Does the USAF want a 4th JSF Variant? F-35D?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Last week I poted a thread ont he USAF becoming interested in buying 200 or so STOVL JSF to replace the A-10's. Since that announcment, the AF has indicated that rather than simply taking them as is, they may want to make some changes. As outlined in this weeks AWST:

1) Eliminate the verticle landing component
2) Rechannel some thrust from the verticle flight part
3) Use the bigger navy wing for more fuel
4) Add a 25 MM internal cannon (USMC variant is to cary a gun pod)
5) A standard AF refuling probe
6) Use the GE F136 JSF engine with 40,000 lbs thrust


This would make for an interesting variant. I wonder if the Brits and other would be more interested in this variant for thier carries as it retains its short takeoff capability.



[edit on 3/10/04 by FredT]




posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 03:45 PM
link   
So they basically want a STOSL (Short take-off short landing).

The Air Force has to make up there mind, there starting to sound like Kerry.


quick question, whats there current engine thrust and current gun?



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Thrust with AB is almost 40000 lbs. Thrust in hover mode is the same, no AB use though, the thrust is balanced between the rear post and the LiftFan.



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
So they basically want a STOSL (Short take-off short landing).

The Air Force has to make up there mind, there starting to sound like Kerry.


quick question, whats there current engine thrust and current gun?



I do not know the current engine, but the USMC F-35B was to have a cannon mounted in a pod and not included. Putting the cannon in is going to cause a change int he mold line of the plane as it has to avaid the lift fan.

I wonder too if the are buying them now with the intent of usuing the lift fan driveshaft to power directed energy weapons in the future



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Any mention of a possible TVC?

As I posted before, the F-35A/C will receive a 3D TVC derived from LOAN, used on the F-16 MATV.

[edit on 30-9-2004 by Hockeyguy567]



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 04:33 PM
link   

FredT
I wonder too if the are buying them now with the intent of usuing the lift fan driveshaft to power directed energy weapons in the future

Nice thought, But I think thats a bit of a reach.

Don't expect to see a Laser on a fighter for at least 10 years.



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Yeah laser guns seems a bit farfecthed. Still this seems like a pretty nice variant. Is the JSF capable of carring the same amount of fire power as an A-10. The Avenger guns are dangerous. Not just for the enemy. If you fire those for too long the recoil can cause the plane to pracitally stop in midair. And as most of you know this eliminates lift. I relize the vertical takeoff ability helps out but it probably takes some time to redirect thrust, plus there probably isn't time during the middle of an attack run.



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago

FredT
I wonder too if the are buying them now with the intent of usuing the lift fan driveshaft to power directed energy weapons in the future

Nice thought, But I think thats a bit of a reach.

Don't expect to see a Laser on a fighter for at least 10 years.


Well, they're working on them and have made significant strides. And they are intending to mount a 1MW laser on the JSF in the future - but I agree with your timescale, knowing the Everything Takes Longer And Costs More rule.



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Yeah laser guns seems a bit farfecthed. Still this seems like a pretty nice variant. Is the JSF capable of carring the same amount of fire power as an A-10. The Avenger guns are dangerous. Not just for the enemy. If you fire those for too long the recoil can cause the plane to pracitally stop in midair. And as most of you know this eliminates lift. I relize the vertical takeoff ability helps out but it probably takes some time to redirect thrust, plus there probably isn't time during the middle of an attack run.


Yup - the ability to dead stop is only useful for choppers that use pop-up attacks. If you're a fighter, you want to drop your firecrackers and be out of there ASAP. The A-10, however, can loiter and pick off targets at leisure (slow speed is an advantage here). As for the JSF carrying the same amount of firepower as the A-10, perhaps with smart armour-piercing mini-munitions, yes, but otherwise it's just too small and flimsy. A laser will only scorch a modern tank's armour.



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
Nice thought, But I think thats a bit of a reach.

Don't expect to see a Laser on a fighter for at least 10 years.


No doubt but that is one of the thinks that was looked at in selecting the Lockheed design. Directed enery weapons are waaaay int he future and thier first aplications on tactical aircraft will more likely be in the AC-130 type due size and weight issues.



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 10:27 PM
link   

FredT
No doubt but that is one of the thinks that was looked at in selecting the Lockheed design. Directed enery weapons are waaaay int he future and thier first aplications on tactical aircraft will more likely be in the AC-130 type due size and weight issues.


Yeah the AC-130 will more then likely be used for a laser weapon system (or the C-17), But it wont be the first, The ABL (AirBorne Laser) will be the first.




posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
I wonder if the Brits and other would be more interested in this variant for thier carries as it retains its short takeoff capability.


I think the Brits really want a STOVL version rather than a STOL because of the ability to land vertically.

We can't afford conventional carriers with arrester cables yet.



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hyperen
[I think the Brits really want a STOVL version rather than a STOL because of the ability to land vertically. We can't afford conventional carriers with arrester cables yet.


I thought they were looking at new ones? If the AF variant comes to fruition, it would make a killer maritime strike platform and do quite nicely on the air surperiority mission. The bigger wing would give it more range etc. Assuming that they could land it on a future carrier, it would be a nice fit for the RAF



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 04:05 AM
link   
Hope the USMC F-35B or variants of it aren't as obnoxious sounding as the Harrier....good God what a loud thing



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
I thought they were looking at new ones? If the AF variant comes to fruition, it would make a killer maritime strike platform and do quite nicely on the air surperiority mission. The bigger wing would give it more range etc. Assuming that they could land it on a future carrier, it would be a nice fit for the RAF


The Royal Navy are looking at new carriers but they can't afford to have CTOL style ones straight away so they want to operate STOVL planes in the same way they do now with the Harriers.

The carriers are being built with the future in mind and should have space for the equipment needed to operate CTOL planes. They might add arrester cables and catapults later on, so what they are effectively doing is spreading the cost of a CTOL carrier.

This proposed new varient does sound as though it would make a great plane for the RAF and RN.


RAB

posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 09:40 AM
link   
For my F-35E (UK) can I have all the bit's off the D with a internal weps bay (big enough for 4 storm shadows) and a second engine.



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by RAB
For my F-35E (UK) can I have all the bit's off the D with a internal weps bay (big enough for 4 storm shadows) and a second engine.


Actually, Im not sure it will fit. As part of the weight reduction plan, they reduced the length of the STOVL variant by like 14 inches. I don't know if it will fit. By the time you engineered the second engine in, you could just buy the Raptor


RAB

posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Question any one know how big the bomb bay on the F-35 is? I.E. would I get away with fitting a few storm shadows in it?



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 09:55 AM
link   
There is no chance to put Stromshadow into the F-35 internal bays. They are too big wepons, the largest things bay can hold are two 910 kg JDAM bombs.
BTW there is no reason to put StormShadows into the bays, the are standoff weapons and pilot can release them long before he can be detected.

[edit on 3-10-2004 by longbow]



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
As outlined in this weeks AWST:

[edit on 3/10/04 by FredT]


What's AWST ??





top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join