Yes the concept of a "Joint" Strike Fighter is important.
We would have had one in IOC by now if it was not for the dubious STOVL requirement messing up the whole design.
There was a time when we could field effective "Joint" Strike Fighters.
3 comments:
Anonymous
said...
The services' requirements were so diverse that one airframe could not possibly serve them all, and many have said this from the beginning. I agree that the STOVL version is just about useless, and certainly not worth the expenditure to make it work. However, there is a feeling by many in the USMC that the Navy sabotaged the JSF design. The conspiracy goes something like the Navy/Boeing team tried to make it so big, that it would be too heavy for STOVL ops. thereby killing Marine fast jet aviation. You have to love the Marines and their theories, going all the way back to 'canal. Anyway, some feel that a joint CTOL/STOVL version could have come in much lighter, with the attendant reduction in cost and possibly smoother development (although the software issue probably would still be a drag on the program.) Who knows. The problem with the Navy version is that even though it influenced the other's size, it is still not large enough to give it the range required by the CVW. Separating the variants at birth would have allowed the Navy to design a more aero efficient aircraft (not having to enclose a lift fan,) 2 engines for overwater ops, the possibility of 2 crew, proper dimensions for CV ops (a hook that actually grabs a wire every time,) etc. The AUPC has basically doubled on the F-35 from 2001 - so the idea that combining CTOL/STOVL/CATOBAR versions to save money is certainly proven to be incorrect.
I agree with the 1st commentor. In addition, the commonality that was supposed to have happened nver really did so they ended up close to being 3 separate aircraft with the same avionics.
In the end, insteady of an affordable stealth aircraft with high commonality, we are getting 3 aircraft for the price of 5 (or 6).
PS - Wonder how the Marines grunts on the ground are going to like F-35 CAS from 35K? Is that NSCAS (not so CAS)?
I don't know why they insisted on a shared airframe. Why not develop three separate airframes that use identical systems whenever possible? There still would have been a cost savings by using identical radar, engine, etc, but each aircraft wouldn't have been hobbled by needing to conform with another service's requirements.
The USAF version's short stubby wings are ther to satisfy the Marine's STOVL requirement. Ditto the "humpback" reducing pilot visibility. The Navy required a traditional tail for carrier landing, instead of the proposed canard/delta initially planned.
Just about everything about the aircraft is a compromise. It's like one of those ridiculous Swiss Army Knives with so many tools it can't fit in your pocket anymore. Sure, it can do a lot of different things, but can't do any thing well and its too impractical to actually use.
3 comments:
The services' requirements were so diverse that one airframe could not possibly serve them all, and many have said this from the beginning. I agree that the STOVL version is just about useless, and certainly not worth the expenditure to make it work. However, there is a feeling by many in the USMC that the Navy sabotaged the JSF design. The conspiracy goes something like the Navy/Boeing team tried to make it so big, that it would be too heavy for STOVL ops. thereby killing Marine fast jet aviation. You have to love the Marines and their theories, going all the way back to 'canal. Anyway, some feel that a joint CTOL/STOVL version could have come in much lighter, with the attendant reduction in cost and possibly smoother development (although the software issue probably would still be a drag on the program.) Who knows. The problem with the Navy version is that even though it influenced the other's size, it is still not large enough to give it the range required by the CVW. Separating the variants at birth would have allowed the Navy to design a more aero efficient aircraft (not having to enclose a lift fan,) 2 engines for overwater ops, the possibility of 2 crew, proper dimensions for CV ops (a hook that actually grabs a wire every time,) etc. The AUPC has basically doubled on the F-35 from 2001 - so the idea that combining CTOL/STOVL/CATOBAR versions to save money is certainly proven to be incorrect.
I agree with the 1st commentor. In addition, the commonality that was supposed to have happened nver really did so they ended up close to being 3 separate aircraft with the same avionics.
In the end, insteady of an affordable stealth aircraft with high commonality, we are getting 3 aircraft for the price of 5 (or 6).
PS - Wonder how the Marines grunts on the ground are going to like F-35 CAS from 35K? Is that NSCAS (not so CAS)?
I don't know why they insisted on a shared airframe. Why not develop three separate airframes that use identical systems whenever possible? There still would have been a cost savings by using identical radar, engine, etc, but each aircraft wouldn't have been hobbled by needing to conform with another service's requirements.
The USAF version's short stubby wings are ther to satisfy the Marine's STOVL requirement. Ditto the "humpback" reducing pilot visibility. The Navy required a traditional tail for carrier landing, instead of the proposed canard/delta initially planned.
Just about everything about the aircraft is a compromise. It's like one of those ridiculous Swiss Army Knives with so many tools it can't fit in your pocket anymore. Sure, it can do a lot of different things, but can't do any thing well and its too impractical to actually use.
Post a Comment