LM new Fighter - F-22 and F-35 hybrid
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IF that were true (a rather big "if" to my mind), then "the world will never need" F-35s, F-22s, B-2s, B-52s, B-21s, Trident missiles, Minuteman missiles, Tomahawk missiles, ballistic missile submarines, or for that matter, ANY "strategic" weapon of any kind.
And yet there are literally thousands of them in the field with many more being constructed.
Sometimes the best use of a weapon system is as a threat/deterrent. HAVING the weapon prevents the need to USE the weapon. While NOT having the weapon invites aggression from rival nations and makes you wish you'd developed the weapon after all.
And yet there are literally thousands of them in the field with many more being constructed.
Sometimes the best use of a weapon system is as a threat/deterrent. HAVING the weapon prevents the need to USE the weapon. While NOT having the weapon invites aggression from rival nations and makes you wish you'd developed the weapon after all.
Last edited by KenV; 3rd May 2018 at 18:38.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Macs had dropped the gas-coupled fan by the time the competition opened for bids, and gone to a separate lift engine. The Marines, however, detested lift-plus-lift/cruise because they regarded it as a huge maintenance burden, which is ironic given the current state of F-35B reliability and availability.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point exactly. MDC could not make the gas-coupled lift fan work. But they were wedded to the basic approach. So they installed a lift engine in place of the lift fan. But that violated the single-engine requirement of the RFP. Their proposal was, quite simply, non-compliant, and they lost out in the first round of down-select.
KenV.
You miss the point.
It's fine for countries with conventional weapons (only) to develop better weapons systems to "use" against their enemies, but my point is this:
When it comes to a country who has a nuclear deterrent, what is the point of busting a gut and milking the defence budget dry with fancy weaponry if you are unsure whether they can or will ever be used in anger to defend yourself?
Example:
The UK/USA/Russia spends zillions on their military R and D. They produce fantastic concepts later turning them into complex sophisticated weapons of war - strategic as you call it. BUT but but but.....what is the point if you have to use these sophisticated advanced concepts against an enemy who eventually decides that enough is enough and starts neutralising these wonder weapons with tactical (and then strategic) nukes?
I know I would use them (nukes) to defend my nation - so it doesn't make sense for someone like the UK to pour billions into the most advanced aircraft the world has ever seen - just to sit and watch entire squadrons/carriers wiped off the face of the earth by a tactical nuke cruise missile costing $2m. WTF?
It would make more sense to hold onto some other idiots coat tails wrt some recent design of theirs (like the F-18 for instance) - old but effective (ish) if you simply want to assist first world countries to maintain 'peace' against third world countries.
Waste of time, money and effort all this bravado bragging that a small tin pot country like GB can swan around the world in a shipborne paltform fit for a king with the most advanced aircraft on the globe operating off it - to do what exactly? Who do we need to defend ourselves from to have to offer up these precious and limited assets? Yemen? Syria? Iraq? Turkey?
Because if we genuinely believe that we would ever use these assets against a premier league player - it is well and truly game over brother - BIG TIME.
You miss the point.
It's fine for countries with conventional weapons (only) to develop better weapons systems to "use" against their enemies, but my point is this:
When it comes to a country who has a nuclear deterrent, what is the point of busting a gut and milking the defence budget dry with fancy weaponry if you are unsure whether they can or will ever be used in anger to defend yourself?
Example:
The UK/USA/Russia spends zillions on their military R and D. They produce fantastic concepts later turning them into complex sophisticated weapons of war - strategic as you call it. BUT but but but.....what is the point if you have to use these sophisticated advanced concepts against an enemy who eventually decides that enough is enough and starts neutralising these wonder weapons with tactical (and then strategic) nukes?
I know I would use them (nukes) to defend my nation - so it doesn't make sense for someone like the UK to pour billions into the most advanced aircraft the world has ever seen - just to sit and watch entire squadrons/carriers wiped off the face of the earth by a tactical nuke cruise missile costing $2m. WTF?
It would make more sense to hold onto some other idiots coat tails wrt some recent design of theirs (like the F-18 for instance) - old but effective (ish) if you simply want to assist first world countries to maintain 'peace' against third world countries.
