USAF Plans for Fighters Change

Aviation Week & Space Technology ^ | 09/19/2004 | David A. Fulghum and Robert Wall

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[glorgau]

They're keeping the A-10s with upgrades. Good move, the AF needs something that goes low, slow and can survive battle damage.

[SJSAMPLE]

I was referring to the Harrier in an entirely negative context. I don't think it came out that way ;)

[Frank_Discussion]

Based on B-Chan's comment above, staying on target may not be that difficult. Tie the flight controls into the turret targeting controls, you should be able to draw a bead and keep it there.

Beyond that, just lazing the enemy's sensor suite might be a good thing to be able to do.

[Conspiracy Guy]

Has Kerry voted for this yet so he can vote against it.......

[ColoradoAce]

Could you add me to the ping list? Thanks in advance.
Kelly

[VOA]

bump

[Archangelsk]

I smell wildly out of scope here.

[B4Ranch]

In a previous thread someone commented that the goal was to lighten this plane by 3500 lbs. Is 2700 lbs. going to be their new goal?

If a generals son was on the ground would he approve>> Reducing the size of the weapons bays by 14 in. ??

[ArrogantBustard]

People for the Ethical Treatment of Womp-rats (PETW) spokething Ugklasjdm OOOmapxn said: "aowernk as;lierf aasdjklfh sdfioyucinm asld", which rougly translates as "I'm deeply saddened by the hideous, pointless, senseless destruction of peaceful, loving creatures. But there's good news! I just saved a bunch of money on landspeeder insurance by switching to GEICO!"

[Chemist_Geek]

Yes, I was predicating my thoughts on having to slag structural members of the target. Sensors are a heck of a lot easier to zot.

[Tallguy]

Great. Now the USAF will have the same underpowered, underarmed, no-legs version as the USMC. They should take a close look at the Harrier before signing on to this one.

I think this is a ploy to preserve the mission/rationale for the F-22. That wouldn't make you mad, would it? The problem with competing tactical aircraft systems is that politics (congress) always wants to dictate the mix of systems purchased in the out-years. Right now the USAF is looking at a greatly reduced buy of the F-22, so much so that they have suggested a strike role (FB-22) for what is otherwise an air superiority fighter. That tactic was laughable; this one (the F-35B gambit) is more clever.

[Tallguy]

The F-35 does not use the same vectored thrust system as the Harrier. Instead it uses a ducted fan system to produce thrust in the vertical. My understanding is that the Harriers crash rate had a lot to do with unbalanced thrust vectoring and the fatal roll that this created on landing.

BTW, The unsuccessful Boeing JSF candidate, did use a vectored thrust system similar to the Harrier's.

[Pukin Dog]

JSF program officials said they have identified 2,700 lb. in weight or weight equivalent reductions for the Stovl aircraft using strategies that include:

* Reducing the distance between interior structural elements in the wing so the aircraft's exterior skin can be thinner.

Reducing structural integrity, increasing wing-flex under G, increasing FOD, bird and flak vulnerability

* Reducing the size of the weapons bays by 14 in. as well as the size of the vertical tails.

Decreasing roll authority at high-alpha, decreasing weapons payload

* Rounding the shape, the loft line, of the fuselage behind the cockpit to hold more fuel. That was one of several changes that decreased drag. and increased radar signature

* Redesigning the electrical system to decrease the battery size and the amount of wiring. resulting in more load on generator under hot start conditions, decreasing redundancy in harnesses, increasing overall vulnerability

* Redesigning the wing-mate joint. can only mean reducing available mass, which means reducing joint strength.

* Rerouting some thrust from the roll post outlets to the main engine thrust. resulting in small thrust increase at the expense of high temperature increase, resulting in higher IR signature and vulnerability to IR weapons.

None of this matters, the sucker is dead by April.

[tjwmason]

They should take a close look at the Harrier before signing on to this one.

My understanding was that the whole J.S.F. project was designed to be the follower from the Harrier. The Harrier has many disadvantages (not least its sub-sonic limit), but was found to have a number of advantages deriving from the whole jump-jet idea.

Besides, if you ever want to see a real screw-up look at the whole Euro-fighter Project (I think that they renamed it the Typhoon or something similar to get away from the negative conotations). Put a bunch of European in charge and then you'll see what can go wrong.

[tjwmason]

My understanding is that the Harriers crash rate had a lot to do with unbalanced thrust vectoring and the fatal roll that this created on landing.

Much of the problem was sorted out. When the Harrier first leapt onto the scene computers could send little white blobs around in a game of quasi-tennis but not much more. As the Harrier was around for longer, it could be fitted with computer systems which allowed much better management of the thrust, and thus far better safety.

[SJSAMPLE]

From the films I've seen, the fan system of the Marine F-35 is far superior than the thrust vectoring of the Harrier. However, other than safety, my concerns about range and armenment (among others) is what drives my dislike for VSTOL or STOVL aircraft. The Harrier isn't particularly good at any of its roles, but the USMC is focused on driving towards a future aircraft that can adequately perform air combat and close air support missions. The Marine F35 is a step up, but it still lacks (greatly) when compared to the other F35 variants.

[Tallguy]

Most of the Harrier problems were sorted out with the AV-8B. More powerful engine & avionics plus a greater percentage of composite technology in the airframe.

You also can't compare accident rates of single-engine and dual-engine fighter aircraft. The former will always be higher, for obvious reasons. So far all STOVL jet fighters are single-engine.

[Terabitten]

They're keeping the A-10s with upgrades. Good move, the AF needs something that goes low, slow and can survive battle damage.

Preach it, said the former infantryman.

[Tallguy]

From the films I've seen, the fan system of the Marine F-35 is far superior than the thrust vectoring of the Harrier. However, other than safety, my concerns about range and armenment (among others) is what drives my dislike for VSTOL or STOVL aircraft.

I can't argue with that, but I will say that the current tactical thinking (the "expeditionary war mindset") says that speed & acceleration kills more efficiently than mass firepower. In other words, better a STOVL fighter nearby than a CTOL attack jet that can't make the target without air tanking. This mindset is affecting everything from Armor (Stryker) to Artillery (Crusader). Change like this makes everyone a little nervous.