2D thrust vectoring for the F-35A and F-35C?

Scott Ferrin wrote:

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 03:19:41 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
wrote:

Scott Ferrin wrote:


Nope. The X-32 would have but not the 35. My guess is they could
have but maybe Lockhhed didn't want it competing with the F-22.

Or they didn't want to pay the weight penalty in an aircraft designed for
strike over air-to-air.

I recently suggested that if the F/A-22 were canceled, the Air Force might
look at an air-to-air version of JSF. An axi-symetrical thrust vectoring
nozzle would be high on the list of desirable modifications for such an
aircraft, I suspect.


I'd think they'd have to make quite a few changes to make it good
enough to be the primary air to air fighter. Internal weapon load is
tiny (2 -120s), the thrust to weight leaves a lot to be desired, and
how does it fair in the manueverability dept.? Sure you can add
external weapons but then there goes your stealth. Then when the
politicians start screaming because the F-35's cost is going up and
service date is getting pushed back so the required changes can be
incorporated. . .

I used to despair.. Bradley, Sgt. York, Osprey, Crusader, The F-22
selection disaster.. - Oh Hell, they're falling like the Brits.. But
now I rejoice. DIE Commanche! DIE Raptor. May you blunder in your
rotten moral failing forever. May all your thumbs be left. May F-35
be interminably cursed by your obese, contemptible innate rottenness..
I turn away, I turn away in promise to the fast rising and glorious
East.. I turn away, and behind me..may the rotted Whore of Babylon die
soon! Rotted, rancid and befouled, forever.

Grantland

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 03:19:41 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
wrote:

Scott Ferrin wrote:


Nope. The X-32 would have but not the 35. My guess is they could
have but maybe Lockhhed didn't want it competing with the F-22.

Or they didn't want to pay the weight penalty in an aircraft designed for
strike over air-to-air.

I recently suggested that if the F/A-22 were canceled, the Air Force
might
look at an air-to-air version of JSF. An axi-symetrical thrust vectoring
nozzle would be high on the list of desirable modifications for such an
aircraft, I suspect.


I'd think they'd have to make quite a few changes to make it good
enough to be the primary air to air fighter. Internal weapon load is
tiny (2 -120s), the thrust to weight leaves a lot to be desired, and
how does it fair in the manueverability dept.? Sure you can add
external weapons but then there goes your stealth. Then when the
politicians start screaming because the F-35's cost is going up and
service date is getting pushed back so the required changes can be
incorporated. . .

First, you have to accept the conditional that Tom put forward--"if the
F/A-22 were cancelled". If you do that, then what are you *left* with as a
potential air-to-air fighter to replace the F-15C? Only three options are
really open to consideration-- (a) buy newer F-15's, something along the
line of the F-15K (unlikely IMO), (b) buy offshore (i.e., Typhoon)
(unlikely, and yet to be proven significantly superior to option (a)--hold
the catcalls, please), or (c) develop a more capable version (in air-to-air
terms) of the F-35 series. Of course, you could just start a whole new
program to produce a new air superiority fighter...but that would be a
non-starter. IMO, Tom's option (c) would be the most likely outcome.
Maneuverability? Apparently it will be a quite nimble aircraft; very similar
layout to the F-22, and with the thrust vectopring postulated here...
Internal weapons load? Yeah, two AIM-120's would be marginal, but if you are
going to make versions primarily AAW oriented, there is lots of room in each
bay to accomodate another AIM-120 in lieu of the bomb that would also be
carried in the current versions) if they developed a new internal bay
configuration, and four AIM-120's would be nothing to sneeze at. That
thrust-to-weight ratio also looks a bit better with the deletion of 4000
pounds of internal bomb carriage in the air-to-air role--it should be around
the 1:1 ratio in that scenario. It already will have a pretty good AESA
radar, and presumably the required LINK 16 capabilities. So why do you think
optimizing the weapons bays to carry four AIM-120's vice two AIM-120's and a
couple of big bombs would require such significant rework as to be delayed
at much greater cost?

Personally, I don't see any of this happening--the F/A-22 will be purchased,
albeit probably only in the 200 aircraft figure in its current guise, with a
decent possibility of more production in the form of a strike optimized
version.

Brooks

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...


Personally, I don't see any of this happening--the F/A-22 will be
purchased,
albeit probably only in the 200 aircraft figure in its current guise, with
a
decent possibility of more production in the form of a strike optimized
version.

No matter wht the outcome of the F-22 procurement, the F-35 will have to
fill part of the F-15 role. The 200 figue was a 180 figure 12 months ago
and it is decreased by the 17 FSDs, at the very least. A capable F-35 is
one issue, but at this point configuration control is a necessity of risk
management.

"Kevin Brooks" wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 03:19:41 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
wrote:

Scott Ferrin wrote:


Nope. The X-32 would have but not the 35. My guess is they could
have but maybe Lockhhed didn't want it competing with the F-22.

Or they didn't want to pay the weight penalty in an aircraft designed for
strike over air-to-air.

I recently suggested that if the F/A-22 were canceled, the Air Force
might
look at an air-to-air version of JSF. An axi-symetrical thrust vectoring
nozzle would be high on the list of desirable modifications for such an
aircraft, I suspect.


I'd think they'd have to make quite a few changes to make it good
enough to be the primary air to air fighter. Internal weapon load is
tiny (2 -120s), the thrust to weight leaves a lot to be desired, and
how does it fair in the manueverability dept.? Sure you can add
external weapons but then there goes your stealth. Then when the
politicians start screaming because the F-35's cost is going up and
service date is getting pushed back so the required changes can be
incorporated. . .

First, you have to accept the conditional that Tom put forward--"if the
F/A-22 were cancelled". If you do that, then what are you *left* with as a
potential air-to-air fighter to replace the F-15C? Only three options are
really open to consideration-- (a) buy newer F-15's, something along the
line of the F-15K (unlikely IMO), (b) buy offshore (i.e., Typhoon)
(unlikely, and yet to be proven significantly superior to option (a)--hold
the catcalls, please), or (c) develop a more capable version (in air-to-air
terms) of the F-35 series. Of course, you could just start a whole new
program to produce a new air superiority fighter...but that would be a
non-starter. IMO, Tom's option (c) would be the most likely outcome.
Maneuverability? Apparently it will be a quite nimble aircraft; very similar
layout to the F-22, and with the thrust vectopring postulated here...
Internal weapons load? Yeah, two AIM-120's would be marginal, but if you are
going to make versions primarily AAW oriented, there is lots of room in each
bay to accomodate another AIM-120 in lieu of the bomb that would also be
carried in the current versions) if they developed a new internal bay
configuration, and four AIM-120's would be nothing to sneeze at. That
thrust-to-weight ratio also looks a bit better with the deletion of 4000
pounds of internal bomb carriage in the air-to-air role--it should be around
the 1:1 ratio in that scenario. It already will have a pretty good AESA
radar, and presumably the required LINK 16 capabilities. So why do you think
optimizing the weapons bays to carry four AIM-120's vice two AIM-120's and a
couple of big bombs would require such significant rework as to be delayed
at much greater cost?

Personally, I don't see any of this happening--the F/A-22 will be purchased,
albeit probably only in the 200 aircraft figure in its current guise, with a
decent possibility of more production in the form of a strike optimized
version.

Brooks


What you need is an upscaled F-23 Bomber-Fighter Ultrastealth with 60
or more internal sbds or internal 14 RAMRAAMS. A ****ing fleet.

Grantland

Kevin Brooks wrote:
[big snip]

So why do you think
optimizing the weapons bays to carry four AIM-120's vice two
AIM-120's and a couple of big bombs would require such significant
rework as to be delayed at much greater cost?

Thanks for the assist Kevin. We seem to be thinking along the same lines
here.

Personally, I don't see any of this happening--the F/A-22 will be
purchased, albeit probably only in the 200 aircraft figure in its
current guise, with a decent possibility of more production in the
form of a strike optimized version.

Agreed. I wasn't putting this forward as something that is likely to happen,
just what might happen if the Raptor program was terminated.

I suspect you're right that the F/A-22 will be built in limited numbers,
though I woudl also not be surprised to see produciton continue after the
intial batch is bought. We've bought far more F-15s than originally
planned, after all.

I'm not entirely convinced about the FB-22 or other strike-optimized
version. It would have to have a lot of range to justify not simply using
an F-35 derivative, IMO. Again, a possible variant comes to mind: A hybrid
with the F-35A fuselage and the F-35C big wing ought to yield even more
range than the 700+nm radius of the C version.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

Hi!

"Kevin Brooks" writes:

F/A-22 were cancelled". If you do that, then what are you *left*
with as a potential air-to-air fighter to replace the F-15C?

F-18E?

Best regards,

--
Titta gärna på http://www.lysator.liu.se/~redin och kommentera min
politiska sida.
Magnus Redin, Klockaregården 6, 586 44 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)70 5160046

Scott Ferrin wrote:
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 03:19:41 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
wrote:

Scott Ferrin wrote:


Nope. The X-32 would have but not the 35. My guess is they could
have but maybe Lockhhed didn't want it competing with the F-22.

Or they didn't want to pay the weight penalty in an aircraft
designed for strike over air-to-air.

I recently suggested that if the F/A-22 were canceled, the Air Force
might look at an air-to-air version of JSF. An axi-symetrical
thrust vectoring nozzle would be high on the list of desirable
modifications for such an aircraft, I suspect.


I'd think they'd have to make quite a few changes to make it good
enough to be the primary air to air fighter. Internal weapon load is
tiny (2 -120s)

But the bays also have space for a pair of 2,000-lb bombs. If you can't
find a way to get another AMRAAM in each bay, you're not trying. Two more
in each bay would be harder, but seems doable. A total load of four AMRAAM
woudl be small, but acceptable. A toal of six would match the F/A-22.

, the thrust to weight leaves a lot to be desired,

The F135 is officially a "40,000-pound class" engine, against a max-fuel
weight of just under 50,000 pounds. Depending on how much rnage that thrust
actually covers, the plane has a max-fuel thrust:weight of around 0.8:1 to
0.9:1. With less fuel (say partway through a flight) it might approach 1:1.
(And as Kevin says, taking out the bomb rakcs would help a lot)

As a real widlcard, Rolls Royce says the F136 can put out 56,000 pounds of
thrust. If that number is even remotely close to right, there's a lot of
surplus power potential there. Might have to rethink the inlet design, but
that's not impossble for a dedicated air-to-air variant (certainly cheaper
than a new plane).

http://www.paksearch.com/br2002/Jul/...%20have%20huge
%20thrust.htm

and how does it fair in the manueverability dept.?

(Fare)

The Air Force says its instantaneous and sustained g capacities are already
comparable to an F-16. They don't say which version of the F-16 or under
what loads, but it's a hint that maneuveravility are not too bad.

Sure you can add external weapons but then there goes your stealth.

Well, there are degrees of stealth here. Wingtip AIM-9Xs might not impose
horrible RCS penalties.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

But the bays also have space for a pair of 2,000-lb bombs. If you can't
find a way to get another AMRAAM in each bay, you're not trying. Two more
in each bay would be harder, but seems doable. A total load of four AMRAAM
woudl be small, but acceptable. A toal of six would match the F/A-22.

I was thinking more about the cost to make the changes. I suppose it
would matter WHEN the F-22 got cancelled so they could make the
changes upfront.




, the thrust to weight leaves a lot to be desired,

The F135 is officially a "40,000-pound class" engine, against a max-fuel
weight of just under 50,000 pounds.

Is that with no external stores?



Depending on how much rnage that thrust
actually covers, the plane has a max-fuel thrust:weight of around 0.8:1 to
0.9:1. With less fuel (say partway through a flight) it might approach 1:1.
(And as Kevin says, taking out the bomb rakcs would help a lot)

As a real widlcard, Rolls Royce says the F136 can put out 56,000 pounds of
thrust. If that number is even remotely close to right, there's a lot of
surplus power potential there. Might have to rethink the inlet design, but
that's not impossble for a dedicated air-to-air variant (certainly cheaper
than a new plane).

Yeah I've been hoping that's more than a pipedream on RR's part.
Apparently they say they're real numbers though. I know the X-32's
engine hit 52k in max AB.



and how does it fair in the manueverability dept.?

(Fare)

The Air Force says its instantaneous and sustained g capacities are already
comparable to an F-16. They don't say which version of the F-16 or under
what loads, but it's a hint that maneuveravility are not too bad.


I wouldn't be surprised if they were downplaying it either. Back in
the early days of the F-16 they didn't exaclty encourage comparisions
to the F-15 for fear of not being able to buy all the F-15s they
wanted.




Sure you can add external weapons but then there goes your stealth.

Well, there are degrees of stealth here. Wingtip AIM-9Xs might not impose
horrible RCS penalties.

Hard to say. In Ben Rich's Skunk Works he related an incident where
one screw not completely tightened down made the difference between
not being detected and EASILY being detected on Have Blue. ISTR the
screw protruded 1/8". And that's with late 70's radar. Then again
there were some pretty glaring goofs in the book so who knows?

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Will the F-35A and F-35C have 2D thrust vectoring (like the F/A-22) or
not?

Nope. Not needed. Their is more than enough tail area for stability, and the
agility requirements of the aircraft aren't that huge. Would be an
unwarranted expense. The MacDonnel-Douglas JSF design had it, but it was
included to augment control because the V-tail config had some stability
compromises.