver
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.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 17:12
by mixelflick
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).

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 17:34
by 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?

“So why the need for more thrust”— mixedupagain

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

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 17:51
by mixelflick
[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" :)

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 18:20
by f-16adf
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.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 19:05
by mixelflick
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..

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 19:16
by f-16adf
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.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 19:19
by quicksilver
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.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 19:21
by quicksilver
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:

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 19:26
by quicksilver
“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.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 19:31
by marsavian
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.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 22:52
by usnvo
wrightwing wrote:
usnvo wrote:
f-16adf wrote:The F-35C as it stands probably has more range (and far, far less drag) than a similarly loaded F-14D, or any F-18 variant (for an air to air mission). All it may need is a bit more power. There is no need to mess up a fine design.


I always laugh. If a 670nm combat radius is short ranged, what is long ranged? If you really wanted to make the F-35C a better fleet defense aircraft, how about a pair of 5000lb EFTs, certify the AIM-120 for external carriage, and povide a six shot internal AIM-120D capability. That would cost virtually nothing, give you something like 27klbs of fuel for greater loiter time, 10 AIM-120Ds and 2 AIM-9Xs, and not change the aircraft at all.

Or, my personal favorite, make a KF-35C to extend the range organically. A F-35C with the internal bomb bays removed and replaced with more fuel tanks, the centerline gun pod converted to a refueling pod, and a 5000lb EFT on the inboard stations and a 2500lb EFT on the outer stations and you have an aircraft with something like 36klbs of fuel. Should easily give you well over 15klbs at 500nm and be stealthy to boot. And it could still be a second day of the war bomb truck using the exterior stations.

And use up airframe life, like Super Hornets?


Not same situation.
- A notional KF-35C would be a dedicated airframe, like the KA-6D. So all it would do is the tanking mission. So you are not using up airframe life, you are using the aircraft in its intended role.
- Without F-18A-Ds in the airwing, and with Magic Carpet and Delta Flight Path, the need for fuel goes way down.
- Additionally, if you only use the outboard stations for maximum strike tanking, as well as minimizing fuel before landing, you won't stress the airframe as bad. For that matter you could probably meet all the recovery tanking requirements without EFTs at all. The SH Blk I airframe abuse is largely self-inflicted and much of it can or already has been eliminated with changes to how they are operated.

The MQ-25 is

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2019, 01:31
by steve2267
mixelflick wrote: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?


The F-35C was designed to meet the requirements laid down by the US Navy. Those requirements were for a VLO strike fighter, with a secondary air-to-air role. By all accounts it has met all it's KPP's (or at least the important ones.) It did this despite being "handicapped" by the OML of an Air Force fighter, and the length of a STOVL Marine jet that could not exceed a certain length lest it not fit below decks on certain ships. (It is possible the length limitation came from the Brits, but I am unsure -- or another class of Landing Helicopter Dock ships.) To be able to create three variants that have so much in common is impressive to say the least. I think it is the first time in history it has been accomplished so successfully. But that commonlity also imposed compromise on each of the three variants.

The F-35 meets and exceeds the requirements established by the customer. Why is this so hard to understand? Why is everyone in a tizzy? Go argue with the people that established the requirements.

To "say the F-35C is not as capable in the air-to-air mission as we've been led to believe" is just silly. To say that the F-35C could be more effective in the air, is akin to claiming the F-18A/C was not as effective in the air, so we need a "derivative" -- the Super Duper Hornet. I believe it was Quicksilver that recently pointed out the Super Duper is really an entirely new aircraft, and has very very little in common with the original Bug.

To say you have requirements for a fleet air defense, penetrating escort fighter is one thing. It is still another to suggest using the F-35C as a basis for such a design. And to do so may, very probably does, have a lot of merit. But to claim the F-35C doesn't meet the requirements for this new fleet air defense, penetrating escort fighter so we need to cut the F-35C buy in half to fix this shortcoming is stupidity to the nth order. The F-35C was never designed to meet those requirements.

"Oh, this aircraft doesn't meet these requirements that we never set for it. Therefore we should cut it's buy in half." No, you should be fired from whatever position you hold. :doh:

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2019, 02:53
by steve2267
mixelflick wrote: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?


Stop, backup... Mixel first you state "to me", then in the next sentence it is suddenly "we've been led."

Who is we?

But perhaps you should just start with you. HOW is some political hack out in left field claiming that we should cut F-35C productiotn in half to fund the development of a new aircraft using the F-35C as a starting point... how is that a tacit admission? What is it admitting, to you?

Secondly, how have you been led to believe the F-35C is not "as capable in the air to air arena?" What program requirements is the F-35C not meeting that bears directly on it's failure in the "air to air arena?"

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2019, 02:58
by element1loop
steve2267 wrote:"Oh, this aircraft doesn't meet these requirements that we never set for it. Therefore we should cut it's buy in half." No, you should be fired from whatever position you hold. :doh:


Initial design requirements may be static, but operating needs are not, they evolve, and do so very rapidly in a conflict. Hence why as quicksilver points out, this is what occurs to all US fighters. Increased flexibility overhead is what allows rapid adaptations to changed tactics or circumstances, and associated pronounced aircraft evolution, which was and still is so evident in all of the teen jets which is what has kept them on top. And they also ALL had new variants and redesigns, so quit the puritanical BS.

PS: It's you that's in a 'tizzy', not everyone else, if you want to suppress and discourage discussions by report writers or commenters you can have people taken out the back and shot, that shuts discussion down nicely.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2019, 03:06
by spazsinbad
'StevieStevieStevie' perhaps one source said 'elevators' [quote from above]
" 'steve2267' said: ... the length of a STOVL Marine jet that could not exceed a certain length lest it not fit below decks on certain ships. (It is possible the length limitation came from the Brits, but I am unsure -- or another class of Landing Helicopter Dock ships.)…"

The CVF hangars and lifts are HUGE - TRUMP HHUUGGE! however a 'more credible source'? says:
The Influence of Ship Configuration on the Design of the Joint Strike Fighter
26 Feb 2002 Eric S. Ryberg

“...Unlike the CV variant, the JSF STOVL variant did not have a spot factor requirement levied upon it. Instead, the ORD specified a spotting requirement in operational terms. The USMC operators required that it be possible to park a total of six STOVL variants aft of the island on an LHA or LHD, such that none fouls the landing area and that any one of them can be moved without first moving any other. This requirement constrains the STOVL variant's wingspan to be no more than 35 ft.

OTHER GEOMETRIC CONSTRAINTS
Aside from the amount of flight deck space needed to accommodate an aircraft, there are several additional constraints that affect its geometry. Aircraft are stored in hangar bays with constrained overhead clearances. The ceiling height must allow the conduct of all maintenance and support actions, including such tasks as the removal and replacement of the canopy and ejection seat. Additionally, compatibility with deck elevators MAY constrain an aircraft's length, width, or both. Safe launch and recovery operations require sufficient separation from any deck obstacle, a criterion that often dictates the shape of an aircraft and the location of its wing pylons. Table 2 summarizes for each pertinent ship class the constraints imposed by the elevators and hangar dimensions.

IMPACTS OF GEOMETRIC CONSTRAINTS
While all of these dimensional constraints have been considered in the design of the JSF family, only in isolated cases has a ship constraint dictated the size of the airplane. The basic size of the variants is as large as can be supported by the allowable STOVL performance level attainable with the government-furnished engine and the contractor-determined STOVL lift mechanisms. For the sake of commonality, the other two variants are of the same basic size as the STOVL variant, with differences incorporated where necessary to meet the unique requirements of each service customer. In general, this size airplane is easily accommodated aboard the CVN-68 class, since the size of the CV variant approximates that of aircraft currently deployed. In designing the STOVL variant for operations aboard LHD class, it too, is of a size that readily fits within existing spaces, despite it being considerably larger than the AV-8B it will replace. However, basing the STOVL variant on LHA and CVS classes would require some modification to the aircraft to ensure complete size compatibility with all constraints (e. g., flight deck elevators). Since JSF will be based on these older ship types for a small fraction of the aircraft's overall service life, requirements officers and acquisition officials have been careful not to compromise aircraft performance over a 40 year span, in exchange for full compatibility with ships that will be out of service within five years of the aircraft's introduction to the Fleet...."

Source: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a399988.pdf (1Mb)

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2019, 03:21
by steve2267
element1loop wrote:Initial design requirements may be static, but operating needs are not, they evolve, and do so very rapidly in a conflict. Hence why as quicksilver points out, this is what occurs to all US fighters. Increased flexibility overhead is what allows rapid adaptations to changed tactics or circumstances, and associated pronounced aircraft evolution, which was and still is so evident in all of the teen jets which is what has kept them on top. And they also ALL had new variants and redesigns, so quit the puritanical BS.


Your paragraph reads like a bunch of gobbleygook. Do you write it in this manner to affect an air of sophistication?

element1loop wrote:PS: It's you that's in a 'tizzy', not everyone else, if you want to suppress and discourage discussions by report writers or commenters you can have people taken out the back and shot, that shuts discussion down nicely.


I am a bit confused. It would seem that you ascribe to me the intent to murder people as a way to shut down discussion? Is this true? Are you accusing me of murderous intent?

You ran your mouth once before and accused me of stating one thing, when the forum clearly proved your statements and claims were wrong. I let it slide. You issued a rather embarrrassing mea culpa.

Are you trying for two?

This discussion boils down to a rather simple premise. Buyer sets requirements. Seller wins a competition and creates a product to meet said requirements. Buyer tests product and verifies product meets requirements.

Some nimrod comes along and says, "product doesn't meet requirements that were never required; let's cancel half the contract of the competition that they seller competed for."

Internet loses its mind at evil seller for not producing a product that doesn't meet requirements that were never stated.

:bang:

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2019, 03:37
by steve2267
Spaz, you continue to amaze me. Pulling one great reference after another out from the ether. I recall that reference at least once before. But me thinks you had once before also posted a reference that had included purty pictures of flight decks on some ships? It seems to me there was at least one class of ship that had imposed a length limit on the F-35B because the elevator was not at the edge of the deck, so the tail couldn't hang out over da water.

In any case, my memory whispers to me that a previous discussion had concluded (or proven?) that the length limit on the F-35 was due to the STOVL requirement onboard some ships. And I thought it was the golden oldie Invincible-class that may have imposed those limits back in the late '90s, early '00s? But I could very well be wrong.

Bottom line... a length was chosen to meet requirements, and a requirement for maximum commonality dictated that all three aircraft be of the same length.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2019, 04:26
by element1loop
steve2267 wrote:Internet loses its mind at evil seller for not producing a product that doesn't meet requirements that were never stated.


What does this have to do with it? Leave it out.

The report argues that capability can be improved with a minimal modification or 'redesign'. As Mars pointed out this is likely angling toward an F-35D to meet F/A-XX REQUIREMENTS - whatever those turn out to be. Procurement plans evolve, deal with it. Disruption to acquisition or USN capability growth from inserting F-35D into production, half way through the C build, would probably be nil as capability growth would occur faster, sooner and cheaper, and with much lower risks than a separate F/A-XX development, while maintaining commonality with many parts and systems.

And such an added capability F-35-derived USN jet would appeal to several foreign F-35 operators, while an all-new USN F/A type is unlikely to.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2019, 04:27
by spazsinbad
Without quoting all the above STEVEN post - I'll answer: Perhaps the graphic as you imagine it (I'm having trouble doing the same) was of an OLD LHA which was and is NOT in consideration as per my lengthy quote from the 2002 design peepls.

And yet said 'my quote' is clear about USMC length requirement for park aft of the island - how can that be any clearer? Again it is clear although early on the CVS was considered (along with old LHAs) it became clear that (given the now old time frame for use) that IF the F-35B could be operated from these OLD SHIPs then as quoted:
"... requirements officers and acquisition officials have been careful not to compromise aircraft performance over a 40 year span, in exchange for full compatibility with ships that will be out of service within five years of the aircraft's introduction to the Fleet...."

Sure that is a funny perhaps polite way to say 'these old ships aren't relevant' nor have they been, considering the delays.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2019, 15:43
by madrat
Some arguments in this forum become circular. Spaz has the patience of Job to correct the same thing so many times.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2019, 20:29
by charlielima223
Sorry guys... I just couldn't help myself :-D


On a more serious note to the discussion I don't believe a "redesign" of the F-35C would do any real good except waste time and money. Yes future upgrades to the engine from AETP will improve range but it sounds like what they want is still going to be beyond what improvements the AETP will provide. What are they going to do? Create a larger version of the F-35C and call it the F-35D Super Lightning ala Hornet and Super Hornet? When the Tomcat was phased out in favor of the Super Bug, it was criticized for not having the legs of the Tomcat. If they want dramatically improved range and kinematic performance they're going to have to come up with a clean sheet design (dust off the NATF and bring up to modern standards). At any rate I think the USN is better off waiting for the F/A-XX

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2019, 21:38
by steve2267
charlielima223 wrote:On a more serious note to the discussion I don't believe a "redesign" of the F-35C would do any real good except waste time and money. Yes future upgrades to the engine from AETP will improve range but it sounds like what they want is still going to be beyond what improvements the AETP will provide. What are they going to do? Create a larger version of the F-35C and call it the F-35D Super Lightning ala Hornet and Super Hornet? When the Tomcat was phased out in favor of the Super Bug, it was criticized for not having the legs of the Tomcat. If they want dramatically improved range and kinematic performance they're going to have to come up with a clean sheet design (dust off the NATF and bring up to modern standards). At any rate I think the USN is better off waiting for the F/A-XX


I keep coming back to requirements.

What are the requirements for this F/A-XX? Have they even been defined yet? If not, it's a bit premature to be annointing a redesigned F-35C as the answer to undefined requirements.

So, just throw a bunch of money @ LM to "redesign" the F-35C, give it a stretch to hold more gas etc, cancel half the F-35C order and guarantee LM at least the same number of F-35D's as the cancelled number? Boing isn't going to squawk, file protests etc?

The US Navy has probably studied to death the number of F-35C's they require to fulfill their strike mission going forward. So those numbers were wrong and can be lopped in half? If not, how does Mr. Clark propose to meet the remaining strike requirement?

I can hear the shrieking now when the re-designed F-35D still can't supercruise because it got bigger & heavier to meet the 1000nm range requirement despite the extra engine thrust and is only a 6g airframe (or 5g), has a top speed of 1.5 Mach, but it can go out and back 1000nm @ 0.7Mach (!) with six AIM-120s. Oh, and it can't fit 2000lb bombs anymore. Maybe not even 1000lb bombs anymore.

And once the requirements are defined, it would be better to let contractors decide how best to meet them. It may be that LM could best meet those with an F-35C as a baseline and merely redesign it. Or not. Price & schedule requirements could factor in making it much more favorable to a LM F-35C redesign, as opposed to a Boing clean sheet.

Without requirements for this proposed F/A-XX defined, one would be pissing into the wind trying to mandate or even suggest changes.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2019, 21:55
by spazsinbad
To help design an F-35C Derivative RYBERG gives some clues, whilst other references exist PDF below is text readable:

The Influence of Ship Configuration on the Design of the Joint Strike Fighter
Mr. Eric S. Ryberg 26-27 Feb 2002 COMPLETEpp15.pdf


download/file.php?id=19105 (PDF 1.1Mb 15 pages) [I forget where GIF BELOW is from]

A GAO Oldie: Navy’s Participation in Air Force’s Advanced Tactical Fighter Program March 1990 [excerpt below]
http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat11/141083.pdf (2.1Mb)
Navy’s Participa­tion in Air Force’s Advanced Tactical Fighter Program
March 1990 GAO Report

"...Chapter 3 Basing and Mission Differences Affect Aircraft Design
Carrier Suitability
A key factor contributing to the design differences between the ATF and NATF is their different basing requirements. The ATF is designed to operate from land bases, whereas the NATF must operate from the pitching and rolling deck of an aircraft carrier at sea. To be suitable for carrier operations, the NATF must have, among other things, a stronger structure than the ATF to withstand carrier launches and recoveries; excellent lowspeed flying qualities tailored to carrier approaches and landings; and size, weight, configuration, and environmental compatibility with carrier operations.

Carrier Launch and Recovery
Carrier launch and recovery requires that an aircraft be equipped with a strong landing gear, an arresting tail hook, and a reinforced structure to withstand the high stress of catapult takeoffs and arrested landings. The acceleration, deceleration, and impact forces encountered by carrier-based aircraft are substantially greater than those experienced by land-based aircraft. For example, because land-based aircraft do not use catapults for takeoffs, they are not equipped with a nose landing gear suitable for catapulting or subjected to the substantial acceleration forces experienced during catapult takeoffs. Similarly, land-based aircraft do not routinely make arrested landings. Therefore, they are not equipped with a fully capable tail hook or normally subjected to the deceleration forces of arrested landings. The deceleration force experienced in arrested carrier landings is 24 times greater than that experienced by land-based aircraft, and the vertical impact force is over 3 times the level encountered by land-based aircraft. Accordingly, a land-based aircraft’s landing gear, wings, and fuselage must be strengthened with additional materials and/or redesigned structure to enable the aircraft to withstand the stress of catapult launches and arrested landings. Air Force and Navy program officials estimate that, to accommodate these and the other Navy requirements, the empty weight* [*Empty weight includes the weight of an aircraft’s structure, engines, hydraulic and electrical systems, and avionics. It does not include such items as fuel and armament.] of the NATF will have to be about 4,000 pounds heavier than the ATF.

Low-Speed Flying Qualities
To ensure a safe carrier approach and landing, the NATF must be capable of a lower landing speed and more precise flight control during landings than required for the ATF. The low approach speed is necessary to stay within the structural load limits of the arresting gear aboard both the aircraft and the carrier. If approach speeds are too high, damage or failure of the aircraft’s or carrier’s arresting equipment is a risk. In addition, a carrier-based aircraft’s design must provide unusually good aerodynamic performance at these low speeds for the precise flight control needed during carrier approach and landing.

Size, Weight, and Configuration Compatibility
Although carrier-based aircraft tend to have heavier structures to withstand catapult launches and arrested landings, they must not exceed certain size and weight limits imposed by carrier operations. The physical constraints associated with handling an aircraft above and below decks on an aircraft carrier pose strict limits on an aircraft’s size, weight, and configuration that are not normally imposed on land-based aircraft. The need to park and maneuver a large number of aircraft while avoiding obstructions, not only limits the aircraft’s length and width but also necessitates folding the aircraft’s wings. Similarly, aircraft weight is limited by the capacity of the carrier’s elevators, catapults, and arresting equipment. For example, the carriers from which the NATF will operate have an elevator load capacity of 130,000 pounds and dimensions of 70 feet by 52 feet. Because the Navy has a design goal of lifting two NATFS on an elevator simultaneously, the Navy has limited the NATF’S size with wings folded to basically that of the F-14 and has limited its takeoff gross weight goal to 65,000 pounds. The NATF must also be configured to accommodate carrier use and safe Carrier approaches and landings. The need for stability while maneuvering an aircraft on a pitching, rolling deck to prevent tipping to the side or back constrains landing gear placement. Further, main landing gear placement is also limited to allow for adequate wheel clearance from the edge of the carrier deck during catapult launch.

The NATF must provide the pilot with adequate visibility in addition to low-speed flying qualities to make a safe carrier approach and landing. Steep approach angles, required for carrier landings, demand that the aircraft’s cockpit and front fuselage design provide the pilot with an unobstructed view of the carrier deck and stern. This degree of over-the-nose visibility is unnecessary for a land-based aircraft. Consequently, the ATF cockpit, canopy, and front fuselage structure will likely be redesigned to provide the NATF pilot with an increased forward field of view....”

Source: http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat11/141083.pdf (2.1Mb)

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2019, 00:16
by madrat
Wouldn't taking an F-35C as the base predetermine the winner of the design previous to any competition? Sounds like a silly beginning to failure by design.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2019, 01:41
by Corsair1963
Honestly, perplexing idea as the F-35C has little real threat for the foreseeable future. Unless some believe the J-20, J-31, or Su-57 are substantially more capable. Yet, few with any real knowledge of the subject matter believe that....


In addition a number of upgrades will be available to the F-35 Series in the coming years. Including improved Engines and even better Avionics and Weapons. So, no reason to believe it won't be able to maintain it's current level of superiority over it competitors for sometime to come...


In short I see no reason for a major redesign to the F-35C. Other than the usual upgrades over it's life to keep it competitive.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2019, 04:18
by element1loop
Corsair1963 wrote:Honestly, perplexing idea as the F-35C has little real threat for the foreseeable future. Unless some believe the J-20, J-31, or Su-57 are substantially more capable. Yet, few with any real knowledge of the subject matter believe that.... In addition a number of upgrades will be available to the F-35 Series in the coming years. Including improved Engines and even better Avionics and Weapons. So, no reason to believe it won't be able to maintain it's current level of superiority over it competitors for sometime to come... In short I see no reason for a major redesign to the F-35C. Other than the usual upgrades over it's life to keep it competitive.


All true, and agree in principle, though the point is to get that capability with added radius and depth (where an MQ-25 can't follow) which will matter given potential area 'denial' to ships.

Another consideration, F-35C with a more efficient adaptive-engine with same wing brings a potential increase for ceiling of C for better missile range, but more importantly, for better missile energy retention at shorter range. A pretty good thing to have on top of more range due even lower air resistance (unknown if other factors would limit C ceiling increase though). More ceiling also increases vertical standoff against sensors (improved VLO due inverse-square implication), providing the option to adapt to multispectral sensor improvement of GBAD.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2019, 04:38
by Corsair1963
element1loop wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Honestly, perplexing idea as the F-35C has little real threat for the foreseeable future. Unless some believe the J-20, J-31, or Su-57 are substantially more capable. Yet, few with any real knowledge of the subject matter believe that.... In addition a number of upgrades will be available to the F-35 Series in the coming years. Including improved Engines and even better Avionics and Weapons. So, no reason to believe it won't be able to maintain it's current level of superiority over it competitors for sometime to come... In short I see no reason for a major redesign to the F-35C. Other than the usual upgrades over it's life to keep it competitive.


All true, and agree in principle, though the point is to get that capability with added radius and depth (where an MQ-25 can't follow) which will matter given potential area 'denial' to ships.

Another consideration, F-35C with a more efficient adaptive-engine with same wing brings a potential increase for ceiling of C for better missile range, but more importantly, for better missile energy retention at shorter range. A pretty good thing to have on top of more range due even lower air resistance (unknown if other factors would limit C ceiling increase though). More ceiling also increases vertical standoff against sensors (improved VLO due inverse-square implication), providing the option to adapt to multispectral sensor improvement of GBAD.


Honestly, instead of re-inventing the wheel. A better solution maybe a large Stealthy Tanker like the proposed KC-Z that
the USAF is considering.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2019, 05:08
by element1loop
Corsair1963 wrote:
element1loop wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Honestly, perplexing idea as the F-35C has little real threat for the foreseeable future. Unless some believe the J-20, J-31, or Su-57 are substantially more capable. Yet, few with any real knowledge of the subject matter believe that.... In addition a number of upgrades will be available to the F-35 Series in the coming years. Including improved Engines and even better Avionics and Weapons. So, no reason to believe it won't be able to maintain it's current level of superiority over it competitors for sometime to come... In short I see no reason for a major redesign to the F-35C. Other than the usual upgrades over it's life to keep it competitive.


All true, and agree in principle, though the point is to get that capability with added radius and depth (where an MQ-25 can't follow) which will matter given potential area 'denial' to ships.

Another consideration, F-35C with a more efficient adaptive-engine with same wing brings a potential increase for ceiling of C for better missile range, but more importantly, for better missile energy retention at shorter range. A pretty good thing to have on top of more range due even lower air resistance (unknown if other factors would limit C ceiling increase though). More ceiling also increases vertical standoff against sensors (improved VLO due inverse-square implication), providing the option to adapt to multispectral sensor improvement of GBAD.


Honestly, instead of re-inventing the wheel. A better solution maybe a large Stealthy Tanker like the proposed KC-Z that
the USAF is considering.


How is putting an improved engine in F-35s and changing nothing else 're-inventing the wheel'?

One can walk and chew gum too.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2019, 05:12
by Corsair1963
element1loop wrote:
Honestly, instead of re-inventing the wheel. A better solution maybe a large Stealthy Tanker like the proposed KC-Z that
the USAF is considering.


How is putting an improved engine in F-35s and changing nothing else 're-inventing the wheel'?[/quote]


What??? My point was instead of redesigning the F-35C. (title of the thread) That buying a large Stealth Tanker would be a better solution. As "range" seems to be the main reason for the proposal....

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2019, 08:07
by spazsinbad
Precis of Regaining the High Ground at Sea: Transforming the U.S. Navy’s Carrier Air Wing for Great Power Competition'.
Analyst: Navy Needs to Re-Configure Carrier Air Wings for Future Fight [prolly best read at source]
07 Feb 2019 RICHARD R. BURGESS

"...Clark sees the need for a CVW to move toward including more unmanned aircraft. He recommended development of three new aircraft types: an unmanned air combat vehicle (UCAV); an unmanned refueling aircraft, initially the MQ-25; and FA-XX, a new fighter with a longer strike range.

The report’s recommendations for re-configuring the carrier air wing by 2040 include:
* Sustaining planned procurement of the F/A-18E/F strike fighter through fiscal 2023.

* Sustaining procurement of the F-35C strike fighter through the first half of its planned production, ending in fiscal 2024.

* Develop an FA-XX fighter, a derivative of an existing fighter, by 2024.

* Develop a low-observable UCAV attack aircraft for production by 2025.

* Continue development of the MQ-25 aerial refueling UAV and increase overall number of tanker aircraft to 12 per air wing. Also, develop the UCAV as a tanker for the mid-to-late 2030s.

* Retire the EA-18G electronic attack aircraft as they reach the end of their service lives during the 2030s and replace them with UCAVs equipped with the Next-Generation Jammer and also with expendable UAVs and missiles.

* Field a rotary wing MALE [medium-altitude, long-endurance] UAV (in concert with the Marine Corps) to augment the carrier-based helicopter squadrons and assume some of the ASW missions...."

PPT Slides: https://csbaonline.org/uploads/document ... at_Sea.pdf (2.5Mb)

Source: http://seapowermagazine.org/stories/20190207-CVW.html

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2019, 10:04
by element1loop
Corsair1963 wrote:What??? My point was instead of redesigning the F-35C. (title of the thread) That buying a large Stealth Tanker would be a better solution. As "range" seems to be the main reason for the proposal....


Ah, I get you now.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2019, 16:17
by ricnunes
Corsair1963 wrote:My point was instead of redesigning the F-35C. (title of the thread) That buying a large Stealth Tanker would be a better solution. As "range" seems to be the main reason for the proposal....


If the point of such new/future US combat aircraft is to have a longer range than the F-35C - which as others have said is already long (longer than other existing US Navy aircraft, past or present) - and which I also seem to concur (by reading the intended objectives for such new aircraft/variant) wouldn't it make some sense for a "A-12 comeback" or more precisely the new aircraft to be based or have the A-12 as a starting point?
I'm saying this because:
- Such aircraft - a subsonic flying wing - would IMO be one of the very few designs which could "easily" (note the quotes) outrange the already long range design of the F-35C.
- In terms of Air-to-Air combat, with advancements in technology such aircraft could be fitted with advanced AESA radar and other sensors and employ advanced air-to-air missiles such as the AMRAAM. This would give the US Navy a very long range or "picket" fighter aircraft capability.
- At the same time it would bring back to the US Navy the medium-size long-range bomber capability lost with the A-6 Intruder retirement.
- Very long loiter time (useful for both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions).
- Lower development cost since some of the development work as already been done in the past.
- Potentially lower procurement cost since subsonic aircraft could/should potentially be cheaper than a revolutionary supersonic aircraft.
- Such design would IMO fill the tanker role nicely as well in complement to the MQ-25.
- Give Boeing more work in terms actual modern/stealth aircraft manufacturing in order for them to "shut up" regarding the argument of producing already obsolete aircraft (such as the Super Hornet and even the F-15 Eagle) in order to keep their combat aircraft production lines open.

And with this, the role of the supersonic fighter/interceptor/combat/strike aircraft would fall into the responsibility of the F-35C.

Well, my 2 cents anyway...

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2019, 18:26
by tomcattech
Anyone who has followed the nasty cluster that are the USN\Defense Department high level decisions regarding the Fleet Air Defense mission for the past 15-20 years should not be surprised at the conundrum that the branch currently finds itself in.

The F-35C is a fine aircraft for the requirements that the customers put forth.

It is not the Fleet Air Defense asset the USN has needed for some time now (Neither is the Super Hornet).

IMO, they will need to make do with what they have and push (HARD) for an aircraft (Gen 5 or 5.5) suited for the mission at hand.

Can they get what they need from the Air Force's PCA?
Probably not....

As I've stated in other threads, it's past time to start thinking outside the box to keep dev time and procurement costs for new aircraft at a reasonable level.

No bucks, No Buck Rogers....

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2019, 21:22
by steve2267
tomcattech wrote:IMO, they will need to make do with what they have and push (HARD) for an aircraft (Gen 5 or 5.5) suited for the mission at hand.


Just what is the mission at hand?

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2019, 21:54
by sferrin
steve2267 wrote:
tomcattech wrote:IMO, they will need to make do with what they have and push (HARD) for an aircraft (Gen 5 or 5.5) suited for the mission at hand.


Just what is the mission at hand?


Defense of the CVBG (which includes poking out the eyes of those well outside SAM range).

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2019, 22:03
by tomcattech
sferrin wrote:
steve2267 wrote:
tomcattech wrote:IMO, they will need to make do with what they have and push (HARD) for an aircraft (Gen 5 or 5.5) suited for the mission at hand.


Just what is the mission at hand?


Defense of the CVBG (which includes poking out the eyes of those well outside SAM range).


^^^THIS^^^

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 00:23
by marauder2048
tomcattech wrote:
Defense of the CVBG (which includes poking out the eyes of those well outside SAM range).


^^^THIS^^^


Even the late Cold War concepts really didn't have fast jets doing this.

The bomber streams were detected with OTH-B and then destroyed
with terminal seeker equipped MaRVs launched by surface ships and
submarines.

In some cases, stealthy UAVs lurked around bomber ingress routes
which the CSBA study seems to embrace.

But this is the same Navy that passed on a high-end, stealthy UAV after 15+ years of development.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 00:34
by steve2267
sferrin wrote:
steve2267 wrote:
tomcattech wrote:IMO, they will need to make do with what they have and push (HARD) for an aircraft (Gen 5 or 5.5) suited for the mission at hand.


Just what is the mission at hand?


Defense of the CVBG (which includes poking out the eyes of those well outside SAM range).


So... this is an air-to-air interceptor? Because I thought a few pages back F/A-XX was defined as a fighter escort for bombers? Or are you defending the CVBG by sinking enema ships @ 1000nm? Which means a strike fighter / aircraft? Requirements for these different missions would seem to differ a lot. Without specifying those requirements, what you really want, you're kinda stuck.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 03:05
by Corsair1963
tomcattech wrote:
It is not the Fleet Air Defense asset the USN has needed for some time now (Neither is the Super Hornet).



The F-35C is more than adequate in the Fleet Defense Mission. Unless you know something we don't know???

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 03:38
by steve2267
Corsair1963 wrote:The F-35C is more than adequate in the Fleet Defense Mission. Unless you know something we don't know???


I'm curious aoa_35's and quicksilver's opinions on that matter.

Googling 'F/A-XX requirements' and browsing some of the entries leaves me confused. Most of the press seems to be stating that the F/A-XX is supposed to be a 6th generation fighter to replace the F/A-18E/F Super Duper. I guess I'm confused why you would build a 6th gen aircraft to replace a 4th gen aircraft. The F/A-18E/F is a strike fighter in its own right. Maybe Aoa or QS can edjumekate me as to what the Super Duper can do that the F-35C (hell the F-35B) can't do? I understand that at present the Super Duper can carry a wider variety of weapons... but it has shorter legs than the Sea Lightning, poorer SA, more or less manual sensor fusion (as I understand it) conducted by the Mk1 brainbox etc.

