If all the "haters" get their way and the Marine Corps is forced to do without the F-35B then what way to go? Its quite simple...the F-32B!
Its been done before with the YF-17...
Boeing still has the molds to the airplane...
And perhaps most importantly, its not the airplane that the Marine Corps is wedded to but its capability, namely STOVL.
But I'm being academic...the F-35 is safe but its a fun glance at a crazy what if.
I agree the F-35B is safe, unfortunately I think practically every other modernization project for the Marines will be sacrificed to save the F-35B - EFV being a prime example. If forced to choose I'd probably make the same decision.
ReplyDeleteI've forgotten the specifics, but there was a serious flaw in the YF-32 design, which is why it was later changed into a more conventional wing-hor. stabilizer design. It may not be so easy to just restart that production.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of which, it's too bad that it wasn't transformed into a STOVL UCAS testbed. Can you imagine a bunch of MQ/F-32 STOVL UCAS aboard an LHA?
On side note, the X-32 must be one of the ugliest designs, EVER. If it was adopted for the JSF program, I wonder if I'd still be such a supporter!
the only issue i know of had to deal with the air intake.
ReplyDeletethey re-designed it, but from what i understand the reason why it lost had to do with its looks and with the caution that Boeing took concerning its flight testing. Lockheed was much more aggressive and it paid off.
but on a side note, it was stated that the Boeing design was the less risky of the two.
The X-32 was only 'lower-risk' until the design had to move off the CAD screen and into reality. Once the X-32 design floundered (weight/thrust/lift, controlability, producability) and the X-35 design didn't (especially the lift fan approach) the JSF was going to be the F-35. That LockMart went beyond the demo program objectives just iced the cake.
ReplyDeleteThe YF-16/YF-17 flyoff was a different story. Both designs were excellent in their own way but the GD design had lower acquisition and support costs. Since the competition was to field a lightweight fighter to complement the F-15, the F-16 won on the merit of being a more 'low' design to fit into the AF's 'high-low' fighter mix approach.
Boeing needed to go down to sea level and leave parts on the ground just to do a vertical landing because it lacked power.
ReplyDelete-sferrin
Is that the same reason the YF16 beat out the YF20 as well? Because the YF20 in my opinion was a better bet on paper. I believe that it mostly comes down to which company fields the best lobbyist.
ReplyDeletewait i'm missing something here. i thought both planes used the same engine!
ReplyDeletedon't get me wrong, i'm a BIG booster of the F-35, but on paper the '32 seemed to have a number of advantages...weight should not have been an issue and its range should have been superior due to the wing configuration.
The X-32 and X-35 used engines both derived from the F119 but they were radically different from each other. Keep in mind all lift thrust from the X-32's engine had to come from *dry* power. Consider that and the effect it would have on vertical lift performance. Even though it's engine produced 34,000lbs of thrust *dry* and over 51,000lbs in full afterburner that was still only 34k available for vertical lift compared to the 40k+ for the X-35, and the X-35 didn't have to run it's engine as hard doing it.
ReplyDelete-sferrin
The limitation of a 'Harrier-type' propulsion scheme is that you can push hot air out the engine only so fast, whether you are going forward or up. The F-35 approach essentially taps some shaft HP off the engine and passes it via the drive shaft to the lift fan to push cold air downward for lift. Cold air is denser than hot air, therefore at any given velocity will produce much more thrust than hot air. For a relatively small penalty in thrust out the back, the F-35 uses the same power to produce many times more thrust from driving the lift fan. The approach reduces hot-gas ingestion and extends engine life.
ReplyDeleteFrom AIAA paper "The Genesis of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter" by Paul Bevilaqua:
This first-order analysis suggested that it might be possible to almost double the thrust of an existing F-119 engine with a dualcycle shaft-driven lift fan the same diameter as the engine. Such a variable-cycle propulsion system would provide high levels of thrust augmentation in the STOVL mode, with a cool low-pressure footprint, ample control power, and minimal effect on the design of the airframe. By placing the lift fan in line with the cruise engine, the bypass ratio would be increased without increasing the engine diameter. And because the cruise engine can be optimized for
conventional flight, its performance is not penalized for its STOVL capability.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRE: F-16 vs F-20
ReplyDeleteThe F-20 was designed to be an export fighter as a replacement for F-5 users. Its main shortcoming was it was TOO capable in the minds of those who would determine where it could be exported.
This was more a case of the F-16 was already a bird in hand for the AF, and most foreign users were looking for commonality with the US to keep their life cycle costs down, and improve interoperability. The few candidates that might of bought the F-20 either couldn't (Taiwan, courtesy of 'Jimmah' Carter, was best known) or didn't (as in Switzerland, who went with the F/A-18).
ok, i can't let that one go.
ReplyDeletehow was the F-20 more capable than the F-16? to be honest they seem comparable but the F-20 hardly seems superior.
RE:'F-20 more capable than the F-16'
ReplyDeleteI'm assuming you're referring to Anonymous's first comment? Or did I not make myself clear on my F-20 'TOO capable' point? If the latter, I was referring to the same countries that the US was more than comfortble selling an F-5 to were, for the most part, not going to be let buy an F-20 because it was too close to F-16 in capability. Some (like General Dynamics) were concerned it would siphon off some F-16 customers because it was cheaper and 'good enough' for their purposes.
It'd be cheaper to get bigger gators than a new stovl program.
ReplyDeleteMV-22 for CAS.
just say no to drugs
ReplyDelete