CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

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!

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.

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.

'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)

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.)

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.

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.

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

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.

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..'

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

Some good points Spud. Why send a plane when you can send a missile?

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?

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.

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.