Dogfight : F35 vs F16

[Vraciu]

Thats the drawback of designing a carrier to fit a plane instead of the opposite.
But the 'B' should of course have been scrapped already back at the drawing board, now its way too late. the money have already been spent.

Absolutely right.

The B has ruined any hope for the other two versions thanks to the Marine obsession with VTOL, something totally impractical in the guise of the Just So Failed.

[Zimme83]

The area rule is less important on modern fighters, it reduces drag but modern fighter jets have plenty of Engine Power and can plow though the sound barrier anyway. It were different with much less powerful jets in the 50:s and 60:s

[Vraciu]

The area rule is less important on modern fighters, it reduces drag but modern fighter jets have plenty of Engine Power and can plow though the sound barrier anyway. It were different with much less powerful jets in the 50:s and 60:s

The Joint Strike Failure is underpowered.  It also has an engine that cannot grow. Thus, the wide, flat, brick-shaped frontal area destroys the airplane.   All due to the lift-fan of the B.

[Vraciu]

 

A more realistic unit price for a F/A-18E is $90 million. After the F-35 is in full production the unit price for the aircraft is expected to fall to about $85 million. Add the engine, by then also in full production and we're looking at a $95 million jet, which is more like $80-85 million in current value if we include inflation by then.

Except the Super actually works.

The engine is $30M on the T/A-35.   I can buy three F-16Cs for that and get more value.

Also, please stop with the unit cost per block meme.  This airplane was promised to be the same price to acquire and operate as an F-16C.   Not happening.   You can lower the unit price for Block 55 to a dollar and you still have a $100M per jet boondoggle.

The total program cost is over a trillion dollars.  Cut that in half and you still have a $200M airplane that doesn't work and never will.   Ever.

NEVER.

Bookmark it.  I told you so.  This airplane will never work.  Ever ever ever never never.  It is not an F-22 and never will be. 

[nrshida]

It is blocky and draggy.   The lift fan of the B takes up space for weapons and increases frontal area,

For a single-engined stealth aircraft you are sort of constrained to this kind of frontal profile. I think it has less to do with the lift fan and more to do with concealing the engine face from radar. Making a sort of double C-shaped inlet tract (viewed from above), in combination with the need for an internal weapons bay results in one of those naturally emergent solutions in design.

Air does counter-intuitive things at speed. You have to be careful with the old 'looks right' paradigm. It's still valid but you have to tune your eye in to unexpected things. So blocky might not directly translate to draggy. I don't know if that data is available. I suspect not.

[Vraciu]

For a single-engined stealth aircraft you are sort of constrained to this kind of frontal profile. I think it has less to do with the lift fan and more to do with concealing the engine face from radar. Making a sort of double C-shaped inlet tract (viewed from above), in combination with the need for an internal weapons bay results in one of those naturally emergent solutions in design.

Air does counter-intuitive things at speed. You have to be careful with the old 'looks right' paradigm. It's still valid but you have to tune your eye in to unexpected things. So blocky might not directly translate to draggy. I don't know if that data is available. I suspect not.

Compare it to the F-22.  The JSF, if it is to remain blocky any way, would at least have more payload capacity without the fan.    The bay's would also be better designed. 

I contend that the airplane would be less draggy by a fair margin without the compromises brought on by the B's requirements.  A foot here a foot there--it all matters.

 

[nrshida]

Compare it to the F-22.  The JSF, if it is to remain blocky any way, would at least have more payload capacity without the fan.    The bay's would also be better designed. 

I contend that the airplane would be less draggy by a fair margin without the compromises brought on by the B's requirements.  A foot here a foot there--it all matters.

 

F-22 is twin-engined. That's a whole different kettle of fish. Again, look at the intake designs.

Drag and size aren't as well coupled as it was once thought. That's a bit old-fashioned thinking. There are CofG issues too as well as minimum lengths of weapons. Removing the fan won't alter those constraints.

[Vraciu]

F-22 is twin-engined. That's a whole different kettle of fish. Again, look at the intake designs.

Drag and size aren't as well coupled as it was once thought. That's a bit old-fashioned thinking. There are CofG issues too as well as minimum lengths of weapons. Removing the fan won't alter those constraints.

I am well aware of how aerodynamics works.  That said, when the Lockheed Program Manager for the airplane says it is draggier than it would otherwise have been I tend to think he is right.

Yes, the F-22 is a twin.  That's the point.  The JSF is a fat, wide brick because of the lift fan.   It is as big as a twin but has only one over stressed, underpowered motor. As a consequence it has horrible acceleration, no supercruise, and is "thermally challenged".

The weapons bays are sub-optimal as well, again due to the lift fan.

The lift fan compromises the overall design for no purpose other than a paltry 20% commonality.

 

[nrshida]

I am well aware of how aerodynamics works.

Yes, the F-22 is a twin.  That's the point.  The JSF is a fat, wide brick because of the lift fan.   It is as big as a twin but has only one over stressed, underpowered motor. As a consequence it has horrible acceleration, no supercruise, and is "thermally challenged".

The weapons bays are sub-optimal as well, again due to the lift fan.

The lift fan compromises the overall design for no purpose other than a paltry 20% commonality.

I agree on the point that something like 20% commonality is way too low and I myself would not have employed a lift fan to address this design brief. It's low enough to consider a separate aircraft might in retrospect have been a better idea, although I think such a programme would never have been approved in this time.

With the centreline occupied with engine, right through the CofG, you are either left with 'pannier' weapons bays which mean width or an underslung weapons bay which means comparable extra depth which compromises stealth. I don't agree the width is implicitly due to the lift-fan. I think it's the intake design issues and the other constraints mentioned which further include the need to compromise design choices to accomodate separate military branches and the business model too. Topics which are arguably more unsolvable than some of the design issues. 

[Vraciu]

I agree on the point that something like 20% commonality is way too low and I myself would not have employed a lift fan to address this design brief. It's low enough to consider a separate aircraft might in retrospect have been a better idea, although I think such a programme would never have been approved in this time.

With the centreline occupied with engine, right through the CofG, you are either left with 'pannier' weapons bays which mean width or an underslung weapons bay which means comparable extra depth which compromises stealth. I don't agree the width is implicitly due to the lift-fan. I think it's the intake design issues and the other constraints mentioned which further include the need to compromise design choices to accomodate separate military branches and the business model too. Topics which are arguably more unsolvable than some of the design issues. 

Well,  Burbage and Sprey say it is the fault of the lift fan.  To my eye that appears correct. 

Separate designs would have been better.  Totally agree on that point.  Trying to shoehorn three completely different requirements into one airplane has messed it up.   The delays this has caused--not to mention built-in performance compromises--mean the airplane will be obsolete before it even enters service.   

[nrshida]

Well,  Burbage and Sprey say it is the fault of the lift fan.  To my eye that appears correct. 

Sprey's a bit shifty brah, you should research him. He's said some proper crazy stuff.

Separate designs would have been better.  Totally agree on that point.  Trying to shoehorn three completely different requirements into one airplane has messed it up.   The delays this has caused--not to mention built-in performance compromises--mean the airplane will be obsolete before it even enters service.

I think it can be done from the design perspective without weight or range penalty but the Airforce would have to accept something they don't care about: VSTOL but they'd just have to shut it. If you look at what's happened the businessmen wanted one product to sell both domestically and internationally and the three branches their own design and the F-35 series is somewhere in the middle of that elastic tug of war. Not so Joint, but much more Joint than anything before.

The hardest and most restrictive design is the Harrier replacement. Solving that might have to opportunity to do away with the catapult systems too. I think stealth and supersonic and VSTOL  can be resolved in one design but this was a half-arsed way to achieve that at the fundamental design level.

[Vraciu]

Sprey's a bit shifty brah, you should research him. He's said some proper crazy stuff.

I still love the guy.  And he is pretty savvy when it comes to these things. 

I think it can be done from the design perspective without weight or range penalty but the Airforce would have to accept something they don't care about: VSTOL but they'd just have to shut it. If you look at what's happened the businessmen wanted one product to sell both domestically and internationally and the three branches their own design and the F-35 series is somewhere in the middle of that elastic tug of war. Not so Joint, but much more Joint than anything before.

The hardest and most restrictive design is the Harrier replacement. Solving that might have to opportunity to do away with the catapult systems too. I think stealth and supersonic and VSTOL  can be resolved in one design but this was a half-arsed way to achieve that at the fundamental design level.

You will always have compromises when you go for VSTOL.   It's the nature of the beast. 

I agree this was an awkward way to do it.   Just like the Forger was compromised, so is this.   The Super Harrier concept would have been better than the Just So Failed.

[Vraciu]

See Rule #14

[Vraciu]

It's irrelevant whats stands in the contracts, whats matter when talking about cost of an Aircraft is how much its actually cost. No one cares what a F-35 cost without an Engine since you kind of need the Engine.

Exactly. 

"This plane costs $85M." (Nevermind that this is a complete lie by any metric.)

"Where's the engine?"

"Oh, that's a $30M option.  It comes with a free bottle of ketchup and a nice set of spoons."

 

[Vraciu]

A friend of mine who is a high hour Hornet pilot and CO of the RCAF test establishment told me that the SuperHornets the new Canadian gov is looking at buying as an interim solution, from 24 to 36 of them, are slated to cost nearly 90$mil USD, just for the flyaway aircraft, not counting any stores, future maintaining, etc, just the fighters complete.  Doesn't seem much cheaper than the F35A at this point, comes down to maintenance cost and other future costs maybe, since commonality is a BS excuse, as our legacy Hornets are about 80% or higher dissimilar when it comes to parts than the SuperHornet, although they are similar to train our pilots on, so training costs wouldn't change or go up much.  I like the SH for Canada until the F35 matures, if it turns out to be fantastic in 5 years, we can buy some then, for now our Legacy Hornets are timed right out, done, and a few squads of SuperHornets beasts nothing, it's what Australia did. 

And, if by some miracle they restart the F22 line, Japan has recently said it would move heaven and earth to get some, and Canada would be better served by that aircraft than the F35 due to 2 motors, longer range (it's big up here, and sparse so far as runways go).

The T/A-35 will cost well more than double that and bring less to the fight than the Super.