Which will make the best JSF?
Guest
Posts: n/a
DA
Red Snow made the point that the X-32 B is a higher risk concept than the X-35 B But perhaps a little extra gen might help you at OASC (and there you had better care about JSF whatever you say here)
The Boeing aircraft is pure jet lift which means all the engine power is available in combat – good point.
The Lockheed aeroplane uses a fan to hold the front up which cannot be used in combat (no way to get the air round the corner and into it a significant forward speeds) – bad point.
The Boeing aircraft has got to succeed in keeping the hot jet lift out of the intake at very low speeds – difficult, yes they have a cool jet screen but it has yet to be proved to cut the mustard full scale – bad point.
The Lockheed fan is very efficient in the hover and produces a lot of lift and is going to do a good job in stopping the rear hot air coming forward – good point
That is one for and one against each. So now you have something to talk about.
Good luck
JF
Red Snow made the point that the X-32 B is a higher risk concept than the X-35 B But perhaps a little extra gen might help you at OASC (and there you had better care about JSF whatever you say here)
The Boeing aircraft is pure jet lift which means all the engine power is available in combat – good point.
The Lockheed aeroplane uses a fan to hold the front up which cannot be used in combat (no way to get the air round the corner and into it a significant forward speeds) – bad point.
The Boeing aircraft has got to succeed in keeping the hot jet lift out of the intake at very low speeds – difficult, yes they have a cool jet screen but it has yet to be proved to cut the mustard full scale – bad point.
The Lockheed fan is very efficient in the hover and produces a lot of lift and is going to do a good job in stopping the rear hot air coming forward – good point
That is one for and one against each. So now you have something to talk about.
Good luck
JF
Guest
Posts: n/a
But, Lord Farley of Harrier Hall neglects to mention that these opposing concepts will be irrelevant when the CTOL version is the only one procured!
We have plenty of examples of reasons to distrust UK avionics systems, but we should be cautious about expecting every US platform to be as successful as the F-16. This is, after all, the nation that brought us the world's first self-jamming bomber (B-1B), the ARGGH-64, and others.
And why we should assume that the production JSF (whose price is pegged so low) will have avionics two generations ahead of even the F-16/60, let alone EF is beyond me. This will be cheap and cheerful.
We have plenty of examples of reasons to distrust UK avionics systems, but we should be cautious about expecting every US platform to be as successful as the F-16. This is, after all, the nation that brought us the world's first self-jamming bomber (B-1B), the ARGGH-64, and others.
And why we should assume that the production JSF (whose price is pegged so low) will have avionics two generations ahead of even the F-16/60, let alone EF is beyond me. This will be cheap and cheerful.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Red Snow. I agree that JSF is cheap/cost effective. That is exactly my point, but I believe you could get 90% of the capability for even less of the cost.
I could talk about the A-6 concept at length but I'd become boring. You rightly note, that the JSF is Single engine and single seat, but don't get me started!
I could talk about the A-6 concept at length but I'd become boring. You rightly note, that the JSF is Single engine and single seat, but don't get me started!
Guest
Posts: n/a
OK, JN. Fair(ish) point about avionics, but only IF they don't work. That's the only assumption I was making. The DESIGN capabilities have been widely broadcast and are very impressive, and beyond those of EF or even F-22. Remember that another 10 years of development are in the JSF suite, which has not only resulted in more capability but has made everything a lot cheaper.
The way I see it the biggest problem (assuming the whole thing goes ahead which is the biggest assumption of all) for the US is releasing all this funky kit for export (UK excepted). It would be all too easy to downgrade for export, but it will have massive ramifications when it comes to Allied Force-style multinational ops.
The way I see it the biggest problem (assuming the whole thing goes ahead which is the biggest assumption of all) for the US is releasing all this funky kit for export (UK excepted). It would be all too easy to downgrade for export, but it will have massive ramifications when it comes to Allied Force-style multinational ops.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I've been watching the JSF programme very closely for over 4 years, some of that time in a professional capacity. Thought you guys might find some other angles interesting. Jackonicko, bear these in mind.
I hear a lot of fears that the programme will be cancelled. I think not. Why?
Point 1: If they cancel the programme, what else have the US got to build and export? F-16s? F-15s? F/A-18E/F? All these now getting close to or past sell by date and vulnerable to Ef or Rafale.
Point 2: The USN will build E/Fs until the JSF is ready. That's the Congressionally approved position.
Point 3: The USAF would LOVE to have the F-22s, but it's my bet that they'll struggle to build more than 100. The GAO website (www.gao.gov) has some illuminating reports on the programme, which has cost increases that make BAES look like saints!
Point 4: The USMC want it. Jackonicko, they DO count, and in spades. Their clout is enormous, but they'll use it once they get the V-22 back truly safe. Don't count them out.
Now some technical stuff (and I have to be a bit circumspect). The aircraft (both Boeing and LM) are carrying out an experimental programme that is just stunning. Their flying rates and test achievments are the result of a very rapid and affordable ($8bn to date) RISK REDUCTION programme. Why. it's almost 'smart procurement'! The technology they have lined up for full development is quite awesome, but already tested. AESA is a good example: air tested, going into F-15s and F/A-18, by the time we get it it will have around 9 years in service.
Carrier debate: STOBAR is dead, and was never alive. Navalised EF was always a dead duck, and the choice is now CV or STOVL. A tough one to call, but it's well known that STOVL allows smaller carriers. Smaller carriers will cost less, and a programme that has a bit more financial headroom has to be attractive these days. But as I say, a very tough call.
Finally, JSF against current aircraft? No contest, this will be an exceptional strike fighter. Tons of power, stealth, good payload and above all AFFORDABLE and AVAILABLE. As the Yanks say, 'what's not to like?'
I'll be accused of swallowing US propaganda. Could be so, but there are some very impressive facts out there.
I hear a lot of fears that the programme will be cancelled. I think not. Why?
Point 1: If they cancel the programme, what else have the US got to build and export? F-16s? F-15s? F/A-18E/F? All these now getting close to or past sell by date and vulnerable to Ef or Rafale.
Point 2: The USN will build E/Fs until the JSF is ready. That's the Congressionally approved position.
Point 3: The USAF would LOVE to have the F-22s, but it's my bet that they'll struggle to build more than 100. The GAO website (www.gao.gov) has some illuminating reports on the programme, which has cost increases that make BAES look like saints!
Point 4: The USMC want it. Jackonicko, they DO count, and in spades. Their clout is enormous, but they'll use it once they get the V-22 back truly safe. Don't count them out.
Now some technical stuff (and I have to be a bit circumspect). The aircraft (both Boeing and LM) are carrying out an experimental programme that is just stunning. Their flying rates and test achievments are the result of a very rapid and affordable ($8bn to date) RISK REDUCTION programme. Why. it's almost 'smart procurement'! The technology they have lined up for full development is quite awesome, but already tested. AESA is a good example: air tested, going into F-15s and F/A-18, by the time we get it it will have around 9 years in service.
Carrier debate: STOBAR is dead, and was never alive. Navalised EF was always a dead duck, and the choice is now CV or STOVL. A tough one to call, but it's well known that STOVL allows smaller carriers. Smaller carriers will cost less, and a programme that has a bit more financial headroom has to be attractive these days. But as I say, a very tough call.
Finally, JSF against current aircraft? No contest, this will be an exceptional strike fighter. Tons of power, stealth, good payload and above all AFFORDABLE and AVAILABLE. As the Yanks say, 'what's not to like?'
I'll be accused of swallowing US propaganda. Could be so, but there are some very impressive facts out there.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Grodge.
CV verus STOVL. Question: Could the STOVL JSF be catapult and hook capable.
Might make a big difference if it was.
The Big difference would be flexibility. It can't be that much of a technical or conceptual challenge. I know this sounds very mad, but give it a second or twos thought.
[This message has been edited by Low and Slow (edited 17 May 2001).]
CV verus STOVL. Question: Could the STOVL JSF be catapult and hook capable.
Might make a big difference if it was.
The Big difference would be flexibility. It can't be that much of a technical or conceptual challenge. I know this sounds very mad, but give it a second or twos thought.
[This message has been edited by Low and Slow (edited 17 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Low and slow, basic answer is, in my opinion, no. To make an aircraft capable of being hauled off the deck at 140kts by its nostrils, then hauled out of the sky at 130 kts by its rear end demands BIG BONES to take the stresses. You also need bigger wings and tails to get the approach speeds you need, plus the launch peformance. Both the LM and Boeing CV designs are the least common of the three variants.
STOVL actually has its own answer. Ramp for launch gives most STOVL designs a HUGE advantage for low cost. The ski jump is the nearest I've ver seen to something for nothing. For recovery, rolling vertical landings are an option that might already be being looked at.
STOVL actually has its own answer. Ramp for launch gives most STOVL designs a HUGE advantage for low cost. The ski jump is the nearest I've ver seen to something for nothing. For recovery, rolling vertical landings are an option that might already be being looked at.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Grodge
When you say the Boeing CV has the least commonality of the three, do you mean structurally? Certainly from an aerodynamic point of view the STOVL is the odd one out in the Boeing lineup. At last count it was also a few inches shorter than the other two!
When you say the Boeing CV has the least commonality of the three, do you mean structurally? Certainly from an aerodynamic point of view the STOVL is the odd one out in the Boeing lineup. At last count it was also a few inches shorter than the other two!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Firstly let me say thanks to all of you who have taken the time to reply to the thread. Its certainly turned into an intersting discussion.........IMHO !.
As a defense "hot potato" of the day, it most certainly is relevant, especially to those of us who may (or may not) encounter it at a Cranwell board.
Im not going to dwell on whats already been said, I think the posts have spoken for themselves. It is interesting to note however, that one person who considers himself to be a "professional", a Military Pilot by profile would lower himself to be so derogatory to those of us who aspire to join him, how elitest can one person be?
On a more positive note, thanks once again and long may the discussion continue, lets not be put off from asking questions, its nice to know there are some professionals who are happy to relay an opinion without slumping to holier than though remarks.
Thanks to you all, regards
Decision Altitude
PS Esp Del Mar and Nick, best wishes guys.
As a defense "hot potato" of the day, it most certainly is relevant, especially to those of us who may (or may not) encounter it at a Cranwell board.
Im not going to dwell on whats already been said, I think the posts have spoken for themselves. It is interesting to note however, that one person who considers himself to be a "professional", a Military Pilot by profile would lower himself to be so derogatory to those of us who aspire to join him, how elitest can one person be?
On a more positive note, thanks once again and long may the discussion continue, lets not be put off from asking questions, its nice to know there are some professionals who are happy to relay an opinion without slumping to holier than though remarks.
Thanks to you all, regards
Decision Altitude
PS Esp Del Mar and Nick, best wishes guys.
Guest
Posts: n/a
My 2-cents' worth is that the Lockheed aircraft may have certain advantages that put it ahead.
Although as John Farley says, the "Lockheed aeroplane uses a fan to hold the front up which cannot be used in combat" and that power cannot be used to augment forward speed, it is a clutched fan so presumably when it's de-clutched all the compressor power is available to the main engine itself (although I do concede the fan then becomes dead weight)
The Boeing aircraft also has a complicated array of ducts similar to the harrier to balance it in hover, whereas the lockheed jet has a simpler system.
Just some thoughts from someone who is an interested helo pilot. Final thing for me though is this:
If you were to go to war in a fighter, would you want it to come from the stable that produced the F-117, the SR-71, the F-105 (and reverse engineers all the alien spacecraft at area-51 - don't think I don't know!)....or would you want it to come from a company that specialises in very comfortable airliners?
...oh and the Lockheed plane does look good, doesn't it Jack?
------------------
Christopher Robin
Although as John Farley says, the "Lockheed aeroplane uses a fan to hold the front up which cannot be used in combat" and that power cannot be used to augment forward speed, it is a clutched fan so presumably when it's de-clutched all the compressor power is available to the main engine itself (although I do concede the fan then becomes dead weight)
The Boeing aircraft also has a complicated array of ducts similar to the harrier to balance it in hover, whereas the lockheed jet has a simpler system.
Just some thoughts from someone who is an interested helo pilot. Final thing for me though is this:
If you were to go to war in a fighter, would you want it to come from the stable that produced the F-117, the SR-71, the F-105 (and reverse engineers all the alien spacecraft at area-51 - don't think I don't know!)....or would you want it to come from a company that specialises in very comfortable airliners?
...oh and the Lockheed plane does look good, doesn't it Jack?
------------------
Christopher Robin
Guest
Posts: n/a
ChristopherRobin
Thanks for pointing that out. Bit too much short hand on my part. I should have said something like “can’t vector/use all it’s installed thrust so effectively in combat”
In other words like the VIFF (vectoring in forward flight) that the USMC invented with the Harrier. In the right hands VIFFing has really made a difference in ACM training. I don’t believe it has ever been used in actual combat. Although the threat of its use (in the Falklands for example) may, I repeat only may, have made some Argentinian pilots less inclined to mix it. Sensible fighter pilots usually avoid doing manoeuvres that would play to any specific strengths that their enemies are known to possess. (eg a Lightning would never mix it slow and tight with a Hunter, but would only carry out high speed slashing passes)
The version of the common engine used in the Lockheed aircraft clearly has some limited “turboprop like” running characteristics when it is powering the fan.
(ie higher power extraction from the turbines than is necessary to just turn the LP and HP compressors) Whether the necessary provision of that capability in any way effects the up and away reheated turbo fan type engine (even when the clutch is disconnected) compared to the engine used in the Boeing aeroplane I am not privy to. And if I was I guess I would not be able to tell you, at least not without killing you afterwards.
JF
Thanks for pointing that out. Bit too much short hand on my part. I should have said something like “can’t vector/use all it’s installed thrust so effectively in combat”
In other words like the VIFF (vectoring in forward flight) that the USMC invented with the Harrier. In the right hands VIFFing has really made a difference in ACM training. I don’t believe it has ever been used in actual combat. Although the threat of its use (in the Falklands for example) may, I repeat only may, have made some Argentinian pilots less inclined to mix it. Sensible fighter pilots usually avoid doing manoeuvres that would play to any specific strengths that their enemies are known to possess. (eg a Lightning would never mix it slow and tight with a Hunter, but would only carry out high speed slashing passes)
The version of the common engine used in the Lockheed aircraft clearly has some limited “turboprop like” running characteristics when it is powering the fan.
(ie higher power extraction from the turbines than is necessary to just turn the LP and HP compressors) Whether the necessary provision of that capability in any way effects the up and away reheated turbo fan type engine (even when the clutch is disconnected) compared to the engine used in the Boeing aeroplane I am not privy to. And if I was I guess I would not be able to tell you, at least not without killing you afterwards.
JF
Guest
Posts: n/a
Christofer Robin,
Two corrections, Lockheed built the F-104, not the 105, and since Boeing bought out McDonnell Douglas a few years ago, Boeing has all the engineering talents of the builders of the F-4 Phantom, F-15, and F-18 hardly comfortable jet-liners.
Two corrections, Lockheed built the F-104, not the 105, and since Boeing bought out McDonnell Douglas a few years ago, Boeing has all the engineering talents of the builders of the F-4 Phantom, F-15, and F-18 hardly comfortable jet-liners.
Guest
Posts: n/a
JF - I see what you mean, but as the Lockheed aircraft has a vectored tail pipe will this not mean that manoevrability will still be considerable in ACM? (Although possibly not as much as something capable of VIFF)?
------------------
Christopher Robin
------------------
Christopher Robin
Guest
Posts: n/a
Catching up on a few replies.
While Boeing seem to have got a more 'common' design than Lockheed, the structural bits required to take CV launches and recoveries will be substantial, if below the skin.
Jackonico, interested in yr belief that the STOVL will go first, and why. The point is that the USMC has considerable clout 'over there'. From my reading of the defence reviews going on, the US appear to be polarising to long range air power (possibly B-2s), or expeditionary forces at the other end, for the 'early intervention' stuff. The STOVL aircraft and the CV both look Ok in this scenario. The USAF are struggling to afford the F-22, and I believe that the JSF is in fairly good shape. The discussion to watch is the US Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) that will take place over the next few months.
JF, nice to swap chat again. It will be interesting to see how the two designs stack up, but just from the JSF page, it appears to me that the Boeing direct lift system is certainly no more complex than the Lockheed's shaft and clutch, plus other systems required. I believe that the Boeing can vector in flight (useful for some points of the manoevre envelope, possibly), while Lockheed's tail pipe will probably be fixed in forward flight.
This is a good thread, on an important topic.
While Boeing seem to have got a more 'common' design than Lockheed, the structural bits required to take CV launches and recoveries will be substantial, if below the skin.
Jackonico, interested in yr belief that the STOVL will go first, and why. The point is that the USMC has considerable clout 'over there'. From my reading of the defence reviews going on, the US appear to be polarising to long range air power (possibly B-2s), or expeditionary forces at the other end, for the 'early intervention' stuff. The STOVL aircraft and the CV both look Ok in this scenario. The USAF are struggling to afford the F-22, and I believe that the JSF is in fairly good shape. The discussion to watch is the US Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) that will take place over the next few months.
JF, nice to swap chat again. It will be interesting to see how the two designs stack up, but just from the JSF page, it appears to me that the Boeing direct lift system is certainly no more complex than the Lockheed's shaft and clutch, plus other systems required. I believe that the Boeing can vector in flight (useful for some points of the manoevre envelope, possibly), while Lockheed's tail pipe will probably be fixed in forward flight.
This is a good thread, on an important topic.