F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by John Farley
The design of high performance military aircraft is not a simple matter with many compromises involved. The teams involved are not thick either. So those who pick simple holes in whatever issue is being discussed probably say more about themselves than the topic
It would be equally daft as saying that people with (blind) faith in heavily politicised projects like the F35 are naive and lack a healthy amount of critical thinking.
Let's not go that way.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John,
Here is some data from the USAF based on their experience where you can compare both the F-16 (single engine) and F-15 (twin engine) as to engine mishaps. The data, as I recall, does not include bird strikes or support system failures but actual engine caused failures. I think you will see an advantage to having two engines besides the propulsion power two provide verses one. Be sure to check out the data charts below the notes that are very interesting.
http://www.afsec.af.mil/organization...inestatistics/
There are compromises and then there are compromises. The F-35 is a compromise gone too far resulting in a sub-performing aircraft across the board, IMHO.
TD
As for open source references I don’t have any to hand but I believe they would not be hard to find. The Alpha Jet was in Egypt and the Typhoon of course in Spain.
http://www.afsec.af.mil/organization...inestatistics/
The design of high performance military aircraft is not a simple matter with many compromises involved. The teams involved are not thick either.
TD
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Original quote by John Farley:
I respectfully disagree with your statements here.
The F-35 premise going in that one could design a three service aircraft where only one service required VTOL or STOL using the same airframe was erroneous. The result of this was an aircraft design that required one engine because of the lift fan placement location. In fact, this lift fan feature caused the fuselage to become "fatter" to preserve the ability to carry armaments internally to preserve stealth characteristics that actually became compromised because of the resulting fuselage design. Also, the area rule became compromised, adding to drag and resulting in the F-35 being underpowered and lacking in speed. It will probably require two engine upgrades to increase thrust level overcoming the drag penalty.
Had the airframe been designed around only Air Force and Navy requirements, you would have seen a two engine aircraft, pencil like fuselage, plenty of speed and un-compromised stealth characteristics, but smaller and more agile than the F-22.
TD
In my view it is not a 'liitle awkward' but plain wrong. The reason why the F35 should be a single engine design is down to engineering facts not "modern engineering is so advanced".
The engineering facts are that if you can fit a single engine that has enough thrust to meet the spec the aircraft will be safer (in respect of engine failure) than a twin design of the same total thrust.
The engineering facts are that if you can fit a single engine that has enough thrust to meet the spec the aircraft will be safer (in respect of engine failure) than a twin design of the same total thrust.
The F-35 premise going in that one could design a three service aircraft where only one service required VTOL or STOL using the same airframe was erroneous. The result of this was an aircraft design that required one engine because of the lift fan placement location. In fact, this lift fan feature caused the fuselage to become "fatter" to preserve the ability to carry armaments internally to preserve stealth characteristics that actually became compromised because of the resulting fuselage design. Also, the area rule became compromised, adding to drag and resulting in the F-35 being underpowered and lacking in speed. It will probably require two engine upgrades to increase thrust level overcoming the drag penalty.
Had the airframe been designed around only Air Force and Navy requirements, you would have seen a two engine aircraft, pencil like fuselage, plenty of speed and un-compromised stealth characteristics, but smaller and more agile than the F-22.
TD
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Naval aviation has been a whole lot safer in the past 40 years or so mainly due to twin engine aircraft. The argument that two engines double your chances for an engine failure could just as easily be construed as doubling your chance for survival.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had the airframe been designed around only Air Force and Navy requirements, you would have seen a two engine aircraft, pencil like fuselage, plenty of speed and un-compromised stealth characteristics, but smaller and more agile than the F-22.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Had the airframe been designed around only Air Force and Navy requirements, you would have seen a two engine aircraft, pencil like fuselage, plenty of speed and un-compromised stealth characteristics, but smaller and more agile than the F-22.
And quite probably with all 3 versions in service by now too.
Had the airframe been designed around only Air Force and Navy requirements, you would have seen a two engine aircraft, pencil like fuselage, plenty of speed and un-compromised stealth characteristics, but smaller and more agile than the F-22.
And quite probably with all 3 versions in service by now too.
The P.1154 story
More specifically ...
As the design of the P.1154 was adapted to meet the needs of the two Services the respective variants diverged from each other to an ever-greater degree. The preliminary brochure submitted in August 1962 saw the RAF and Royal Navy aircraft as being 80% common. By the time of the more detailed brochure of May 1963 the situation had reversed, with only 20% commonality between the two designs. This growing divergence was mostly caused by the Royal Navy's demands. AW406's insistence on two seats, large AI radar and two-shock inlets to achieve Mach 2 at altitude led to considerable weight growth, necessitating larger wings, while the catapult requirement led to a new undercarriage layout. The waters were further muddied by a Rolls-Royce proposal to substitute twin Spey engines, modified to use vectored thrust and PCB, in place of the BS.100. Despite all this, the design for the RAF remained fairly constant, being essentially the same as that proposed for NBMR-3. While the naval aircraft remained fluid, Hawker began detail design and mock-up construction of the RAF variant.
I agree, Wander. There seem to be a lot of folk here that confuse safety with probability of failure. Single engine, lower probability of failure, far more of a safety issue when it happens. Simples.
I sometimes wonder how it is possible to stop ones enemies from knowing what the capabilities of some aircraft are. There seems to be so much public domain knowledge. I presume that you want them to believe it's either better or worse than it really is so that their planning cannot cater for it adequately. If I was in charge of this now, I'd want to create lots of doubt in every direction - confusing comparisons of price and performance which don't add up. At the same time one must convince the public that their money isn't being wasted. Seems like a very difficult job to me.
Another thought that struck me was that it's great to have a big, late, wildly overbudget programme in which one might be able to hide spending that's really aimed at something else. Not that I'm suggesting this is the case now - I just can't help but think it.
Another thought that struck me was that it's great to have a big, late, wildly overbudget programme in which one might be able to hide spending that's really aimed at something else. Not that I'm suggesting this is the case now - I just can't help but think it.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: UK
Age: 30
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From everything I've read about this aircraft, it does seem a bit crap. Lockheed Martin is trying to do too many things without first establishing what the package is good at.
The F-15 Eagle is a superb aircraft, it's fast, it turns very well, it's very good for gaining air superiority and holding air superiority (isn't that the point of a fighter?), it can be flown high or low depending on the mission and it can even be a good close, fast air support weapon for troops on the ground. Most importantly it has been tried and tested in front line combat both air-to-air and for ground strike roles and it has dominated, I don't believe a single aircraft has been lost in air-to-air engagements. In my opinion it's the perfect fast jet, although I am slightly biased as it is my favourite.
The F-15SE is an upgraded version, plus it has stealth capabilities. It's also a lot cheaper. So why did the MOD decide to go with the F-35's as one of our main air assets when there are other, cheaper, and proven more effective options? The F-35's will be great for defending the fleet, I have no doubt. Although I can't understand why the MOD have ordered these aircraft to work alongside the Typhoon in both conventional roles and carrier-based roles. There is no logic there for me.
If you're going to hybridise a bomber/close support aircraft with a fighter, then in my view it would be good logic to go with something that already works and is known to work. In the process you'd save a lot of money.
The F-15 Eagle is a superb aircraft, it's fast, it turns very well, it's very good for gaining air superiority and holding air superiority (isn't that the point of a fighter?), it can be flown high or low depending on the mission and it can even be a good close, fast air support weapon for troops on the ground. Most importantly it has been tried and tested in front line combat both air-to-air and for ground strike roles and it has dominated, I don't believe a single aircraft has been lost in air-to-air engagements. In my opinion it's the perfect fast jet, although I am slightly biased as it is my favourite.
The F-15SE is an upgraded version, plus it has stealth capabilities. It's also a lot cheaper. So why did the MOD decide to go with the F-35's as one of our main air assets when there are other, cheaper, and proven more effective options? The F-35's will be great for defending the fleet, I have no doubt. Although I can't understand why the MOD have ordered these aircraft to work alongside the Typhoon in both conventional roles and carrier-based roles. There is no logic there for me.
If you're going to hybridise a bomber/close support aircraft with a fighter, then in my view it would be good logic to go with something that already works and is known to work. In the process you'd save a lot of money.
T93 - Back when the main JSF decision was taken in 2000-01:
The F-35 was supposed to be in service by now, cost about half as much to acquire and operate as now seems likely, and weigh 2000 pounds less empty into the bargain, even with a 9 g airframe.
STOVL was supposed to be the magic trick that made it possible to have a sub-50000-ton carrier, which would be much less expensive than a Catobar carrier.
The Typhoon looked comparatively expensive and was still struggling with some basic technological issues.
So the decision was based on valid data at the time.
The F-35 was supposed to be in service by now, cost about half as much to acquire and operate as now seems likely, and weigh 2000 pounds less empty into the bargain, even with a 9 g airframe.
STOVL was supposed to be the magic trick that made it possible to have a sub-50000-ton carrier, which would be much less expensive than a Catobar carrier.
The Typhoon looked comparatively expensive and was still struggling with some basic technological issues.
So the decision was based on valid data at the time.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: UK
Age: 30
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks LO.
Do you agree with the current UK trend to have aircraft with multiple roles?
Should we go back to bombers and specialist close (ground) support aircraft like the B-1 and A-10, and leave the fast jets with huge wings for possible air-to-air engagements, or a show of force to the enemy?
Do you agree with the current UK trend to have aircraft with multiple roles?
Should we go back to bombers and specialist close (ground) support aircraft like the B-1 and A-10, and leave the fast jets with huge wings for possible air-to-air engagements, or a show of force to the enemy?
T93, good questions, but you seem to have burst upon the scene with some slightly grand ideas, reminiscent of some of our past members.
You tell me. Do you think F-35B can take on all the roles of dedicated fighters, strategic and tactical bombers, CAS, recce, SEAD, etc, etc?
Discuss...
You tell me. Do you think F-35B can take on all the roles of dedicated fighters, strategic and tactical bombers, CAS, recce, SEAD, etc, etc?
Discuss...
Philip, no. We'd have a dedicated XXXIVb for carrier work. Same but with one of the engines, gun, a tail, a load of wing area, hook and fuel capacity removed. But they'd have covered it in magic plastic to make it invisible.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: UK
Age: 30
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Courtney, I guess it could be, and it seems that other aircraft have already been used for multiple roles.
It's quite interesting how a single package can be used for different things, although should it be?
It's quite interesting how a single package can be used for different things, although should it be?