The next jet: F-X & F/A-XX

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

hkultala

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 31
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2018, 08:02

Unread post27 Apr 2019, 22:46

sferrin wrote:Yeah, the whole, "the F-35 is a Yak-141 with Stars and Bars" idea is complete nonsense glommed onto by fanbois.


No, it's your straw-man argument. Nobody is claiming anything like that.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8383
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post27 Apr 2019, 23:35

Actually, there are plenty of people claiming that:
  • LM stole the idea of the F-35 From Yak
  • The F-35 would not have existed except for the Yak
  • LM bought the rights to the 3BSN from Yak
  • The idea of the 3BSN came from Yak
  • etc

These rank right up there with Sprey co-designed the F-16/A-10 :)
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

krieger22

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 68
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2018, 22:02

Unread post28 Apr 2019, 10:33

And yet I can't find a single lift jet engine of the type so favored by Yakovlev on the F-35 design. Or, in fact, on any Western VSTOL design proposed around or after the 1990s.

It's almost as if lift jets are a terrible idea and an evolutionary dead end.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2249
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post28 Apr 2019, 12:13

Those 20:1 TWR lift jets on the Yak design should have been retractable engines for increasing takeoff performance and fighting ability. The pair of RD41's were capable of 9,000 pounds of thrust apiece. The R79 was a monster engine as it was, more powerful than Al-31's. They could have used those little twist-turn nozzles on the RD41's to cut the landing weight in half. And when they needed straight-line performance they had roughly 52,000 pounds of thrust. Takeoffs would have been quite a rush.

Arrestor landings and bigger wing area would have been better than their vertical options. They already only flew like 50 hours before being pulled, so they were already fine with high maintenance. Nowhere near F-35 performance, but clearly superior to Harrier in the open sea.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5348
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post28 Apr 2019, 14:53

madrat wrote:Those 20:1 TWR lift jets on the Yak design should have been retractable engines for increasing takeoff performance and fighting ability.


If they're like most other lift jets, their MTBF was measure in minutes/low hours. The XJ99s as I recall didn't even recirculate engine oil but dumped it into the exhaust. 20:1 doesn't come cheap. As for mounting lift engines on retractable mounts. . .I've seen designs with engines mounted that way but they were never meant for anything other than vertical flight.

avs_2.jpg


AVS1.jpg


AVS2.jpg


Capture.PNG
"There I was. . ."
Offline

krieger22

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 68
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2018, 22:02

Unread post06 May 2019, 08:50

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... -air-wing/

Looks like the Navy is about to invest quite a bit more into the program

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy is on the brink of an explosion in research and development funding for its next-generation fighter program — an effort that could make or break the mainstay of the fleet’s powerful strike arm.

The service this year proposed quadrupling funding for its next-generation air dominance program from last year’s paltry $5 million to $20.7 million, with plans to increase funding every year to at least 2024, when it peaks at $372 million, according to the Navy’s fiscal 2020 budget documents.


The rest is ranting that screams "I don't understand the survivability onion" and "I have never read How to Hide a Task Force", but at least there's a little meat.
Offline

blain

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 127
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post06 May 2019, 21:39

krieger22 wrote:https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/navy-league/2019/05/06/whats-killing-the-us-navys-air-wing/

Looks like the Navy is about to invest quite a bit more into the program

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy is on the brink of an explosion in research and development funding for its next-generation fighter program — an effort that could make or break the mainstay of the fleet’s powerful strike arm.

The service this year proposed quadrupling funding for its next-generation air dominance program from last year’s paltry $5 million to $20.7 million, with plans to increase funding every year to at least 2024, when it peaks at $372 million, according to the Navy’s fiscal 2020 budget documents.


The rest is ranting that screams "I don't understand the survivability onion" and "I have never read How to Hide a Task Force", but at least there's a little meat.


I will believe it when I see it. Dividing procurement between two fighter programs is inefficient. If they want to transition to the NGAD they need to bite the bullet and end Super Hornet production and buy the F-35 at more efficient numbers so they can reduce the fly away cost and complete the buy. Then they can start transitioning to what is next.
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1002
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post07 May 2019, 00:44

@ Honky

did you just come here to troll?
Offline

crosshairs

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2018, 19:03

Unread post07 May 2019, 01:40

blain wrote:
krieger22 wrote:https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/navy-league/2019/05/06/whats-killing-the-us-navys-air-wing/

Looks like the Navy is about to invest quite a bit more into the program

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy is on the brink of an explosion in research and development funding for its next-generation fighter program — an effort that could make or break the mainstay of the fleet’s powerful strike arm.

The service this year proposed quadrupling funding for its next-generation air dominance program from last year’s paltry $5 million to $20.7 million, with plans to increase funding every year to at least 2024, when it peaks at $372 million, according to the Navy’s fiscal 2020 budget documents.


The rest is ranting that screams "I don't understand the survivability onion" and "I have never read How to Hide a Task Force", but at least there's a little meat.


I will believe it when I see it. Dividing procurement between two fighter programs is inefficient. If they want to transition to the NGAD they need to bite the bullet and end Super Hornet production and buy the F-35 at more efficient numbers so they can reduce the fly away cost and complete the buy. Then they can start transitioning to what is next.


Ha ha. Ok, remember when carriers had phantoms, skyhawks, crusaders and vigilante? I would include intruders but I wasn't a fan of the straight winged slug. Or do you remember the 80s when the navy was buying tomcats and hornets? While planning and engineering the A-12? There is no single airframe that can perform all the roles the navy needs just as it is true for the USAF.The last thing the navy needs is a 34,000 lb single engine slug to perform every mission. Just a meager 10,000 lbs of fuel and 4 amraam and its already behind the power curve. We've yet to see how well RAM holds up at sea and how well maintainers can maintain RAM on a confined ship. Back to point, there is no single airframe the navy can buy to meet all requirements for all missions.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2614
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post07 May 2019, 01:52

“We've yet to see how well RAM holds up at sea and how well maintainers can maintain RAM on a confined ship.”

You mean the Navy can’t do what the Marines have already done?
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2614
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post07 May 2019, 01:59

“The last thing the navy needs is a 34,000 lb single engine slug to perform every mission.”

So it has bought, and continues to buy, a 34,000 lb twin engine — even slug-ier jet — to perform every mission.

Fly NAVY!
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2145
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post07 May 2019, 07:59

crosshairs wrote:The last thing the navy needs is a 34,000 lb single engine slug to perform every mission. Just a meager 10,000 lbs of fuel and 4 amraam and its already behind the power curve. We've yet to see how well RAM holds up at sea and how well maintainers can maintain RAM on a confined ship. Back to point, there is no single airframe the navy can buy to meet all requirements for all missions.


Remember the F-35C has the highest lift limit of all F-35 variants. Test pilots who flew all 3 models say it is the best turner and climber (perhaps in instances where lift limit is a factor)

In fact, I would go as far as saying that the F-35C has a real shot in being the defacto best ACM platform the US navy ever had. the only real contenders are F/A-18C (with EPE engines), F/A-18E,

F-14 fans, sorry, the cat was a better interceptor than the bugs, but medium to close range is historically where all air combat took place (farthest confirmed air to air kill is just around 25 NM IIRC). So give me the Bug, lower RCS, better avionics and when we get to the phone booth, Aim-9X, JHMCS and perhaps the smallest turn radius of all 4th gens, yes please.

So Slug?? Lets rephrase that.
The last thing the navy needs is a 34,000 lb single engined, extremely agile platform that may just be the best dogfighting machine the Navy ever got their hands on even though dogfighting will be it's last resort because its dang near invisible with all the SA anyone can ask for, to perform every mission


wait what?
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2249
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post07 May 2019, 12:01

If the F-14 had been equipped with AIM-9X with JHMCS, which seat controls it? How does it work in F-18F?
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2773
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post07 May 2019, 12:17

From youtube videos, it seems that the pilot has the JHMCS system and WSO uses regular helmet. Of course the pilot has better and less restricted view to use the JHMCS more effectively. I'd also think that controlling both the aircraft and the sight system helps tracking the target.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2249
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post07 May 2019, 13:09

I couldn't really imagine it could work from the backseat without a DAS type of system.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests