- Posts: 768
- Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 21:50
arkadyrenko wrote:As for the JSF STOVL. Look at the F-35A,B,C. Apart from the wings, the body appears to be by and large identical among the three variants. That is intentional, the program was supposed to create common aircraft.
Now thing about this, how many other fighters have airframes that look like a STOVL aircraft? Not many. Furthermore, most other fighters don't have the luxury of relying on one of the most powerful engines ever attacked to a fighter's airframe to overcome aerodynamic drag. Therefore, those fighters need better aerodynamic optimization, or to put it in other words, they can't afford to loose as much aerodynamic performance.
Put those facts together and it becomes clear: the STOVL variant has affected the other two variants of the JSF, and that affect has probably been for the worse.
Frankly, you've done here is precisely what my earlier comment was pointing out as being incrorrect. You have no concrete evidence to back up any of this except your "intuition." Are you an aerospace designer or designer participating in the F-35 program, or even spoken to someone involved? It doesn't sound like it. I think there are other, just as compelling explanations for the F-35's size and shape: carrying 2X 2000 lbs bombs/JSOW internally + fuel + engines was probably the most significant. Clearance for an 2000 lbs bomb internally adds quite a bit of space. This seems to be common trait for Lockheed stealth aircraft: The F-22 is considered a "bulky" aircraft compared to the YF-23, as was the F-117. F-22s on the other hand had to carry AMRAAMs and at most SDBs.