Production F-35 too heavy to take off vertically

[Mislovrit]

Not very often, if you're hit that bad the plane tends to crash due to gaping holes in the airframe or large fires caused by the damage.

That of damage doesn't seem to down A-10s very often.

[David Hingtgen]

A-10's kind of a special case, don't you think?

[ewilen]

Yup. The new RN carriers were pretty much counting on VTO for the JSF. Sure, the USMC may not NEED it, but the RN sure does it seems. And at this point, the F-35 is so overweight it can't even do a rolling STO takeoff from the new carriers. That is a severe problem.

You're reading my post backwards...which isn't to say you're wrong.

I'm operating under the assumption that the RN needs STOL, not VTOL, to operate off its carriers.

And the Marines might be able to do with smaller bombs for the CAS role. I don't know what the RN wants its JSFs to do, but if they're planning on using them in strike missions, you'd think they'd want to be able to carry big bombs.

Here's the discussion I was referring to: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&...prev=/&frame=on

[David Hingtgen]

AFAIK the latest projected standard F-35K load that I've seen is ASRAAM x4. It seems to be a Sea Harrier replacement more than anything. There's no doubt it'd be superior to a Sea Harrier as a fighter in almost every way, though the current Sea Harriers can carry quite a few AMRAAMs, and have a top of the line radar.

Edited May 29, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Nied]

Interesting thing I found in a recent issue of Air Forces monthly. The vast majority of Harrier missions during OIF (both RAF and USMC) were flown with two LGBs at most, and ocasionally a pair of Air-to-Air missiles. Flight leaders would even give up one of the Paveways for a Litening II sensor pod, most flights didn't even carry their gunpods (something to consider for those who criticise the gunpod on the STOL and CV versions of the JSF). It's surprising how closely this matches with what the F-35 carries.

[Nied]

Tomcat 21 was to have new maintenance panels, etc. Said to reduce time/hours needed by 40%. Not as good as a Super Hornet, but quite an improvement.

Read both links up above. Of course Cunningham's right about the other guy being an idiot, because the other guy was making a lot of stupid claims. However, the Super Hornet's "unaddressed in that report" problems are the severe lack of acceleration, supercruise (and pretty much all transonic performance), and the eventual "range chopping" due to redesigning the pylons. I'm really trying to pinpoint when they discovered the pylon problem vs when that report was made. Yes, the Super Hornet does have greater range than a Legacy Hornet--however, it is much less than was originally thought, and less than a lot of reports indicate because they were made before the pylon redesign. And the wing-drop is still a "temp" fix, most overhead photos show the "patch" over the wing joint fairing. And they keep fiddling with it, it seems every block has a new version of it.

Also, the redesigned pylons are NOT friendly to many weapons. There have been numerous reports of damage to the weapons by flying them through the air at Mach 1, sideways. (Duh). A Paveway LGB with broken fins will NOT be accurate, and even JDAMs and dumb bombs will lose accuracy. Thank God the AIM-9X has vectored thrust, and AIM-120C's have clipped fins, or the air-to-air weapons might suffer damage too. All this is, I believe, subsequent to Cunningham's report. At least when a Tomcat carries bombs, it doesn't damage them in the process.

Sigh---all threads here become Tomcat vs Hornet, no matter what. So, any JSF news?

One of the problems with arguing against a fighter that didn't make it into service (such as the ST-21 or the YF-23) is that you end up defending the inevitable problems that come up with any new fighter against a design that never had any problems because it never went into service. Obviously the Rhino hasn't done everything it was originally suposed to do, but I seriously doubt that the Super Tomcat would have either. I doubt the plane could have actually supercruised, I doubt the new glove vanes could have come off without a hitch, and I'm sure there are any number of other design features that would not have worked as advertised.

[David Hingtgen]

I bet it would have supercruised. Supercruise is nothing more than thrust vs drag. The F-20 could supercruise without much trouble, as could the early F-5's. A *very* lightly loaded F-15 or -16 will as well. (The 18 sure can't, too much drag). The F-14 is very aerodynamically efficient with low drag for its size. More power would probably give it a thrust/drag ratio better than anything but the F-22/35.

[Winkle]

Forgive me if this may seem like a stupid question (and it probably is). But with all this talk about Supercruise, I'm curious as to what it exactly is.

My guess is that its an ability for the plane to cruise at supersonic speeds, but since I'm no expert on military aircraft I just wanted to be sure.

Oh and one more, what's the F-15 ACTIVE? Is it just an upgraded version of the F-15 Eagle like the F-18 Super Hornet? If you have a link to a page with some info that would do too. Thanks a ton and sorry for interrupting your discussion with newb questions.

Edit: Sorry but forgot to ask, what's the F-20? I'm assuming it was or is some experimental fighter that's not in mass production because I've never heard of it although I've heard of the YF-23 that was supposed to compete with the YF-22.

Edited May 30, 2004 by Winkle

[Mislovrit]

F-15 ACTIVE

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/Graphics/F-15ACTIVE/

F-20 Tigershark

http://members.aon.at/mwade/

[David Hingtgen]

Supercruise: the ability to go (and sustain) supersonic flight without use of afterburners. 99% of people seem to forget the Concorde's been doing it at Mach 2.04 for decades, and think the F-22's the first production plane to do it. It's very useful, for you can cruise to and from the combat zone much faster, with less fuel. Heck, a heavily-loaded F-16 often needs afterburner just to maintain Mach .9, wasting precious fuel.

F-15ACTIVE: F-15 with canards and thrust vectoring. Resulting combination can out-manuever most anything in the sky, especially at high speeds where it can do moves at Mach 2 that most things can't do at Mach 1. Cheap and easy to retrofit, could be done to every F-15, F-16, and F-14B's and D's. So of course they didn't.

F-20: Highly modified F-5E, used to be called F-5G. Was supposed to be a dedicated air defense interceptor, even cheaper and better than the F-16. This was before we had all those ANG F-16's, and most air defense was F-4's and F-106's, and that simply wasn't good enough in the 1980's. Mainly a Sparrow/AMRAAM user, with an insanely good dogfighting capability. Had a marginal supercruise ability. Main feature was ultra-rapid intercept capabilities. Could be off the ground in 30 secs from a cold start, whereas an F-16 would still be starting its engines. Generally had a 3-5 minute lead over any US fighter for a "scramble to intercept" scenario. Even the F-15 couldn't catch it within like 10 mins, despite the F-15's world-beating speed and climb rate, because they took that long to get ready to fly. (Getting the navigation systems up takes the longest, not the engines) Could out accelerate, out-climb, and out-turn even the fabled F-16 in a close-in dogfight. So of course we didn't buy any, and just bought more F-16's to supply all the ANG squadrons See, it was a NORTHROP plane, like the YF-23. That means it totally rocked, but didn't have half of congress in it's back pocket, so wouldn't be bought.

Edited May 30, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Winkle]

Thanks for the pictures, when I saw those pictures of the F-15 I thought I was looking at a Flanker for a second.

And David, you're some kind of super insane walking military aircraft encyclopedia! From now on, everytime I have a question I'm coming straight to you. I just learned like 20 new things in that one post of yours... thanks!

I honestly had never heard of the F-20 until today, that's pretty cool though about its 30 second scramble time... it's like the minute-man of airplanes. And what's with Northrop-Grunman (I'm assuming they're still one company?) and the US government? Do they not "donate" enough money to the politicians or something?

[David Hingtgen]

Your last sentence: EXACTLY. They spend their money on research and development, rather than funding re-election campaigns.

I love F-20's, btw. Awesome dark metallic grey (almost black) paint job.

Edited May 30, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Angel's Fury]

Your last sentence: EXACTLY. They spend their money on research and development, rather than funding re-election campaigns.

I love F-20's, btw. Awesome dark metallic grey (almost black) paint job.

I think it's called RED TAPE.

[David Hingtgen]

Eh, red tape is more "excessive forms and regulations". Different than "political clout".

[Angel's Fury]

Eh, red tape is more "excessive forms and regulations". Different than "political clout".

Thanks for the clarification Dave!!! Anyways, I think the retrofit for the F-15, F-16, and F-14B's and D's would be much better investment rather than this...........Dave you know what I mean, right?

[Nilrem]

They could probably lose the ejection seat, the landing gear and the gun...now would cut the 3000lbs.

Interesting thread, some great information (i never would have suspected that they didn't try to use a limited number of nut sizes etc).

I beleive they already removed the gun from the version the UK are ordering, apparently it will save money, weight and maintinance.

That is until they retrofit all the UK ones to take the gun again as will no doubt happen.

The reasoning is, I beleive that they don't normally need the guns as missiles are preffered, by that reasoning the ejector seat isn't needed as they normally use the landing gear

It was in the papers as apparently a number of the pilots are not happy about it's removal as it removes a layer of protection from them, and removes a backup ability that has been used in the past with some modern "fighters" (improvised air to ground support using the guns).

I don't think the "euro fighter" is a VOTL, from memory it's meant to take off like a normal plane, but in a relatively short space.

The problem is that most of our aircraft carriers aren't that big, we simply can't afford a carrier the size of the US ones and still have a decent sized fleet able to deploy to more than a couple of locations.

So like everything it's a compromise, smaller carriers but the ability to still cover large areas of the ocean and have some flexibility in deployment/maintinance schedules.

I think the new carriers we've got have already been modified at least once to give them a longer runway as the original design didn't allow for one of the craft already in service.

Personally i can't help but think it might have been better if we'd tried designing the fighter alone, rather than trying to "spread the cost" with half of nato and every country making their own demands on what the aircraft should be able to do (adding to the cost and development time).

[Coota0]

Here's a huge complaint of mine about the F-35, one that should never come up... THE REAR VISIBILITY SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!

All fighters built in the last 25 years have had buble cockpits so you can see the bad guys sneaking up on you so why doesn't the F-35?

[Mislovrit]

See, it was a NORTHROP plane, like the YF-23. That means it totally rocked, but didn't have half of congress in it's back pocket, so wouldn't be bought.

Iirc they got into some deep **** trouble for doing something illegal (something to with bribes and such) and since been on the blacklist for the past 30-40 years.

[Winkle]

See, it was a NORTHROP plane, like the YF-23.  That means it totally rocked, but didn't have half of congress in it's back pocket, so wouldn't be bought.

Iirc they got into some deep **** trouble for doing something illegal (something to with bribes and such) and since been on the blacklist for the past 30-40 years.

Isn't bribing US government officials the norm?

The Euro Fighters was definitely not VTOL. VTOL is going straight up and down... totally horizontal like the Harrier or Yak 36 (I think it's that one...). I think you're talking about STOL or S/VTOL which is Short Take-Off and Landing or Short/Vertical Take-Off and Landing... it still requires a runway for the plane to take off but a much shorter one at that.

BTW David, that photo of the F-20 is quite sweet... it looks so sleek and 21st century... doesn't seem at all like something from the 1980's. That picture would make a great desktop wallpaper!

[Lightning]

(sorry, it's gonna be a stupid question) What's the Tomcat 21 that i keep hearing so much about?? (i skipped the last 5 pages, sorry)

[Stamen0083]

I think you're talking about STOL or S/VTOL which is Short Take-Off and Landing or Short/Vertical Take-Off and Landing...

I've never heard of the last one... STOVL, maybe...

Short Take Off/Vertical Landing. Take off of a short runway, fully loaded, and return, landing vertically, after dumping all the weight on someone else.

[Mislovrit]

Isn't bribing US government officials the norm?

It more than just bribes, and officially, outright bribes is not something you want to get caught doing, especially by the news media.

[Winkle]

(sorry, it's gonna be a stupid question) What's the Tomcat 21 that i keep hearing so much about?? (i skipped the last 5 pages, sorry)

David probably knows the details more. All I know is that it's a program that was supposed to update the F-14 Tomcat to higher standards. Essentially redesign the airframe so it's more aerodynamic and stronger, allowing for faster flight speeds, new engines, new computers and avionic systems, weapon systems, support for AMRAAM (um... do the old Tomcats still use the Sparrows?) etc.

Would've made the Tomcat even sweeter then it already is, and supposingly for a relatively cheap price (compared to the F/A-18E Super Hornet or err... the "Subpar Hornet" as a few people in here like to call it). Unfortunately Cheney and Congress killed it in favour of the Super Hornet because Grunman doesn't make enough "contributions" to the politicians finanically.

As for the STOVL... probably. I don't even remember anymore... I know I read about STOL and some form of SVTOL or STOVL dealy a while ago... either that or my brain is so tired its just making stuff up. But if I'm wrong then my bad.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

F-20:  Highly modified F-5E, used to be called F-5G.  Was supposed to be a dedicated air defense interceptor, even cheaper and better than the F-16.  This was before we had all those ANG F-16's, and most air defense was F-4's and F-106's, and that simply wasn't good enough in the 1980's.  Mainly a Sparrow/AMRAAM user, with an insanely good dogfighting capability.  Had a marginal supercruise ability.  Main feature was ultra-rapid intercept capabilities.  Could be off the ground in 30 secs from a cold start, whereas an F-16 would still be starting its engines.  Generally had a 3-5 minute lead over any US fighter for a "scramble to intercept" scenario.  Even the F-15 couldn't catch it within like 10 mins, despite the F-15's world-beating speed and climb rate, because they took that long to get ready to fly.  (Getting the navigation systems up takes the longest, not the engines)  Could out accelerate, out-climb, and out-turn even the fabled F-16 in a close-in dogfight.  So of course we didn't buy any, and just bought more F-16's to supply all the ANG squadrons    See, it was a NORTHROP plane, like the YF-23.  That means it totally rocked, but didn't have half of congress in it's back pocket, so wouldn't be bought.

My country (Singapore) was real close to buying the Tigershark in the 80s. I still have an old local defence mag with the Northrup advertisement in it for the F-20. And the main emphasis on the advert was the F-20s 'Fastest scamble time in the world' as they put it.

But Taiwan got blocked in their attempt to buy it, and the US didn't buy it so if we bought it we would have been the sole users in the world which means parts support and upgrades are gonna suck. So poor Northrup.....

One thing, considering it was an 80s plane, it was still using the old single barrelled cannons when every other teen series plane was on the Vulcan. Wonder why. Space? Weight?

Edited May 30, 2004 by Retracting Head Ter Ter

[hellohikaru]

The F-20 still had the twin M39 guns(also used by the F-100) because it was a direct descendant of the F-5E. Perhaps a M61 installation could be made ala F-18 style but how large a drum could it carry ?

I understand most F-5E operated by Singapore had 1 of the guns removed to make way for the Grifo radar.

[Mislovrit]

One thing, considering it was an 80s plane, it was still using the old single barrelled cannons when every other teen series plane was on the Vulcan. Wonder why. Space? Weight?

Conventional single barrel and revolver cannons are indeed lighter, smaller, and relativaly simplistic to operate and maintained compared to the vulcans. Plus with a small ammo load, a vulcan isn't very practical.

Iirc Northop developed a new 20mm revolver cannon for the F-20 but the cannon along with the Tigershark been canned.

[David Hingtgen]

Another point is that one of the key features of the F-5/F-20 is that's it's ULTRA easy to maintain, and ULTRA reliable. Nothing else comes close. 6-barrel gatling guns are not simple.

A lot of the F-20's abilities simply came from its engine. 70% more thrust than the baseline F-5E, with almost no additional structural weight. (like 95% of the F-20's small weight increase over the F-5E was simply due to the new engine). And the second and third ones had upgraded engines, 80% over the F-5E, and the fourth one (never finished) was to have even better engines like the late Hornets have, 90% over baseline. And they didn't use all that power to carry more fuel or weapons or fancy gadgets, it went to raw acceleration, climb, and sustained turning capability.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Another point is that one of the key features of the F-5/F-20 is that's it's ULTRA easy to maintain, and ULTRA reliable. Nothing else comes close. 6-barrel gatling guns are not simple.

A lot of the F-20's abilities simply came from its engine. 70% more thrust than the baseline F-5E, with almost no additional structural weight. (like 95% of the F-20's small weight increase over the F-5E was simply due to the new engine). And the second and third ones had upgraded engines, 80% over the F-5E, and the fourth one (never finished) was to have even better engines like the late Hornets have, 90% over baseline. And they didn't use all that power to carry more fuel or weapons or fancy gadgets, it went to raw acceleration, climb, and sustained turning capability.

Would that have made for a crappy combat radius and made it good for point defence only?

[David Hingtgen]

Yes, and that's what its role was supposed to be. US ANG coastal/border defense. And to do it even better than the F-15 and F-16. Anything that got close, it was supposed to get up in the air NOW, be supersonic in 50 secs, and be able to out-dogfight anything in the sky.

Also, it's quite the little strike plane, just as good as an F-16C Block 30. Cheap lightweight multi-role plane. It's basically just an F-5E with some aerodynamic tweaks, and an immensely more powerful engine. Plus very advanced avionics/cockpit, at least as good as the F-18's. But with very very little maintenance needed. If you want range, you can hook it up with 3 massive fuel tanks. That much fuel, plus a single F404 engine on a tiny plane, gives pretty good range.

Overall, basically a lightweight F-16 for even less money, anybody could afford it. But then the US bought 1,000 F-16C's, and dumped all its "like new" F-16A's on the market CHEAP.

Edited May 31, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Akilae]

Supercruise: the ability to go (and sustain) supersonic flight without use of afterburners. 99% of people seem to forget the Concorde's been doing it at Mach 2.04 for decades, and think the F-22's the first production plane to do it. It's very useful, for you can cruise to and from the combat zone much faster, with less fuel. Heck, a heavily-loaded F-16 often needs afterburner just to maintain Mach .9, wasting precious fuel.

<snip>

See, it was a NORTHROP plane, like the YF-23. That means it totally rocked, but didn't have half of congress in it's back pocket, so wouldn't be bought.

Doesn't the SR-71 count for sustained supersonic cruise capability? Or does it not count because it uses afterburners?

I had an uncle that used to work at Grumman.. and from what he told me, they had some very solid people working in there... just no people skills

[David Hingtgen]

"Without afterburner" is the short definition of supercruise. So the SR-71 most certainly can't. And AFAIK, the Concorde still has the all-time record for fastest supercruise, for it has hit Mach 2.23, and that's using below 90% thrust. The thing is SLEEK. (Concorde, like many planes, is heat-limited for speed, not thrust--it can go as fast as it wants, so long as it doesn't get past a certain temperature---but since weather at 60,000ft is pretty constant, the day-to-day speed range doesn't vary much at all)

BTW, the absolute speed limiter for the SR-71 is the compressor inlet temperature.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

The Chinese-Pakistani FC-1 looks a lot like the Tigershark.

Wonder if its designed along the same concept.

[Neova]

Someone asked so here is a picture of the ST21 (Super Tomcat 21 aka ASF14 Advance Strike Fighter 14 - if built from scratch). Such a beautiful bird:

[Neova]

And concept swing wing Naval ATF F-22. Don't know if ever produced:

Edited May 31, 2004 by Neova

[ewilen]

The naval ATF never got very far and was never built. As I wrote upthread, the Navy lost interest in the idea around 1990-1.

Supercruise--does the B-1 have it? I assume the Tu-144 is (was) also able to do it. Not that I'm a fan of either plane.

About the Tomcat 21, all the talk of political bribery is interesting, but I've read elsewhere on the net that the Tomcat "community" lost out (partly?) because they were slow adjusting to post Cold War realities. In other words, they resisted serious development of bombing capabilities, as a distraction from the F-14's "real" mission, until after the decision had been made to go with the Super Hornet.

(Regarding political bribery, such as it is, a lot of it comes in the form of spreading the contracts and subcontracts around the country, so that Senators and Congressmen can point to the jobs they're bringing to their consituents.)