Waste of time, money and effort all this bravado bragging that a small tin pot country like GB can swan around the world in a shipborne paltform fit for a king with the most advanced aircraft on the globe operating off it - to do what exactly? Who do we need to defend ourselves from to have to offer up these precious and limited assets? Yemen? Syria? Iraq? Turkey?
Because if we genuinely believe that we would ever use these assets against a premier league player - it is well and truly game over brother - BIG TIME.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thomas,
intereting debate - but not relevant to the thread which concerns whether a hybrid would be suitable for Japan - which has no nukes.
However, to give context to your Rgument, read the Rticle below.
Limited Nuclear Wars ? Myth and Reality | Oxford Research Group
intereting debate - but not relevant to the thread which concerns whether a hybrid would be suitable for Japan - which has no nukes.
However, to give context to your Rgument, read the Rticle below.
Limited Nuclear Wars ? Myth and Reality | Oxford Research Group
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KenV. You miss the point....
Waste of time, money and effort all this bravado bragging that a small tin pot country like GB can swan around the world in a shipborne paltform fit for a king with the most advanced aircraft on the globe operating off it - to do what exactly? Who do we need to defend ourselves from to have to offer up these precious and limited assets? Yemen? Syria? Iraq? Turkey?
Because if we genuinely believe that we would ever use these assets against a premier league player - it is well and truly game over brother - BIG TIME.
Waste of time, money and effort all this bravado bragging that a small tin pot country like GB can swan around the world in a shipborne paltform fit for a king with the most advanced aircraft on the globe operating off it - to do what exactly? Who do we need to defend ourselves from to have to offer up these precious and limited assets? Yemen? Syria? Iraq? Turkey?
Because if we genuinely believe that we would ever use these assets against a premier league player - it is well and truly game over brother - BIG TIME.
And about those nukes Russia and China have: the reason the US has tactical nukes and the reason many of those nukes are physically in Europe and why European aircraft are equipped to carry and deliver them is for their deterrent value. The idea being that neither side will dare use nukes. If the deterrence succeeds (as it has for nigh on three quarters of a century with no signs of it failing), then we need to be equipped with the best conventional weaponry that is available. And THAT weaponry is required to provide a deterrence against various "tin pot countries" poking where they should not, and as a deterrence against a much more active and aggressive Russia and China. And no, no "tin pot" nation is going to go up against Russia or China alone. That's why they're allies with the USA. But to ensure good faith backing by their ally with the many big guns when the tin pots are faced with a Russia or China, the tin pots need to show both a willingness and the ability to assist the big guy with the many "little wars" the big guy is constantly forced to undertake to keep the world from boiling over. And yeah I know, if the USA would just keep its nose where it belongs in the American hemisphere, there wouldn't be all these "little wars" everywhere else. The USA tried that, several times. On two occasions they got sucked into a world war created by those "tin pot" nations, and on two occasions they got sucked into nasty intractable regional wars. The USA is loathe to get sucked into another Korea or Vietnam.
Now about those Japanese F-22/F-35 hybrids, why do you imagine they would be used offensively to strike at China? Why could they not be used, just as the Japanese state, as a long range outer defense perimeter against Chinese aggression? You know, to act as a deterrent against an increasingly capable and increasingly aggressive China? If China perceives that its neighbors have the ability to resist their expansionist ambitions and that their resistance is NOT futile, then perhaps China will be deterred from its expansionist ambitions. The same applies to Russia's neighbors amid Russia's new found expansionist ambitions.
Last edited by KenV; 7th May 2018 at 15:50.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KenV, it sounds like what's being proposed is basically an F-22 airframe and engines, with F-35 avionics.......Convince the Japanese to pay to put the F-22 airframe back in production with modern avionics, then both the USAF and the Japanese get what they really want.
Of course, it's too logical - it'll never happen
Of course, it's too logical - it'll never happen
As someone who hadn't even heard of a drag polar until I read the book about John Boyd - how well does a Blended Wing Body planform suit the PCA mission?
All the concepts I've seen show a small BWB with a butt ugly spade like nose.
I assume it'll mainly be a long legged BVR missile shooter and not necessarily need to get into a turning fight?
And if it did, wouldn't it perform quite well due to low wing loading and the ability to turn tightly at altitude?
A design like that is surely a step beyond both the F-22 and F-35...
All the concepts I've seen show a small BWB with a butt ugly spade like nose.
I assume it'll mainly be a long legged BVR missile shooter and not necessarily need to get into a turning fight?
And if it did, wouldn't it perform quite well due to low wing loading and the ability to turn tightly at altitude?
A design like that is surely a step beyond both the F-22 and F-35...
Thread Starter
Hi Ken, care to elaborate on the lack of legs with the F-22?
Low drag, internal weapons carriage, twin engines and a big air frame should have plenty of places to stuff fuel and a big wing.
I'd have thought the F-22 would be in F-14/15 territory?
and how does the F-35 end up with longer legs? I presume you are only talking the A & C models?
Surely the USAF would have mandated lots of fuel for the 22? Certainly a high priority than thrust vectoring?
As Patton once said " my men can eat their belts but my tanks gotta have gas!"
Low drag, internal weapons carriage, twin engines and a big air frame should have plenty of places to stuff fuel and a big wing.
I'd have thought the F-22 would be in F-14/15 territory?
and how does the F-35 end up with longer legs? I presume you are only talking the A & C models?
Surely the USAF would have mandated lots of fuel for the 22? Certainly a high priority than thrust vectoring?
As Patton once said " my men can eat their belts but my tanks gotta have gas!"
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The F-22 internal fuel load is 18,000lb, and it has 2 x F119 engines to feed.
The F119 engine is optimised for supercruise flight developing more than twice the thrust of other current engines under supersonic conditions, and more thrust without afterburner than conventional engines with afterburner. The downside of that is that it burns more fuel than other comparable engines in subsonic military power.
Its internal missile load is 6 x AMRAAM + 2 x AIM-9. It can carry external tanks and 4 more AIM-9, but you lose the stealth and the drag goes up.
A highly effective fighter it is -the long range missileer interceptor the Japanese are after it is not.
The F119 engine is optimised for supercruise flight developing more than twice the thrust of other current engines under supersonic conditions, and more thrust without afterburner than conventional engines with afterburner. The downside of that is that it burns more fuel than other comparable engines in subsonic military power.
Its internal missile load is 6 x AMRAAM + 2 x AIM-9. It can carry external tanks and 4 more AIM-9, but you lose the stealth and the drag goes up.
A highly effective fighter it is -the long range missileer interceptor the Japanese are after it is not.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As someone who hadn't even heard of a drag polar until I read the book about John Boyd - how well does a Blended Wing Body planform suit the PCA mission?
All the concepts I've seen show a small BWB with a butt ugly spade like nose.
I assume it'll mainly be a long legged BVR missile shooter and not necessarily need to get into a turning fight?
And if it did, wouldn't it perform quite well due to low wing loading and the ability to turn tightly at altitude?
A design like that is surely a step beyond both the F-22 and F-35...
All the concepts I've seen show a small BWB with a butt ugly spade like nose.
I assume it'll mainly be a long legged BVR missile shooter and not necessarily need to get into a turning fight?
And if it did, wouldn't it perform quite well due to low wing loading and the ability to turn tightly at altitude?
A design like that is surely a step beyond both the F-22 and F-35...
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like others have answered for me and the bottom line is, no, the F-22 has OK but far from stellar range/endurance. And F-35A has more fuel capacity than F-22 and a single engine to feed so F-35 has superior range/endurance than F-22. And the big wing C model has even more fuel capacity, although it carries around more weight. And neither F-22 nor F-35 has enough for what Japan wants to do. Further, F-22 weapon bay is optimized for AMRAAM. The Japan mission requires a much longer ranged (and hence larger) missile that simply would not fit in the F-22 weapon bay. In short the F-22 airframe simply cannot do the mission Japan requires irrespective of the avionics stuffed into it.
Last edited by KenV; 8th May 2018 at 14:04.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tho it was a damn good job you did turn up - it was the final straw that broke the German side
We lead the way Euros bitch, we lay back, Euros bitch. It’s about the one constant.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts