Production F-35 too heavy to take off vertically

[Druna Skass]

You know this is kind of funny, the West has a bunch of money to pour in to air craft programs, yet it seems they can't get it right anymore. The Russians on the other don't have any money yet they seem to be able to get it right.

[Druna Skass]

i have to disagree when the political parties get involved then we get problems

I wonder how Project Super Nova would have gone if the beuracrats decided to interfear. The UN Spacy would probably be stuck with a "Super Thunderbolt".

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

actually the avionics on the ruskie planes suck. PLay the flanker simulato then play janes F-15. you'll see what i mean. their airframes and stuff however are very nice.

i thought the bcats did interfere in plus? if not for the ghost being destroyed i think the ghost would have went to proiduction instead of AVF. after all they did say it was to be used in place of them until guld trashed it.

[GreatMoose]

I miss the days of aircraft companies coming up with planes regardless of the whether the gov't asks for it or not. That way, they're designing to fit a idea dreamed up by a commitee, you know?

[Druna Skass]

i thought the bcats did interfere in plus? if not for the ghost being destroyed i think the ghost would have went to proiduction instead of AVF. after all they did say it was to be used in place of them until guld trashed it.

I thought it was another branch of the UN military, not the politicos.

[Skull Leader]

When it comes to Macross, those are one and the same (practically)

I want MDC to come back, and Grumman to go back on it's own again... let's start building flagship aircraft that the people can rally around again!

[Stamen0083]

We have some real geniuses managing this stuff. It won't be until we finally get our asses handed to us that these morons will wake up and design stuff right, and get the new stuff we actually need operational.

You make it sound like inventing new technology takes simply a snap of the finger.

All F-14 tooling has been destroyed? For what reason? Isn't it a better idea to keep them in storage, in case F-14's are ever needed to be built again?

Heaven forbid F-14's should be allowed to get replacement parts fresh from the factory. Now aircrews may have to look to the black market.

[David Hingtgen]

Stamen--those are the reasons the tooling was destroyed! To prevent any chance of more F-14's being built, and to eliminate the parts source. The basic plan was to FORCE the Super Hornet to be built, due to the utter inability to keep F-14's flying. That's why F-14D's are already being taken out of service with like only 1/4 of their hours used up--they're already out of spares.

See, the Navy (particularly the carrier commanders and quite a few admirals) kept asking for more F-14's. Cheney and the Super Hornet lobby kept pushing for the Super Hornet for all the typical political reasons. Navy kept saying "no, the first Hornet kinda sucked, the new one won't be much better, and will cost WAAY more. Just give us a bunch more cheap new F-14's, and give us the small amounts of money required to convert old F-14A's into new F-14D's". And even congress saw that large quantities of F-14D's could be had quickly, and cheaply (since you could just convert old F-14A's, and new ones cost less than Hornets). That didn't look good to the Super Hornet lobby. So Cheney made it so that any naval officer asking for more Tomcats would be effectively court martialed, and immediately cancelled Grumman's contract with the Navy, and ordered all F-14 tooling destroyed. That way, they HAD to get new Super Hornets, since the Tomcat was done for, having lost its technical support, and the means to convert A's into D's. Heck, we weren't going to buy that many new D's, maybe a few dozen. But we were going to convert hundreds of A's into D's. And the D was ready and flying, while the Subpar Hornet was spending a year trying to fix its stall problems, then another year fixing its pylon problems, and is just now entering service with massive amounts of excess drag, cutting into its range quite a bit.

Historical note: Grumman was desperate for work, and would have built F-14's at a loss, just to keep people's jobs. New F-14D's for much less than the cost of a NORMAL Hornet. Not to mention the "F-14A to F-14D" conversion kit was cheap and simple enough that you didn't even need to send it back to the factory, many well-equipped naval bases could do it. (And some did, for the few kits delivered before the factory tooling was destroyed)

[Valkyrie Nut]

nevermind.. found some pics.

Man, that just sucks.... but then, Britain needs to get off it's lazy ass and build some REAL aircraft carriers  that don't require VTOL for their aircraft (ok, ok.. I know everything from the Nimitz-class and up is more or less a gross symbol of excess... but it also pretty much gives you the power to tell other countries what to do!) We've got plenty of older carriers drydocked that they could buy.....

Whatever happened to the days when we could be PROUD of the aircraft we're going to use to defend our skies? I'm still greatly looking forward to the first active F-22 squadrons... but everything else seems to be less than stellar.

I'm a little fuzzy on my air-force fighters... do they use the F-15ACTIVE to any great capacity? or was it more or less a vectored-thrust proof of concept? Basically looks like an americanized SU-27 to my eyes....

Erm, I don't think we should have to make new larger aircraft carriers just because the the F-35 is a lardarse. We can't afford to run a fleet of huge carriers like America has, we're not made of money! However, there are a couple of new slightly larger carriers in the works and rumor has it that there are also plans for the first British supercarrier but until then Lockheed Martin will just have to a) make the fat git lighter or b) give it a more powerful engine

Edited May 26, 2004 by Valkyrie Nut

[Stamen0083]

So Cheney made it so that any naval officer asking for more Tomcats would be effectively court martialed, and immediately cancelled Grumman's contract with the Navy, and ordered all F-14 tooling destroyed.

So the decision to cancel the F-14 rested on one person alone?

So, who was sucking Cheney's dick so hard that he missed common sense?

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

well he was secretary of defense. Some submariner higherups in the navy were allied with him and this only factored more into the already large hornet mafia. David is right the only reason the tomcat got cancelledd was basically politics. With the upgrades provided it could have been uppedn to tomcat 21 standard and became the best successor to the A-6 while retaining wait i mean BETTERING the tomcats performance as a fighter(cleared for AMRAAM i believe, non rimmed canopy, more sensors, swappable phoneix pallet with sensor, SUPERCRUISE, higher fuel, not much weight gain considering it was a lot of upgrades, more clearance for other weapons, and better manueverability for dogfighting as well). Oh yea tomcat 21 would be a bbetter bomber than the F/A-18F as well. but like david said it was all politics. Whoevber did speak up would get courtmartialed or if holding position of an admiral or something, retired early. There were a bunch of tomcat pilots who really wanted to say something but couldnt. At that point i believe it was already too late as the hornet lobby was already big and cheney just ready to announce canceling the program for the f-14. So by then it was probablky too late to evben speak up but from what i recall david said that the B/D tomcats are kept in reserve after spares run out in case the super hornet f**s up. (which it most certainly will soon enough). tomcat 21 could outaccelerate the F-14D and havea =much better fuel consumption thanks to supercruise ability. Oh yea i forgot to add that it would have had thrust vectoring as well. the F-18C can supercruise but the super hornet cant, as a matter of fact the C has better speed and acceleratoin than the super. kind of sad if you ask me.

[Anubis]

i have to disagree when the political parties get involved then we get problems

I wonder how Project Super Nova would have gone if the beuracrats decided to interfear. The UN Spacy would probably be stuck with a "Super Thunderbolt".

If it were our politicians they would have chosen the Ghost anyway after all that happened.

[ewilen]

About the topic of this thread, I'm with Nied. The contractors have their work cut out for them, but it's too early to tell if they can successfully adjusgt the thrust:weight ratio. I believe the press is doing its job, though, in keeping their feet to the fire (along with the people responsible for managing the contract).

Meantime, returning to a theme from earlier threads, while unmanned craft may be a ways off in the air superiority role, they are definitely shaping up in the bombing role--which is the F-35's main job. I've read that the US Navy is looking at developing new smaller aircraft carriers designed to carry UCAV's.

And the Air Force has a project called the Common Aero Vehicle (CAV, sometimes given the designation X-41) which seems to be (essentially) an effort to create a technology which would allow tactical bombing missions to be based in the US yet hit targets worldwide. The whole thing sounds kind of far out but it points in the general direction of reduced reliance on forward bases and reduced use of pilots. Both of which could theoretically lower recurring costs (maintenance and training), among other things.