Wikipedia is no help... going on about scramjets and all. And scramjets will suck down the gas. To go anywhere... the aircraft is going to be on the scale of an SR-71 (or at least the old Vigilante which wasn't small either). I just don't see the deckspace on a CVN for a hypersonic aircraft. (I don't see a hypersonic aircraft in the next 20 years, either. But the Skunkworks has pulled off surprises in the past.)

But even a 1000nm range tactical fighter with supercruise ability... you're talking at least F-22 sized if you want 1.5Mach or better. If you buy planes by the pound... that sucker is going to be expensive... I dunno, maybe if Boing gets the contract, then all will be well in the Navair nasal radiator community... :drool:

If the big need is just to be able to strike at 1000nm, with a modest supercruise capability for short distances... the F-35C with an AETP-derived powerplant (or maybe even just an F135 GO2.0 motor) may be able to meet those needs, especially if an MQ-25 could refuel an outbound strike at 3-500nm from the carrier. For an air-to-air / escort role, if a fuel tank could be designed to be sucked up into the top of the weapons bay, still leaving room for 1-2 AIM-120's below, that might get you on the order of another 4200lb of gas. If an AETP motor delivers on 30% fuel savings (or whatever that figure is), that gets close to the 1000nm range figure being tossed around.

IMO, it is dangerous to be tossing around performance figures if you just "stretch" the F-35C. For one, your weight is going to go up, and the F-35C just barely meets the approach to the boat speed required of it. So it will need a bigger wing (more weight). Or you could aerodynamic trickery like blown flaps, as someone suggested, but the Navy has not been to keen on blown anything for a while now.

What I find interesting would be about a 7ft longer weapons bay on the F-35. That would be a HUGE stretch. But it might mean the ability to carry an SM-2B / SM-6 sized weapon, or possibly a hypersonic AGM. But I'm not sure any such requirements yet exist. And I'm pretty sure performance will be drastically different from the F-35 we know and love.

But then again... perhaps that roll (hypersonic weapons employment) is for the B-21?

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 03:43
by charlielima223
While I will agree that the F-35C is superior of the Super Bug and the soon to be Block III Super Bug, the USN still lacks a dedicated fleet defense platform. The F-35A is GREAT but it is no F-22 and the USAF admits that time and time again. They have to lean more on their F-35s. Not because they want to, because they have to. They never got the proper amount of F-22s to sufficiently fill the air superiority/dominance role.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 03:59
by popcorn
If the idea is to put 1000 miles between the CBG and the DF-21D. it should be relatively easy for the Chinese to field even longer ranged AShBMs.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 04:01
by Corsair1963
charlielima223 wrote:While I will agree that the F-35C is superior of the Super Bug and the soon to be Block III Super Bug, the USN still lacks a dedicated fleet defense platform. The F-35A is GREAT but it is no F-22 and the USAF admits that time and time again. They have to lean more on their F-35s. Not because they want to, because they have to. They never got the proper amount of F-22s to sufficiently fill the air superiority/dominance role.



Really, what threat is the F-35C ill prepared to handle in the foreseeable future??? :|

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 07:55
by hornetfinn
Corsair1963 wrote:
charlielima223 wrote:While I will agree that the F-35C is superior of the Super Bug and the soon to be Block III Super Bug, the USN still lacks a dedicated fleet defense platform. The F-35A is GREAT but it is no F-22 and the USAF admits that time and time again. They have to lean more on their F-35s. Not because they want to, because they have to. They never got the proper amount of F-22s to sufficiently fill the air superiority/dominance role.


Really, what threat is the F-35C ill prepared to handle in the foreseeable future??? :|


I've been wondering this for a long time too. It seems that the idea of fleet defense is that it's 1980s again with large number of Backfires screaming towards carrier batte group to fire their huge Kh-22 Kitchen missiles and fleet defense fighters quickly scramble to meet them flying fast and firing Phoenix-like missiles to kill them.

I do think that F-35C is actually remarkable fleet defense fighter. It has great sensors and SA, especially when networked with each other and Aegis systems. It might not be the fastest or fastest accelerating fighter (like F-22), but it has a lot of gas meaning long range and endurance. That and SA means that it can be where needed and individual F-35Cs can be very far apart and still have great mutual support. AIM-120D gives pretty good reach and kill probability even against modern threats. One great thing is VLO stealth, which will make attacking carriers very daunting task as it would be very difficult to know how many F-35Cs there is in the air and where they are and what they are doing. F-35s will be part of kill web around and over carrier battle groups instead of the old way of doing fleet defense. That kill web uses the combined SA of all F-35s, E-2Ds and F/A-18s and ships and does the killing using all the weapos carried by F-35s, F/A-18s and the ships themselves. I don't think there really is need for dedicated fleet defense fighter in this context.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 08:10
by Corsair1963
hornetfinn wrote:
I've been wondering this for a long time too. It seems that the idea of fleet defense is that it's 1980s again with large number of Backfires screaming towards carrier batte group to fire their huge Kh-22 Kitchen missiles and fleet defense fighters quickly scramble to meet them flying fast and firing Phoenix-like missiles to kill them.

I do think that F-35C is actually remarkable fleet defense fighter. It has great sensors and SA, especially when networked with each other and Aegis systems. It might not be the fastest or fastest accelerating fighter (like F-22), but it has a lot of gas meaning long range and endurance. That and SA means that it can be where needed and individual F-35Cs can be very far apart and still have great mutual support. AIM-120D gives pretty good reach and kill probability even against modern threats. One great thing is VLO stealth, which will make attacking carriers very daunting task as it would be very difficult to know how many F-35Cs there is in the air and where they are and what they are doing. F-35s will be part of kill web around and over carrier battle groups instead of the old way of doing fleet defense. That kill web uses the combined SA of all F-35s, E-2Ds and F/A-18s and ships and does the killing using all the weapons carried by F-35s, F/A-18s and the ships themselves. I don't think there really is need for dedicated fleet defense fighter in this context.


Clearly, it would be hard to beat the F-22 in that role as it's speed both high and fast is remarkable. Yet, the F-35C doesn't have to defeat the F-22 because the Russians and Chinese don't have them.

In addition if some want to harken back to the good old days of the F-14 Tomcat. I wouldn't because the F-35C would eat it for lunch! :twisted:

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 08:53
by steve2267
Corsair1963 wrote:Clearly, it would be hard to beat the F-22 in that role as it's speed both high and fast is remarkable. Yet, the F-35C doesn't have to defeat the F-22 because the Russians and Chinese don't have them.


I wonder what, if anything, would happen to that vaunted F-22 air-to-air performance once LM got done modifying it to meet nasal radiator requirements: approach & landing speeds, strengthened undercarriage and structure to support cat launches & traps. And marinizing everything from a corrosion perspective. Could the Navy even afford the things? Would it's range still be adequate for the naval mission? (Isn't F-22 combat radius on the order of 450 or 500nm on internal fuel only? Gotta ways to go to get to 1000nm.) Acceleration would suffer a bit. Should still be decent, but may be less than the F-16 Blk 50 after all the extra weight for cats & traps. Hopefully it should still supercruise. Range will be somewhat less.

But, that's all right. Clark & others will merely opine that it is too expensive... cut production in half, buy more Stupid Dupers while we work on a 7th gen replacement... :doh:

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 09:24
by Corsair1963
Good Point...

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 09:39
by spazsinbad
How to Modify the RAPTOROUS ONE for all kinds of MISSHUNs some by MILLS & Goon but mostly HUMOUROUS - 'flycookie'.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 12:16
by optimist
Corsair1963 wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:
I've been wondering this for a long time too. It seems that the idea of fleet defense is that it's 1980s again with large number of Backfires screaming towards carrier batte group to fire their huge Kh-22 Kitchen missiles and fleet defense fighters quickly scramble to meet them flying fast and firing Phoenix-like missiles to kill them.

I do think that F-35C is actually remarkable fleet defense fighter. It has great sensors and SA, especially when networked with each other and Aegis systems. It might not be the fastest or fastest accelerating fighter (like F-22), but it has a lot of gas meaning long range and endurance. That and SA means that it can be where needed and individual F-35Cs can be very far apart and still have great mutual support. AIM-120D gives pretty good reach and kill probability even against modern threats. One great thing is VLO stealth, which will make attacking carriers very daunting task as it would be very difficult to know how many F-35Cs there is in the air and where they are and what they are doing. F-35s will be part of kill web around and over carrier battle groups instead of the old way of doing fleet defense. That kill web uses the combined SA of all F-35s, E-2Ds and F/A-18s and ships and does the killing using all the weapons carried by F-35s, F/A-18s and the ships themselves. I don't think there really is need for dedicated fleet defense fighter in this context.


Clearly, it would be hard to beat the F-22 in that role as it's speed both high and fast is remarkable. Yet, the F-35C doesn't have to defeat the F-22 because the Russians and Chinese don't have them.

In addition if some want to harken back to the good old days of the F-14 Tomcat. I wouldn't because the F-35C would eat it for lunch! :twisted:

not to minimise the transonic acceleration of the C, but it was driven by navy wanting the weapon load. It is higher than the USAF and USMC wanted.
chip said the least impressive thing about the f-22 is the speed. fast is yesterday's tech. I think he meant top speed.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 14:18
by sferrin
popcorn wrote:If the idea is to put 1000 miles between the CBG and the DF-21D. it should be relatively easy for the Chinese to field even longer ranged AShBMs.


Yep. Far easier to add 300 more miles range to a missile than a carrier strike wing. And DF-26 is already pushing it out to 2,000 miles (if it works as claimed).


Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 15:21
by steve2267
Shot of the nose cone towards the end of that video reminded me of the Pershing II.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 15:39
by sferrin
steve2267 wrote:Shot of the nose cone towards the end of that video reminded me of the Pershing II.


The DF-21 is pretty much a Pershing II knock-off. The DF-26 has even more range.

DF-21
29559362942_3212a16e12_o.jpg

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 16:38
by sferrin
marauder2048 wrote:The bomber streams were detected with OTH-B and then destroyed
with terminal seeker equipped MaRVs launched by surface ships and
submarines
.


There are no such weapons in the US inventory. Nor have there ever been. Backfires & Bears were to be detected by Hawkeyes and attacked by Tomcats (hopefully before weapon release). The AS-16 Kickback (Kh-15) was designed specifically to fly over lofted Phoenix shots. That was the outer air-battle at sea. (With AS-4s in the mix as well.)

marauder2048 wrote:In some cases, stealthy UAVs lurked around bomber ingress routes


Which stealthy UAVs are these?

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 18:52
by steve2267
spazsinbad wrote:How to Modify the RAPTOROUS ONE for all kinds of MISSHUNs some by MILLS & Goon but mostly HUMOUROUS - 'flycookie'.


$230M total to create a marinised, naval variant of the F-22? Not to mention that NG and Boing would do all the work. LM be like, "yah, sure... here's all our design stuff... have at it."

Not only do they not state why an F-22N would provide "around three times the capability the capability of the F-35C" they pull modification costs out of thin air: non-recurring R&D + design at $230M tops and unit costs of "only $10M more" than the F-22A production cost of $142M each. A production run of 500 will further drop costs "a lot" (my paraphrase), ignoring the fact that $142M each (was the F-22 ever that inexpensive?) was the price from an already mature program.
It may be necessary to 'beef-up' the airframe in some places, but the basic supersonic 9G-rated structure is already there. Specific design changes might include a carrier qualified 24 ft/sec sink rate undercarriage, 'beefing up' the support and load transfer structure for the stronger undercarriage, a navalized nose gear with catapult launch bar, and a carrier-rated arrestor hook for recoveries.


Need to "beef-up" a few things? Add a cat bar, carrier-rated hook, strengthen the undercarriage a bit... but that 9-G airframe is A-OK. They had a current day example staring them in the face from which they could estimate weight gains and airframe performance penalties in the F-35A vs F-35C: 19% weight growth in the base airframe alone, loss of 1.5G performance, and slower acceleration times. Surely those numbers easily found in F-35 Fast Facts were available at the time this comedy piece was written.

Tell me that was not a professional paper -- that they were NOT paid to write that. Because if they were... where can I get a job like that? I can sling the bullshit at least as well as those nimrods.

Oy vey...

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 19:34
by wrightwing
popcorn wrote:If the idea is to put 1000 miles between the CBG and the DF-21D. it should be relatively easy for the Chinese to field even longer ranged AShBMs.

It's not the range of the missiles so much as the ability to target, at increasingly extended ranges. The Chinese have yet to demonstrate that they can generate targeting data against a moving/maneuvering target, at extended ranges. They've hit static targets, at known locations and at much shorter ranges. Hitting a target that doesn't want to be found, at 1000nm, (or 500nm, for that matter), under highly degraded ISR conditions, and that is protected by SM-2/3/6, is a challenge. In a shooting war, the OTH radars would likely be taken out by subs with Tomahawks, and bombers with JASSM-ER (and XR in the coming years.) Manned and unmanned ISR platforms would likely be engaged kinetically or non-kinetically, to degrade their kill chain. I wouldn't bet on their satellites being unmolested, either. We have a lot more resilience/redundancy built into to our systems, in that kind of scenario. In the mid 2020s and beyond, the carrier air wing will have a lot longer legs, with MQ-25 and ACE motors. With a 30 to 35% range increase on internal fuel, plus tanking up 500nm out, an F-35C will easily reach well past 1000nm (probably closer to 1250+.) If the USN ever buys JASSM-ER/XR, that would allow F-35s to hit targets at 1800 to 2200nm+ from the carrier. Even with JSOW-ER and JSM, F-35Cs could hit targets over 1500nm away.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 19:46
by sferrin
wrightwing wrote:
popcorn wrote:If the idea is to put 1000 miles between the CBG and the DF-21D. it should be relatively easy for the Chinese to field even longer ranged AShBMs.

It's not the range of the missiles so much as the ability to target, at increasingly extended ranges. The Chinese have yet to demonstrate that they can generate targeting data against a moving/maneuvering target, at extended ranges. They've hit static targets, at known locations and at much shorter ranges. Hitting a target that doesn't want to be found, at 1000nm, (or 500nm, for that matter), under highly degraded ISR conditions, and that is protected by SM-2/3/6, is a challenge. In a shooting war, the OTH radars would likely be taken out by subs with Tomahawks, and bombers with JASSM-ER (and XR in the coming years.) Manned and unmanned ISR platforms would likely be engaged kinetically or non-kinetically, to degrade their kill chain. I wouldn't bet on their satellites being unmolested, either. We have a lot more resilience/redundancy built into to our systems, in that kind of scenario. In the mid 2020s and beyond, the carrier air wing will have a lot longer legs, with MQ-25 and ACE motors. With a 30 to 35% range increase on internal fuel, plus tanking up 500nm out, an F-35C will easily reach well past 1000nm (probably closer to 1250+.) If the USN ever buys JASSM-ER/XR, that would allow F-35s to hit targets at 1800 to 2200nm+ from the carrier. Even with JSOW-ER and JSM, F-35Cs could hit targets over 1500nm away.



Not too long ago the USN demoed the SM-6 Dual I shooting down an MRBM. I don't recall if they've tested it against an IRBM.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 20:23
by steve2267
sferrin wrote:Not too long ago the USN demoed the SM-6 Dual I shooting down an MRBM. I don't recall if they've tested it against an IRBM.


According to Wikipedia, the USN intercepted MRBM-representative targets in 2016 and 2017 with the SM-6. The US DoD classifies "Medium Range" Ballistic Missiles out to 3000km, or about 1620nm. So the SM-6 should be able to intercept DF-21. DF-26 might be stretching it a bit? But the SM-6 is being used in the terminal phase -- the "last few seconds before impact" -- so the inbound vampire is more-or-less coming straight down on top of you. That should make targeting easier, shouldn't it? Upon further reading of Wikipedia concerning MARV's (MAneuverable Re-entry Vehicles), it seems that Martin Marietta (Pershing II) and McDonnel Douglas (MARV contractor) may have been able to create an RV capable of evading ABM defenses. I can only surmise that a Mach 8+ RV is able to generate enough cross-track acceleration & velocity to evade a rising ABM. Sounds like a fascinating technical problem.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 20:40
by sferrin
steve2267 wrote:
sferrin wrote:Not too long ago the USN demoed the SM-6 Dual I shooting down an MRBM. I don't recall if they've tested it against an IRBM.


According to Wikipedia, the USN intercepted MRBM-representative targets in 2016 and 2017 with the SM-6. The US DoD classifies "Medium Range" Ballistic Missiles out to 3000km, or about 1620nm. So the SM-6 should be able to intercept DF-21. DF-26 might be stretching it a bit? But the SM-6 is being used in the terminal phase -- the "last few seconds before impact" -- so the inbound vampire is more-or-less coming straight down on top of you. That should make targeting easier, shouldn't it? Upon further reading of Wikipedia concerning MARV's (MAneuverable Re-entry Vehicles), it seems that Martin Marietta (Pershing II) and McDonnel Douglas (MARV contractor) may have been able to create an RV capable of evading ABM defenses. I can only surmise that a Mach 8+ RV is able to generate enough cross-track acceleration & velocity to evade a rising ABM. Sounds like a fascinating technical problem.


PAC-3 shooting down a maneuvering Pershing II RV:


Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 20:56
by steve2267
The intercept angle appears far closer to 90° than the 0° that I was suggesting. Very impressive. SM-6, if I recall, uses aerodynamic-only control surfaces, whereas PAC-3 has those divert motors for aggressive (?) terminal maneuvering. (Or am I mistaken?) PAC-3 is hit-to-kill, whereas SM-6 uses an explosive warhead. I wonder if that limits SM-6 effectiveness against the more energetic DF-26 type missiles (i.e. longer range IRBM's)?

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 21:08
by steve2267
Japan is partnering with the US MDA on the SM-3 IIA missile system. The SM-6 uses a seeker / radar based on the AIM-120C, but with a 13.5" dia rather than the 7" dia of the AMRAAM. Could an AESA seeker based on the work Japan is doing be in the SM-6's future? Would it bring any additional capability to the SM-6 in the ABM role?

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 23:48
by usnvo
steve2267 wrote:Japan is partnering with the US MDA on the SM-3 IIA missile system. The SM-6 uses a seeker / radar based on the AIM-120C, but with a 13.5" dia rather than the 7" dia of the AMRAAM. Could an AESA seeker based on the work Japan is doing be in the SM-6's future? Would it bring any additional capability to the SM-6 in the ABM role?


I doubt the radar will have any impact on the ability of a SM-6 to hit a ballistic target. The most important factors are going to be intercept geometry and warhead fuzing. Given speed of intercept, the intercept geometry is going to be set by the launching ship long before the SM-6 would have the ability to detect the target. Additionally, I would expect the engagement to be conducted with semi-active homing as opposed to active homing. A secondary IR homer might be useful, especially since the target will be very hot and all by itself in the sky.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 00:02
by steve2267
usnvo wrote:I doubt the radar will have any impact on the ability of a SM-6 to hit a ballistic target. The most important factors are going to be intercept geometry and warhead fuzing. Given speed of intercept, the intercept geometry is going to be set by the launching ship long before the SM-6 would have the ability to detect the target. Additionally, I would expect the engagement to be conducted with semi-active homing as opposed to active homing. A secondary IR homer might be useful, especially since the target will be very hot and all by itself in the sky.


If I understand you correctly, the Arleigh Burke will be radiating so much power through its Aegis system to light up Mars, the SM-6 just needs to see the reflection off the inbound? I think the terminal homing on all the ABM SM-3 Blk 1A/1B/2A is all InfraRed. Not sure if the SM-3's use radar to get close, or if they are command guidance until they get close and acquire with IR?

Re: AESA on SM-6... it might make more sense then, for attacking aircraft, cruise missiles etc -- other targets.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 00:09
by wrightwing
steve2267 wrote:The intercept angle appears far closer to 90° than the 0° that I was suggesting. Very impressive. SM-6, if I recall, uses aerodynamic-only control surfaces, whereas PAC-3 has those divert motors for aggressive (?) terminal maneuvering. (Or am I mistaken?) PAC-3 is hit-to-kill, whereas SM-6 uses an explosive warhead. I wonder if that limits SM-6 effectiveness against the more energetic DF-26 type missiles (i.e. longer range IRBM's)?

That's more of a fusing issue, than agility.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 01:21
by popcorn
It's one thing to computer model the effectiveness of a SAM to intercept a MaRV but to have a high degree of confidence I would expect DoD to prioritize developing a MaRV emulator for actual field tests.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 01:26
by steve2267
popcorn wrote:It's one thing to computer model the effectiveness of a SAM to intercept a MaRV but to have a high degree of confidence I would expect DoD to prioritize developing a MaRV emulator for actual field tests.


I am confused by your statement. Are you stating or implying the DoD has not used a MaRV or MarV emulator in any tests? I thought one of the Youtube videos posted earlier today showed a PAC-3 intercept of a MaRV from a Pershing II?

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 01:30
by popcorn
steve2267 wrote:
popcorn wrote:It's one thing to computer model the effectiveness of a SAM to intercept a MaRV but to have a high degree of confidence I would expect DoD to prioritize developing a MaRV emulator for actual field tests.[/quote

I am confused by your statement. Are you stating or implying the DoD has not used a MaRV or MarV emulator in any tests? I thought one of the Youtube videos posted earlier today showed a PAC-3 intercept of a MaRV from a Pershing II?

I'm not aware of any SM-6 intercepting a MaRV...happy to be corrected if otherwise.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 01:31
by element1loop
wrightwing wrote:
popcorn wrote:With a 30 to 35% range increase on internal fuel, plus tanking up 500nm out, an F-35C will easily reach well past 1000nm (probably closer to 1250+.) If the USN ever buys JASSM-ER/XR, that would allow F-35s to hit targets at 1800 to 2200nm+ from the carrier. Even with JSOW-ER and JSM, F-35Cs could hit targets over 1500nm away.


With the support of two MQ-25s (and 3rd for backup) the F-35C would be able to get about another 650 nm on top of that. That's serious strike range with a VLO weapon. Or about 5 tankers to get 2 x F-35C with 4 x JASSM-XR out to about 2,750nm, for initial USN opening shots. Nothing wrong with that, come ~2025. Just flight time there and back is getting up a bit, but a good part of that is missile flight range, so not as fatiguing as it first appears.

It'll be repeatable the next day.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 02:31
by Corsair1963
element1loop wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
popcorn wrote:With a 30 to 35% range increase on internal fuel, plus tanking up 500nm out, an F-35C will easily reach well past 1000nm (probably closer to 1250+.) If the USN ever buys JASSM-ER/XR, that would allow F-35s to hit targets at 1800 to 2200nm+ from the carrier. Even with JSOW-ER and JSM, F-35Cs could hit targets over 1500nm away.


With the support of two MQ-25s (and 3rd for backup) the F-35C would be able to get about another 650 nm on top of that. That's serious strike range with a VLO weapon. Or about 5 tankers to get 2 x F-35C with 4 x JASSM-XR out to about 2,750nm, for initial USN opening shots. Nothing wrong with that, come ~2025. Just flight time there and back is getting up a bit, but a good part of that is missile flight range, so not as fatiguing as it first appears.

It'll be repeatable the next day.


As I said in another post convert the B-2's to tankers after they retire. These could refuel the F-35C's and MQ-25's. That would push the range way out....

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 05:54
by charlielima223
Corsair1963 wrote:
Really, what threat is the F-35C ill prepared to handle in the foreseeable future??? :|


Image

While I don't believe the F-35 is "ill prepared" to handle foreseeable future threats/competitors; I wont completely discount any potential threats/competitors. China has been making very quick strides to modernize and at an astounding rate. Non-stealthy gen 4 and 4.5 platforms wont stand much of a chance against the F-35. Against other threats that are reaching 5th gen design and capability would be a completely different story even though the US and other F-35 users will have a substantial benefit with more experience and tactics of 5th gen platforms.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 05:58
by castlebravo
steve2267 wrote:Japan is partnering with the US MDA on the SM-3 IIA missile system. The SM-6 uses a seeker / radar based on the AIM-120C, but with a 13.5" dia rather than the 7" dia of the AMRAAM. Could an AESA seeker based on the work Japan is doing be in the SM-6's future? Would it bring any additional capability to the SM-6 in the ABM role?


They are also working on a new version of the SM-6 with the 21" motor from the SM-3 IIA.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 06:39
by Corsair1963
castlebravo wrote:
steve2267 wrote:Japan is partnering with the US MDA on the SM-3 IIA missile system. The SM-6 uses a seeker / radar based on the AIM-120C, but with a 13.5" dia rather than the 7" dia of the AMRAAM. Could an AESA seeker based on the work Japan is doing be in the SM-6's future? Would it bring any additional capability to the SM-6 in the ABM role?


They are also working on a new version of the SM-6 with the 21" motor from the SM-3 IIA.




The Standard Series has sure matured to a deadly collection of Surface to Air Missiles! :devil:

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 08:09
by boilermaker
spazsinbad wrote:
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

Not so if they are placed the way the Rafale's are placed. I remember the French way back at the beginning touting visibility superiority of their prototype over the British's.

That being said, Canards are pretty much rendered moot with negative static stability since both surfaces in the F16 provide lift the same or even more efficiently.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 08:16
by boilermaker
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.


It is as a single engine already heavier than a F-15C, and we are talking the A version.

A stretched F35 would have to have 2 engines or a couple more compressor stages and a cold fuel intercooling scheme to take some heat out to avoid Nitrogen dissociation... and who knows what else, the F16XL debacle failing to supercruise and in other promised aspects come to mind.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 08:36
by spazsinbad
'boilermaker' I'm not going to design CANARDs for the SEA TYPHOON - perhaps you can - similar to the RAFALE? How will these CANARDs affect the flight characteristics of the Sea Typhoon please? I'll go by the comments posted such as:
"...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)…."

attached are 8 pages from the 18 page PDF provided by: Written evidence from Admiral Sir John Woodward GBE KCB, Commodore Steve Jermy and Nigel D MacCartan-Ward DSC AFC Commander Royal Navy (ret’d) For Public Accounts Committee: Deliberations on the Typhoon Project. Of course you can download and read for yourself the entire PDF: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... 60/m3a.pdf (0.6Mb)

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 11:31
by optimist
boilermaker wrote:
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.


It is as a single engine already heavier than a F-15C, and we are talking the A version.

A stretched F35 would have to have 2 engines or a couple more compressor stages and a cold fuel intercooling scheme to take some heat out to avoid Nitrogen dissociation... and who knows what else, the F16XL debacle failing to supercruise and in other promised aspects come to mind.


Stretching a f-35c is in effect a new design, with all that that entails. Look at the hornet as an example. (although they were able to keep a lot inhouse without a lot of overview.)

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 12:44
by popcorn
Someone (steakanddoritos?)on the forum posted some graphics of a stretched F-35 some time ago, really looked cool. If someone can find them, I wouldn't mind seeing them again. As far as extra weight, perhaps this could be offset by the AETP engine, increased use of composites eg. CNRP, etc. It doesn't need to dogfight, specially if it comes with a laser.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 13:19
by sferrin
boilermaker wrote:A stretched F35 would have to have 2 engines or a couple more compressor stages and a cold fuel intercooling scheme to take some heat out to avoid Nitrogen dissociation... and who knows what else,


The F135 has already been run at 50,000lbs+. The "sized to replace the F135" AETP engine would be more powerful than the F135. The follow-on AETP, for the PCA aircraft, is generally thought to be a 60k engine. Stuff one of those in a stretched F-35.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 13:48
by spazsinbad
All the engine upgrades & F-35C stretching are well and good as long as this RUBBA F-35C can get aboard in given limits.

For the record here are relative placements of the RAFALE M canard to pilot compared to TYPHOON (wikipic). Different?

'popcorn' QUOTE re Land/Sea RAFALE: viewtopic.php?f=61&t=54445&p=411517&hilit=beast#p411517

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 22:04
by archeman
Going back to the original post:
Something is rotten here.

This entire report seems to have been written for the express purpose of lowering the F-35C buy and extending the FA-18F/G.

The main argument that is put forward is that CVSG needs to Strike at ranges of 500-1000nm and that isn't going to be possible in the current Navy Carrier Wing plan for 2040.

To solve that problem, two imaginary new aircraft somehow DOUBLE the CVSG strike range:
    * FA-XX strike fighters
    * 18 UCAV

The report goes on to say two things about FA-XX:

    * CURRENTLY IS: Notional next-generation carrier air superiority fighter based off of “F-22
    Specifications,” Lockheed Martin Website, 2018: https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/
    products/f-22/f-22-specifications.html.
    * SHOULD BE: Develop the FA-XX fighter during the 2020–2024 timeframe as a derivative of an
    existing aircraft, with production starting in 2025. Block III F/A-18 E/Fs and F-35Cs
    will be in production during the FY 2020–2024 FYDP, and either they or another
    in-production fighter or strike fighter could be modified into an FA-XX. Although this
    approach will require some additional funding for non-recurring engineering between
    about 2020 and 2024, it will save billions of dollars in the Navy’s planned funding to
    develop a new fighter aircraft from scratch.


In the footnotes, we see this gem about what FA-XX REALLY IS --- a gussied up FA-18E/F. I can't seem to understand with all the garbage philosophy what aircraft are actually doing the Strike mission. It seems like we are back to the 70s where about 75% of the aircraft are in some kind of support role:
To reduce the impact of F/A-18 E/Fs on long-range CVW capacity, the following mission analysis assumes that F/A-18
E/Fs and the future FA-XX fighter are both able to conduct refueling operations using buddy tanks and that F-35Cs are
used for OCA and escort operations in support of strikes
when FA-XXs are needed as tankers. This approach was chosen
because of the potential for the FA-XX to be an F/A-18 E/F derivative, whereas the F-35C does not have this capability
today and is not envisioned as having it in the future.


Is there anybody on this forum that can see how exactly this mix is going to DOUBLE the existing CVSG strike range? I guess I missed that. Mostly because IT IS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE REPORT.

Unless one wishes to accept this short bit here:
Each UCAV, fighter, and strike fighter can carry eight JASSM-like weapons internally and externally for a total payload of 16,000 lb.


While I don't doubt that it is possible to build a UCAV that can commit to 16K payload weight, is there anybody here that thinks you can also get that platform to strike at 500-1000nm? The theoretical only X-47C only had 10K on paper.

In summary this is all crap. The report appears to have as it main objective the adoption of a longer range FA-18E/F to ensure that production line continues until we are all long dead, but fails to actually describe why that would be in any way better than F-35C and why exactly cutting F-35C production in exactly half accomplishes any goal other than cutting F-35C production in half.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 22:16
by popcorn
What's so. Compelling about this?

"...because of the potential for the FA-XX to be an F/A-18 E/F derivative, whereas the F-35C does not have this capability..'

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 23:13
by XanderCrews
I wanted to post here, thought better of it. Read through the entire thread first, (be a big boy), but whew yikes.

I hate to break it to the squids and the fans of USN aviation but the outlook does not look promising.

The Navy will never be able to afford an F-22 style airplane by itself without paying way more money than the navy is willing to spend.

The Navy hasn't fielded a clean sheet design that didn't originate from a YF-17 in decades. The F-35 is a joint program.

At one point, barring a revolutionary new tech, the Navy will continue to have range issues, because they will encounter weights and sizes that are not carrier compatible and/or beyond fighter class, and thus running right into the USAF's turf. speaking of range, its critical that the navy have its own fighter force to hit up USAF big wing tankers 3 or 4 times, or else how would we know how independent and unique the CVN is? Organic tanking is garbage for things approaching actual long range attack, because you get stuck in the "Black Buck" style daisy chain of tankers. It turns out fighters are actually really poor tankers for missions, which is why they tend to orbit the ship and refuel things that need more landing tries. Any mission is limited by

A. Strike fighter fuel capacity to give to other striker fighters
B. Strike fighter fuel capacity to keep for itself and 4 landing attempts, lest we have to send up ever more tankers for the tankers.


Is it really hard to imagine that maybe the Navy can't have a raptor class bird? what if the only way to create an F-22 class airplane is to have it land based? escaping all the heavy weight and other carrier compromises? What if there is simply no way for the navy to produce the kind of economy of scale it would need to make all this work??

I didn't read the whole report, it doesn't surprise me that they would suggest improving hornet, or F-35C. They have a crap history with clean sheet designs getting canceled. Super Hornet was borne out of a serious of failures.

they also lost their biggest warmongering neocon advocate in John McCain, who would give a handjob if the navy said they desperately needed it.

The navy is a ship force with airplanes, not an air force with ships.

and besides, I thought the USN was all about "muh payloads over platforms" ?? develop better weapons, squids. You made the bed, lie in it

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 23:36
by popcorn
Some good points Spud. Why send a plane when you can send a missile?

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 00:35
by usnvo
steve2267 wrote:
usnvo wrote:I doubt the radar will have any impact on the ability of a SM-6 to hit a ballistic target. The most important factors are going to be intercept geometry and warhead fuzing. Given speed of intercept, the intercept geometry is going to be set by the launching ship long before the SM-6 would have the ability to detect the target. Additionally, I would expect the engagement to be conducted with semi-active homing as opposed to active homing. A secondary IR homer might be useful, especially since the target will be very hot and all by itself in the sky.


If I understand you correctly, the Arleigh Burke will be radiating so much power through its Aegis system to light up Mars, the SM-6 just needs to see the reflection off the inbound? I think the terminal homing on all the ABM SM-3 Blk 1A/1B/2A is all InfraRed. Not sure if the SM-3's use radar to get close, or if they are command guidance until they get close and acquire with IR?

Re: AESA on SM-6... it might make more sense then, for attacking aircraft, cruise missiles etc -- other targets.


Essentially, yes. AEGIS works by tracking the targets with the SPY-1, guiding the SM-2/SM-6/ESSMS to the engagement basket, and then illuminating the target for the last portion of SM-2/SM-6/ESSMS flight with a continuous wave illuminator. On the CG-47 this is the Mk 99 Illuminator and there are four of them. So the number of targets you can engage using Semi-Active Homing is limited by the horizon and the ability to illuminate the target. SM-6 and ESSMS Blk II get around this limitation by having active homing, so once they are in the basket, they go active and you can ignore them. However, there are several advantages to Semi-Active Homing not least of which is that the CW illumination is orders of magnitude more power on a pencil beam. Unlike earlier missile directors, the illuminator doesn't track the target, it just is pointed where the SPY-1 says the target is.

For Terminal Phase Missile Defense, the navy uses the SM-2 Blk IVa or the SM-6 Dual I (although I believe all future SM-6s will just be built with the Dual I capability, my understanding is it is software). The SM-2 Blk VIa uses a combination of command guidance, semi-active homing, IR homing, and active radar fuzing to engage the target, The SM-6 probably just uses Command Guidance. Semi-Active Homing and uses the active seeker for ahead fuzing. Since the target is all by itself and not trying to evade or jam the SM-6, an AESA does little to help you in that situation. As you note, it would help in a variety of other engagements, especially against countermeasures, but probably not Terminal Phase Missile Defense.

SM-3 is for outside the atmosphere only and they use command guidance until the kill vehicle acquires the target with IR.

Sorry for being so long winded/worded?

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 00:41
by usnvo
popcorn wrote:
steve2267 wrote:
popcorn wrote:It's one thing to computer model the effectiveness of a SAM to intercept a MaRV but to have a high degree of confidence I would expect DoD to prioritize developing a MaRV emulator for actual field tests.[/quote

I am confused by your statement. Are you stating or implying the DoD has not used a MaRV or MarV emulator in any tests? I thought one of the Youtube videos posted earlier today showed a PAC-3 intercept of a MaRV from a Pershing II?

I'm not aware of any SM-6 intercepting a MaRV...happy to be corrected if otherwise.


If they have done it, they haven't advertised it.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 00:52
by popcorn
usnvo wrote:
If they have done it, they haven't advertised it.


Sure, I could understand that but OTOH deterrence is enhanced if you can demonstrate to potential bad guys that such z capability exists.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 01:38
by SpudmanWP
To reduce the impact of F/A-18 E/Fs on long-range CVW capacity, the following mission analysis assumes that F/A-18
E/Fs and the future FA-XX fighter are both able to conduct refueling operations using buddy tanks and that F-35Cs are
used for OCA and escort operations in support of strikes when FA-XXs are needed as tankers. This approach was chosen
because of the potential for the FA-XX to be an F/A-18 E/F derivative, whereas the F-35C does not have this capability
today and is not envisioned as having it in the future.


Isn't the MQ-25 taking over tanking duties and not (ever) FA-XX?

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 02:17
by steve2267
I am unfamiliar with Navair tanking philosophy or policies. Jake Grafton always hit a tanker first think after his cat shot... and since the author was an A-6 driver, I figure that's going to be close to the way it really is -- when flying over the deep blue... take gas whenever you can get it. But it also seems pertinent that the nasal radiators would not want to be in a position when coming off target or going feet wet again... that they HAVE to tank lest they go swimming. That is... after launch, at some point, tank and get enough gas to fly the strike, return to the boat and land. Once at the boat, if bolters require it... tankers will be available to refuel for additional trap attempts. Am I more or less correct? (Tank -- then fly the mission with enough gas to get back to the boat without having to tank again?)

[ NOTE: Afghanistan and Iraq may have been different in that they were (more or less) permissive environments; the USAF had flying Shell & Conoco stations all over the place. I'm writing in this post about an "alpha strike" across 1000nm of water, or whatever has everyone's panties in a wad these days. ]

If I am on point... then having a UCAV (i.e. MQ-25) re-fuel outbound F-35Cs @ 400-450nm, so tanking is completed by 500nm from the boat, means that an F-35C with a nominal 670nm combat radius, should be able to push out to ~920nm before having to return to the boat. JSOW-ER and/or JSM should give the F-35C the ability to prosecute targets out to about 1200nm. This is without any gee-whiz AETP or F-135 GO 2.0 upgrades. (If GO 1.0 can yield 7% better fuel consumption, then that 920nm gets pushed out to around 965nm give or take.)

If AETP comes along with 30% better fuel burn, then topping off via MQ-25 by 500nm appears to push the F-35C to a combat radius of ~1200nm. Even without a 500nm topoff by MQ-25, AETP would seem to push the combat radius of the F-35C out to ~950nm. Save the MQ-25's for the thirsty Rhinos.

Depending on how much gas an F-35C takes to launch, climb, and cruise out to 400-450nm... and how much gas Boing can stuff in the MQ-25... a single MQ-25 might be able to refuel a flight of four @ 400-450nm. (If that is, an F-35C might be able to burn only 4000lb (ish) to get there. But, that might be optimistic. Alternatively... Every F-35C launches & climbs up to cruise altitude right away. Then immediately tank from MQ-25. At around 400-450nm, tank again. Am swagging that tanking right after climbing to cruise, that a single MQ-25 could top off four F-35C's @ 4-450nm. The issue then may become how long tanking takes. The idea being that at 500nm everyone has full tanks. Maybe need one MQ-25 for every two F-35C's to account for tanking times.)

[My swags were based off an assumed 670nm combat radius of the F-35C that I saw in the past few days.]

Bottom line, with MQ-25, and especially if AETP or GO 2.0 can deliver, where is the need for a new derivative F/A-XX?

I am not seeing a need to stretch the F-35C for gas.

I do see a potential requirement for longer weapons bays that would be able to swallow hypersonic AGM's that have a decent range (300nm? 500?). Hanging something 20-25' long off the wings is going to kill your gas mileage and won't help your VLO signature much.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 03:09
by usnvo
popcorn wrote:
usnvo wrote:
If they have done it, they haven't advertised it.


Sure, I could understand that but OTOH deterrence is enhanced if you can demonstrate to potential bad guys that such z capability exists.


I agree. I doubt they have done a flight test yet. First, because as far as I know, they do not have a MARV target yet and second because AFAIK they have only done three tests of the SM-6 Dual I yet, all against MRBM targets. Additionally, although at least at maximum range where the re-entry slant angle is pretty low, I would guess the SM-6 intercept point will be beyond the sensor range on the MARV so it is unlikely to be maneuvering at that point. At closer ranges the MARV will be coming down much more steeply.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 04:16
by element1loop
XanderCrews wrote:Is it really hard to imagine that maybe the Navy can't have a raptor class bird?

develop better weapons, squids. You made the bed, lie in it


Yes, it's ludicrous to push USN F-22 derivative when USN has F-35C now which could easily take on a F-22A class jet in A2A and have a good chance of winning. On top of that, the best bet is to kill the threat on the ground which that same F-35C will do brilliantly, especially with MQ-25s supporting.

I could not agree more that precision strike reach using better LO weapons is the solution to cracking the nut at much longer-range at the outset. It's about time the USN, which is finally embracing LRASM, steps up to JASSM-ER/XR, and add the JSOW-C-ER to the mix as well. Even if that weapon mix is expensive to acquire, it's still cheaper than creating a new long-range USN strike aircraft and maintaining that in service for 30 years.

And the idea of the F/A-18E/F airframe seeding an F/A-XX ... is repugnant ... when you have a single-engine, high-payload, very compact VLO F-35C, which can serve as an already very advanced basis for an F/A-18E/F replacement. Because that's all F/A-XX will be - a replacement of old SH. The F-35C will easily meet that after BK4 is completed. USN would have rocks in its head to go for another evolved superhornet airframe, when it can have a smaller actual VLO strikefighter airframe doing it instead.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 04:42
by optimist
I think
A revamped fa-18 aint gunna happen
a stretched f-35c aint gunna happen, tweeks using the existing airframe is a possibility.
what's next on the list? A clean sheet f/a-xx using next get tech, a possibility if ever there is funding.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 05:07
by Corsair1963
optimist wrote:I think
A revamped fa-18 aint gunna happen
a stretched f-35c aint gunna happen, tweeks using the existing airframe is a possibility.
what's next on the list? A clean sheet f/a-xx using next get tech, a possibility if ever there is funding.


Extremely doubtful that the US would redesign the F-35C. Yet, we will see it and it's USAF and USMC cousins upgraded
over time. (Engines, Avionics, Weapons, etc.)

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 06:40
by popcorn
usnvo wrote:
popcorn wrote:
usnvo wrote:
If they have done it, they haven't advertised it.


Sure, I could understand that but OTOH deterrence is enhanced if you can demonstrate to potential bad guys that such z capability exists.


I agree. I doubt they have done a flight test yet. First, because as far as I know, they do not have a MARV target yet and second because AFAIK they have only done three tests of the SM-6 Dual I yet, all against MRBM targets. Additionally, although at least at maximum range where the re-entry slant angle is pretty low, I would guess the SM-6 intercept point will be beyond the sensor range on the MARV so it is unlikely to be maneuvering at that point. At closer ranges the MARV will be coming down much more steeply.


We should get a hint when request appears in the budget, means they're getting serious.
Similar to sourcing of Coyote as supersonic ashM analogue.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2019, 11:00
by marauder2048
sferrin wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:The bomber streams were detected with OTH-B and then destroyed
with terminal seeker equipped MaRVs launched by surface ships and
submarines
.


There are no such weapons in the US inventory. Nor have there ever been. Backfires & Bears were to be detected by Hawkeyes and attacked by Tomcats (hopefully before weapon release). The AS-16 Kickback (Kh-15) was designed specifically to fly over lofted Phoenix shots. That was the outer air-battle at sea. (With AS-4s in the mix as well.)

marauder2048 wrote:In some cases, stealthy UAVs lurked around bomber ingress routes


Which stealthy UAVs are these?


I did say they were concepts :)

Ballistic Intercept Missile was the missile -> LORAINE was the kill vehicle
Condor was the original UAV envisioned but wasn't survivable enough.

But AFAIK the ROTHR OTH-B radars are the main (and possibly only) remnant.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 13:00
by mixelflick
An F/A-18 derivative for F/A-XX is stupid, for all the reasons listed here (and more). Yet, it's consistent with the all Hornet Navy they've built. They probably want/need Boeing to stay in business just to service their SH's which will (regrettably) be sticking around for decades to come.

Had we built the Super Tomcat 21 way back when, things wouldn't be so dire today for fleet air defense. It wouldn't have been stealth, but in terms of speed/supercruise, long, long legs, a huge AESA and weapons carrying capability... they'd have a VERY robust air defense capability today. And as already noted, it wouldn't be a truly clean sheet design. Or at least that's how they could have sold it to Congress (see the SH).

Just sayin'...

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 14:35
by ricnunes
mixelflick wrote:An F/A-18 derivative for F/A-XX is stupid, for all the reasons listed here (and more). Yet, it's consistent with the all Hornet Navy they've built. They probably want/need Boeing to stay in business just to service their SH's which will (regrettably) be sticking around for decades to come.

Had we built the Super Tomcat 21 way back when, things wouldn't be so dire today for fleet air defense. It wouldn't have been stealth, but in terms of speed/supercruise, long, long legs, a huge AESA and weapons carrying capability... they'd have a VERY robust air defense capability today. And as already noted, it wouldn't be a truly clean sheet design. Or at least that's how they could have sold it to Congress (see the SH).

Just sayin'...


Are you aware that the Tomcat was a maintenance nightmare, right?
This would still be true for the Tomcat 21 because the main reason why the Tomcat was a maintenance nightmare was due to its sweep-wing design which obviously would be kept in the Tomcat 21.
So there's not much that could be done regarding the Tomcat 21 in order to reduce its maintenance needs, as such the level of availability would be much, much lower than the Super Hornet and as such its operational as well as its acquisition costs would be much higher than the Super Hornet and due to this, the most likely thing to happen would be that the sensors and avionics of the Tomcat 21 wouldn't necessarily be any better (or would likely be worse) than the Super Hornet ones.
And all of this for what? For a somehow better performance the Navy would lose in numbers, availability and combat effectiveness.

Of course when someone says that the US Navy should stop procuring/ordering the Super Hornet and only order new F-35C's instead then I fully agree! However I cannot agree that a Tomcat 21 would be a better option compared to the Super Hornet. Not even by a long shot (IMO, of course).

Anyway, I still think that if the US Navy really wants a new (manned) aircraft and other than a F-35C then the best choice would IMO be a revamped/improved and come back of the A-12 Avenger II with full modern technology obviously. This would give the Navy a very long range stealth aircraft (as opposed to Hornet or Tomcat based designs) which could perform both very long range air-to-air and air-to-ground missions (in the later case, a good A-6 replacement).
Since the A-12 was a McDonnell Douglas design it should now belong to Boeing and as such a "new A-12" production would allow Boeing to stay in business (manufacturing a really relevant aircraft for future operations) and since it would be based on a existing design then its develop cost should be lower than a clean sheet design. Being a subsonic design should also help with the development and manufacturing costs as well.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 14:56
by marsavian
The A-12 Avenger II basically had the same fuel capacity and internal workload of a F-35C but with about 60% of the thrust and no supersonic/maneuvering capability. It's already obsolete and is not coming back. The F/A-XX can only seriously be either a paid for evolved F-35C or a clean sheet competitive competition. PCA will probably be too big to be navalised but then again JSF was mandated by the Politicians so you never know but it will have to be a hell of design to meet both service requirements. Of course Boeing could try and bypass normal channels and try and sell an evolved stealthier Super Hornet Block IV as the F/A-XX but Congress really has to finally put an end to this Boeing corporate welfare when F-35C is in full scale production.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 15:33
by ricnunes
marsavian wrote:The A-12 Avenger II basically had the same fuel capacity and internal workload of a F-35C but with about 60% of the thrust and no supersonic/maneuvering capability.


Well, even back then (circa early 1990's) the A-12 Avenger II was supposed to have an internal fuel capability of 21,322lb while the F-35C internal fuel capability is 19,624lb. That's still higher than the F-35C although slightly so. I would say that new materials and construction techniques should eventually increase the A-12 design's fuel capability considerably so.
Moreover, new and more powerful engines would also increase the A-12's planned thrust.
All of this together with having a flying wing design and being subsonic would IMO mean that the A-12's range would easily surpass that of the F-35C.
Actually the reason why I'm "proposing" such as new/revamped A-12 design is because I believe that this would basically be the only carrier-based design that I can remember which could easily surpass the F-35C's range.

And while it wouldn't have the supersonic and (super)maneuvering capabilities - and IMO it wouldn't need since that's what the F-35C is for! - it would have the other traits that no supersonic/maneuvering F/A-XX would have which is having far more range and loiter capabilities which would not only be useful for long-range/picket air-to-air missions and traditional air-to-ground strike missions but who knows if couldn't also perform some Anti-Submarine missions as well as even tanker missions - or resuming being a replacement for both the A-6 and the S-3 Viking while also being able to perform some very long range air-to-air missions.
Such aircraft together with the F-35C would give the US Navy an extremely powerful (and likely affordable) punch well into the future.
Again, my 2 cents...

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 17:05
by knowan
While I don't know the exact bypass ratio of the A-12's F412 engines, they're described in this article as having a 'far higher bypass ratio': https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFA ... 200980.PDF

That suggests the 412 was a medium or high bypass engine, so it'd likely have had considerably better range than the F-35.

Plus being a tailless flying wing, it'd likely have had better stealth too.

It'd definitely be much higher maintenance though.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 17:16
by steve2267
ricnunes wrote:I would say that new materials and construction techniques should eventually increase the A-12 design's fuel capability considerably so.


"increase considerably so"? Do tell!

Navy couldn't be bothered with X-47B. Should be simple to slap a cockpit in that sucker, eh?

While your general argument may have some merit to us armchair naval theorists... the professionals seem to have no interest in that planform, nor any interest in requirements for such a platform. But I disagree with your casual "easy to stuff more gas" in that plane meme. A 1m x 1m x 1m box is still a cubic meter. No matter how you construct it, or out of what, you are not going to get more than about 800kg of JP-5 in it.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 23:49
by ricnunes
steve2267 wrote:Navy couldn't be bothered with X-47B. Should be simple to slap a cockpit in that sucker, eh?


Well, I'm not talking about the X-47B, am I? I'm talking about the A-12.
Saying or hinting that the A-12 and the X-47B are the same/similar thing because they have a flying wing design would be akin to saying that the F-106 and a Rafale for example are the same/similar thing because they have Delta Wings.


steve2267 wrote:While your general argument may have some merit to us armchair naval theorists... the professionals seem to have no interest in that planform, nor any interest in requirements for such a platform.


Well, thanks for giving me some merit.
Regarding "the professionals seem to have no interest in that planform" I wouldn't be 100% sure of that since for example some of the proposed F/A-XX designs seem to be based on a flying wing design, although I grant that they seem to have the supersonic route in mind.


steve2267 wrote:
ricnunes wrote:I would say that new materials and construction techniques should eventually increase the A-12 design's fuel capability considerably so.


"increase considerably so"? Do tell!
...
But I disagree with your casual "easy to stuff more gas" in that plane meme. A 1m x 1m x 1m box is still a cubic meter. No matter how you construct it, or out of what, you are not going to get more than about 800kg of JP-5 in it.


Well, if you assume that the entire internal free areas of the A-12 are fully used to stuff fuel tanks/cells then you would be correct of course.
But I don't believe that the entire internal free areas of the A-12 are used to stuff fuel tanks/cells and in case I'm right here right then newer and lighter materials could be used not only to build a lighter aircraft but also lighter and bigger fuel tanks which eventually could take more of the eventual free internal spaces/areas without costing more weight, this again assuming that there's such free space/area available inside the A-12.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2019, 23:58
by ricnunes
knowan wrote:While I don't know the exact bypass ratio of the A-12's F412 engines, they're described in this article as having a 'far higher bypass ratio': https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFA ... 200980.PDF

That suggests the 412 was a medium or high bypass engine, so it'd likely have had considerably better range than the F-35.


Well, even if the A-12 couldn't take up more fuel than the 21,322lb planned which is already higher than the F-35C's 19,624lb (although being by a small margin, I admit) as discussed above with Steve and even if the A-12 engines (or a modern version of them) didn't give a better fuel consumption rate than the F-35 engine, the A-12 flying wing should by itself give it a clear advantage in both range and loiter time over the F-35C.
But yes, I wouldn't be surprised at all if both A-12 engines combined had a better fuel consumption than the F-35 engine.

knowan wrote:Plus being a tailless flying wing, it'd likely have had better stealth too.

It'd definitely be much higher maintenance though.


Yes, I would admit/agree on those two possibilities regarding the design.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2019, 17:09
by popcorn
usnvo wrote:
popcorn wrote:
usnvo wrote:
If they have done it, they haven't advertised it.


Sure, I could understand that but OTOH deterrence is enhanced if you can demonstrate to potential bad guys that such z capability exists.

]

DARPA's working on it.


https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... ller-42117

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 02:05
by squirrelshoes
quicksilver wrote:
vanshilar wrote:Jerry Hendrix wrote some similar numbers back in 2015 iirc.

I read this as "Jimmy Hendrix" and was mightily confused.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 02:21
by quicksilver
squirrelshoes wrote:
quicksilver wrote:
vanshilar wrote:Jerry Hendrix wrote some similar numbers back in 2015 iirc.

I read this as "Jimmy Hendrix" and was mightily confused.


https://www.cnas.org/people/dr-jerry-hendrix

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 02:29
by spazsinbad
aahh PURPLE HAZE: Jimi Hendrix - Purple Haze (Official Video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-PK3sbxvhw


Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 14:36
by mixelflick
No way in hell the Navy's going to open up the A-12 can of worms again. Expensive, subsonic and de-facto needing fighter escorts, that just doesn't jive with the "all strike fighter" Navy. They want all in one platforms and have for a long time.

I never recall hearing how the F-14 was a maintenance nightmare when it was new to the fleet. Later of course, I heard it was a hangar queen and that made sense, given its age. Had Grumman built the ST21 I rather doubt it would be horrible from a maintenance standpoint. Surely the Navy would have looked at that and even IF there were issues with earlier models, it would have been corrected in the ST21.

Had we bought them way back when, they'd still be serving admirably in the fleet defense role. There wouldn't be any need for an F/A-XX because fleet air defense is a lot less stealth sensitive vs. say, deep interdiction. They would have been much more capable vs. the SH, having it all over it in radar, super-cruise, range, persistence etc.with a secondary Bombcat capability for 2nd day of war missions.

It is what it is though. All we can hope for now is a more capable F-35C, and they'll probably make due with it for fleet air defense too. I just can't see the Navy affording two stealth fighters, especially a higher end one like F/A-XX promises to be..

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 16:14
by steve2267
Pity the poor USN CVBG that has to "make do" with the F-35C for fleet air defense.

If they all should be so lucky...

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 20:54
by ricnunes
mixelflick wrote:No way in hell the Navy's going to open up the A-12 can of worms again. Expensive, subsonic and de-facto needing fighter escorts, that just doesn't jive with the "all strike fighter" Navy. They want all in one platforms and have for a long time.


I definitely wouldn't minimize a capability of a fighter/combat aircraft just because its subsonic.
The last time someone did that which were the Argentinians over the Falklands in my memory doesn't fail me they paid deadly for that - The potentially superior supersonic Mirage IIIs got their asses kicked by the subsonic Sea Harriers.

mixelflick wrote:I never recall hearing how the F-14 was a maintenance nightmare when it was new to the fleet. Later of course, I heard it was a hangar queen and that made sense, given its age. Had Grumman built the ST21 I rather doubt it would be horrible from a maintenance standpoint. Surely the Navy would have looked at that and even IF there were issues with earlier models, it would have been corrected in the ST21.


No?? Glove vanes doesn't ring you a bell? And how about the Tomcat needing 50 maintenance hours for every flight hour, while for example the Super Hornet requiring only 5-10 maintenance hours for every flight hour. Here:
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ch ... ory-02021/

You could be right when you say that the Navy won't go the A-12 route again however I would say that the chances of this would still and always be much higher (even if still very slim) than a Tomcat 21 or something along those line.


mixelflick wrote:Had we bought them way back when, they'd still be serving admirably in the fleet defense role. There wouldn't be any need for an F/A-XX because fleet air defense is a lot less stealth sensitive vs. say, deep interdiction. They would have been much more capable vs. the SH, having it all over it in radar, super-cruise, range, persistence etc.with a secondary Bombcat capability for 2nd day of war missions.


LoL. Lets see:
- Such Tomcat 21 even having a theoretical "better performance" it would be less capable and much less survivable and mission capable than the both the F-35C and the A-12. Heck it would be even less survivable than the Super Hornet - For example the huge F-14 RCS. I doubt that someone could reduce its RCS that much - there isn't much that can be done with an old design which it even has a sweep-wing design on top of that.


mixelflick wrote:It is what it is though. All we can hope for now is a more capable F-35C, and they'll probably make due with it for fleet air defense too. I just can't see the Navy affording two stealth fighters, especially a higher end one like F/A-XX promises to be..


And I just can't see the Navy having a non-stealth aircraft in the future. If the F/A-XX is to happen you can bet that it will be stealth too.
I'm also puzzled with your "All we can hope for now is a more capable F-35C" comment. Really??
Even if you're talking about performance alone, could you mention a single and modern Carrier-based aircraft with better performance than the F-35C?? Cause I cannot see any...

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 21:22
by disconnectedradical
ricnunes wrote:LoL. Lets see:
- Such Tomcat 21 even having a theoretical "better performance" it would be less capable and much less survivable and mission capable than the both the F-35C and the A-12. Heck it would be even less survivable than the Super Hornet - For example the huge F-14 RCS. I doubt that someone could reduce its RCS that much - there isn't much that can be done with an old design which it even has a sweep-wing design on top of that.


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.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 21:31
by XanderCrews
mixelflick wrote:I never recall hearing how the F-14 was a maintenance nightmare when it was new to the fleet. Later of course, I heard it was a hangar queen and that made sense, given its age. Had Grumman built the ST21 I rather doubt it would be horrible from a maintenance standpoint. Surely the Navy would have looked at that and even IF there were issues with earlier models, it would have been corrected in the ST21.

Had we bought them way back when, they'd still be serving admirably in the fleet defense role. There wouldn't be any need for an F/A-XX because fleet air defense is a lot less stealth sensitive vs. say, deep interdiction. They would have been much more capable vs. the SH, having it all over it in radar, super-cruise, range, persistence etc.with a secondary Bombcat capability for 2nd day of war missions.


[Caveat. I am an F-14 fan]

But Dude LOL, The F-14 was a maintenance nightmare from day 1 until the end. It took decades for the navy to get the engines it wanted, and in the meantime it lost nearly a quarter of the fleet to engine mishaps. There was just nothing easy about them. ever. Maybe in the 90s when there was more spare parts as they retired half the Fleet, and SOME F-14s got new engines. but it was never not a maintenance nightmare. They retired the Aim-54 a couple years before the Tomcat and that really put the nail in the coffin. It was never certified for AMRAAMs If I recall as well. Tomcat was also "book limited" the fear of asymetrical thrust meant that it was limited usually to hornet speeds anyway, though of Course the F-14 had better range. Only test pilots were allowed to pump that bad boy beyond mach 1.8.

What happened was the USN went away from the Fleet defense mission and adopted the Super Hornet. And with no blue water threats, that was a reasonable decision. They kicked the can down the road 20 years. Well, now its been 20 years. its time to put up or shut up. China is finally getting "interesting"

I'll introduce yet another competitor, and honestly given what the last 18 years has looked like A-6F would have been the most helpful global war on terror bomb truck. but you can't predict the future.

I have no idea how the future Navy Fighter will turn out, I know the navy has boxed itself in with various decision in the past and I just don't see them spending the money and going all in on this. I don't think they can afford it. If you listen to every critic the USN isn't even wild about the F-35C they will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future.

There is no "navy F-22" no 5th gen or 5.5 or 6th gen pure navy, pure fighter, and there never will be.

When was the last time the Navy actually had a "new build" or "all navy" CVN aircraft? F-14 used F-111 stuff (though I would forgive it since it was by navy for navy in a big way). F-18s are based on the USAF's YF-16 vs YF-17. Super Hornet is based on F-18. F-35 is joint. A-12 imploded. We watched a half dozen USN projects in the 1990s die.

the Super Hornet is as much a result of the navy being desperate, as every program crumbled around it as anything else.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 21:57
by quicksilver
The triangulation on the Navy’s tacair future might be fa-xx funding vs f35 production and c2d2. I would also expect the internal fight between the tribes over funding priorities have been/will be dramatic, particularly in light of the 7th Flt forensics.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 22:48
by sprstdlyscottsmn
XanderCrews wrote:I'll introduce yet another competitor, and honestly given what the last 18 years has looked like A-6F would have been the most helpful global war on terror bomb truck. but you can't predict the future.

What a bomb truck. With the added A-A capability in the new radar and Two additional wing pylons for AMRAAM (I'm going to fantasize dual racks per pylon there) it would out Mudhen the Mudhen in Payload-Range.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 23:46
by lbk000
I don't even have words for this study. There's just so much that makes me go "wut" that I can't even begin to pick at it.

You might as well prescribe a lobotomy to ward off the possibility of Alzheimer's.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 23:59
by tomcattech
XanderCrews wrote:the Super Hornet is as much a result of the navy being desperate, as every program crumbled around it as anything else.


Xander... your last 2 posts have been spot on.

As much as I love the old bird, the F-14 had major teething problems (not the least of which the engines) until the B/D came around.

Once things started to stabilize and the B\D squadrons started to show some good readiness rates, NAVAIR lost interest once a real blue water competitor evaporated. Heck, we couldn't even get AMRAAM cleared for the D once most of the testing was done and ready to move forward.

This lack of foresight has also effected the battle group's anti-sub capability to a great degree with the S-3 going away and a shifting focus on helo assets.

Overall, all of these issues come from:
A. Lack of a near peer adversary
B. Lack of Funding
C. Idiotic DOD decision making via "kicking the can down the road"

Now we are where we are with the Superbug (with all of the positives and negatives that come with it)... and for the life of me I'm still trying to understand NAVAIR's insistence to slow roll the F-35C.

The C is the future of NAVAIR and the faster we can get them operating off the decks the better things will be.

Just an old sailor's opinion of course...

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 00:45
by steve2267
tomcattech wrote:
Overall, all of these issues come from:
A. Lack of a near peer adversary
B. Lack of Funding
C. Idiotic DOD decision making via "kicking the can down the road"


IMO, all the points you cite are examples of lack of or failure of leadership


tomcattech wrote:
The C is the future of NAVAIR and the faster we can get them operating off the decks the better things will be.



Best explanation I have heard is why buy the C faster, when the boats won't be ready for them for several more years? What with the budget problems created by Congress' poor leadership and unwillingness to get past sequestration, compounded by no leadership for eight years from the White House. Now if the Navy continues to drag its feet... I'll be scratchin' my head.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 01:18
by quicksilver
When the institutional Navy really wants something, obstacles melt gracefully away (e.g. LANTIRN on Tomcat). When it doesn’t, it will look for every reason why it “can’t...for reasons beyond its control.” Most forget or never knew how controversial Hornet was in its early days, owing in-part to the opposition in NAVAIR (including some of the alums).

Sometimes the Naval Services succeed in spite of themselves.

https://www.nytimes.com/1981/11/02/opin ... ogram.html

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Requirem ... 0270374752

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 01:31
by quicksilver
lbk000 wrote:I don't even have words for this study. There's just so much that makes me go "wut" that I can't even begin to pick at it.

You might as well prescribe a lobotomy to ward off the possibility of Alzheimer's.


170 pages of spaghetti thrown on the virtual walls of the Congress right in front of testimony season and the (somewhat delayed) budget release. Who knows what might stick...which is the intent, when someone else chooses to highlight but one item contained therein.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 04:42
by usnvo
quicksilver wrote:When the institutional Navy really wants something, obstacles melt gracefully away (e.g. LANTIRN on Tomcat). When it doesn’t, it will look for every reason why it “can’t...for reasons beyond its control.” Most forget or never knew how controversial Hornet was in its early days, owing in-part to the opposition in NAVAIR (including some of the alums).

Sometimes the Naval Services succeed in spite of themselves.

https://www.nytimes.com/1981/11/02/opin ... ogram.html

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Requirem ... 0270374752


Great links. One totally unrelated part of the second article caught my eye.

A comparison of requirements to fielded capabilities revealed that the F-14 was 5,000 pounds overweight, failed to meet required ranges, could not attain combat ceiling, and missed required maintenance and reliability as well as several other requirements. The F-14 did not meet its cost target either (F-18, 1975).

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 05:27
by quicksilver
Well, here’s another classic —

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4xJBvKJht78

Note the on-camera with George Spangenberg (prominent NAVAIR alum) from about the 2:00 mark. One can search for his 1975 testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee for a fuller appreciation of his opposition to the program.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 05:35
by spazsinbad
Wow - thanks for the video - it is uncanny how one could substitute F-35 for F-18 to hear the same negative DIATRIBE. :devil:

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 15:51
by mixelflick
I definitely wouldn't minimize a capability of a fighter/combat aircraft just because its subsonic.
The last time someone did that which were the Argentinians over the Falklands in my memory doesn't fail me they paid deadly for that - The potentially superior supersonic Mirage IIIs got their asses kicked by the subsonic Sea Harriers.

It's not JUST the fact it was subsonic. The design didn't exactly speak to being a high energy fighter/able to defend itself. Or a fighter at all. If anything, it was a stealthed up A-6. Nothing more, nothing less IMO.

No?? Glove vanes doesn't ring you a bell? And how about the Tomcat needing 50 maintenance hours for every flight hour, while for example the Super Hornet requiring only 5-10 maintenance hours for every flight hour. Here:
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ch ... ory-02021/

Yes, I've heard about glove vanes... and the fact they eventually did away with them. Did the Tomcat ALWAYS require that many maintenance hours? If it did, shame on the Navy for accepting a fighter like that. Do you really think if that was the case though, Grumman wouldn't correct it in ST21?

You could be right when you say that the Navy won't go the A-12 route again however I would say that the chances of this would still and always be much higher (even if still very slim) than a Tomcat 21 or something along those line.

I'm saying that the Navy should have procured ST21 in lieu of the SH. Had it done so, it would have been a tremendous capability jump for the time, and in fact today as well (if they funded upgrades, same way the do the SH).

LoL. Lets see:
- Such Tomcat 21 even having a theoretical "better performance" it would be less capable and much less survivable and mission capable than the both the F-35C and the A-12. Heck it would be even less survivable than the Super Hornet - For example the huge F-14 RCS. I doubt that someone could reduce its RCS that much - there isn't much that can be done with an old design which it even has a sweep-wing design on top of that.

Never said it'd be less survivable than F-35 or A-12. Did say it would have run circles around the Super Hornet for fleet air defense, and run circles around the SH in the air interdiction mission. Hell of a lot faster, more range and bigger load carrying capability. Nor did I ever say it'd be stealthy. What I am saying, is that instead of SH's sitting on decks today there could be ST21's, and ST21 would have no problem performing the SH's roles with no small improvement in those areas where SH is lacking.

And I just can't see the Navy having a non-stealth aircraft in the future. If the F/A-XX is to happen you can bet that it will be stealth too.

You can't see the Navy having a non-stealth aircraft in the future? Then why is the Navy buying more SH's, ASH upgrade kits and telling the world the future carrier wing will consist of 2 squadrons of SH's and 2 squadrons of F-35C's???

I'm also puzzled with your "All we can hope for now is a more capable F-35C" comment. Really??
Even if you're talking about performance alone, could you mention a single and modern Carrier-based aircraft with better performance than the F-35C?? Cause I cannot see any...[/quote]

It's not that I don't think the F-35C is incapable of the mission. It is. But I don't compare "other carrier aircraft" vs. the F-35C. I consider all types of near peer adversary aircraft, land and carrier based. The J-20 concerns me, as does their efforts on the J-31. The J-20 concerns our pilots too, as evidenced by a recent discussion I had with F-15 and even 22 pilots at an air show last year.

BOTTOM LINE

I'm no fan of the SH, and think we could have done better for our pilots. It would be nice if the Navy had a super-cruising, ultra long ranged, monster AESA, AIM-120D/upgraded Phoenix/9x equipped fleet air defense/air interdiction powerhouse sitting on carrier decks today, but that's not what happened. Let's just get as many F-35C's as fast as possible, and hope it and the SH are "enough" to meet current and future threats.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 20:12
by ricnunes
mixelflick wrote:It's not JUST the fact it was subsonic. The design didn't exactly speak to being a high energy fighter/able to defend itself. Or a fighter at all. If anything, it was a stealthed up A-6. Nothing more, nothing less IMO.


mixelflick, can I ask you a favor?
When quoting me please leave the parts which I posted under quotation, just like I'm doing when quoting your post. This is because it becomes hard to interpret your post since I spend most of the time trying to figure what parts of the text was posted my me and what parts were posted by you instead to actually understanding your post/point.
Thanks in advance.

Well, regarding the part that I quoted above, yes the A-12 was more than able to defend itself. It was designed to carry the AMRAAM as one of its main self-defense weapons (the other being the HARM missile).
From what I could gather, the the A-12 usual and planned ordinance was to be something like 2xLarge air-to-ground weapons (likely 2000lb class weapons) plus 2xSelf-defense missiles (either AMRAAMs or HARMS) on the main weapon bays plus 2xSelf-defense missiles (either AMRAAMs or HARMS) on two small bays (dedicated for self-defense missiles).
So and for example it could carry
- 2xLarge air-to-ground weapons + 2xHARMS + 2xAMRAAMs
or,
- 2xLarge air-to-ground weapons + 4xAMRAAMs

It was planned to carry a multi-mode AESA radar (with air-to-air radar modes of course) and I would say that in an air-to-air mission it could easily carry something like 8xAMRAAMs, all internally of course.
And independently of what aircraft I would be flying I would certainly fear - and a lot! - an aircraft which not only is stealth but also carries 8 AMRAAMs (internally), this independently if such threat aircraft being subsonic.

So yes, the A-12 would definitely be more than able to defend itself and was to be something way more than a "stealthed up A-6".

Here:
Image

Image

In the image below, notice the lowermost-right profile:
Image


mixelflick wrote:The J-20 concerns me, as does their efforts on the J-31. The J-20 concerns our pilots too, as evidenced by a recent discussion I had with F-15 and even 22 pilots at an air show last year.


I agree with you that the J-20 (and J-31 if it ever materializes) will indeed be a major concern.
And that's another reason why a Tomcat 21 wouldn't make any sense IMO. The Tomcat 21 would be severely outclassed by such threats (J-20 and J-31).

mixelflick wrote:Let's just get as many F-35C's as fast as possible, and hope it and the SH are "enough" to meet current and future threats.


Here, I fully agree with you.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 20:28
by ricnunes
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.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 20:49
by ricnunes
tomcattech wrote:This lack of foresight has also effected the battle group's anti-sub capability to a great degree with the S-3 going away and a shifting focus on helo assets.


I absolutely agree with your last post (which I partly quoted above).
And I would like to comment on the part that I quoted you above - about the S-3 Viking.

It's "funny" that many people mention the need of having a (fast) carrier based fighter-interceptor when the F-35C is more than capable for such role when in fact the biggest threat that (again IMO) a US Navy aircraft carrier (or even any other USN warship) has is NOT from enemy aircraft which can launch anti-ship cruise missiles from afar or even these new Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles that everyone seems to talk about nowadays.
The biggest single threat that a US Navy aircraft carrier or even any other warship would have to face now and in the future are:
- Submarines (from all "colors and sizes", you name it :mrgreen: ).

As such if I was in any way related to the US Navy I would be far more worried about the demise of the S-3 Viking (retired without any replacement) than with the demise of the F-14 - which like it or not, did have a replacement.

Before someone (Xander, I believe) mentioned something about a tentative future A-6F variant. Well, I certainly agree with the logic of such variant. And if Sonobuoys and Torpedoes (and even a MAD if is isn't asking too much) could be put in such aircraft (A-6F) then it should become an interesting replacement for the S-3 (on top of already having good tanker capabilities).
Of course that an A-12 with all the above would be more interesting but...

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 20:57
by disconnectedradical
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.


I don't think swinging wing will make that much difference in RCS, I think the biggest contribution to RCS is usually the engine face. F-14 intake isn't swept like the Super Hornet's so that can be a problem. So I can agree Tomcat RCS can be reduced but probably not to Super Hornet level but it's not like the difference between a Tomcat 21 and Super Hornet is the same as the difference between Super Hornet and F-35.

From what I read, Lockheed NATF and A/F-X use swinging wing and when in stealth mode the wing is locked at a specific angle.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 21:09
by ricnunes
disconnectedradical,

Yes, I think you made a good point about the engine face.
The F-14 engines are "pod mounted", so any efforts to hide their "faces" should be very limited compared to for example the Super Hornet, this judging from pictures such as this:

Image


Image

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 21:20
by disconnectedradical
Also the F-14 tails are pretty much vertical and not canted which I think is also not good for RCS. Anyways even with the RCS difference I think a Tomcat 21 would be more capable than a Super Hornet, more performance potential from that airframe. And their difference in RCS is not the same as the difference from an F-35.

But what USN really needed was the A/F-X, but that got canceled.

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. Apparently Northrop and Lockheed didn't want to bid for A-12 because they didn't think they can meet both the stealth and cost the Navy wanted, so Navy went with General Dynamics.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 21:25
by marauder2048
ricnunes wrote:
tomcattech wrote:The biggest single threat that a US Navy aircraft carrier or even any other warship would have to face now and in the future are:
- Submarines (from all "colors and sizes", you name it :mrgreen: ).



EMALS/AAG wind-over-deck reductions notwithstanding, CATOBAR operations are *loud* and unmistakeable.

It's much easier to get survivability-enhancing acoustic reductions on other surface ships or STOVL carriers.

Plus, the Navy just killed (for flimsy reasons IMHO) the countermeasure anti-torpedo effort for the CVNs.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 22:41
by spazsinbad
'marauder20148' said: "... the Navy just killed (for flimsy reasons IMHO) the countermeasure anti-torpedo effort for the CVNs...." IIRC the 'reason' was it is not effective/reliable? I could look it up. Meanwhile also IIRC the USN P-8 is a long range ASW asset being procured in numbers also by allied air arms. Then the ROMEO helo with dipping sonar is very effective, also dispersed amongst CVNBG ships. ASW is a secret club that not many may enter unless in the business and like the BABY SEALS of F-35 renown - ASW is CLUBBING BACK! Can anyone see/hear the ATTACK shadowing NUKE SUBS?

Future ASW drones may be added to the mix. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Hunter

Story about the thing doan wurk: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/us-n ... ers-2019-2

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 22:59
by marauder2048
The flimsy reasoning was the high false target alarm rate which is solvable; the CATs were effective.

My top-level point is that the whole justification for the SSTDS was the notion that the
ASW assets would not detect a quiet submarine left-of-launch.

For a high-end opponent, sub-launched SAMs are the natural response to manned
low-altitude ASW assets; I think the P-8 would struggle in a high-threat environment so the last
CSBA study had them orbiting well away from the threat areas and then lobbing
HAAWCs at contacts designated (mostly) by unmanned assets.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 23:07
by spazsinbad
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.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 02:25
by tomcattech
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.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 02:35
by crosshairs
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.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 03:33
by spazsinbad
Thanks for input. PDF page reproduced edited: https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFA ... 200299.PDF

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 09:12
by spazsinbad
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/

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 09:45
by Corsair1963
Never going to happen. Hell, I have my doubts about the AMCA???

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 12:30
by ricnunes
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?

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 13:26
by ricnunes
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.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 14:58
by count_to_10
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.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 16:42
by ricnunes
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.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 17:11
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Right, max range and max endurance cruise speeds are with the wings swept nearly all the way forward.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 18:09
by disconnectedradical
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.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 20:49
by marauder2048
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.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 22:21
by lbk000
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.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 22:56
by spazsinbad
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

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 00:40
by steve2267
disconnectedradical wrote:
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.


lbk000 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.


Contrast the A-12 trailing edge with any of
  • NG B-2
  • NG X-47B (I mentioned this earlier, but was poo-pooed away)
  • NG B-21 -- stories discussing trailing edge (e.g. compromises forced upon B-2 by some requirements when it was designed)
  • possibly Boing X-45
  • LM MQ-25 entry

None of these designs had a trailing edge perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of symmetry.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 00:44
by steve2267
The LM MQ-25 design entry appears at first blush to be closest to the A-12 in planform concept, excepting obvious differences such as single engine (LM MQ-25) vs twin (A-12), and no cockpit in the MQ-25:

Image

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 00:46
by steve2267
I was disappointed when NG threw in the towel on the X-47B. Mebbe it lives on in the B-21? Who knows.
Image

Image

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 00:58
by steve2267
And, last, but certainly least, lest I forget the Boing boyz:
Image

Image

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 01:05
by steve2267
And lastly, some images Google coughed up from globalsecurity.org that compares and contrasts the X-45 and the X-47, planforms which probably woulda been a whole lot mo betta than the ill-fated A-12:

A contrast of the two shapes / designs:

Image

I assume (dangerous) this is a worthwhile image showing planforms scaled to the Viper & Bug:

Image

A 3-view comparison:

Image

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 13:10
by mixelflick
X-47B wins for me (aesthetics, anyway).

Big fan of cranked arrow designs, going back to the F-16XL.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 19:25
by ricnunes
steve2267 wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:
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.


lbk000 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.


Contrast the A-12 trailing edge with any of
  • NG B-2
  • NG X-47B (I mentioned this earlier, but was poo-pooed away)
  • NG B-21 -- stories discussing trailing edge (e.g. compromises forced upon B-2 by some requirements when it was designed)
  • possibly Boing X-45
  • LM MQ-25 entry

None of these designs had a trailing edge perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of symmetry.


steve2267, disconnectedradical and lbk000,

Thanks for the more detailed info guys.
Yes, what you mention regarding the A-12 trailing edge makes sense and could/should indeed be a problem. But wouldn't this problem affect the A-12 RCS when or if the radar source was behind the aircraft or resuming it would affect the A-12's rear aspect RCS and not so much its frontal RCS?

Moreover, couldn't an airframe modification (hopefully not so extensive) of the currently known A-12 design solve this issue?
I always felt (although I could be wrong) that the A-12 design that we all know (and which schematics have been previously posted here) was more of a "demonstrator design" instead of what would be its "final design" (if the program didn't get cancelled), this akin to the YF-22 or the X-35 which were demonstrators and also relatively different compared to their respective final airframe designs which were respectively the F-22 and F-35.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 20:10
by botsing
Here is some more explanation about traveling waves:

https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavion ... ermeasure/

Image

And of course this picture:

TravelingWave_001.png

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2019, 00:25
by steve2267
What Botsing posted.

The illustration on the right gives a peek into the F-35's display of it's RCS in 360° so the pilot can orient his aircraft to minimize his RCS values in the direction of known threats / emitters.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2019, 00:29
by lbk000
ricnunes wrote:Moreover, couldn't an airframe modification (hopefully not so extensive) of the currently known A-12 design solve this issue?
I always felt (although I could be wrong) that the A-12 design that we all know (and which schematics have been previously posted here) was more of a "demonstrator design" instead of what would be its "final design" (if the program didn't get cancelled), this akin to the YF-22 or the X-35 which were demonstrators and also relatively different compared to their respective final airframe designs which were respectively the F-22 and F-35.

It would have required extensive changes to the design. Again, if memory serves, LM was consulted after the A-12 design was laid down to test the LO properties and it rated poorly so they (LM) proposed some changes which would have altered the trailing edge "significantly" as well as adding what got referred to as a "stealth bra" to the front end which by accounts resulted in a cranked arrow leading edge. One might surmise that the resultant planform would have looked fairly close to a longitudinally squashed X-47.
Apparently the intake design was also a source of grief. Don't ask me how, I don't know any more than that.
The A-12 was likely unsalvageable because of two very fundamental factors:
1. The Navy's LO requirements were not "aggressive" compared to ATF and ATB.
2. The Navy just didn't want to pony up the money for a proper LO design. Northrop was "too expensive".

I've seen some suggestions that the USAF tacitly sabotaged the A-12 by feeding the USN partial truths about LO so as it wouldn't compete with ATF funding -- effectively vegging it, the line of thinking being that if the A-12 succeeded, the USN would want more funding to buy them, but if the A-12 failed too soon, then the USN would want more funding to find a replacement. That might be off towards the tinfoil-hat end of the spectrum, but if you're already having fun speculating about making the A-12 viable then you might as well consider the alternatives.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2019, 00:39
by marauder2048
lbk000 wrote:
I've seen some suggestions that the USAF tacitly sabotaged the A-12 by feeding the USN partial truths about LO so as it wouldn't compete with ATF funding -- effectively vegging it, the line of thinking being that if the A-12 succeeded, the USN would want more funding to buy them, but if the A-12 failed too soon, then the USN would want more funding to find a replacement.


Which makes no sense given that the Air Force intended to acquire the A-12 to replace the F-111;
that gap in capability remains today.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2019, 01:12
by lbk000
marauder2048 wrote:Which makes no sense given that the Air Force intended to acquire the A-12 to replace the F-111;
that gap in capability remains today.

You make it sound like the USAF actually had money on the A-12 when it amounted to just a brief "oh that could be cool" flirt. The USAF already had the F-15E slated to replace the F-111 at the time.

What is this capability gap now???

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2019, 01:47
by marauder2048
lbk000 wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:Which makes no sense given that the Air Force intended to acquire the A-12 to replace the F-111;
that gap in capability remains today.

You make it sound like the USAF actually had money on the A-12 when it amounted to just a brief "oh that could be cool" flirt. The USAF already had the F-15E slated to replace the F-111 at the time.

What is this capability gap now???


I make it sound like the Air Force had money on it because they did.

The F-15E was (is) the interim replacement and can't penetrate.
Hence things like J-UCAS and FB-22 etc. which fill the gap between the F-35
and the penetrating strategic bombers.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2019, 02:35
by crosshairs
marauder2048 wrote:
lbk000 wrote:
I've seen some suggestions that the USAF tacitly sabotaged the A-12 by feeding the USN partial truths about LO so as it wouldn't compete with ATF funding -- effectively vegging it, the line of thinking being that if the A-12 succeeded, the USN would want more funding to buy them, but if the A-12 failed too soon, then the USN would want more funding to find a replacement.


Which makes no sense given that the Air Force intended to acquire the A-12 to replace the F-111;
that gap in capability remains today.


I read that in a Popular Science magazine 30 years ago. I doubted it then, and I still doubt today that a derivative of the A-12 was going to replace the F-111. A 6000lb payload is a 6000lb payload and no one here can speak to the range of the A-12 because it never flew. If anything it would have replaced the nighthawks plus maybe a hundred or so more. The USAF was just starting the Strike Eagle buys near the end of the A-12.

That gap would not be there today had the USAF been allowed to acquire enough of the B-2. One can also make the case that F-22 could have filled in for a F-111 replacement. Yes it only holds 2 thousand pound munitions, but quantity could have made up for the light load. Unfortunately the F-22 was terminated early. Under Clinton the USAF was allowed to whither and pass up opportunities to upgrade or buy new advanced versions of the eagle and viper and it passed on buying stealth bombers . Bush and Obama rode the USAF hard and put it to bed wet. That's why the USAF is just now starting to claw its way back to modernization.

I love these conspiracies about the USAF sabotaging the A-12. Wild imaginations,

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2019, 04:21
by marauder2048
crosshairs wrote:I read that in a Popular Science magazine 30 years ago. I doubted it then, and I still doubt today that a derivative of the A-12 was going to replace the F-111.


Why? It's all over congressional testimony and plenty of planning documents from that period.
When the A-12 was cancelled, the plans were updated to reflect AX and then AFX and then
when those died F-15E buys were extended.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2019, 06:10
by lbk000
Well, how can the F-22 fill the capability gap when it can't even fill the range gap? Haha

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2019, 07:06
by marauder2048
lbk000 wrote: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.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2019, 08:19
by 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.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2019, 09:00
by marauder2048
popcorn wrote: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.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2019, 12:14
by ricnunes
botsing wrote:Here is some more explanation about traveling waves:

https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavion ... ermeasure/

Image

And of course this picture:

Image



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) :doh:

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

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2019, 12:34
by ricnunes
lbk000 wrote: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.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2019, 13:51
by crosshairs
marauder2048 wrote:
lbk000 wrote: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.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2019, 18:48
by marauder2048
crosshairs wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
lbk000 wrote: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.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2019, 18:53
by steve2267
marauder2048 wrote:
lbk000 wrote: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?

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2019, 19:27
by marauder2048
steve2267 wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
lbk000 wrote: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.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2019, 15:31
by 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.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 02:45
by 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.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 05:51
by blain
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.


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.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 06:03
by 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).

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 10:33
by 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?

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2019, 16:04
by ricnunes
blain wrote: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?


I fully agree with the above (and with the rest of your post) and that's why I "proposed" something (note the quotes: who am I to propose something? :wink: ) like a modified/improved A-12.
That's IMO the only kind of design that could be operated from a Carrier which could attain a 1,000 nm operational radius.

Of course the trade-offs are that such aircraft wouldn't have the same/similar maneuverability compared to other fighter aircraft (like you mentioned) and it would also be subsonic.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2019, 21:14
by blain
More CSBA fall out....
https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... -air-wing/

Decent article. Short on the details and a regurgitation of Bryan Clark's F-35C redesign idea. I don't know if the author is correctly characterizing Clark, or if Clark is just talking out of his rear end.

"For that, Clark points to a retooled F-35 fighter jet, one that switches out internal payload space for fuel."

I've watched Clark's briefing of his report and read the report. Both lacked any specificity. But don't see how you can get another 400 nm in combat radius by trading weapons bay space for fuel.

You'll need another 7 or 8,000 lbs of more fuel. My estimate. Does anyone have any better info? The weapons bays are already tight. You'd have to convert the whole weapons bay for JP5 and still would likely not get there. If he is talking about lengthening the F-35 and optimizing it for range like the J-20 then I'd rather hear from an LM engineer than a nuclear boat guy.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2019, 22:11
by marauder2048
With AETP and a conformal fuel bladder (assume you don't care about jettison/clearance)
per weapons bay that you drain from first I don't see why getting an extra 400 nm in radius is
outlandish.

And it sounds like what Clark is describing implies a hi-hi-hi flight profile.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2019, 22:40
by citanon
I posted the defense news story to another thread earlier. I think an interesting part of the story is Clark saying that "F-35 guys" told him getting a longer range F-35 mainly involves software changes.

Are we talking about then an "eco mode" for the Lightening II? If so I wonder how much range boost you get from that alone?

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2019, 22:54
by blain
marauder2048 wrote:With AETP and a conformal fuel bladder (assume you don't care about jettison/clearance)
per weapons bay that you drain from first I don't see why getting an extra 400 nm in radius is
outlandish.

And it sounds like what Clark is describing implies a hi-hi-hi flight profile.


Maybe, assuming you get an improved engine in the mid 2020s or 2030. Like the engine competition in the 80s you would likely see the new engine in only new production F-35s and a follow on fighter.

I still would like to see the data behind what Clark says. If you want to still carry weapons in the F-35 bays - say keep 1 AIM-120 and 4 SDBs that doesn't leave with a lot of volume for fuel. Because if you need to carry weapons externally you might as well carry external fuel tanks and/or CFTs.

Does anyone know how much more fuel internally you would have to carry to get out to 1,000 nm?

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2019, 22:54
by sprstdlyscottsmn
disable certain systems maybe? If you don't need to power or cool them then you can run more efficiently.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2019, 22:56
by sprstdlyscottsmn
blain wrote:
Does anyone know how much more fuel internally you would have to carry to get out to 1,000 nm?

Based on the statement about doing a 590nm out and back dropping two GBU-31s and landing with 7,000-8,000lb in the tanks? Not much. I estimated an 840nm max range for HI-HI-HI profile with almost no loiter.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2019, 23:28
by SpudmanWP
I wonder if the extra 400nm takes into account the drag of external weapons?

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2019, 23:43
by marauder2048
blain wrote:
Maybe, assuming you get an improved engine in the mid 2020s or 2030. Like the engine competition in the 80s you would like see the new engine in only new production F-35s and a follow on fighter.


Well that is the envisioned timeline and the F-35 has been the design target vehicle for AETP since day one.

blain wrote:
I still would like to see the data behind what Clark says. If you want to still carry weapons in the F-35 bays - say keep 1 AIM-120 and 4 SDBs that doesn't leave with a lot of volume for fuel. Because if you need to carry weapons externally you might as well carry external fuel tanks and/or CFTs.


That would only be for the CAS role which Clark indicates is a distant secondary role.
In the CnC role, there's likely less thermal burden on the PAO loop (and consequently
less impact on fuel consumption) since you wouldn't necessarily have to power the EW suite or
the radar beyond using the radar for comms to the swarm.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2019, 00:44
by blain
marauder2048 wrote:
blain wrote:
Maybe, assuming you get an improved engine in the mid 2020s or 2030. Like the engine competition in the 80s you would like see the new engine in only new production F-35s and a follow on fighter.


Well that is the envisioned timeline and the F-35 has been the design target vehicle for AETP since day one.

blain wrote:
I still would like to see the data behind what Clark says. If you want to still carry weapons in the F-35 bays - say keep 1 AIM-120 and 4 SDBs that doesn't leave with a lot of volume for fuel. Because if you need to carry weapons externally you might as well carry external fuel tanks and/or CFTs.


That would only be for the CAS role which Clark indicates is a distant secondary role.
In the CnC role, there's likely less thermal burden on the PAO loop (and consequently
less impact on fuel consumption) since you wouldn't necessarily have to power the EW suite or
the radar beyond using the radar for comms to the swarm.


I only cited the SDB as a notional load for a smaller bay. Unless you are going to stretch the F-35 you are not going to get much. In A/A the most weapons it will be able to carry is 6 AIM-120s. So what are you going to give back to get a meaningful trade in fuel? Two? Three? That would amount to a thimble full when compared to the F-35Cs internal fuel volume.

In A/G would you get anything by trading 2 GBU-31s and 2 AIM-120s for 2 AARGM-ER derivatives and 2 AIM-120s? I don't think so.

Then does the F-35 just carry a few self defense weapons and then becomes a manager for UCAVs?

The whole F-35C redesign is a poor use of limited resources. Continue the development of improved engine, buy the F-35 at efficient quantities and attempt to finish the buy sooner, and field the MQ-25A to extend the reach of the CVW. You have excess deck space on carriers to adjust the size and make up of the CVW as needed like the Navy did in the 80s - according to the mission and the threat. The MQ-25A is not the best solution but it is an 80% solution which gets you the capability to fight the air wing at 1,000 nm at a reasonable cost.

By ending Super Hornets production and completing the F-35C buy sooner you can then start developing a purpose built aircraft which trades some performance for range. An unmanned solution might be less expensive but more limited in capability and come with higher risk. In that case it maybe wise to continue with the F-35 as bridge until it matures.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2019, 00:51
by quicksilver
“Not much.“

Agree, and there are several (relatively easy) ways to do that short of a while new procurement program they cannot afford right now.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2019, 01:49
by wrightwing
Given the current range, and the expected increase of 30 to 35% in range, when the AETP/ACE motors become available, that'll get the F-35C close to 1000nm. With MQ-25s, it'll easily exceed 1000nm for a strike radius. Now add in the range of stand off weapons on top of that.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2019, 02:12
by marauder2048
An F-35C controlling the loitering munitions delivered by a UCAV seems like a pretty good division
of labor to me. The F-35 is certainly a more practical (LPI/LPD datalinks over reasonable distances)
and survivable command node than anything else that has been described.

blain wrote:In A/G would you get anything by trading 2 GBU-31s and 2 AIM-120s for 2 AARGM-ER derivatives and 2 AIM-120s? I don't think so.


You would get a highly responsive and flexible weapon in AARGM-ER; if you are just attacking fixed or relocatable
targets that can be serviced by GBU-31s I tend to think that a UCAV controlled by an F-35 is a better solution.

Attacking fleeting mobile targets is where I think the F-35 really excels.

Part of the CSBA study is a position piece for actually placing production contracts for the MQ-25;
it's a glorified science project at the moment since the only birds currently in the budgets are
EMD and system demonstration test articles.

That and the MQ-25 isn't the right design; it should be 17,000 lbs of fuel offload @ 600 nautical miles.
As mentioned in the defense news piece, the MQ-25 in its current configuration translates to a a very large
number (12 -15) to extend the entire air wing.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2019, 05:44
by blain
marauder2048 wrote:An F-35C controlling the loitering munitions delivered by a UCAV seems like a pretty good division
of labor to me. The F-35 is certainly a more practical (LPI/LPD datalinks over reasonable distances)
and survivable command node than anything else that has been described.

You would get a highly responsive and flexible weapon in AARGM-ER; if you are just attacking fixed or relocatable
targets that can be serviced by GBU-31s I tend to think that a UCAV controlled by an F-35 is a better solution.

Attacking fleeting mobile targets is where I think the F-35 really excels.

Part of the CSBA study is a position piece for actually placing production contracts for the MQ-25;
it's a glorified science project at the moment since the only birds currently in the budgets are
EMD and system demonstration test articles.

That and the MQ-25 isn't the right design; it should be 17,000 lbs of fuel offload @ 600 nautical miles.
As mentioned in the defense news piece, the MQ-25 in its current configuration translates to a a very large
number (12 -15) to extend the entire air wing.


The problem with any UCAV - autonomous or semi-autonomous - is that you need to assume a great advancement in AI. Navigation, defensive management, targeting, even the extent to which "control" from a single seat manned fighter looks like. What functions will be automated and what function will require a man in the loop? We need to transition from Predator to something totally different. And I think there are very few people, especially in think tanks, who understand how to get there.

One area where UCAV's may work is the outer air battle. E-2s and/or F-35s could employ loitering UCAVs with large missile loads via a low observable network node. This would reduce the number of manned fighters needed to protect the CSG. Bombers and cruise missile are much easier to for UCAVs to counter than fighters. Attacking surface ships or relocatable targets, and even fixed targets in a non permissive environment maybe much more difficult.

In a non permissive environment, even low observable fighters, may need to alter the planned route or the attack and respond to unforeseen threats such as enemy fighters and air defenses. I don’t see how it can do it autonomously. Doing as a “loyal wingman” to an F-35 might still be difficult.

The MQ-25A is a much easier proposition. I am not sure why they settled on the 14,000 lbs at 500 nm requirement. Maybe that all they needed, or was cost and size a consideration. The key issue will be exactly how many MQ-25As the Navy's anticipates per CVW and how many F-35Cs will it be able to send out to 1,000 nm. No one has ever said.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2019, 07:08
by blain
Does the Navy have some type of marketing campaign going on? More talk of the relevance of carriers and CVWs. More quotes from Bryan Clark and CSBA. Perhaps the USAF could learn something from the Navy. They got the refueling of the Truman funded by playing a game of chicken and putting on the chopping block.

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-nav ... e-flattop/

Here is an interesting nugget from the authors:

"Each Stingray promises to enable a pair of Super Hornets or two F-35C Joint Strike Fighters to go 1,000 nautical miles and back, the edge of China’s anti-ship missile ranges."

Where did they get that from? The Navy? Clark? So a squadron of 12 MQ-25s will be able to send out 24 F-35Cs? That would be tactically significant but "promises" sounds like weasel words.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2019, 09:00
by spazsinbad
"... "promises" sounds like weasel words." Has the MQ-25A flown yet? 'Promises' seems very appropriate for the FUTURE.

Re: CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2019, 12:26
by madrat
What ever happened to the concept of standoff delivery? I don't think we have to get the F-35C to 1,000 nm just to be a credible threat. Add in standoff missiles for 1,000 nm more. That's 1,150 regular miles on each of two legs. That's a lot of territory to defend. Too bad they never leveraged AGM-109 for the navy, huh? Oh, wait.