Production F-35 too heavy to take off vertically

[Nied]

I can draw an analogy for you here.

In the early days of PC computing, components are standardized (PCI, etc. etc.) and it's often fashionable to scratchbuild your own system. This was before the era of Dell and other big computer manufacturers stepping in, okay?

The casing for PCs then were horrible. They are often a single metal frame with attachment points for hardware, but designed with little thought of maintenance or accessibility. Customizers often end up with nicks and scratches due to the (sharp) frame designed to secure components.. but not for users to reach them.

Nowadys, PC casing are much more user friendly. My current system casing can strip out entire cages for easy installation of harddrives and other peripherials, the entire PC power supply can be detached and replaced (previously power supply are as good as welded to the frame...). This makes maintenance MUCH easier, and replacement of parts much easier too.

But structurally-wise, externally my PC is still a darn box.

In a similar fashion, in theory, ergonomic design of the interior of the airframe, with special emphasis on accessibility, replacability and maintenance, can easily cut maintenance cost down significantly on the ST-14.

That's a good analogy but i think you draw the wrong conclusions from it.

Let's take your anology a little further (as someone who still build his own computers I know what you're talking about). Yes externally one of those old enclosures and a new one are nearly identical. But internally they're completely different. And while the new case has all sorts of easy to maintain features like removable motherboard trays, drive rails, and detachable hard drive bays, how easy do you think it would be to add those features to your old case? Sure you might be able to put some thumbscrews on it, mabye even cut a new access panel into it, but to put all of the really easy to use stuff you'd have to completely re-design the internals of the case.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

I duno. I havea lot of faith in lockheed and to be a aior superiority fighter you gotta get down and dirty....the tomcat had automated flight sweep so I am sure NATF would have had that for its wings as well. I tend to think lockheed would have figured something out in terms of making the NATF stealthy with no sacrifice while still enabling wing sweep anytime. The rumored switchblade craft also has swingwings./

[Lynx7725]

Yes externally one of those old enclosures and a new one are nearly identical. But internally they're completely different. And while the new case has all sorts of easy to maintain features like removable motherboard trays, drive rails, and detachable hard drive bays, how easy do you think it would be to add those features to your old case? Sure you might be able to put some thumbscrews on it, mabye even cut a new access panel into it, but to put all of the really easy to use stuff you'd have to completely re-design the internals of the case.

You're right to say that the old casing cannot be refitted with the new technologies efficiently. It's better in this case to toss or recycle the old casing and buy a new one.

But in our case here, as far as I know for the Super Tomcat, it's supposed to be a re-designed and built-from-scratch airframe, so your concern here is misplaced.

If they intend to upgrade from say, D to E, and is claiming all these things.. I would say the same things you did. But if indeed the ST-14 is a total redesign (based F-14's proven design, but totally reworked), then your concerns would be addressed.

[Nied]

You're right to say that the old casing cannot be refitted with the new technologies efficiently. It's better in this case to toss or recycle the old casing and buy a new one.

But in our case here, as far as I know for the Super Tomcat, it's supposed to be a re-designed and built-from-scratch airframe, so your concern here is misplaced.

If they intend to upgrade from say, D to E, and is claiming all these things.. I would say the same things you did. But if indeed the ST-14 is a total redesign (based F-14's proven design, but totally reworked), then your concerns would be addressed.

That's just it the ST-21 was to be a re-manufactured Tomcat, not a new build one. Only the most extreme concepts called for new build aircraft (and then you open up the very likely risk of cost over-runs like the Super Hornet).

[Nied]

I duno. I havea lot of faith in lockheed and to be a aior superiority fighter you gotta get down and dirty....the tomcat had automated flight sweep so I am sure NATF would have had that for its wings as well. I tend to think lockheed would have figured something out in terms of making the NATF stealthy with no sacrifice while still enabling wing sweep anytime. The rumored switchblade craft also has swingwings./

Automated wing sweep has nothing to do with it, and as talented as Lockheed's engineers are they can't break the laws of physics. The simple matter is that to be stealthy you need to line up as many edges as you can, otherwise you'd scatter radar energy off in all directions, and you'd be detected.

[Mislovrit]

Cost over-runs (within reason) isn't too much of a concern provided the plane is worth the price.

[Lynx7725]

Y'know, I think the whole crux of the matter lies in the fact that the F-14 just looks like a flamin' honkin' killer of a fighter plane, and the F-18 looks like a pencil with wings stuck on as an afterthought.

Frankly, the F-18 is probably more than qualified to do certain missions. It's a decent plane -- it flies, what more can I ask from it? -- it bombs (itsy-bitsy, but then again nowadays we don't really need carpet bombing anyway.. a couple of "smart" munitions should do the trick.), it refuels, it does everything.

It's main fault is that it does nothing terribly well. And that the procurement of the USN seems determined to push so many roles into the F-18, we may as rename the darn thing F/A/B/C/D/..../Z-18. Faster that way.

Seems to me, the F-18 was never designed to do all these things anyway. No point debating the pros-and-cons of the plane.. and discussing the people who makes the decisions is akin to politics (and the usual MW disclaimer about political threads).

In my opinion.. multi-role aircraft tends to suck. Okay, let me qualify that. Certain roles should not be assigned to the same airframe. For example, long range interception and ground CAS should not be mixed into the same airframe, because of the difference in operating conditions. Point Defense and Tanker should not mix, etc. etc.

C'mon, I'm all for maximizing the tax dollars as the other guy, but there is a price to take it to the extremes. If a particular role requires a particular type of aircraft, then please BUY a different aircraft.. Can you EVER imagine an A-10 performing a Point Defense? Or an Apache serving as a tanker? Because the way things are going, that's what's going to happen!

If you give the wrong tool to the people to use in a critical condition such as a shooting war, you will pay the price, not in dollars, but in blood.

The F-22 and F-35 seems to be fairly clear of this so far -- but I bet some silly git would suggest slinging bombs on the F-22 soon, as a primary role. C'mon, a bomb-Raptor is nice and good, but it's first and most important role is to take down enemy fighters.

[Lynx7725]

That's just it the ST-21 was to be a re-manufactured Tomcat, not a new build one. Only the most extreme concepts called for new build aircraft (and then you open up the very likely risk of cost over-runs like the Super Hornet).

Possibly; I'm not up to scratch on the ST-21.

But if it is a re-manufactured Tomcat, there is a possible window of opportunity to redesign the interior to be more user-friendly, and retool the manufacturing lines to come out with the new interiors.

Yes, it is possible to get cost-overruns with these kind of projects. But it's less likely so, because the scope of this project is with known airframe, technology and concepts. You don't need to worry about crazy thing such as RAM, stealth, swing doors, etc. etc..

[David Hingtgen]

F-22 has all its edges line up along 1 of 2 angles. The NATF could have done the same---line up unswept wing position with 1 angle, swept with the other angle. They wouldn't be in an "inbetween" position very much at all. I mean, how often do you see an F-14 at say, 37 degrees sweep? Never, unless you get a photo at the 1 second that it's there while swinging from 20 to 68...

The only time the wings actively sweep or are in any position other than unswept, bombing, or full sweep, is air combat, and even the YF-22/23 lose a lot of stealth quickly under those conditions, for as soon as you starting rolling and pitching, you're constantly exposing the less stealthy parts of the airframe. Roll 90 degrees and the F-117's RCS is several times its "normal" size.

As for the F-14 mx: a lot of it is the panels themselves. Yeesh, you can count 30 fasteners on some sections. It's worse than the F-4. Simply replacing 30 screws with 2 latches would cut the time needed by a lot. The engines themselves can be swapped out pretty fast, you've just got to spend all day opening the panels to get to them, then the next day closing them back up... F-14 mechanics must spend half their lives unscrewing screws. It's like changing the battery in my watch. 10 secs to change it, 20 mins to get the darn cover off... A "quick release" cover would make watch maintenance much easier.

As for speed: you can do Mach 2.05 at least with a fixed intake, because the F-16 can. The Hornet's only slow because of so darn much drag. F-14B/D can only do 1.88 anyways, Mach 2 would actually be an upgrade for them. (Yes, the original F-14A is the fastest Tomcat by far, Mach 2.41 max clean speed) And recall that the Super Hornet's intakes were switched to box style mainly for stealth, the F-14's already got box-style. Round intakes=BAD for stealth. Also, by carrying weapons in the fuselage tunnel, any F-14 variant reduces RCS that way. All the RAM in the world on a Super Hornet doesn't help its many, angled, pylons. They add to the RCS quite a lot. Semi-conformal (F-15E, Tomcat 21) is the way to go, for both stealth and drag considerations.

Edited June 1, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

ya see thats the ting. TOmcat 21 would have done everything etter then the super hornet. And cheaper by many millions as well. Tomcat 21 was not new buiild only retrofit, andf ASF14 was the new build less capable one. Tomcat 21 was the superior one and also the CHEAPER one., Not to mention the one the navy was intending to get. There are very few planes that can maintain a huge ass bombload and manuever like a fighter, this is one thing that the tomcat 21 would have had over mabny other planes SPECIFICALLY the super bug,. Note the mud hen may or not be able to do this i will let david chime in and answer that for you as I have no idea but it seems klike it cannot function as a figthter with max bomb load. Most of tomcat 21s bombload would be inbetween the nacelles of the engines so not much if any drag at all., arm the outboard stations with sidewinders and AMRAAMS(not cleared for tomcat due to funding but if tomcat 21 went ahead it would) adn you havea bad ass capable A-6 and F-14D replacement.

I agree with the whole multirole thing lynx,,.,its like commonality,,.may be cheaop but ultinately it will f*** up somewhere. Everyone thought theb F-111 was a dreamplane for both services, look what happened,. Same shi* goin on with JSF. No excuses in the world could make that a good multirole...to me its just a supersonic F1117.

[David Hingtgen]

Super Tomcat 21 was to have 90% of the Naval ATF's performance for 60% of the cost. Basically, everything but "really stealthy." So of course the Super Hornet offers like 60% of the performance (if that) for 90% of the cost. (At least, I THINK the Super Hornet costs less than F/A-22's! )

F-15E is said to suck, agility-wise, when carrying bombs. But I always wonder if thats exaggerated. Most people seem to talk like a 747 would out-turn it... However, if it jettisoned the weapons, it would probably do better than the F-15C, due to the much more powerful engines, despite weighing inherently more than the C. And it's got a 2nd guy onboard, always a plus. (Assuming it's a later F-15E with the better engines)

Raw weight, carried pretty far outboard (the outboard CFT pylons are only slightly inboard of the wing pylons). F-14 would do better, much closer to centerline. And for the same payload, by being larger the F-14 would suffer less, weight-wise, proportionately. And I always figured the F-14 would have replaced the AIM-7 adaptors on the glove pylons with twin AMRAAM adapters, thus having 4 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders on the gloves alone.

Edited June 1, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

WHOA! in the self defense role, with 2 sidewinders and 4 amramms outboard and a full bomb complement, it has the full load of a A-6 with the full armnament load of a ANG F-16 or F-15!!!! DUAL role with no sacrifice!

david, I never knew ther was a dual amraam adapter! (totally forgot that it was much smaller than the sparrow and could be mounted on sidewinder ports, so with that a total of 6 amrrams could be used!)

[David Hingtgen]

Hornets carry dual AMRAAM launchers all the time.

F-15 doesn't need it, plently of places anyways.

F-16---has two more pylons than the F-18, so doesn't really need it.

F-14---the AMRAAM would fit in the underbelly Sparrow slots, but those are almost always occupied by Phoenix pallets, nowadays usually with bombs on them. So a twin launcher would be good. The glove pylon can hold a Phoenix (and still hold the Sidewinder), and 2x AMRAAM's weigh far less than a Phoenix, and are not much more than single Sparrow. Plenty of room too, as again--Phoenixes are BIG! I would imagine they'd go for a "1 down, 1 across" (1 dropped, 1 rail-fired) launcher, rather than side-by-side rails like the Hornet.

Here's a Hornet's twin AMRAAM launcher, Operation Iraqi Freedom:

[Mislovrit]

Another picture of the Hornet's twin AMRAAM launcher. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...aam-dvic408.jpg

[David Hingtgen]

Yes, the infamous 10 AMRAAM's pic. Drag would be beyond insane though, range would be about 10 miles.

When Hornets carry dual AMRAAM launchers (1 on each wing), they generally don't carry much else. Drag, drag, drag. Main reason the Super Hornet isn't doing well range-wise---pylon/rail drag, and lots of it.

[GreatMoose]

It just seems to me that there HAS to be a better solution for the Superbug that ANGLED pylons. I mean, of all the brainpower at Lockheed, and THAT's the best they could come up with?

[Neova]

Then it must the airframe limiting them from improving on it anymore.

If you use the car analogy here, you can only bolt on so much to a sport compact car vs a GT car. Even with aftermarket body kits (extentions) and all, you will be limited by the frame unless you cut / add to the frame for a hybrid. By that time, you've already comprimised the integrity of the structure unless the frame is a new build.

Since I'm ranting about cars, the commonality platform for a dedicated military tool really boggles the mind. I can see this application for consumer or business based products or when you prove something such as JGTC (touring car) which does it and does it well; but if you want the VERY best and not half ass it, dedicated development and platform is needed. Formula one (even Nascar up to a point) purpose build for racing, and don't ride off the consumer platforms.

I rather give my soldiers the best tools to do the job than give them a budgetized tool from the bean counters which may end up costing a lot later on in terms of loss and resources to compensate for lack of effectivness.

[Sundown]

F-15E is said to suck, agility-wise, when carrying bombs. But I always wonder if thats exaggerated. Most people seem to talk like a 747 would out-turn it... However, if it jettisoned the weapons, it would probably do better than the F-15C, due to the much more powerful engines, despite weighing inherently more than the C. And it's got a 2nd guy onboard, always a plus. (Assuming it's a later F-15E with the better engines)

The E's likely have respectable maneuverability when empty, but I doubt it'd ever fare better than a C speedwise, due the conformal fuel tanks strapped to the side that really wreak havok with drag. E's don't hit the mach 2.5 that's regularly posted as the 15's top speed. Actually, C's don't either, for that matter.

-Al

[Mislovrit]

Yes, the infamous 10 AMRAAM's pic. Drag would be beyond insane though, range would be about 10 miles.

Plus there's the little problem of who's got enough aircraft to warrent loading 10 AMRAAMs on to a hornet.

[Skull Leader]

Yeah, if it weren't for the drag issue, that Hornet would completely own the skies with that many AMRAAMs.... that's pretty insane.

[David Hingtgen]

Well, F-14's could have carried 8 with little drag, and probably 10. F-15's can carry 8 with little drag.

Anyways---it's pretty simple why the pylons won't fit on the Super Bug---you can't stuff that many pylons under a small wing! It's not an F-15, there's simply not that much room. You can't add 10% to the wingspan, and expect to have enough clearance for 50% more stuff underwing. They're pretending it's a Strike Eagle, trying to fit large quantities of large bombs.

And yes, angling and rotating the pylons were the best they came up with. PS--Boeing, not Lockheed. (MDC had been bought out by the time this problem came up, only the very early Super Hornets had MDC markings) They're not just angled out from the centerline, they're off in 2 axes, not just 1.

The Inboard and Center pylons are rotated 4 degrees out from the centerline. The Outboard pylons are rotated 4 degrees, AND canted outwards 3.5 degrees---as in, they do not hang off the wing vertically. If you look at them from head-on, the outboard pylons have the bottom noticeably outboard of their top. And this is creating a big problem with the outboards, as the weapons do not simply "drop" off, the have to roll to the sides a bit. The outboard pylon is effectively useless---rarely carries much, and lots of the time I don't even see it attached. Not many weapons like being carried sideways AND rotated, and at the outboard position no less. They should just make it chaff/flare dispenser.

Another effect is that the pylons don't really "fit" on the wing anymore. They were designed to be mounted straight, flush with the wing. They changed the MOUNTS, but not the pylon. The rear mount is the same, but the forward mount was off-set. So there's pretty obvious gaps between the wing and pylons now, if you look. Because the bottom of the wing is curved, not straight, and the pylon's curve no longer matches the wing's curve. And you know what angled offset gaps lead to---more drag!

As for F-15E--I was talking agility, not speed. F-15's top speed is so utterly inachievable 99% of the time it's just plain pointless. I think F-14's can go faster most of the time, as they can actually go fast under most conditions, and they have a stronger windscreen.

Edited June 1, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Sundown]

As for F-15E--I was talking agility, not speed. F-15's top speed is so utterly inachievable 99% of the time it's just plain pointless. I think F-14's can go faster most of the time, as they can actually go fast under most conditions, and they have a stronger windscreen.

I think the E's bleed energy badly with high-alpha maneuvers, again, because of the conformals. You can point the noise pretty quickly, but you'll putzing along if you get too eager. The new engines likely help there though. At least that's what Janes F-15, and dissertations from Sean Long, Janes' Mudhen pilot consultant had drilled into me.

-Al

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

ah yes janes F-15. wonderful game till my pc crashed.

Anyways the mudhen is strictl;y an energy fighter. the CFTs should be compensatednby the increased thrust in the strike eagle over earlier eagles. It can be used as a turning fighter but its strength is in energy ie zoom and climb.,

[David Hingtgen]

Raw power generally counteracts energy bleed. The new engines on the later E's make all the difference in the world. (Though it's of course not used for agility, just makes it easier to carry more stuff further). 1/4 more thrust. Jane's models the early E's, which do suffer badly. Much like an F-16C Block 40---all the new gadgets and bombs and weight, but the same engine.

[ewilen]

Hum. Came across an interesting thread on the F-14 vs. F/A-18E/F debate. Comments about mid-page from people who've actually flown (Chunx) and/or maintained (CJ Martin) both aircraft:

http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bb...TML/000136.html

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

yes but those are only 2 people. I knew of them from way back when I used to cruise the NEX and BNN reading up on aircraft magazines and books(man college kills a lot of time). I have seen BBS on google and such were there are many many many peop[le in the tomcat community who do not believe what they say. From all accounts it woul seem St21 would have been much much easier to maintain compared to the older cats. So with that I cannot say I believe them. Yes they have time and were tomcat pilots as well and have flown both aircraft but there are others who have done the same and feel differently. To me it will always boil down to wondering why the navy settled for less when they could have gotten something much cheaper. remember the tomcat is a huge ass airframe so there was a lot of room to work with. The venture was a private one done by grumman NOT by the navy so I am sure there suggested and proported improvements were dead on and NOT politically influenced(in other words I tend to think grumman was being honest...and not to mention they have a LONG ASS hgistory of making fighter planes dating back to the hellcat).

BTW those 2 seem like staunch advocates for the superbug and one of them consulted Janes for the superbug sim. While they got credentials,. I can't help but feel they are biased towards the hornet like i am with the cat.

By all means I do not mind the super bug, I just HATE how its replacing the almighty tomcat. (and the fact that it just cant outdo it)

[ewilen]

Shin, you're dangerously close to arguing that if somone is in favor of the Super Hornet, that means ipso facto that the person's evidence and experience can be discounted. That's a circular argument.

I'm also amazed at the claims that have been aired about how great the ST21 "would have been" in terms of performance, maintainability, and economy. Of course any program looks great on paper when you can assume everything will go perfectly.

Anyway, to provide a partial window into the Navy's thought processes, here is a summary of how they settled on the Super Hornet (or at least how they claimed to have reached the decision):

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/920630-cr.htm

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

like i said im biased towards tomcat and dont mind the bug as long as it doesnt replace the tomcat...but it is.

e also have to take into account the many many tomcat community members who think highly of the tomcat and do not think it was the right decision to go with the superbug/

Edited June 2, 2004 by Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0

[Nied]

I only HOPE history does not repeat itself and we see a inevitable screw up where we realize we use the wrong plane and we underestimate threats. Remember in the 60s ACM was thought to be a threat of yesteryear. Bombers can always be a threat. Sure a 3rd world country wont go bankrupt buying bears and blackjacks but wqhos ton say they need to buy a lot, it only takes one bomber to take a fleet down.

Yes but it only takes one AMRAAM to take that bomber down.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

by the time the super bug gets to the bomber the bomber will have already launched the ASM.

[Nied]

On the Pylon issue:

It strikes me that the current pylon configuration is more of a quick-fix so that the Rhino could get into service while Boeing tries to come up with a more elegant solution, that they can retrofit in. I wouldn't be surprised if we see better pylons on the super bug in the next few years.

[Nied]

David where did you get the specs for the F119? I'm trying to find info on wither the F136 or F136 to see how they comapre to the F414. I really think that putting some good 30,000 to 40,000 lb thrust class engines would improve matters for the Super Bug quite a bit.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

I duno there is a size difference with the engines..perhaps the bug would need to be modified. NOnetheless the airframe just isnt made for high speed. At all views it screams drag. wings are kin of a fixed str8 wing.

[David Hingtgen]

I think I just googled "F119 dimensions".

BTW, the "real" thrust for the F119 is believed to be ~39,000lbs. "35,000lb thrust CLASS" is just their nice way of saying the real number is classified.

So we'll assume the F120 would be 40,000+, but at high altitudes would be vastly superior to the 119, whatever that may be. I really wonder how the 119 performs at high altitude. I really want its bypass ratio, compression ratio (by stage and overall) and exhaust flow speed and temp. Which are all probably still classified. Sea level static thrust numbers are pretty pointless, since planes are usually going high and moving fast.

Edited June 2, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Nied]

I think I just googled "F119 dimensions".

BTW, the "real" thrust for the F119 is believed to be ~39,000lbs. "35,000lb thrust CLASS" is just their nice way of saying the real number is classified.

So we'll assume the F120 would be 40,000+

The official specs for both the F135 and F136 say 40,000 lb class. WHich I've always assumed to be something below 45,000 lbs (quite nice if you jam two in Rhino).