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.

 

If we can't buy many F-22s. Can the F-35 with two engines compensate?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 04:18 PM
link   
I know that the F-35 wouldnt be as super stealthy as the F-22, but at least it could compensate for the fewer F-22s that would be produce. After all the F-35 is similar to the F-22 in physical appearance as well as the technology being used.




posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Out of interest why add an additional engine? Modern combat revolves completely around BVR (Beyond Visual Range) interceptions. Speed or thrust will have little bearing usually. Wouldn't the money be better spent on upgrading Avionics etc.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Hmmmm, if you put two engines into an F-35 you will have to make it bigger, it will require more fuel so you will have to make it bigger, this will make it more expensive so it will have to be made more capable with more advanced systems, more range and more weapons so you will have to make it bigger. This will make it really expensive reducing the number you can buy and hey presto - you have just reinvented the F-22!



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 05:05 PM
link   
I'd rather just drop the F-35 and buy more Raptors...

That isn't going to happen though becaus the USN, USMC, and our allies need the F-35.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 08:56 PM
link   
An F-35 with an extra engine is incredibly a whole lot like the F-22. Except for one thing. The F-35 is a multi-role fighter. Its handy for everything but excels at nothing (as far as I have seen anyway). So it doesn't need the extra sped provided by another engine.

The F-22 however is mainly tagged as an Intereceptor. Which means 2 things.

It needs to get within range of the target before the targets are able to carry out their objectives. Whether that is a bomb run, a strike, or just escape, its gotta get there.

It also needs to blow the crap out of the target. Manueverability is a necessity should a dogfight come around. It's unlikely that a dogfight to erupt in our BVR society, but if it does we don't want a failed intercept cuz the engineers had lack of foresight.

The F-22 has to fulfill those overgeneralized criteria. That's because that is its mission profile. The F-35 is a baseline aggressive and defensive aircraft. It don't need to excel at interception because if it does its gonna be less effective in other areas. The F-22 you see is an able bomber, but it is not as good as some others are. Thats cuz its an interceptor. The F-117 is a very poor AA craft, but thats because it doesn't HAVE to. Even if it has an "F" designation.

You see the F-35 doesn't NEED a second engine because the benifits coming with that engine aren't as useful as the benifits without it. Because of its mission profile, you see?



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 01:39 AM
link   
The U.S Air Force Research Laboratory is working on increasing the thrust of fighter jet engines. In a few years a single engine F-35 will be able to supercruise at Mach 1.5 , and the dual engine F-22 will be able to supercruise at Mach 3.


"The Phase III goal of 100% increase in propulsion capability will enable specific system payoffs such as: sustained Mach 3+ in an F-15 sized aircraft,"


Link



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   
F-22 in fact IS f-35 with 2 engines. Both planes have remarkably similar aerodynamics and overall look, didn't you notice that?




The U.S Air Force Research Laboratory is working on increasing the thrust of fighter jet engines. In a few years a single engine F-35 will be able to supercruise at Mach 1.5 , and the dual engine F-22 will be able to supercruise at Mach 3.


The link is death for me, but I think it would be impossible(or very improbable) with F-22. The problem is that F-22 has fixed geometry air intakes (due to stealth) - that means it cannot flymuch more than Mach 2.0. Another problem would be the sensitive RAM materials. Of course USAF may be cheating us concerning true F-22 capabilities, but according to current info it's not possible to go beyond Mach 2.2 on F-22.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Raptor isn't F-35 with two engines. It's stealthier, more maneuverable, and better avionics "Equal to two Cray supercomputers". And let's not forget it can supercruise (thanks to that additional engine).



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
The link is death for me,


Try this.

Link

Click OK, then click Programs, then click the IHPTET picture or download the text version or whatever.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWguy83
Raptor isn't F-35 with two engines. It's stealthier, more maneuverable, and better avionics "Equal to two Cray supercomputers". And let's not forget it can supercruise (thanks to that additional engine).


It may be sligthly stealthier, but this is because of more expensive materials than shape. Actually both planes are extremely similar, I cannot think of two modern planes being more simillar (especially in aerodynamics and stealth conception). Intakes are the same, wings are the same, overal concept is the same. I am also not sure Raptor has better avionics, the JSF cabin surely looks more advanced. Radar - surely better, but avionics not.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow

Originally posted by NWguy83
Raptor isn't F-35 with two engines. It's stealthier, more maneuverable, and better avionics "Equal to two Cray supercomputers". And let's not forget it can supercruise (thanks to that additional engine).


It may be sligthly stealthier, but this is because of more expensive materials than shape. Actually both planes are extremely similar, I cannot think of two modern planes being more simillar (especially in aerodynamics and stealth conception). Intakes are the same, wings are the same, overal concept is the same. I am also not sure Raptor has better avionics, the JSF cabin surely looks more advanced. Radar - surely better, but avionics not.


Raptor is said to be stealthier than the F-117. Intakes are different, just look at pictures of them. F-35's cockpit is just more 'user-friendly'. And Raptor's radar is only on the Raptor, it also has a further detection range than the F-35's.

[edit on 21-12-2005 by NWguy83]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 01:40 PM
link   
I don't care what any of you say, an F-22A is just an upgraded F-35A with an additional engine.

O, and, whoever said that the F-22A is an interceptor, well, I always considered it an Air Superiority fighter, such as the F-15A/C.

Shattered OUT...

P.S. To get Supercruise, it would help if you had a higher thrust to drag ratio, such as, the T
ratio of the Raptor is over 1 on the thrust part, so it can supercruise, most other aircraft are less than 1, possibly almost all other aircraft.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
I don't care what any of you say, an F-22A is just an upgraded F-35A with an additional engine.


Well, that is your own willingly excepted ignorance then. They are not the same aircraft.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 01:58 PM
link   
>>
That isn't going to happen though becaus the USN, USMC, and our allies need the F-35.
>>

With the number of F-35's now scheduled to be purchased, the USN will have an 'exact' A-6 immitation on-deck, right down to the VA = ten airframes attack capabilities.

Marine and Navy Modernization Plans-
www.fas.org...

Scroll down and read the bitter truth in the graph.

140 squiddy airframes (divided by 12 carrier airwings with a 20 airframe schoolhouse and PDM/test reserve force).

And 170 jarhead jets (with NO way to get quickly to theater because they ALL have probe and drogue refueling which means that the USAF has to reconfigure it's principle tanker force just to drag Marine aircraft to theater. Aircaft which have only about the _same_ radius as the F-16C, thanks to the STOVL weight disaster).

ARGUMENT:
This is not 'cheap' air. This is not 'multirole = better'. It is by the very nature of the restricted buys, a _tiny_, _specialist_, force. Which can do absolutely /nothing/ to extend the 'sphere of influence' around a carrier because there are too few to maintain the sortie rates. SORTIE RATES being determined by the number of aircraft you have airborne 'off the pointy end' at one time. Divided by the number of hours per evolution they are engaged in (90% of a jet's travel time is to and from the target area).

Furthermore, this 'joint' fighter cannot operate _commonly_ within /any/ of the services' doctrinal plans. The USAF goes in fast and comes out faster, choosing extended radius operations to keep it's basing mode safe while having a 10,000ft ability to run simultaneous launch/recovery cycles with NO 'postage stamp effect'.

Which is fine, except the F-35C, with it's giant wing, is likely going to cruise at Mach .75. While both it and the F-35A will make about 700nm, unrefueled, from base. The fact is that both will likely 'top off' several times, to maintain some safety margins. And yet the USN probe and drogue method sterilizes a tanker boom for the receptacle mode, is tricky to fly behind a big-wake heavy like a KC-10 or 135. And is about half as fast at transfer. So that the USAF jets will fly TOO the target more quickly. And take on fuel /much/ more efficiently enroute and coming home.

Meanwhile, the F-35B with only about 12-14,000lbs of fuel (probably less once they finally admit the truth of 'operational' [weapons and high ambient day temps] STOVL losses in useful fuel for STOVL takeoff margins) is going to run out to about 450nm instead of the 700nm which official doctrine: 'From The Sea, Forward' requires /beyond/ the 200nm feet wet wet+200nm feet of litoral warfare.

In terms of cruise point, it will have roughly the same wing area as the F-35A which means less weighted surface drag but about 2,000-2,500lbs more operational empty equipped weight. Which means /lift at drag/ (literaly the amount which the wing must bear above a median lift requirement at AOA-X) goes up.

Signature control on both the F-35B and C is going to be a /nightmare/ with all those flapping controls and opening doors. Even before you consider the marine operating environment penalty for ferrous RAM.

What's more, typical STOVL ops recover is to come up alongside the boat and then 'inch over the side' while maintaining the seaway pace of the ships motion. This keeps lateral control simple and lets you avoid the straight-deck hazard of rolling through any spotted helos or other airframes and their wakes.

You do that on a Navy big deck however and you are going to put high energy, /very hot/, air right over the aft deck park. Where all the bombed up, fueled up, crewing, airframes sit.

Alternately (on an LHA) you can do a rolling VL over the backend of the boat. But here too, the F-35B is not compatible with the an over-the-spudlocker approach if the cross deck pendant is set up. Because it's gear is not rated for the stress.

And to take the CDP (Arrestor Wires) /down/ means you are 20 minutes away from your next USN wire catch.

All of which comes down to being an excellent excuse for the Marines not to have to fulfill the USN 'fill' mission whereby (so long as they have hornets) they maintain at least one squadron in every Marine Air Wing on instant readiness to stiffen the USN's low squadron counts. As we descend from 70 airframe airwings in the Roosevelt Load. To about 30-40 in the Reagan one. While INCREASING the total DWT tonnage of the carriers to about 100K.

Conversely, the USMC has /never/ routinely deployed with more than 6-8 AV-8A/B on their LHA/LHD because then, by golly, they would be an aircraft not a helicopter carrier (the rolling takeoff required for STOVL completely hoses the deckspotting for the helos which means you can either run strike cycles or airmobile cycles but not both...).

ARGUMENT 2:
If you read 'The Carrier Myth'-
www.afa.org...

It becomes obvious that the things which win wars are NUMBERS and PRESENCE.

These are -not- equateable terms.

Because numbers means the ability to surge multiple airframes with multiple mission constraints on a similar profile so that everybody has the gas and flight time to do the job.

And presence is the ability to KEEP those missions coming, until the job is done.

In 'SURGEX' tests just before Operation Allied Force, the USN was only able to generate about a third of USAF sorties and then only by killing their plane crews trying to constantly maintain a rotation of loading (prepositioned) stores out of the fleet train and then jamming them (mostly lightweight munitions) aboard jets which had an additional 25% more flight crew. While flying to a radius of merely 200nm to drop. For about three days.

OAF showed that if you loaded up Italian airbases like Aviano to the gills, a mere 120 USAF airframes could fly FOUR TIMES the total sorties of the USN. Even though the squids were technically closer to the target area.

Yet OAF was an exception. While OEF (the Afghan air campaign of 2001) was much more typical. For, after wasting 30 bloody days turning their boats and getting them to the IO, the USN was still the only service which could put air as far north as Kabul. Provided it was understood that jets would have about 20 minutes over the target area AND we would be doing the unthinkable: sending small S-3 tankers over 'hostile' Pakistani territory.

Here, the plane crews could not be 'stressed' because the typical flight time was 10-12hrs. And there are pictures of USN seamen sunning themselves in kiddy pools on the carrier decks to prove it.

But nor was the amount of stress put on the enemy adequate. As USAF arrival at bases in Krgzhstan proved much more effective in fighting the (Northern Alliance -> southwards) war.

What's the difference /here/?

The useless gutsack in the cockpit. And the size of the airframe needed to accomodate him.

When those USN jets recovered back on the boat October 10th, 2001, the crews had to be pulled from their cockpits they were so weak. And then they turned right around and went into a strike planning cell so that (again, using inflated squadron pilot counts from a standard manning ratio of 1.25:1 towards 1.7:1) the next crew could turn around and do it again the next day.

This is a VERY poor way to utilization rates up because it is entirely cyclical. i.e. rather than launching or recovering 5-10 aircraft every couple hours for most of the day (with a short down time for maintenance and plane crew rest) in what is called /streaming/ operations. So that you never really have all 100-120 airframes crowded aboard.
We flew what amounted to Vietnam styled alpha strikes as maximum efforts. Followed by...nothing.

With the result that the average CAS call time was 26 minutes. And if the operation wasn't fragged for that day's sorte cycle, it could be 17hrs or more.

In all of these things, the limited numbers of JSF, their vastly disparate radius performance, both with each other and with all the jets which would STILL have to support them (No F-35 variant can carry ARMs internally. Nor is it a jammer platform.), counts against any need for ANY of our services to have them.

Not least because 'joint' does not mean _common_ in a basing mode for which the USAF can send 300 jets to sea if there is no runway close. Or the USN can put 50 jets, 500nm inland. And lock down a country so that no 'terrorists' can escape.

I won't comment about what our 'allies' need except to say that the only folks screaming for commonality in the strike warfare metric are the theater CINCs. Who have this bug up their hind quarters about supporting in-country forces with multinational CAS doctrine. Even though /consistently/ nations like Denmark and the Netherlands have refused to employ ordnance on targets which GFACs are -screaming- at them are hostile. Because, from 20,000ft, looking through a targeting pod optics on a 6X6 inch screen, they look like civillian homes.

We don't need that kind of 'joint' multiforce capabilities. Especially not when the LOCLOEXCOM which is the bureacratic DOD entity entrusted with safeguarding stealth is screaming just as loudly that 'anti tamper' be /hanged/ Low Observables will lose 90% of it's effectiveness within 5 years if we create the nightmare of security sieving inherent to another F-16 Deal Of The Century.

CONCLUSION:
And THAT folks is where the rubber really meets the road. Because the defense budget is and always will be the largest single 'discretionary' (not preprogrammed) line item in our yearly national spending. And so when Congress sees 257 billion dollars in allocateable (five year plan) promisory notes going to their /districts/ THEY invent reasons to keep the JSF in production.

It is not needed. It is not appropriate for todays or tomorrows mission environments. And what SHOULD replace it, is not a fighter (any more than the JSF itself is) but an uninhabited cruise missile with landing gear. Whose sensors we can 'plug into' (using unjammable satcomms) on an as-needed basis. But whose principle function in life is to take the 3,000 odd tactical airframes now in service. And shrink the budget dedicated to them by making it possible for a USAF jet to land on a Navy deck with JPALS 40cm/19 inch precision.

The F-22 is dead. It never had a hope when Congress ran the foreign-sales profit-uber-alles numbers. But the JSF is dead too. Because the Military cannot make useful service from it using the current numbers and yesterdays operating paradigm. And using tomorrows paradigm, numbers may well be the only thing that saves us when we have to fight a threatforce possessed of DEWs. Or one which is so remote that we cannot interdict their donkey-logistics with manned systems that can be counted on the fingers of one's hands.


KPl.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWguy83
The U.S Air Force Research Laboratory is working on increasing the thrust of fighter jet engines. In a few years a single engine F-35 will be able to supercruise at Mach 1.5 , and the dual engine F-22 will be able to supercruise at Mach 3.


There is no data to support the F-22 being able to supercruise at Mach 3 anytime in the future, regardless of any modifications or enhancements to it's current powerplant.

The F119 engine is supposedly only going to get a 10% increase in power under the program you describe. The reference in the program brochure to sustained Mach 3 cruising in an "F-15 sized" aircraft is hypothetical and should not be construed to imply that the F-22 will supercruise at Mach 3.

[edit on 12-21-2005 by intelgurl]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Well, that is your own willingly excepted ignorance then. They are not the same aircraft.

It's always been easier to call someone ignorant for having a different view on this than you isn't it?

This just makes you arrogant in a way, but I know I would never be caught calling someone ignorant because they don't share the same view as me, in my eyes it's absurd.


Shattered OUT...



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
It's always been easier to call someone ignorant for having a different view on this than you isn't it?


This isn't a matter of views. It isn't a matter of opinion. These aircraft are very different in several different areas, from avionics, to materials, to powerplants, to physical design.

It is ignorant to say that they are basically the same aircraft just because the look somewhat alike. Haven't we learned that yet?



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
This isn't a matter of views. It isn't a matter of opinion. These aircraft are very different in several different areas, from avionics, to materials, to powerplants, to physical design.

It is ignorant to say that they are basically the same aircraft just because the look somewhat alike. Haven't we learned that yet?

Views and opinions are the same things, and I didn't give me reasoning behind saying "The F-22A is basically an upgraded F-35A with an additional engine."

Did you understand that or did you just chose to say "ignorant" without the full truth?

Shattered OUT...



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Views and opinions are the same things, and I didn't give me reasoning behind saying "The F-22A is basically an upgraded F-35A with an additional engine."

Did you understand that or did you just chose to say "ignorant" without the full truth?


You can not argue or reason it as your statement is false.


Just because they are both stealthy and look somewhat alike does not mean one is "basically an upgraded" version of the other "with an additional engine."



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
I don't care what any of you say, an F-22A is just an upgraded F-35A with an additional engine.


Ha ha, since the Raptor was first it's more like 'the F-35 is just a dumbed down version of the F-22'.



new topics




 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join