CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Variants for different customers or mission profiles
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3306
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post08 Feb 2019, 23:12

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.
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 731
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post08 Feb 2019, 23:32

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.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23465
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post09 Feb 2019, 00:20

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.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

usnvo

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 181
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 18:51

Unread post09 Feb 2019, 00:43

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.
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 798
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post09 Feb 2019, 01:10

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.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2204
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post09 Feb 2019, 02:24

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:
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2204
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post09 Feb 2019, 02:34

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:
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3306
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post09 Feb 2019, 02:58

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?
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23465
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post09 Feb 2019, 03:03

'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:
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2331
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post09 Feb 2019, 03:12

If you recycle F-35 tech into a new fighter you divide resources. F-35C is fine as is.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1404
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post09 Feb 2019, 04:06

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.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2204
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post09 Feb 2019, 06:43

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:
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2204
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post09 Feb 2019, 06:59

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...
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

vanshilar

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 403
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2015, 11:23

Unread post09 Feb 2019, 08:36

Well guys here's the problem...

CSBA Page 26.png
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 990
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post09 Feb 2019, 08:44

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.
Aussie fanboy
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Variants and Missions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests