Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 77

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

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,055
    Quote Originally Posted by paralay View Post
    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.
    Don't tell me you're trying to mount that missile on that plane lol!

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Stockholm / Istanbul
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by Rii View Post
    ...
    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!
    This statement clearly shows your depth and knowledge about strategy and tactics, or even how strategical political alliances affect the world.
    Latencia Profecionalis

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,441
    You mean that the international aspects of the JSF program were designed to strip the last remnants of self-sufficiency from European and other allied nations to ensure their ongoing fealty to Washington? Yeah, we already knew that.
    Last edited by Rii; 16th February 2017 at 16:41.
    Brief and powerless is Man's life; on him and all his race the slow sure doom falls pitiless and dark.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
    Posts
    1,090
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    Don't tell me you're trying to mount that missile on that plane lol!
    It's okay!
    With such a missile can fly and fly. But it is impossible to sit down, that's the problem

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    73
    Kill it from the get go. have a program for the Air Force for a F-24, for the Navy a F-25 and an F/V-26 for the Marines/RN.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Stockholm / Istanbul
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by Y-20 Bacon View Post
    ...
    Knowing what we know now, how would you ave run the JSF program differently?
    ...
    USAF was trying to do what USN did with the F-4 during the 60's; Force the other to use their plane. Then some pencil pushers thought they were smart and tried to make it better with **** ideas like "concurrency". USN never really wanted the F-35. They have been fighting it al along, in their own internal pentagon way. Pushing back the acquisition etc to a point where ppl are now asking wouldn't it be better to give our C's to the marines who already are using the B's and make new plane just for us.. anyway getting off-topic.

    IMHO cramming so many different missions into a single air frame is really shooting yourself in the foot. The F-35 suffers from STOVL imposed limitations. A and B versions have the least number of differentiating requirements so they naturally look alike. If anything should be joint it should only be the subsystems like radar, radios, mission computer, electronic warfare systems etc. Distinctly different missions should get distinctly different platforms. Perhaps the C would have an empanage like the F-18.

    \\Dan
    Latencia Profecionalis

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,055
    Quote Originally Posted by paralay View Post
    It's okay!
    With such a missile can fly and fly. But it is impossible to sit down, that's the problem
    Even if you can take off and land your hardpoint would have to be incredibly strong. Or you would have to find a different way of attaching it, like using several hardpoints along the fuselage. I don't know if anyone has ever tried something like that.

    Try to make something flat...

    Anyways let's not divert this topic!
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by Hotshot; 16th February 2017 at 17:14.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Stockholm / Istanbul
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by Rii View Post
    You mean that the international aspects of the JSF program were designed to strip the last remnants of self-sufficiency from European and other allied nations to ensure their ongoing fealty to Washington? Yeah, we already knew that.
    Do you really believe the US was NOT calling the shots? The whole tier level partnering thing sounds as plausible as concurrency!

    \\Dan
    Latencia Profecionalis

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,358
    Drop the STVOL variant. The end.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Stockholm / Istanbul
    Posts
    196
    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.

    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.
    So you are against organic airpower for the marines? How about USN CV? Ask any marine pilot and he will say that he fights for his fellow marines on the ground. how is it luxury? Air power, in this perticual case USMC aviation is an enabler. If they didn't have it USN or USAF would be forced to do the same thing or they would not do any amphib landings at all. Same money from the same pocket going to the (almost) same people. Other countries would also get marine air if they had the money for it. ie UK with so called "tailored" airgoups. Well they used to anyway, but getting it back soon. Still even now with the whole sequestration mess USA still has so much more money to spend on their armed forces.

    But I agree with you on some stuff like dropping the STOVL requirement. But getting the F-119 would rock the boat for the holy F-22, which ironicaly didn't make it anyway.

    \\Dan
    Latencia Profecionalis

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    73
    If that's the case why can't the Army have combat jets?

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,326
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Z1pp0 View Post
    Ask any marine pilot and he will say that he fights for his fellow marines on the ground. how is it luxury? Air power, in this perticual case USMC aviation is an enabler. If they didn't have it USN or USAF would be forced to do the same thing or they would not do any amphib landings at all.
    CAS and amphib landings on a place that needs a STVOL Supersonic Stealth Strike Fighter?
    Hmmmmmmmmmmm...
    The Marine requirements through the STVOL and the external dimensions (AKA "Lusty Elevators" albeit "Lusty" being a RN ship) imposed on the airframe had quite a massive impact on the program. Its my personal opinion (disputable) that had the entire Marine and RN requirements been droped ("Get C´s and use choppers") from the beggining and the program would have been quite a loot faster and quite a bit cheaper.

    Cheers
    Last edited by Sintra; 16th February 2017 at 18:23.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,326
    LM & the JPO disagree that the B had a large impact on the airframe design.

    The largest single impact was the USAF requirement for a single engine.

    Second was a 2k bomb bay imposed by the USN.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    943
    Assuming that my hindsight genuinely was 20/20


    Common electronics in separate airframes

    Firm price contracts

    Not try to rationalise competing companies down and reduce future competition

    Have prototypes and sort the issues out in them before trying to manufacture in quantity

    Have some kind of conflict of interest laws and regulations (poor decisions do not need to be due to deliberate corruption and neither is inadvertant bias limited to the US procurement process)

    Number the airframes properly (F24, F25, F26)

    Spend money on long and slim munitions rather than on fitting short and fat bays on the new designs
    Last edited by Al.; 16th February 2017 at 20:20.
    Rule zero: don't be on fire

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    780
    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?
    . Would have at least made 2 different jets for the designation. Maybe 3. Give one designation to Boeing. The UK commissioned 3 brands of bombers FFS. So its not like it would be unprecedented.

    This alone would have made each jet better for its respective service.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    780
    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.
    f 22 was a "spread the wealth" disaster show too.

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    780
    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.

    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.
    Even a new jet which was based on the carrier design would have been good.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,055
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post

    Spend money on long and slim munitions rather than on fitting short and fat bays on the new designs
    i'm with you on this one, its going to make it easier for future designs to achieve performance parameters
    while at the same time being able to carry the load, i.e better fineness ratio
    the missile will require about five times the G capability of the target to complete a successful intercept.
    -Robert L Shaw

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    780
    Everyone just blurts out "make more Raptors".

    The Raptor was discontinued for a reason. It was a flawed procurement process. It was too expensive to build. The program had to end for that reason. They always say that it was because there were no Soviets anymore. But that's not the main reason. The jet was fundamentally too expensive to build.

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    156
    Hmm, some of these go beyond the realm of the JSF but I'll give it a shot.

    - No carrier variant, the Navy needs their own program for a new fighter entering service by 2020 or sooner

    - McDonnell Douglas' proposal is selected over Boeing's for further development (although this may be cheating since we all know the future of Boeing's design)

    - Requirement for Mach 1.8 top speed, target of Mach 2.0

    - Requirement for Mach 1.1 cruise speed, target Mach 1.2 or greater

    - Target weights of 26,000 lbs empty for CTOL and 28,500 lbs empty for STOVL

    - No cutting features related to damage survivability

    - Requirement to carry six air-to-air missiles internally

    - If possible more ammo for internal gun on CTOL variant and for the STOVL variant's gun pod

    - Stress the need to continue F-22 production and the fact that the two aircraft complement each other


    I'd love to speed up the whole development and flight testing process but have no clear ideas on how to do this. I'd also keep the large amount of concurrency in order to speed up actually fielding the aircraft.
    Last edited by F/A-XX; 17th February 2017 at 02:04.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,967
    Quote Originally Posted by F/A-XX View Post
    Hmm, some of these go beyond the realm of the JSF but I'll give it a shot.
    [COLOR="#0000CD"]
    - No carrier variant, the Navy needs their own program for a new fighter entering service by 2020 or sooner

    - McDonnell Douglas' proposal is selected over Boeing's for further development (although this may be cheating since we all know the future of Boeing's design)
    McDs for the Navy or USAF/USMC?



    at this rate the USMC version might as well be completely different from the USAF version too.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,358
    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    LM & the JPO disagree that the B had a large impact on the airframe design.

    The largest single impact was the USAF requirement for a single engine.

