Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 77

Thread: If you were in charge of the JSF/F-35 program what would you have done differently?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    2,042

    If you were in charge of the JSF/F-35 program what would you have done differently?

    Hindsight is a female puppy.

    Knowing what we know now, how would you ave run the JSF program differently?

    Continue exactly as what happened today?
    Minor changes?
    change everything?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,362
    Quote Originally Posted by Y-20 Bacon View Post
    Hindsight is a female puppy.

    Knowing what we know now, how would you ave run the JSF program differently?

    Continue exactly as what happened today?
    Minor changes?
    change everything?
    What do you mean hindsight? The evolution of the program was pretty obvious from the start.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,449
    -- No STOVL variant.
    -- F119 powerplant.
    -- Contracts designed to serve the taxpayer and the armed services, not LM shareholders.
    -- None of this "concurrency" rubbish.
    -- "Revolutionary software architecture" and associated fripperies like magic helmet deprecated to deliver operationally useful aircraft by 2010.
    -- Second-generation F-35 incorporating aforementioned fripperies targeted for 2020-2025.

    Bonus: F-22 remains in production because of savings generated through engine commonality.
    Last edited by Rii; 16th February 2017 at 07:25.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,111
    I think it would have made more sense, instead of building the F-22, the super hornet and the JSF, to build 2 variants of a single engine plane based on the lessons from the YF-22. They would have started working on a higher BP ratio F119 derivative from 1991.

    The USAF would have way more stealth planes now, maybe 500+ in service, and the USN maybe 400 or so.

    I think an updated harrier would have been enough, the USMC could have bought a mix of upgraded harrier and the naval stealth plane. The UK would have put catapults on the QE to operate the naval stealth plane.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,441
    --Don't make the same "oops, forgot to calculate the weight of empty space" error that LM did
    --Don't try to cram the 2k bomb into the F-35B (no need for SWAT)
    --Fund dev with more resources
    --Plan for more contingencies
    --Fire Gilmore
    --Fund original ramp-up schedule
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,111
    Crooked Gilmore LOL..

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,449
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    I think it would have made more sense, instead of building the F-22, the super hornet and the JSF, to build 2 variants of a single engine plane based on the lessons from the YF-22. They would have started working on a higher BP ratio F119 derivative from 1991.
    Why bother modifying the engine for a higher bypass ratio? Just use the F119 as-is, or with improvements that can be drop-fit to F-22.
    Last edited by Rii; 16th February 2017 at 09:05.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,043
    L.M has only 1 mission, making money, and i think it worked out well enough as is

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,111
    Quote Originally Posted by Rii View Post
    Why bother modifying the engine for a higher bypass ratio? Just use the F119 as-is, or with improvements that can be drop-fit to F-22.
    Because range would have been better with a higher BP ratio for the strike role. I was talking about cancelling the ATF in 1991, and building a single engine derivative right away. Specs would have been the ability to maintain mach 1.2 w/o AB, with 6 internal missiles if possible. HMS capable ASAP. A sort of single engine F-22.

    Point is, the F-22 was even TOO good for its time, and only 187 were built. But of course a lot of things were hard to predict 25 years ago!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,449
    But the objective is to produce an affordable multirole aircraft. There's always *something* you can do to increase capability, the question is if it's really necessary, if it's worth the cost, and if you can afford it. I would argue that the answer to those questions is "no".

    Similarly I wouldn't have bothered with a Harrier replacement. USMC doesn't need its own fixed air. As for the Europeans, they can look after themselves. America first!
    Last edited by Rii; 16th February 2017 at 09:34.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,043
    its not L.M job, mission, or authority to decide what USMC need

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,108
    Quote Originally Posted by Rii View Post
    -- No STOVL variant.
    -- F119 powerplant.
    -- Contracts designed to serve the taxpayer and the armed services, not LM shareholders.
    -- None of this "concurrency" rubbish.
    -- "Revolutionary software architecture" and associated fripperies like magic helmet deprecated to deliver operationally useful aircraft by 2010.
    -- Second-generation F-35 incorporating aforementioned fripperies targeted for 2020-2025.

    Bonus: F-22 remains in production because of savings generated through engine commonality.

    +1 (actually +more than 1)

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,111
    Quote Originally Posted by Rii View Post
    But the objective is to produce an affordable multirole aircraft. There's always *something* you can do to increase capability, the question is if it's really necessary, if it's worth the cost, and if you can afford it. I would argue that the answer to those questions is "no".
    If you're willing to build 2500+ fighters it's cost effective to build an engine that's adapted for it. In 1991 the F119 was still in dev, making a high BP derivative would have been very cost effective for such a large production.

    Similarly I wouldn't have bothered with a Harrier replacement. USMC doesn't need its own fixed air. As for the Europeans, they can look after themselves. America first!
    without STOVL planes the amphib carriers would have lost their strike capability. I think an upgraded harrier with an AESA compatible with the F-18C (many F-18Cs would have been upgraded too ) plus other improvements like towed decoys etc would have been enough without costing too much.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,742
    I am with Rii on this..

    - completely separate F-36 STOVL variant, only utilizing electronics and software from the F-35
    - F119 powerplant
    - lower weight, slimmer profile, no 2k lbs internal bomb requirement
    - no concurrency
    - operational F-35s in 2010, with limited sensor fusion, maybe APG-82 radar, EOTS/EODAS + helmet in later blocks
    - additional ~200-300 F-22s
    - hire more Gilmores

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
    Posts
    1,107
    maximum takeoff weight of 20,000 kg
    normal takeoff weight of 12,000 kg
    the maximum speed of Mach 2.0
    cruising speed of Mach 1.3

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	F-35_excellent.jpg 
Views:	83 
Size:	758.7 KB 
ID:	251393
    Last edited by paralay; 16th February 2017 at 10:50.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,111
    No radar?

    you need to be able to carry relatively large bombs.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,465
    Quote Originally Posted by Rii View Post
    -- No STOVL variant.
    -- F119 powerplant.
    -- Contracts designed to serve the taxpayer and the armed services, not LM shareholders.
    -- None of this "concurrency" rubbish.
    -- "Revolutionary software architecture" and associated fripperies like magic helmet deprecated to deliver operationally useful aircraft by 2010.
    -- Second-generation F-35 incorporating aforementioned fripperies targeted for 2020-2025.

    Bonus: F-22 remains in production because of savings generated through engine commonality.
    Almost the same just with the notation that the original design was the one of the F-35B and the"variant" is the F-35A.
    So the trap was that the combined order of USMC+RAF+AMI+RN+MMI were not at all sufficient for the development of such an advanced plane and so the USAF entered in it full force and with it, the most of the madnesses listed above.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,449
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    without STOVL planes the amphib carriers would have lost their strike capability. I think an upgraded harrier with an AESA compatible with the F-18C (many F-18Cs would have been upgraded too ) plus other improvements like towed decoys etc would have been enough without costing too much.
    I think the Marines having their own air force is a luxury the country can no longer afford. Instead of buying Harriers, F-35s, F/A-18s, they can buy stuff that is core to their mission like the AAAV and helicopters instead.

    My objective is to spend less on the military, while obtaining more capability in areas that need it, and the biggest savings are produced by eliminating stuff that isn't needed, and making affordability and value-for-money a top-line priority, not something added after the fact in search for "efficiencies" on gold-plated monstrosities. The latter gets you idiocy like a barely functional $7bn destroyer. The Super Hornet -- as one of the few clear success stories for the post-Cold War US military -- is of course the poster-child for my restrained model of thinking, and it should be noted it did not come "naturally" to the US military, but rather was imposed as a consequence of prior failures.
    Last edited by Rii; 16th February 2017 at 11:33.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
    Posts
    1,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    No radar?
    you need to be able to carry relatively large bombs.
    Radar Antennas on the left and right of the cockpit.
    fuselage volume does not allow to keep a bomb in the weapons bay. To increase the volume of the fuselage is required to increase the take-off weight.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	radar.JPG 
Views:	24 
Size:	36.1 KB 
ID:	251394

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,111
    Quote Originally Posted by paralay View Post
    Radar Antennas on the left and right of the cockpit.
    What's the size of your antennas? They look small.


    fuselage volume does not allow to keep a bomb in the weapons bay. To increase the volume of the fuselage is required to increase the take-off weight.
    I think I'd make a bomb with at least the equivalent of a mk-83 in terms of firepower. For instance with a more boxy shape than the Mk-80s series. The bomb could be 3.6m long to fit in a bay designed for an AMRAAM.

    The JSF has to be able to carry bombs with a relatively big firepower.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
    Posts
    1,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    What's the size of your antennas? They look small
    1000 mm x 450 mm


  22. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    2,042
    Quote Originally Posted by Rii View Post
    I think the Marines having their own air force is a luxury the country can no longer afford. Instead of buying Harriers, F-35s, F/A-18s, they can buy stuff that is core to their mission like the AAAV and helicopters instead.
    Were the Harriers ever really useful for the other operators: Spain, Italy, Thailand, India?
    India didn't seem to use their sea harriers in any big operation (correct me on this) eventually went back to normal jets, albeit stobar
    UK had a lot of use in Falklands of course, but if there were no harriers, I reckon they'd still keep the Ark Royal and used F-4s and Buccs against Argentina.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
    Posts
    1,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    I think I'd make a bomb with at least the equivalent of a mk-83 in terms of firepower. For instance with a more boxy shape than the Mk-80s series. The bomb could be 3.6m long to fit in a bay designed for an AMRAAM.
    F119 15876 kgs / 11825 kgs

    thrust-to-weight: F-22 1.23, F-35 1.07
    15876 kgs : 1.25 = 12700 kg - take-off weight norm.

    12700 kg * 1.3 = 16700 kg - take-off weight max.

    assembly density, maximum take-off weight F-22 519 kg / m3
    volume 16700 kg : 519 kg/m3 = 32.3 m3
    relative volume of a compartment of the weapon F-22 10.3%
    volume of a compartment of the weapon 32.3 m3 * 10.3% : 100 = 3.33 m3 (F-22 - 6.73 m3)

    3.33 m3 : 4 = 0.83 m3 or 0.2 m2 * 4.16 m - one weapon bay
    Last edited by paralay; 16th February 2017 at 12:57.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    2,042
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    I am with Rii on this..

    - completely separate F-36 STOVL variant, only utilizing electronics and software from the F-35
    - F119 powerplant
    - lower weight, slimmer profile, no 2k lbs internal bomb requirement
    - no concurrency
    - operational F-35s in 2010, with limited sensor fusion, maybe APG-82 radar, EOTS/EODAS + helmet in later blocks
    - additional ~200-300 F-22s
    - hire more Gilmores

    hmm I like Rii's idea too. this makes 4 people.
    Ditch the STVOL F-35. Maybe the resulting aircraft would look like a single engined F-22 or the FC-31
    although not sure if making another stvol aircraft is necessary (its relevancy, etc).

    F-36. you mean based on the x-36?

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,742
    No, it's simply continuation of the designation. Not based on the X-36..

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,043
    - lower weight, slimmer profile, no 2k lbs internal bomb requirement
    i dont think you would disqualify L.M from JSF if you were actually paid by L.M

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,928
    1/ fixed price contract (you announce a price, you do it - if you can't -> penalties)

    2/ no concurrency, LM (or any other contractor) would have to provide a working fighter for given missions


    that alone should have saved lots of time and money

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,111
    Quote Originally Posted by paralay View Post
    1000 mm x 450 mm

    You're sure these bumps on the side would be aerodynamic?

    On your drawing there doesn't seem to be enough space between the top of the intake and the bottom of the canope for a 40cm antenna.

    It could be a good idea is the drag doesn't go through the roof.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,465
    Quote Originally Posted by Y-20 Bacon View Post
    Were the Harriers ever really useful for the other operators: Spain, Italy, Thailand, India?
    India didn't seem to use their sea harriers in any big operation (correct me on this) eventually went back to normal jets, albeit stobar
    UK had a lot of use in Falklands of course, but if there were no harriers, I reckon they'd still keep the Ark Royal and used F-4s and Buccs against Argentina.
    We used our owns a lot in Lybia.
    In any case: without them no Carriers (Garibaldi and Cavour), without the Carrier no place to base our Heavy AWS helo assets (we had Vittorio Veneto and Doria class cruiser before) and without them, no Marte missiles, no way to use our Marò in heli assaults, no AEW etc,etc...

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
    Posts
    1,107
    I painted Russian light fighter with a big cruise missile. Therefore, it was forced to move forward, "the nose landing gear" and the pilot cabin. To the length of the aircraft has not increased, he pushed back the radar.
    American aircraft can be done on the classical scheme, with radar in the nose.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	LMFS.JPG 
Views:	36 
Size:	134.6 KB 
ID:	251395

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES