CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

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

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2853
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post16 Feb 2019, 23:58

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.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7724
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post17 Feb 2019, 17:09

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
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

squirrelshoes

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 134
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2016, 23:53

Unread post18 Feb 2019, 02:05

quicksilver wrote:
vanshilar wrote:Jerry Hendrix wrote some similar numbers back in 2015 iirc.

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

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3178
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post18 Feb 2019, 02:21

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
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25082
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post18 Feb 2019, 02:29

aahh PURPLE HAZE: Jimi Hendrix - Purple Haze (Official Video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-PK3sbxvhw

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

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4237
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post18 Feb 2019, 14:36

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..
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2578
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post18 Feb 2019, 16:14

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...
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

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2853
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post18 Feb 2019, 20:54

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...
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 910
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post18 Feb 2019, 21:22

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.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6548
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post18 Feb 2019, 21:31

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.
Choose Crews
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3178
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post18 Feb 2019, 21:57

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.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4975
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post18 Feb 2019, 22:48

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.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline

lbk000

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 356
  • Joined: 04 May 2017, 16:19

Unread post18 Feb 2019, 23:46

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.
Offline

tomcattech

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 22
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2017, 18:11

Unread post18 Feb 2019, 23:59

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...
Hornets by mandate. Tomcats by choice!!
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2578
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post19 Feb 2019, 00:45

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.
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.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Variants and Missions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests