It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. Air Force Said Poised to Award Bomber Contract Tuesday

page: 10
7
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain

Neither would your B-1Rs. They'd take just as long and the new bomber to be ready for combat.




posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: C0bzz
a reply to: mbkennel


I can't exactly blame the foreign operators. Other than UK who needed the B to replace harriers

Italy will also operate the F-35B.


I can't exactly blame the foreign operators. Other than UK who needed the B to replace harriers, everybody else wanted an updated Viper for good air defense and some interdiction capability.

Do you have any evidence that this is the case at all?

The Canadian decision was by politics, my understanding was the RCAF preferred the F-35. In Australia the RAAF sticks with the F-35 claiming that it is the only aircraft that meets requirements, and in fact in many cases it leads the doctrine of the ADF.


If a stealthy F-16 replacement were available, they'd take that. When millions of people buy a Civic it's likely they want a better Civic, not something very different.



The real problem with the F-35 is it is innately extremely complex. An extreme amount of technology is integrated together very tightly, across 3 different variants. If a part is redesigned that means regression testing must occur, across all variants to differing requirements. And often a redesigned part will require other parts to be redesigned as well. You get the picture.


It should have been at least 2 different aircraft, maybe 3, sharing software, electronics and materials development.

And putting the lift fan where it is, makes for a non-optimal shape compromising A and C. F-22 also has internal stores and it's fine.



That's not necessarily the fault of Lockheed, although perhaps they screwed up as well. That's the fault of the US Government for creating the JSF program that way. They seem to be stressing affordability for LRS-B and risk mitigation, so clearly they've learned from JSF.


Indeed. I think it was created that way so that it was politically uncuttable, not because it was the right approach. It seemed like it would be cheaper that way but that doesn't work out so well.

A lightweight A version for Airforce (Viper replacement), at last a Harrier replacement, and a much bigger long range F-14 like interceptor for Navy which is what they really need in Pacific.


edit on 29-10-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   
I know this thread isnt about UFOs but this is interesting if true.


A weird ‘metal butterfly’ which buzzed a father and son as they left a restaurant in Ohio this week is among the clearest UFO pictures ever taken.

But some UFO fans say it’s a fake - possibly created using CGI software.

Local men Tom and Christopher claim that the weird, butterfly-like craft buzzed them - then they saw two black, military helicopters following it.









posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Nice new avatar Zaphod



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

"and a much bigger long range F-14 like interceptor for Navy which is what they really need in Pacific."

This is why I feel like the F-XX procurement will be run like the ATF, but in reverse, with the naval variant driving the list of requirements and then being adapted to the USAF's needs.

Given how the LRS-B shook out (and in the same week when China asserted it's Pacific aspirations), I also see the F-XX competition pushed way forwards to both placate Boeing/Lockheed as well as to give the USN the air-dominance fighter that they so dearly need.

I bet they aim for an IOC around 2026-8



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

F-XX is the AF competition. The F/A-XX is the Navy.



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel


If a stealthy F-16 replacement were available, they'd take that. When millions of people buy a Civic it's likely they want a better Civic, not something very different.

I'll take that as a no.

My reply to this would be what I've already written so I won't take this any further.


F-22 also has internal stores and it's fine.

F-35 weighs 29,098 lb empty and has an internal fuel capacity of 18,498 lb, standard loadout is 2x2000 lb munitions plus two AMRAAM. If I could summarize the F-35 in a few words, the first word would probably be "fuel".

F-22 weighs 43,340 lb empty and has a internal fuel capacity of 18,000 lb, standard loadout is 6 AMRAAM, 3 Sidewinder.

F-22 is also significantly more expensive and uses two engines instead of one (therefore significantly more expensive to operate). This is why the F-35 uses a single engine.

So stating the F-22 is "fine" isn't really true. For an aircraft its size and weight the F-22 doesn't really carry a lot of fuel and it's expensive. A "stealthy F-16" would carry an abysmal amount of fuel and would have to rely on external fuel tanks - therefore not being stealthy. That, and as an aircraft is shrunk down the weapons end up being a larger fraction of the weight (i.e. Gripen vs F-35 with same loadout).
edit on 30/10/15 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 06:37 AM
link   
a reply to: C0bzz

I had some more thoughts about this. Perhaps if the internal weapons load was shrunk and the range requirement was decreased, the F-35 would make less of an attack aircraft and more of a point defence fighter - like the F-16 for example. Perhaps some of the sensor requirements could have been reduced as well.

However to a large extent these would make the aircraft less useful in "real world" missions and more dependent on tanker support and external fuel tanks - increasing support cost and reducing stealth for many missions. So I'm not sure that would be worth it. It's also worth noting that the F-35 is mainly built to US requirements, given they are paying for the vast majority of the development, I don't think we really can complain that it's not tailor built for our specific requirements.

If the US taxpayer weren't paying for the majority of the development cost, then the F-35 wouldn't be available at all. If other countries want their own version of the F-35 to their requirements, then they should pay for it. But I doubt they're willing to. In addition, I am waiting for evidence that foreign operators are displeased with the F-35 or that it doesn't meet their requirements. The RAAF keeps insisting the F-35 is the best aircraft for the job.

I think more thought should have been put into the F-35 to minimize the development difficulties that have occurred. This may mean multiple aircraft but common sensors and avionics. It's also unclear how much the STOVL variant has influenced the performance of the CTOL and CV variants, but there are other reasons which I have already explained which also make the F-35 somewhat fat.
edit on 30/10/15 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: C0bzz

We're not in so much disagreement.

By the way, I didn't mean literally a "stealthy F-16" but one with mission goals closer to the F-16---a multi-role fighter, and not a light strike bomber foremost.

I understand the point about internal stores, it's inevitable to some degree, but I have read that the accomodation of the lift fan in the structure led to significantly suboptimal aerodynamic shaping & performance in A and C variants.

My point about the F-22 being 'fine' is that internal stores alone don't inevitably lead to such compromises.

What missions are the F-35 really good for? Significant bombing at fairly short range & with high tempo. That means large numbers and a major logistical base. I.e. a Soviet armored invasion of Eastern Europe scenario. What other operators really have similar needs? Poland? Maybe Israel?

Whereas everybody wants a pretty decent air combat fighter.

In the Pacific theatre, woudln't most people prefer something with longer range & speed if it were available? More of a new F-14 type craft?


edit on 30-10-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-10-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-10-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-10-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-10-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-10-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

Navy does love Grumman though.



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 06:03 PM
link   
I'm not sure if this has been reported or not but rumor has it that Pratt & Whitney will be providing the engines for the LRS-B.



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: intelgurl

I figured it would be them with their Advent engine. They made a point of saying it was ready for a bomber sized platform.



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

F-14 had an empty weight of 43,735 lb and a fuel capacity (including two drop tanks) of 20,000 lb. Therefore, I find it unlikely the F-14 would ever outrange the F-35. An aircraft that big would also be very expensive and complex, cutting the number that could be procured. So maybe an aircraft like that would be useful - it would also have disadvantages.

F-15E comes closer to what you're talking about, it certainly has better range than the F-35 (when the F-15 has external tanks and conformal tanks). A 5th generation version would also be much more expensive than the F-35. Israel also plans on adding two 425 gallon tanks to the F-35. That would add another 6814 lb pf fuel and take the F-35 fuel capacity to around 25,000 lb.

Can we stop with this nonsense that the F-35 is short ranged? If you think the F-35 is short ranged then any other tactical fighter is too.
edit on 30/10/15 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel


What missions are the F-35 really good for? Significant bombing at fairly short range & with high tempo. That means large numbers and a major logistical base. I.e. a Soviet armored invasion of Eastern Europe scenario. What other operators really have similar needs? Poland? Maybe Israel?


F-35 is designed to be survivable in high threat environments. That means legacy fighters will have to rely increasingly on jamming support, sheer numbers, other platforms for targeting information (i.e. JSTARS). The F-35 also has superior range to the F/A-18 and F-16 (generally, depends on external tanks) reducing tanker support. The F-35 would absolutely dominate in strike situations (look up Package Q Strike).

Air Interdiction
Strike
Maritime Strike (especially with JSM)
SEAD
DEAD

Self-defense capability in these missions.

It would likely be "Okay" at CAS and air defense. I believe it can also do reconnaissance.


I understand the point about internal stores, it's inevitable to some degree, but I have read that the accomodation of the lift fan in the structure led to significantly suboptimal aerodynamic shaping & performance in A and C variants.

Evidence?


In the Pacific theatre, woudln't most people prefer something with longer range & speed if it were available? More of a new F-14 type craft?

You've gone from a F-16 aircraft would be better than the F-35 to an F-14 aircraft would be better than the F-35. Are you sure you don't just want anything except the F-35?
edit on 31/10/15 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 31/10/15 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 05:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
It is not GE who made the Advent engine ?



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: darksidius

P & W, GE and Rolls all made engines for the Air Forces Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology (ADVENT) program.



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

First the ATF, then the JSF, and now, the LRS-B have gone to the folks in Connecticut.

I wonder if the DOD's P&W favoritism over the past 3 decades has anything to do with the way P&W has been getting it's clock cleaned by GE and RR in the civilian market.

Thanks to the GExx engines and the Trent's, P&W barely competes in the heavy civilian airliner market, CFM has locked off the 737, and theyre stuck with CFM's scraps in the A320 market and whatever they can find in the regional/business jet world, with its smaller margins and all.

I might be a bit biased towards the boys in Lynn, but I've always thought the big GE engines to be immensely respectable powerplants.

RR engines, on the other hand, are just plain sexy as hell. They might be 3-spooled nightmares, but they come off as the flying equivalent of a Porsche 911 turbo engine, or a BMW M-engine, or a hand-built AMG mill.

I'm jealous of that guy in the UK with the working RB211 in his backyard, though I suspect his neighbors may not find his toy to be as cool as I do...
edit on 31-10-2015 by Barnalby because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: intelgurl

P&W tweeted what I thought was a very cryptic congratulatory statement to Northrop Grumman.



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

Yeah, I think P & W is geared to mil. spec power plants and let GE and RR duke it out in the high bypass civil market.

If I had property I'd be that guy in England with a jet engine too. Too Hell with the neighbors.



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

Look back at the legacy fleets. The F-15 and -16 used Pratt and have never really had a fleet wide engine issue. The F-14 used GE and until the day it retired had engine problems.

Pratt set a standard for reliability that the Pentagon saw and liked, with good reason. Even with the bigger aircraft, the P&W family was always preferred until the CFM56 won out for the R model program. And that was largely because it had already proven itself and had a huge spares market.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join