F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Might the USMC aircraft be F-35Bs? Incidentally, what's wrong with calling the F-35B Sea Lightning anyway?
Which is rather appropriate!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The name being bestowed by the British, Lonewolf. Which, being followed by the EE Lightning, should mean it being called the Lightning III, if courtesy prevailed.....
Lockheed P-38 Lightning - Heavy Fighter / Fighter-Bomber - History, Specs and Pictures - Military Aircraft
Lockheed P-38 Lightning - Heavy Fighter / Fighter-Bomber - History, Specs and Pictures - Military Aircraft
The name being bestowed by the British, Lonewolf. Which, being followed by the EE Lightning, should mean it being called the Lightning III, if courtesy prevailed.....
Lockheed P-38 Lightning - Heavy Fighter / Fighter-Bomber - History, Specs and Pictures - Military Aircraft
Lockheed P-38 Lightning - Heavy Fighter / Fighter-Bomber - History, Specs and Pictures - Military Aircraft
The Lightning you refer to, the jet, was named the Lightning.
By your just now argued naming convention, it ought to have been named the Lightning II.
But it wasn't.
Go wave your finger at someone else.
Japanese F3
If F35 turns out to rubbish, we could always take a look at the Japanese F3:
Japan Ready For Next Fighter Engine Core | F-3 | TRDI | IHI Corp. | Defense content from Aviation Week
If they ever finish it, it might be awesome, ceramic turbine blades, etc.
It would be ironic if F35, which is going to have to last a veeeery long time given how much money is being spent on it, gets immediately obsoleted by a home-grown Japanese design.
And if they're going it alone they'd be beholden to nobody else. An enviable position... They're 'in' the F35 program but apparently are grumbling about unit cost increases. Who isn't? It'd be very easy to argue that the funding would be better spent on a home grown F3 that will produce a lot of dual use (and commercially valuable) technology. Especially as they 'like' grand engineering projects like that.
It will also depend on whether their strategic nerve holds; F35 may be closer to being in service.
Japan Ready For Next Fighter Engine Core | F-3 | TRDI | IHI Corp. | Defense content from Aviation Week
If they ever finish it, it might be awesome, ceramic turbine blades, etc.
It would be ironic if F35, which is going to have to last a veeeery long time given how much money is being spent on it, gets immediately obsoleted by a home-grown Japanese design.
And if they're going it alone they'd be beholden to nobody else. An enviable position... They're 'in' the F35 program but apparently are grumbling about unit cost increases. Who isn't? It'd be very easy to argue that the funding would be better spent on a home grown F3 that will produce a lot of dual use (and commercially valuable) technology. Especially as they 'like' grand engineering projects like that.
It will also depend on whether their strategic nerve holds; F35 may be closer to being in service.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
As an aside, why do they Americans name there cars but number their aircraft, and the Brits the opposite?
The Americans have the Corvette, the Stingray etc. But the Brits the DB5, the TR6/7 etc.
but the Americans have the F4, F15/16/18 etc, whilst the Brits have the Tornado, Typhoon, Jaguar etc?
Accepted the American aircraft have name nicknames, but the Brit aircraft only have sobriquets to differentiate upgrades.
The Americans have the Corvette, the Stingray etc. But the Brits the DB5, the TR6/7 etc.
but the Americans have the F4, F15/16/18 etc, whilst the Brits have the Tornado, Typhoon, Jaguar etc?
Accepted the American aircraft have name nicknames, but the Brit aircraft only have sobriquets to differentiate upgrades.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Msb,
I've been waiting for ceramics to break into the industry for a couple of decades as they imply a quantum leap in temperature/performance etc. With the billions being spent by DARPA etc on upgrades I presume major issues are involved.
However, if anyone makes a step change technology/design discovery it could be as great as that between piston and jet aircraft.
But I'm not holding my breath.
I've been waiting for ceramics to break into the industry for a couple of decades as they imply a quantum leap in temperature/performance etc. With the billions being spent by DARPA etc on upgrades I presume major issues are involved.
However, if anyone makes a step change technology/design discovery it could be as great as that between piston and jet aircraft.
But I'm not holding my breath.
"As an aside, why do they Americans name there cars but number their aircraft, and the Brits the opposite?"
Well, the Americans have official names for their aircraft, but they tend to get "renamed". "Fighting Falcon" became "Viper", "Thunderbolt II" became "Hog", "Stratofortress" became "Buff"; "Lancer" became "Bone"; etc.
Well, the Americans have official names for their aircraft, but they tend to get "renamed". "Fighting Falcon" became "Viper", "Thunderbolt II" became "Hog", "Stratofortress" became "Buff"; "Lancer" became "Bone"; etc.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC,
No need to, the future is now...
Ceramic Matrix Composites Allow GE Jet Engines to Fly Longer - GE Reports
25 years ago, the head of Materials Technologies when asked if ceramics could be used in jet engines said, "Ceramics are for urinals". However, as things move along the timeline, just as the earth was discovered to be round, ceramics have moved into jet engines. GE Aviation is building several plants to produce ceramic components including turbine blades shown in the GE report.
TD
But I'm not holding my breath.
Ceramic Matrix Composites Allow GE Jet Engines to Fly Longer - GE Reports
25 years ago, the head of Materials Technologies when asked if ceramics could be used in jet engines said, "Ceramics are for urinals". However, as things move along the timeline, just as the earth was discovered to be round, ceramics have moved into jet engines. GE Aviation is building several plants to produce ceramic components including turbine blades shown in the GE report.
TD
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Americans have the Corvette, the Stingray etc. But the Brits the DB5, the TR6/7 etc.
American cars pretty much all have a name as you say, save something like the DeLorean DMC-12 for example, but an alphanumeric to describe the model. Names can be more emotive, and thus appealing, don't you find? That probably matters more when it comes to cars which are bought by people! Ze Germans seem to favour alphanumerics, in their usual ruthlessly efficient manner, Porsche - 911 excepted, VW & Opel being notable exceptions.
The problem with our a/c numbering is that it doesn't differentiate between different a/c types, merely types of the same a/c. I remember the confusion caused - to a RAF mil attaché - by applying for dip clearances for the Nimrod R1, Sentinel R1 and Shadow R1. I've always found the American system vastly superior: Attack, Bomber, Cargo etc., followed by a number within each class and finally a letter to designate the version. A simple 3/4/5 digit alphanumeric that's unique.
Last edited by Willard Whyte; 28th Jan 2016 at 09:27.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Except for the F111 and F117, neither of which could by any standards be called fighters
Although in fairness the F-111 was intended to become a fleet defence 'fighter' in B spec, and the F-117's nomenclature could be put down to a bit of obfuscation given the secrecy of the project.
One might also add F-105 to the 'doesn't quite fit' list.
SR: Strategic Reconnaissance. Although its predecessor, the A-12, also 'doesn't quite fit'.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
It was the RS-71 to follow the then code. But when the President revealed the program he called it the SR-71 by mistake.
So they renamed the aircraft.......
So they renamed the aircraft.......
"One might also add F-105 to the 'doesn't quite fit' list."
No argument, but from an ad for a book on F-105 MiG Killers:
"Despite its ‘F-for-fighter' designation, the F-105 was designed and purchased to give the USAF an aircraft capable of the delivery of nuclear weapons at very high speed, long range and below-the-radar altitudes. However, when the Vietnam War began it also emerged as USAF's best available tactical bomber for a ‘limited conventional' war as well. Extensively targeted by MiG-17s and MiG-21s the F-105 pilots developed innovative tactics that allowed them to compete in air-to-air duels with their smaller, more manoeuvrable enemies. Illustrated throughout with extensive photographs detailing weapon loads, internal features and action shots of actual engagements, this volume examines the conduct of the Rolling Thunder strike missions and the tactics used for attack and defence by the attack, escort fighter and radar monitoring elements within strike formations."
Perhaps it can be said that the "F-" designation belongs more with the pilot than the airplane.
No argument, but from an ad for a book on F-105 MiG Killers:
"Despite its ‘F-for-fighter' designation, the F-105 was designed and purchased to give the USAF an aircraft capable of the delivery of nuclear weapons at very high speed, long range and below-the-radar altitudes. However, when the Vietnam War began it also emerged as USAF's best available tactical bomber for a ‘limited conventional' war as well. Extensively targeted by MiG-17s and MiG-21s the F-105 pilots developed innovative tactics that allowed them to compete in air-to-air duels with their smaller, more manoeuvrable enemies. Illustrated throughout with extensive photographs detailing weapon loads, internal features and action shots of actual engagements, this volume examines the conduct of the Rolling Thunder strike missions and the tactics used for attack and defence by the attack, escort fighter and radar monitoring elements within strike formations."
Perhaps it can be said that the "F-" designation belongs more with the pilot than the airplane.
Last edited by GlobalNav; 28th Jan 2016 at 15:44.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If F35 turns out to rubbish, we could always take a look at the Japanese F3.
How so? From the AvWeek website:
Airframe developers....have settled on something close to a 2013 configuration for the F-3 that emphasized endurance and weapons load over flight performance.
The F3 is intended to be a long range, high speed missileer designed to shoot long range ramjet missiles from internal weapons bays while in supersonic cruise. It is NOT designed for high energy maneuvering. The folks here have already conclusively proven (ahem) that anything that cannot stay with an F-16 in a close in fight is doomed and total rubbish.
Ken,
Really. I hope I've made it clear somewhere in the last 415 pages that, as we say, it depends. If you can indeed decide the fight BVR, or either avoid the merge or blow through it with HOBS weapons, you may not need platform agility.
See here for instance: http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...ml#post9031874
But the F-35 cannot be stealthy and carry a HOBS system and its speed is inadequate to provide a decisive advantage over likely adversaries.
Really. I hope I've made it clear somewhere in the last 415 pages that, as we say, it depends. If you can indeed decide the fight BVR, or either avoid the merge or blow through it with HOBS weapons, you may not need platform agility.
See here for instance: http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...ml#post9031874
But the F-35 cannot be stealthy and carry a HOBS system and its speed is inadequate to provide a decisive advantage over likely adversaries.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken, Really. I hope I've made it clear somewhere in the last 415 pages that, as we say, it depends.
But the F-35 cannot be stealthy and carry a HOBS system
As for Japan's F3, it will almost certainly be a joint development in much the same way that their F2 was a joint development. But what will it be jointly developed with? The F-35 follow on aircraft? That seems unlikely as according to AvWeek, Japan wants the F3 to enter production when the F2 begins retiring, and the F-35 follow on will almost certainly not meet that timeline. Maybe Japan will join USN's F/A-XX program to replace the Super Hornet? Interestingly, USN thinks that aircraft will be LESS stealthy than F-35. Apparently, USN is much less sold on stealth than USAF.