    Second was a 2k bomb bay imposed by the USN.
    Strange, i have declarations of two ex former JPO bosses and from a certain chap called Tom Burbage stating what i've wrote.
    Last edited by Sintra; 17th February 2017 at 16:11.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
    Posts
    1,090
    Correct errors and add table

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	us_air?raft.JPG 
Views:	30 
Size:	122.6 KB 
ID:	251409

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,013
    Quote Originally Posted by KGB View Post
    Everyone just blurts out "make more Raptors".

    The Raptor was discontinued for a reason. It was a flawed procurement process. It was too expensive to build. The program had to end for that reason. They always say that it was because there were no Soviets anymore. But that's not the main reason. The jet was fundamentally too expensive to build.
    er, nobody says that, actually.. the only thing related to raptor is "use the few parts that you can, as their development is already paid for.." and that's about it

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Cantabrigia
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by paralay View Post
    Radar Antennas on the left and right of the cockpit.
    Attachment 251394
    The problem with your proposed AESA antenna location is that the arrays are pointing about 55-60 degrees from the aircraft centreline. The performance of an AESA array is degraded at large angles from its nominal centreline – a 30 degree angle gives a 15 per cent reduction in performance. So you would be paying a significant penalty in the forward sector.
    Mercurius Cantabrigiensis

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,229
    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f View Post
    er, nobody says that, actually.. the only thing related to raptor is "use the few parts that you can, as their development is already paid for.." and that's about it
    Please...... His entire premise is wrong from the start. The F-22 may have issues with software upgrades, premature fatigue stress on tails, and inlet ramp damage, but people seem to forget that early blocks weren't even supposed to be serving as combat coded aircraft in 2017. The commonly repeated myth that F-22 production was discontinued due to: "design faults", "too expensive" are repeated on this forum often without any supporting documentation or reports. The last proposed production block had a procurement cost below 150 million in TY$.

    Those comments just don't correspond with the actual reasons stated by Gates, JCS, or Congress. The F-22 was cut, quite simply because Gates prioritized weapons that could be used in Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress and the President sustained him. Gates stated that 187 F-22's would suffice to meet any threat then foreseen (and history has shown his foresight to be flawed).
    Last edited by FBW; 17th February 2017 at 13:07.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,358
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    Please...... His entire premise is wrong from the start. The F-22 may have issues with software upgrades, premature fatigue stress on tails, and inlet ramp damage, but people seem to forget that early blocks weren't even supposed to be serving as combat coded aircraft in 2017. The commonly repeated myth that F-22 production was discontinued due to: "design faults", "too expensive" are repeated on this forum often without any supporting documentation or reports. The last proposed production block had a procurement cost below 150 million in TY$.

    Those comments just don't correspond with the actual reasons stated by Gates, JCS, or Congress. The F-22 was cut, quite simply because Gates prioritized weapons that could be used in Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress and the President sustained him. Gates stated that 187 F-22's would suffice to meet any threat then foreseen (and history has shown his foresight to be flawed).
    Entirely correct.

    ps - The "Fly Away Unit Cost" (the recurring one) for FY 2006 was 135.322 million US$, had the USAF maintained the Raptor acquisition for, lets say, a decade...

    Cheers

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    780
    Quote Originally Posted by Y-20 Bacon View Post
    McDs for the Navy or USAF/USMC?



    at this rate the USMC version might as well be completely different from the USAF version too.
    Still looks fat with small wings as Pierre Sprey would say

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    780
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    Please...... His entire premise is wrong from the start. The F-22 may have issues with software upgrades, premature fatigue stress on tails, and inlet ramp damage, but people seem to forget that early blocks weren't even supposed to be serving as combat coded aircraft in 2017. The commonly repeated myth that F-22 production was discontinued due to: "design faults", "too expensive" are repeated on this forum often without any supporting documentation or reports. The last proposed production block had a procurement cost below 150 million in TY$.

    Those comments just don't correspond with the actual reasons stated by Gates, JCS, or Congress. The F-22 was cut, quite simply because Gates prioritized weapons that could be used in Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress and the President sustained him. Gates stated that 187 F-22's would suffice to meet any threat then foreseen (and history has shown his foresight to be flawed).
    Agree to disagree then.

    I think the reason that Gates gave is the BS answer and the expense of the aircraft is the truth. You think the exact opposite.

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