[Akilae]

ah yes... Cheney... also the man responsible for cancelling the SR-71s... and ordering the destruction of all the tooling and jigs for THAT wonderful piece of work. Granted with the onset of UAVs there's almost no need for the SR-71 (I guess), but it was what he said during the Gulf War (when offered the Blackbird's services for a fast recon of the area) that really gets to me:

something along the lines of "Darn it, No! If we let that bird back in, we'll never get rid of it again!!!"

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

naw UAVs cant get as high and cant get better resolution images than the SR71. Cheney just axed a bunch of stuff that the US should have kept. Even now tomcat squadrons are outdoing hornets in the air to ground role. I mean hornets werent chosen to do CAS on ground bases and FAC, TOMCATS were. this was last year i belive.

[Lightning]

only a big-huge-gigantic-alien-spaceship-doomed-to-crash-land-on-Earth will save us now with all the stupid political crap going on....

maybe the next pres will get new stuff for the F-14's??

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

if hes does restart the tomcat program hes a f*****n genius. Either that or a a new navy TFX program to find a fighter that combines the a2a of tomcat with a2g of a-6 and surpasses both.

[Lightning]

maybe just a smaller F-14 then? (F-14S perhaps?)

[Druna Skass]

only a big-huge-gigantic-alien-spaceship-doomed-to-crash-land-on-Earth will save us now with all the stupid political crap going on....

maybe the next pres will get new stuff for the F-14's??

Well if the B-1 survied the axe, the F-14 just might get a ressurection too...

[David Hingtgen]

Want a really, really kick-ass multi-role plane? Swing-wings+canards. Everything but stealth. You want to be really good at true multi-role? Then you need multi-config-wings. Thus, swing-wings. That's part of the reason the F-14 really rocks at bombing, and has beaten the F-18 and A-6 in many a bombing competition. There is, and always has been a "ground attack mode" selection on the wing-sweep lever. It's 55 degrees. An F-14 pilot just moves the lever to that position and voila--instant bomber. Never used it until the late 80's, but has always been there, as Grumman knew they'd need it someday, and calculated out what position would be necessary. I'll try to find a pic of that position later. (It's basically the most swept-back position you'll see without being fully swept back--there's basically a small gap between the stabs and wings)

Just IMHO, most "multi-role" planes are more like "many options". Not really simultaneous. Yes, the F-18 has bombed and fought in the same mission. It took down MiG-21's, with an itty-bitty bombload. Not impressed. Show me a plane carrying 4,000lbs of JDAMs, and take down a Flanker on the way. THAT is multi-role. Yeesh, with the current definition of multi-role, you could call most any WWII fighter multi-role. Only the F-14 and Tornado can truly "morph" themselves in flight to physically become a more dedicated fighter or bomber, and change how they fly. (F-111 just changes speed, not much else)

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

I think a tomcat 21 would be able to take on a flanker with 4,000 of JDams on the pylons at the same time. Man that thing would have been a beauty. thrust vectoring and supercruise as well as airframe and flap changes would have made that big ass plane even more of a better dogfighter.

[Winkle]

Hrm... I've been a fan of the Tomcat for awhile now. What has impressed me most after that fighter craft is its versatility. As mentioned, it's capable of fulfilling air superority, interceptor, recon, and bombing roles... and it doesn't do them adaquetly, it does them all really well.

I'm curious as to why the Super Hornet is so sucky though. I know they modified the air-frame somewhat and upgraded its avionics and systems and such but why is it so much drastically worst then the regular Hornets? I mean when they decided to "upgrade" the Hornets, weren't they trying to make them BETTER?

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

well see they didnt forsee the weight gain and that the design changes might have made it worse, the hornet mafia was too powerful at that time for anyone to even say anything against them, so with that in mind all the f***ups included in the airframe remained. The original F-18L proposal from the late 80s was actually 2 me a better design.

from wbhat david says it seems that the YF-17 cobra was actually a more superior airframe. h

here are disadvantages of super compared to legacy hornet

1-Can't supercruise like the F/a-18C

2-slower in acceleration and overall top speed

3-the wing drop...frfom what i hear its not completely fixed just bandaided.

4-might not be as manueverable as legacy although i hope it is.Not sure if AOA limits are higher but with them bigass LERXs i would presume it could have better high AOA handling.

5-Might not be as good as the marine F/A-18D night attacker.

here are the sup[ers advantages

1-clearance for Aim-9X(i think)

2-handful more weapons pylons

3-better bring back capability

4-better radar

5-helmet mounted site. for aim9x queing off boresight.

i only see a few more advantages that matter, aim9x clearance, more weapons p[ylons, and the helmet site along with bring back capability. in terms of overall performance i think the legacy might be the better of the 2. (see i wouldlnt be so anti super hornet if it wasnt replacing the tomcat, kuz it cant do it effectively, superhornet can effectively be deemed a outright successor to the A-7 since it cant even out perform some of the legacy hornets characterstics although b oeing would like you to think it does).

[Apollo Leader]

When Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense (late 80's, early 90's), the Navy's next "big" fighter" was supposed to be a navalized F-22 or F-23 (I'm approaching this from a pre June 1991 perspective). It was Slick Willy, Les Aspen, Richard Cohen, et al that gave us a Naval aviation program solely relying on the stop-gap Super Hornet and the JSF.

The F-14's basic design is now 35+ years old. Instead of investing money in a tired old design, a navalized F-22 should have been fielded. I think some of you guys are blinded by some sort of nostalgia when it comes to the Tomcat. For example, I'm a HUGE F-15 Eagle fan, but it's now time for the Raptor to become the king of the skies for the next several decades.

[Apollo Leader]

only a big-huge-gigantic-alien-spaceship-doomed-to-crash-land-on-Earth will save us now with all the stupid political crap going on....

maybe the next pres will get new stuff for the F-14's??

Well if the B-1 survied the axe, the F-14 just might get a ressurection too...

A bunch of B-1B's (about 30 meaning only 60 or so are in service) are needlessly sitting out at Davis Monthan as we speak. The events of the last few years have proven the dire need for long range bombers... you can't always trust on "ally" countries to let you use their airfields to fly short range fighters and attack aircraft from.

[Cdr Fokker]

IIRC, the F-35B was designed solely with STOVL in mind, not full VTOL.

So why the bitching about not being able to take-off vertically?

[Panon]

The F-14's basic design is now 35+ years old.  Instead of investing money in a tired old design, a navalized F-22 should have been fielded.  I think some of you guys are blinded by some sort of nostalgia when it comes to the Tomcat.

Nobody is arguing that the Tomcat isn't old or that creating a superior replacement would be a bad idea.

The problem is that the F-14 for political reasons has been forced into premature retirement to field an inferior aircraft, when the enchanced Tomcat design would have proven superior.

Newer isn't necessarily better in all cases. It's much the same issue Australia is facing, as last I read they were trying to push ahead the retirement of their F-111 fleet to eventually replace them with a JSF's - despite the fact the JSF's will have both lower payload and range than updated and maintained F-111's would have.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

no the F-35B was meant to have VTOL from the beginning. Fully loaded even a harrier cant take off cvertically thats why tjey use ski ramps on ship but with medium load it can. With no VTOL the royal air force and marines wouldnt care for it. Even all the concept arts of the JSF program feature the B doing VTOL. the whole reason the marines want it is the ability to do VTOL . Otherwise they could have just opted for an F-22 which can do STOL(yes its capable of doing short landing and take off).

[Mislovrit]

i have to disagree when the political parties get involved then we get problems

I wonder how Project Super Nova would have gone if the beuracrats decided to interfear. The UN Spacy would probably be stuck with a "Super Thunderbolt".

Going by the U.S. standard, UN Spacy will still be flying Super Strike VF-1Xs and Super VF-4 Lightning IIIs.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

yes I agree the NATF which was a swing wing F-22 WITH phoenix missles would have been the best choice. Noone ever said the tomcat would be better than THAT. the NATF is the ONLY plane envisioned that could possibly surpass the tomcat for its roles on the carrier. The reason we keep bringin up the tomcat is because though the NATF was cencelld, upgrading the F-14 to tomcat 21 would have provided a replacement for older tomcats AND the intruder and at the same time outdoing the inferior super hornet. Since the NATF was cancelled we look at tomcat 21 as the next best thing. Hornet cant do the job the tomcat can but u can sure as hell bet tomcat 21 can.

[Mislovrit]

Want a really, really kick-ass multi-role plane?  Swing-wings+canards.  Everything but stealth.  You want to be really good at true multi-role?  Then you need multi-config-wings.  Thus, swing-wings.  That's part of the reason the F-14 really rocks at bombing, and has beaten the F-18 and A-6 in many a bombing competition.  There is, and always has been a "ground attack mode" selection on the wing-sweep lever.  It's 55 degrees.  An F-14 pilot just moves the lever to that position and voila--instant bomber.  Never used it until the late 80's, but has always been there, as Grumman knew they'd need it someday, and calculated out what position would be necessary.  I'll try to find a pic of that position later.  (It's basically the most swept-back position you'll see without being fully swept back--there's basically a small gap between the stabs and wings) 

But it's not stealthy and thus it is ****ly aircraft.

^ I always ****ing that line of reasoning and yet the hypocrites also despise the YF-23 and the A-12 for not being a dogfighter.

I thought the Navy was interested in the YF-23 as the NATF contender?

Edited May 27, 2004 by Mislovrit

[Neova]

i have to disagree when the political parties get involved then we get problems

I wonder how Project Super Nova would have gone if the beuracrats decided to interfear. The UN Spacy would probably be stuck with a "Super Thunderbolt".

Going by the U.S. standard, UN Spacy will still be flying Super Strike VF-1Xs and Super VF-4 Lightning IIIs.

Whats wrong with SS VF-1x and Super Strike VF-4 Lightning X? Would look cool nevertheless.

USA: Gimme back my F-22 and Comanche which my tax dollars had paid for! Grr...

Back to the original topic...

[Mislovrit]

[quote name=Zentrandude' date='May 26

Whats wrong with SS VF-1x and Super Strike VF-4 Lightning X? Would look cool nevertheless.

USA: Gimme back my F-22 and Comanche which my tax dollars had paid for! Grr...

Back to the original topic... [/quote]

Nothing just but the Super Strike VF-4 Lightning X would be the most advanced fighter for the UN Spacy with everything else (pods, non-vf fighters, power armors, gunships and etc.) scrapped and recycled in 2050-60.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

nope. NATF was a lockheed proposal. Yf23 was a dogfighter, A-12 wasnt. Y-23 was on par if not better than the F-16 and F-18, but in terms of low speed high AOA manuevers the F-22 was better. This is taken from what david said earlier in thread.

From what I can tell the YF23 would have kicked all kinds of ass. It looks more intersting than the F-22 since its sucha radical design, the F-22 seems more like a progressive stealth where as the Yf--23 seems more of a risky design. Which kicks ass. I love that plane. If anything it would have been lovely if the navy got it but they were notn involved in ATF> they only wanted the ATF engines and possibly the NATF but it got canned. I could give a Sh** about stealth. one day there will be passive sensors in radar that can detect stealths so I bet in the future stealth wont really matter . I want a plane with all out power and manueverability. F-22 doesnt grand a hand of god on your shoulder it just makes you less susceptible to being shot down and detected. It also helps that its incredibly manueverable and has supercruise. F-22 and commanche are keepers the super hornet is not. Allwoul be well if the F-14D program was in effect to upgrading to tomcat 21 or ASF-14.

[Mislovrit]

nope. NATF was a lockheed proposal. Yf23 was a dogfighter, A-12 wasnt.

Only mentioned the A-12 as the F-22 and JSF crowd seem to have a severe dislike of the plane.