Lets talk about the F-35

[Ex3B 265]

I used the search function, didn't find anything, so, lets stir up this can of worms.

 

Personally, I find it to be a very cool aircraft. I believe it to be very capable, and a great piece of engineering. Its unit cost (thanks to mass production) is not even that much higher than 4th gen aircraft (program cost on the other hand....).

The F-35B in particular is an amazing piece of machinery... but I could say the same things about the space shuttle, and indeed there are many parallels: too expensive, particularly program cost vs marginal launch cost, the entire program was very political, and a great piece of engineering to accomlish something that... really shouldn't have been tried to have been accomplished....

 

Joint Navy-Air force fighters have been done before (not just in the US). The RAF operated the spitfire, and RN the seafire. The RAF operated the harrier, and the RN the seaharrier. The USN operated the F4 phantom, and the USAF also operated the F4. The USN operates F-18s, while other nation's air forces operate F-18s.

A fighter that performs well from airfields or CATOBAR carriers is not too technically challenging, and has been done before with much success (The F-111 notwithstanding).

 

But a STOVL fighter is a very specialized thing, and the F-35 has made a lot of sacrifices to achieve STOVL capabilities. The fusalage on all variants is wider than it needs to be, because just one version fits a lift fan. The F-35 A and B's wingspan was dictated by the elevator width on assault ships... the navy version simply needed a bigger wing that folded (should the USAF version have used the C's wing instead of the B's?). Overall dimensions and weight was limited by the need for the STOVL version to have the VL capability (granted, that does also ensure a good TWR for A2A capabilities of the F-35).

 

That's a lot of compromise for what is by far the least common variant of the F-35. In retrospect, wouldn't it have made sense to separate the STOCL fighter to another program?

There was a proposed F-22N /naval version... wouldn't it have been easier to make something like (but not actually) an updated F-22 with carrier capabilities than what we got with the F-35?

 

The USAF is getting less than what it could have, and not such a big leap over the F-22 (once the F-22 gained ground attack capabilities).

The USN is getting a but less than what it could have, bit it is a big leap over the F-18.

The USMC is gettingthe best aircreaft it could, and is an absolutley massive leap over the harrier.

 

Yet in terms of numbers built, it goes A>C>B, so the aircraft model that is most compromised is the most manufactured.

Am I right/wrong/ missing some point entirely?

 

Will foreign purchases of the B model make it more abundant than the C model? Allied navies (the royal Navy in particular) absolutely need the B model, as harriers retire with no other replacement... (only the French operate a decent naval aircraft, and could use the C model).

Is that alone enough to justify it? despite foreign sales of the A model too?

[spooky lynx 73]

Indeed STOVL airframes has to be different from that with usual takeoff/land. Combining this and the fact that STOVL version isn't even planned to be produced in the same quantities as 'land' or 'carrier'-type a question comes: was it really necessary to make a common airframe for all three types? Does it really save any costs?  I suppose it would be much cheaper to engineer two types of airframe (one common for land-based and carrier-based and another for STOVL) with some common elements between them than one airframe suitable for all the types of take-off. Especially when there won't be so much STOVL planes produced.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

On 8/27/2020 at 11:02 AM, Ex3B said:

the F-35 has made a lot of sacrifices to achieve STOVL capabilities

 

I would say that's the wrong way of apportioning "blame" regarding the F-35 becoming what it has become. Rather the F-35B/JSF has had to make changes out of its scope in order to become a larger tri-service project.

The project began on the basis of a USMC+UK requirement for a STOVL jet, and the USAF was persuaded that a version without the lift system would be suitable enough for their light fighter requirements. All the earliest concept drawings from the 1990s are with USMC and RAF/RN STOVL aircraft.

Over the years, the US cancelled other projects that would have been more suitable for the USAF and USN's specific needs MRF, A/F-X etc. etc. and through necessity those have fed in to a set of increasing requirements for the whole JSF program.

 

All things being square, you would have had:

USMC with F-35 (probably more rudimentary than it is)

USAF with F-22, MRF

USN with A/F-X

 

The problem is that they tried to morph a project initially dictated by the USMC's requirement into the kind of USAF/USN project you mentioned. The US could have merged MRF with A/F-X in parallel to, or at the expense of F-35 development. But the USAF decided to work with the Marines requirements before the Navy's (I imagine the USAF saw an opportunity to maybe take control of the Marines project, where it would be more difficult against the political clout of the Navy), and before long you had all three services trying to force three different aircraft projects in to one.

It's not the case that the USMC requirements were "tacked on", so it cannot really be said that sacrifices were made from the project's initial conception in order to accommodate STOVL.

[Ex3B 265]

On 8/29/2020 at 2:56 PM, da12thMonkey said:

it cannot really be said that sacrifices were made from the project's initial conception in order to accommodate STOVL.

I was referring more in the sense of engineering compromises/sacrifices. 

As in, "the bypass ratio of its turbofan is a design compromise between high speed performance and fuel consumption", or "the wing sweep and aspect ratio is a comproise between high speed performance and the need to have an acceptable landing speed"

[zSCHIZOz 2]

I love the F-35! There was a lot of critics in the early years about how expensive the aircraft, specifically the B model, was to produce. You don't have to be a flight enthusiast to realize the hurdle the F-35 jumped and maintains. The cockpit is all digital and testers, along with actual pilots, tell how simple the F-35 is to handle. I've been casually following the Joint Strike Fighter project since its mainstream inception back in the early years of the 2000's.

 

While I don't know everything about the F-35, I do know that the more countries that adopt the Joint Strike Fighter the more successful it will remain. Its made to be an official replacement of all other generations of aircraft. By having three models to choose from the F-35 covers just about every aspect of air warfare and the logistics of the aircraft for both rearm and repair is much more cost effective with every new fighter off the factory floor.

[Janez 507]

17 hours ago, zSCHIZOz said:

along with actual pilots, tell how simple the F-35 is to handle

 

Well, being an actual pilot does not exclude one of also being a shill. 🙂

 

As always, time will tell whats what. It may very well happen that various US military branches and its allied countries involved opt for modernizing existing air assets and quietly bury the whole JSF program.

When it comes to politics and military, things are rarely about the thing on display. Time will tell.

[zSCHIZOz 2]

6 hours ago, Janez said:

It may very well happen that various US military branches and its allied countries involved opt for modernizing existing air assets and quietly bury the whole JSF program.

 

I doubt that previous aircraft such as the F-15, F-16, F-18 and various other aircraft that the US produced (produces) will outweigh the F-35. The only real example of former generation aircraft still getting upgrades, to my knowledge, is the F-15X and F-18 Super Hornet. Yes those are great aircraft but the F-35 is a whole 'nother beast all together.

 

The F-35 is the future and I'm pretty sure the Israelis have already flown combat missions with it. According the F35.com the Israelis were so impressed by it they designated the a Hebrew name which translates to "greatness" in English.

[Janez 507]

Yes, Lockheed's marketing material always was exquisite. 😉

[zSCHIZOz 2]

5 hours ago, Janez said:

Yes, Lockheed's marketing material always was exquisite. 😉

 

Indeed! 😁

 

My favorite variant of the JSF would have to be the A model. Looks the cleanest and doesn't have any of that VTOL nonsense weighing the jet down. The C model probably has the best maneuverability but it looks a bit too wide for my liking. Plus the A model has the best engine, making it the USAF's go-to airframe and any flight sim enthusiast's wetdream.

[Cozy Nest 0]

Indeed, the design of Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) airframes differs from those intended for conventional takeoff and landing. Considering that the production quantity of the STOVL version is not planned to match that of 'land' or 'carrier' types, a pertinent question arises: was it truly necessary to create a unified airframe for all three variants? Does this approach genuinely yield cost savings? It seems more economically efficient to engineer two distinct airframe types—one shared between land-based and carrier-based, and another for STOVL—with some common elements, rather than crafting a singular airframe suitable for all takeoff types, especially given the anticipated lower production volume of STOVL planes. This perspective prompts a critical examination of the cost-effectiveness and practicality of a uniform airframe for varied takeoff and landing requirements.