F-36 Kingsnake.............Say what??????

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

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7283
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post27 Mar 2021, 16:44

milosh wrote:
A-10 for now and probable in future will be only USAF plane which can be call for CAS when you can't use pgm, in such situation powerful 30mm gun isn't replaceable.


CAS is much more complicated than that.


And when you have lot of them why not use them until they start failing apart.


They are falling apart. They're also increasingly less useful in more and more environments and the USAF is making big noise about getting into 6th generation territory and all kinds of other high-tech, A-10 was "dated" before, its going to be absolutely ancient here soon.

A-10 narratives are endlessly intriguing, but this is the crux of the problem. For the last 10 years "fiscally conservative" politicians have been demanding the military make cuts, then when they try to cut, politicians come in and shout "no not that! Cut something else!" A-10 is a perfect example of that. why is NGAD competing with A-10? this is madness.

B-1B? It was nonsense from start, political program and huge waste of money. There isn't ANY reason to develop B-1B when B-2 was in development.


turned out to be a godsend though when they built not even 25 B-2s. You get a treat though for repeating the same old trope.

Speed? B-1B is more transonic then supersonic, Mach 2.0 was speed of B-1A, not B-1B. So B-1B is only little more faster then B-2 when use AB with very complex and dead weight swept wings.


I'll admit its not as fast as I recall, however its still unparalleled in terms of speed, range, and magazine size. General Deptula pointed out that a single B-1 can carry the strike firepower of an entire CVW. And he's pretty much correct. When you look at the stats of strategic bombers they have insanely skewed numbers like "flew 2 percent of the sorties but dropped 30 percent of the bombs" etc.


On other hand F-15X with cft limit of just Mach 1.4 and with old engines is blunder.


agreed

New light fighter which this proposed F-36 isn't is in fact smart decision if it is done correctily. Imagine scaled down F-35 with big delta wing. So F414 engine and lot of fuel, weapon bay for smaller weapons and four AAMs. Something like Lavi was compared to Viper.


The problem though is that even the worlds greatest most economical fighter in the whole history of the world, the Gripen E still cost 2 billion dollars to develop. The F-35 is as of right now 10,000 dollars above what they want for CPFH. So taking that Overage and applying that to the 2 billion. thats 200,000 F-35 flight hours at the "expensive" rate that its expected to decline anyway in 4 years, and of course we are coming up on just 4 years since the Gripen E's first flight, oh and did I mention the order came 6 years before that? and that ist still not in service 10 years later? "But thats the old way of building fighters!" oh on the contrary they're using all this new fangled tech and theyre still expecting FOC in 2026.

So I really don't see the point of paying 2 billion dollars at the "discount" rate and "saving" money, while creating a whole new type. all so we can have ever more mouths to feed while the USAF shouts that its platforms are outdated and they don't have enough.

FlightDreamz wrote:F-36 Kingsnake https://hushkit.net/2021/03/17/the-f-36-kingsnake-the-fifth-generation-minus-fighter-usaf-wants/ sounds like someone is trying to use the "better, faster, cheaper" mantra. Uses the same engine as the F-22 Raptor.... are Pratt & Whitney F119 engines even in production anymore?


nope

The artists representation looks cool, but I'd be VERY (pleasantly) surprised if this ever goes into production. Especially with the United States (and global) economy going all to Hell thanks to the Coronavirus pandemic. Although my mind keeps going back to how World War II "fixed" the Great Depression (I wonder if this recession is the start of something worse).
Sincerely hope I'm wrong about the F-36 never going into production AND the next Great Depression especially.


I hear ya. There's economists who say that when times get lean is when the government should shove money into things as opposed to "austerity" but I'm not paid to pretend to know these things. So leave it to the "experts" that got you into this mess in the first place.
Choose Crews
Offline

inst

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 148
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2015, 01:58

Unread post30 Mar 2021, 08:24

XanderCrews wrote:
inst wrote:The USAF is planning to have operational laser pods by 2025. The idea seems to be more, if laser pods are operational and present a paradigm shift in the same way stealth was in 5th gen, cheap 4th generation platforms are better mounts for laser pods than 5th gens, who lose their stealth if they mount external high-powered lasers.


You got it backwards, in a world of lasers the plane that can't be found lives, and the plane that can be better be able to dodge at the speed of light. plus there's power generation and bunch of other stuff. one of my teammates worked in Lasers. "weapon of the future, always have been" They were super excited to get one mounted in a clapped out C-130 about 10 years ago.

None of this is new. f-35 is planned to be in service decades into the future. UAVs, UCAVs, Lasers, and other things haave been anticipated for years now. Thats part of the emphasis on LO. You can't run anymore. You can't "juke" the SAM at the last minute anymore in IADS. Not talking some individual SAMs here and there but a no joke IADs. Myriad of platforms to include lasers, cyber, and other EW along with the kinetic stuff.

people are acting like this is new. Maybe its just loke.


In laser-land the problem is that you're back to short-ranged weapons. The energies and mass of equipment needed to get appreciable range out of current technology is very high, meaning that on a fighter-sized target you are going to strain to exceed a couple of km.

In stealth-land, it's the opposite way.

Logically, with lasers, you're more likely to go back to the old WW2-style bomber set-ups as bombers can get higher powers and field bigger lasers, resulting in increased range.

===

Lasers are highly focused and coherent beams, but they still have an element of spread over distance that's roughly distance ^2. You can reduce the spread by increasing the aperture (size issues) or decreasing the wavelength, but it's still going to spread at roughly distance ^2. So, holding other factors equal, to double range, you have to quadruple energy. That takes a 100 kw laser with 4 km range 400 kw to achieve 10 km range, and 10 mw to achieve 40 km range.

And that's not considering atmospheric attenuation.

===

My position here on F-36 Kingsnake with lasers roughly boils down to that they probably can't get it cheap enough. It'd have to be no more than 45 million as a flyaway cost to be competitive with the F-35 in more than just operating costs (and as mentioned before, you can have non-stealth F-35 to cut operating costs).

The thing I'm really fascinated with, however, is the prospect of a B-52 piled with lasers and EODAS / low-band radar to track and destroy stealth fighters at extreme ranges. It'd be entertaining simply because it's such a paradigm shift and so novel a change from our history of one-man / two-manned fighters. It'd be as if the AEW&C being defended by a fighter formation all of a sudden became the killing tool, and fighters degraded into point defense weapons.
Online
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2919
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post07 May 2021, 21:18

milosh wrote:A-10 for now and probable in future will be only USAF plane which can be call for CAS when you can't use pgm, in such situation powerful 30mm gun isn't replaceable. And when you have lot of them why not use them until they start failing apart.


F-35's fired 3,774 25mm rounds over their last deployment to the Middle East. Given that the F-35 driver can selectively set the burst length to 10, 20, 30 rounds etc, those 3,774 rounds potentially represent a heckuva lot of strafing attacks. A hawg driver would be hard pressed to poop out so few rounds at a time. As mud or brick structures, concrete structures, technicals, even APC's aren't going to distinguish much between a 25mm and a 30mm round, I'd say the Middle Eastern deployment missions more than adequately demonstrated the F-35's suitability as a CAS platform.

Iffn' it's a T-70 or newer... a hawg pilot is reaching for his gun last. Prolly plink that tank with a 500lb lgb, or hose it with a Maverick. 'Course an A-10 ain't for living long if there's an modern IADS providing cover for the Daesh.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Online
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2919
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post08 May 2021, 02:31

Musing over this mental masturbation called the F-36 Kingsnake... I see how the larger cranked arrow wing will provide more fuel volume, perhaps doubling it to 14K lbs. But where do they waive their magic wand and mysteriously find the internal space for bombs and missiles (four AAM ??!!?? what -- Stingers?). Once you start adding volume to either side of the ventral air intake tunnel for munitions, the cross section of the fuselage will widen substantially... and I believe you lose any advantages of the single, ventral air intake. While they may do some S-duct magic, especially with a Diverterless Supersonic Intake (DSI) bump, to obscure the fanblades of the motor... at that point (i.e. adding weps bays), you may as well go to a split, bifurcated air intake. I do believe JohnWill mentioned once that side intakes were modelled early in the trade studies of the YF-16 design effort.

My point being, if one takes the F-16 airframe and says, let's double the volume of gas, oh, and we need to carry, I dunno, four-six 500lb bombs internally and four AAM's internally... your design is going to morph into basically what the F-35 already is. And if you want those internal weps bays, I don't think you're going to have a "sleek" Kingsnake as illustrated, but rather a Fat Becky (F-35 is already apparently Amy) airframe very similar to an F-35. In fact, if you take the F-35, and change from a canted tail / horizontal stab arrangement to a wide V arrangement (ala a YF-23 / F-36)... the F-35 will have morphed into the vaunted Kingsnake. BUT... if the F-35 is criticized for it's poor kinematics, a wide V tail configuration will be no better, and it is pretty much guaranteed that this F-36 will be inferior, possibly significantly inferior, to the kinematics of the Panther / Stubby / Fat Amy.

(And it's going to cost a sh*t ton of $$ to get there, and a lot of testing -- I'd say minimum of five years testing, prolly ten.)

(Oh, and if you really want that underchin air intake... figure the Kingsnake will look more like Monica (X-32) than the illustration in the referenced articles/blogs.)
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Previous

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], zhangmdev and 30 guests