WT Forums

Did you check out my link? There is a possibility to have even more Super Hornet-type aircraft. I am also thinikng that the Navy had the idea in the back of their minds to anticipate for an advanced aircraft so they didn't think of the Super-Hornet as terminal. I just am real anxious to see the E/F perform and I do really think that there can be upgrades in the engine/radar making them potential dominating fighters. What is on paper is different from what is being talked about for the new design-Perhaps any modification will classify it into the Advanced-Super-Hornet and that would be a mouthful

Is it just me or do you think that the Navy-JSF should have two engines?

I have to agree with the Tomcat site that I checked out when they debated this issue, their conclusion: Only time will tell
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/ ... owdown.htm




Edited by - Tritonal on Jan 30 2003 4:32 PM

YOU PROBABLY RIGHT BUZZ,I GET CONFUSSED AFTER THE MIG-27,

IT COMES DOWN TO THIS
YOU CAN HAVE A "OK" PILOT FLYING THE BEST JET IN THE WORLD AND GO UP AGAINST A "HOT" IN A SO-SO JET AND THE BETTER PILOT WILL WIN! THUG IS RIGHT TRAINING AND PRACTICE WILL ALWAYS PLAY A BIG PART.
THOSE F-18 GUYS MIGHT OF WON ON THE SHOW BUT THEY WERE WORKING AWFUL HARD.I DONT THINK THEY WOULD'OF SHOWN THEM GETTING WHIPPED BY THE GERMANS DO YOU?

PRESS TO TEST

_________________
\"Live Free Or Die\"

Sure, we can add new engines, new TVC nozzles, now AESA radars, a new ATFLIR, new JHMCS helmet sight, and blah, blah, blah.

What do you get when you're all done?

An aircraft half as good as the F-35 for twice the price.

Go figure.

As far as having one engine on a naval aircraft, let's see...

F-8, A-4, A-7, AV-8/FA-2, F-86, F4U, F6F, F8F, and the A-1 all share two things in common.

1) They were all great carrier aircraft.
2) They all had one engine.

Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

To my knowledge the F-86 Sabre was never a carrierborne aircraft.

Engine reliabily and effiency has made such quantum leaps in the last 20 years that the Navy doesn't consider a single engined carrier aircraft such a vice.

If you are not having fun, you are not doing it right!





Edited by - Tomcat Tweaker on Jan 30 2003 10:12 PM

There's talk about it going around the navy, but that's all it is right now and porbably for a long time...talk.

hey he's a ground pounder, why should he know a Fury from a Sabre <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

agreed on the reliability of modern turbines, Heinemans Hotrod has always been one of my favorites <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

Boomer, is that what the naval Sabre was called?

I know it had a different designation than the USAF model(The navy still used that old system of theirs at the time), but they definitely were USN fighters.

We won WWII with single engine carrier fighters Tritonal.

I have no real worries about JSF, it seems to be everybit as good as the hype- at least so far.
My only real complaint is that they didn't put a bubble cockpit on it. That strikes me as particularly stupid.

Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

Yup, the North American FJ Fury series. The Navy was actually the ones that ordered the Fury to begin with, as a straight winged plane. The Air Force also ordered some, and North American by that time had discovered the benefits of sweeping the wings, which is where the F-86 came from. The later FJ series (the FJ-2 and on) had swept wings. I've got a book at home that shows an FJ-2 (I think) getting catapulted off the deck of a carrier. It's pretty bizzare to see.

Ted

Politicians and diapers have one thing in common. They should both be changed regularly and for the same reason.
<img src="http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/dark2.gif" border=0>

Thanx Ted.



Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

I know there are excellent single engine Navy fighters, but at 50 million a shot I taling the "better safe than sorry" approach.

Whats the difference Tritonal...........If a F-16 loses its engine, its not like it is going to catch some thermals and glide back to base, its gonna drop like a rock. A single engine combat fighter without engine power either becomes a geological feature, or a coral reef.......Take your pick. What is good enough for the USAF is good enough for the Navy. See the above post on the reliability of newest generation of powerplants. The JSF unlike the Super Hornet is a model procurment program, and a very well thought out concept. But I don't like the poor rear visability of canopy neither.

If you are not having fun, you are not doing it right!





Edited by - Tomcat Tweaker on Jan 31 2003 2:20 PM

I wonder how much it would cost to equip the F-35 with a thrust-vectoring engine. It could seriously increase its agility... from what I've heard the F-35 is about as manueverable as an F-16 or F/A-18... think if it employed thrust vectoring. If only we had the defense budget to support it =) I agree with you guys, they should have put a bubble canopy on the JSF.

About the single engine... hey, look at the F-16 (the workhorse of the USAF) ... highly effective, techonlogocially advanced, gets the job done. Two engines would be nicer ofcourse, but then again that means higher production costs and operating costs.

"The cost of peace is eternal vigilance".

Buzz, the engine of the F-35 is the most powerful in it's class(even more powerful than the F-22's F-119s are), so the plant is good.
Adding vectored thrust is just a matter of adding a new 3D nozzle, we don't need to change the whole powerplant.

Vectored thrust is currently scheduled to be introduced in Block 2 aircraft starting around 2010. It could be incorporated tommorow if anyone asked it to be though.

I think i can safely predict that if the F-22 gets cancelled we will see a bubble canopy vectored thrust JSF with the bigger USN wings called the F-35D get funded REALLY FAST.

Comparing the F-35 to the F-16 and 18 is not really fair, becuase it is stealth and will hold a huge advantadge BVR(Pilots feel free to correct me here), but just comparing ACM the JSF has a huge advantadge.
That is the internal weapons carriage.
That will give the JSF far less drag throughout it's entire flight envelope meaning it's acceleration, cruise speed, range, energy retention, and top speed will be greatly improved compared to all current gen fighters with an AAW loadout.

I am sure Mudd or Luke can testify to the difference in the performance of a clean F-16 and one with 6 or 8 AAMs hung under the wings.

BTW, Tritonal, the F-35 is currently listed at $35 million dollars per airframe.

That is significantly less than the F-18E/F, and they aren't even equipped with the things they need to be competitive yet(Like ECM, AESA radar, JHMCS, ATFLIR, etc).

Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>BTW, Tritonal, the F-35 is currently listed at $35 million dollars per airframe.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I knew that initally, but like most procurements, Murphy does make his presence known; I did some creative math<img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>- The F22 has almost a Billion dollar overrun.

M21,

I know its just a nozzle... you have to impliment the avionics to support it though... maybe its not that expensive, I think they should throw it on the F-35C series... why wait for additional blocks when you could have the technology on production aircraft.

Ofcourse the F35 will have the advantage because of stealth... but in a knife fight a well trained -18 or -16 pilot would have a pretty much equal chance of shooting it down... that is if the aircraft was in the "clean configuration" with only AIM-9s and guns. Thats where I agree with you, the F-35 would have a distinct advantage with no outboard fuel-tanks or weapons... but if the F-16 was clean I concede that it would be an equal match... I'm a viper advocate, what can I say.


"The cost of peace is eternal vigilance".

Edited by - buzz2182 on Jan 31 2003 7:19 PM

YOU KNOW WE CAN TALK ABOUT 1 ENGINE VS. 2 ENGINES AND CLEAN AND SO FORTH BUT ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW
HOW EASY ARE THESE NEW GENERATION JETS GOING TO BE TO MAINTAIN?
ANY OF YOU EVER WATCH THEM CHANGE A ENGINE ON A HARRIER? LET ALONE A STEALTH?
YOU CAN HAVE ALL THE POWER IN THE WORLD AND THE BEST AVONICS AND PILOTS BUT IT DONT HELP YOU WHEN THE DAMN THIS IS BROKE.
THE MORE ADVANCED A PLANE ,THE BIGGER A PAIN ITS TO FIX.
YOU NEED SPECIAL HANGARS,EQUIPMENT,ETC...
LOOK AT THE B-2,THEIR BULIDING THOSE NEW HANGARS OVER THERE SOMEWHERE BECAUSE THE PLANE CANT BE LEFT OUTSIDE,HAS TO BE CLEANED AFTER EVER FLIGHT TO ENSURE STEALTH SO ON.
LETS SEE THEM DEPLOY THE F-22 OR F-35 TO A REMOTE FOL AND DO COMBAT TURNS.
THEY PUT ALL THE BELLS AND WHISTLES IN BUT ALWAYS SEEMED TO FORGET THE POOR WRENCH BENDER THAT HAS TO FIND PARTS AND THEN TRY TO GET TO THEM.

PRESS TO TEST

_________________
\"Live Free Or Die\"

I cant speake for the F-35, but the F-22 will be EASIER to maintain than F-15!! Something like ¼ the maintainece and ¼ the tools as well. The engines apparently have NO componants on them more than 2 layers deep!! So things SHOULD be a little easier for the wrench spinners. But dealing with the LO coatings and such will probly compensate in the hair pulling department LOL

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

LOL Goose True Story, I remember the Simplicity of Swinging in a Jungle Hammok hung under the Wing of The ov10. Bugs knawing on you somewhere in the armpit of the world, 1 day its in the jungle, next day your on the Side of a mountain Medevacing at altitudes no helo can touch at the time. the Next, You park next to the Mech Infantry Commanders tent. A week later you Loose Number 1 and Lose Pitch on number 2. deadstick on a lonely farm Country Road, and Turn wrenches on a Garrett..LOL Hopeing the Narc Guerillas dont find ya<img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

I believe we should be designing aircraft that are not maintenence nightmares with Basic Analog Flight systems, plug and play avionics and pods. Drop the new gear in place and Fedex the Black gadget to be serviced.



"Your presence on WT is like an odor dude, you need to unleash.. -Brewski"

Roger that on the avionics needed Buzz.

But the engines themselves don't need to be replaced, that was my point. Sorry for oversimplifying though

By the way, i like your sig line.

That was the exact saying i painted in the rear window of my car on 9-12.

Gotta love Jefferson

Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

Hey Boomer....

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>a "G" is just a degree per second lateral acceleration change, so an F-16 pulling 9 Gs would carve the same circle as a B-52(just an example guys LOL) pulling 9 Gs, but Snipe is saying a heavier plane would take longer to get that 9Gs started, and time, like speed, is life in a knife fight<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Well, actually a "G" is not degree per second acceleration change. A G 'is' acceleration not a change in acceleration. Also, how about speed? Speed is the bigger variable when talking about turn circles not Gs. Gs are all about turn rates. We all know that different planes have different turn rates even under the same G loading. Part of this is again due to speed differences but another factor is AoA. You can have extremely high AoA and high turn rate (for a limited time) but your turn circle will initially not be too small. It is a MAJOR over simplification to just say that all planes pulling 9 Gs fly the same turn circle. It is just NOT true.

As for the bigger, heavier jets, yup, momentum. F=ma is the same as saying force equals the change in momentum. So for something much more massive it takes more force over more time to get the same amount of acceleration or G force.

Hence a 9G Falcon turning a tighter circle than a 9G Eagle, right?

Thanx Luke.

Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

Snipe,
9G's on a 12 lb mellon = 108 lbs..Theres not enough johnny walker Blue label or guiness to take that pain away... BTDT, 9 G's can put a serious hurt on..205 lbs x 9 g's = 1845 lbs of "ouch" on the Spine! I ofton times laugh at how aviation proponents argue over well this plane can do 12 G's or this one can do 9G's...The truth is, We dont like doing that for several reasons. You break jets and you break bodies. But its there on tap incase you need it...

_________________
\"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week. \"

George S. Patton

Yeah, I hear in the viper that a 1v1 between 2 inexperienced guys (like towards the end of RTU or something) just turns into a battle of wills. Whoever calls uncle first loses.

Have a buddy here who told me about a time when he was a young LT new to the viper. He was 1v1 with his IP at about 5k over the water. He was defensive but RAGING around in full AB pulling for all he was worth right up at 9Gs. However, he was accelerating (30k lbs of thrust is awesome) and his turn circle just kept getting bigger and bigger. Meanwhile his IP was sitting back in WEZ at 3.5ish Gs tracking him the whole way around from inside the circle. Ahh, inexperience.....I think we all have those stories where you do not realize you are not that experienced until you learn the hard way...

Best turn vs Fastest Turn..You hit it right on the Head luke<img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
....ive heard this from other flights crossing the lake allot....."Here comes Mudd...That kid will never learn"..I paid my dues, and dished out a few of my own...and in time learned allot of keen tricks that caused my advesaries to have their sensories employed looking in the wrong areas at times...My oh my where did that mysterious Radar Echo come from......"Snap" "where the hell are you...lol snoozed and on your six Col." I may have not have been the best Geometry Fighter, But i knew how to setem up for the Fall..



"Your presence on WT is like an odor dude, you need to unleash.. -Brewski"

Thanx for the insight guys.

LOL, Mudd you'd love the F-22 then, that one is rated past 11G's, lol.
Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

Edited by - m21 sniper on Feb 01 2003 2:52 PM