RJMAZ wrote:

My thought is once engine thrust is increased by 20% the F-35 design can add a bit of extra empty weight and fuel capacity without sacrificing agility or performance. The single engine F-35 design could easily evolve to a 35t MTOW aircraft with a 1000nm combat radius on internal fuel.

The F-35 is full. There is no significant empty space to add more fuel tanks. And changing the exterior would be $expensive$ because stealth.

I believe the adaptive engine will have some fuel savings (30% increase in range), so that helps some.

kitplane01 wrote:

The F-35 is full. There is no significant empty space to add more fuel tanks. And changing the exterior would be $expensive$ because stealth.

I believe the adaptive engine will have some fuel savings (30% increase in range), so that helps some.

I disagree. The F-35C fuel capacity could hit 10,000kg while maintaining 90+% parts commonality with the standard C variant. It would be a very simple development costing a tiny fraction of a cleansheet design. The US Navy is already talking about an improved F-35C so the only thing open to discussion is what changes it will have.

The F-35 is fairly stubby with a poor mach angle. The obvious solution is a fuselage plug directly behind the cockpit. This also happens to be where the aircraft is most simple ahead of the landing gear and weapons bays. The leading edge extensions can then be brought forward to correct the centre of gravity. The C variant lacks the leading edge extensions of the A model so a fuselage plug would see these appear on the C model. The fuselage plug would be fully filled with fuel.

The mach angle would actually improve with the fuselage plug so the aircraft would probably have better transonic acceleration despite the increased empty weight. Then once extra thrust is added on top it should see the improved C model reach the acceleration of the current A model.

With the F-35A model a fuselage plug and adaptive engine would see it get mighty close to the F-22 acceleration numbers. This could be the rumoured F-35D.

How sad would we all be if the rumours of the 6th gen aircraft that has already flown turns out to only be a stretched F-35A with an adaptive engine. I guess it would explain the rapid development speed and it has been kept secret as it may effect the fighter competitions.

RJMAZ wrote:

The F-35C is already on the upper end of the carrier limit in terms of weight.

Are you sure of that?
Do the new carriers have a lower limit then the old ones? Because the F-14 and A-5 Vigilante where both heavier then the F-35C.

petertenthije wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

The F-35C is already on the upper end of the carrier limit in terms of weight.

Are you sure of that?
Do the new carriers have a lower limit then the old ones? Because the F-14 and A-5 Vigilante where both heavier then the F-35C.

Of all the aircraft types that have operated from US aircraft carriers the F-35C has the second highest maximum takeoff weight.

So yes the F-35C is on the upper end of the carrier limit.

The F-35C is actually heavier than the A-5. The A-5 is also well known for being the most dangerous jet aircraft to land on a carrier due to its weight and high landing speed. The F-14 has swing wings to allow it to fly slower which is how it can operate safely at heavier weights.

A lightly stretched improved F-35C might have a 17,000kg empty weight and 35,000kg MTOW. That is extremely heavy despite only being a 10% increase from the normal F-35C weights. That is clearly on the upper limit of the carrier.

Now a cleansheet design using a pair of 20,000kg of thrust adaptive engines would have to be a minimum of 25,000kg empty and 45,000kg MTOW. That is simply too big for the carrier. The F-22 for example with its smaller 15,600kg thrust engines is already at 19,700kg empty and 38,000kg MTOW without the stronger landing gear or hook.

I'm not saying it is physically impossible to have such a large fighter on a carrier. They could always have retractable canards and use bleed air to provide canard-spanwise blowing. Get the landing speed down to 120 knots and it might be possible to trap at a 30,000kg weight. The cost of such an extra wouldn't be worth it compared to an evolved F-35C.

The next fighter and follow on to F-14 capabilities.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... pt-design/

You can see with the Block III improvements for the Rhino, the USN attempting to undo some of the shortfalls (range, speed, loiter time, carrying capability) that occurred when the Tomcat went away. Shall be interesting to see what the manufacturers come up with.

RJMAZ wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

The F-35 is full. There is no significant empty space to add more fuel tanks. And changing the exterior would be $expensive$ because stealth.

I believe the adaptive engine will have some fuel savings (30% increase in range), so that helps some.

I disagree. The F-35C fuel capacity could hit 10,000kg while maintaining 90+% parts commonality with the standard C variant. It would be a very simple development costing a tiny fraction of a cleansheet design. The US Navy is already talking about an improved F-35C so the only thing open to discussion is what changes it will have.

The F-35 is fairly stubby with a poor mach angle. The obvious solution is a fuselage plug directly behind the cockpit. This also happens to be where the aircraft is most simple ahead of the landing gear and weapons bays. The leading edge extensions can then be brought forward to correct the centre of gravity. The C variant lacks the leading edge extensions of the A model so a fuselage plug would see these appear on the C model. The fuselage plug would be fully filled with fuel.

The mach angle would actually improve with the fuselage plug so the aircraft would probably have better transonic acceleration despite the increased empty weight. Then once extra thrust is added on top it should see the improved C model reach the acceleration of the current A model.

With the F-35A model a fuselage plug and adaptive engine would see it get mighty close to the F-22 acceleration numbers. This could be the rumoured F-35D.

How sad would we all be if the rumours of the 6th gen aircraft that has already flown turns out to only be a stretched F-35A with an adaptive engine. I guess it would explain the rapid development speed and it has been kept secret as it may effect the fighter competitions.

I don't think adding to the fuselage of the F-35 would be so easy, nor that it could be done cheaply and quickly.

I would have thought that changing anything on the F-35 would require recertifying both the aero, the structure, and the stealth. The flight control software will need to be modified, and tested to a safety-of-life standard. That adding weight in front of the wing would mess up the center of gravity. And that the aero engineers who worked on the F-35 were smart enough that there were no "obvious" simple fixes that would improve aero performance.

If a cleansheet design is $10B-$50B, and "tiny" means 2%, you need to do all of this for $200M-$1B. Moving the F-35 from block 3 to block 4 costs $14B.
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/03 ... in-a-year/

kitplane01 wrote:

I would have thought that changing anything on the F-35 would require recertifying both the aero, the structure, and the stealth. The flight control software will need to be modified, and tested to a safety-of-life standard. That adding weight in front of the wing would mess up the center of gravity.

This would be no more difficult than making a twin seat trainer version of a fighter jet which has been done dozens of times. The Saab Gripen for example even has the fuselage lengthened 5% for the two seat version. We don't see that nose diving into the ground due to center of gravity issues.

This isn't writing million lines of software that costs billions.

kitplane01 wrote:

And that the aero engineers who worked on the F-35 were smart enough that there were no "obvious" simple fixes that would improve aero performance.

That is incorrect. It was the thrust of the F135 engine and the F-35B requiring vertical lift that determined the small packaging and most optimised design. Or should we call it a compromised design, everything is a design compromise. Commonality between each variant was a design goal and they had limits on how far each version could go.

Now that engine thrust is increasing the weight of the most optimised design would also increase. This extra weight allowance allows the designers to spend it in the right areas to improve the F-35C.

If we look at the F-16 big mouth, small mouth issue the adaptive engine might require tweaks to the intake already. So adding a stretch in that area while the the intakes are being modified would not cost much.

CX747 wrote:

The next fighter and follow on to F-14 capabilities.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... pt-design/

You can see with the Block III improvements for the Rhino, the USN attempting to undo some of the shortfalls (range, speed, loiter time, carrying capability) that occurred when the Tomcat went away. Shall be interesting to see what the manufacturers come up with.

Besides a Boeing concept in 2009 there are no specs or weights of the F/A-XX. For years all the US Navy has been saying longer range, faster speed than the Super Hornet. The F-35C is already faster and longer ranged than the Super Hornet.

The Block 3 Super Hornet doesn't even reach the range and performance figures of a standard F-35C. It makes no sense to evolve the Super Hornet design when they already have a new F-35 engine in testing that will improve the performance of the F-35C.

The Navy doesn't need more hardware than it needs the personnel footprint to man what it has already. It also needs to figure out how to leverage its reserve force like the rest of the DOD figured out how to do in the 1990s, rather than use it for budgetary sleight of hand and Joint manning requirements.

If the Navy grows anything, it needs to figure out what comes after Aegis/Standard which despite their eye-watering performance, increase SSN underway time, improve the improving mine capability, improve countermine capability, and improve expeditionary basing and support.

Personnel retention and cost is a big issue when you have 5500 crew members on the Gerald Ford. A modern diesel submarine has around 50 to 75.

The average cost per active-duty service member is now close to $140,000, while total personnel-related costs — including costs for running the Defense Health Program, family programs and other initiatives — exceed $200 billion, according to the study.
https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org ... toric-high

RJMAZ wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I would have thought that changing anything on the F-35 would require recertifying both the aero, the structure, and the stealth. The flight control software will need to be modified, and tested to a safety-of-life standard. That adding weight in front of the wing would mess up the center of gravity.

This would be no more difficult than making a twin seat trainer version of a fighter jet which has been done dozens of times. The Saab Gripen for example even has the fuselage lengthened 5% for the two seat version. We don't see that nose diving into the ground due to center of gravity issues.

This isn't writing million lines of software that costs billions.

kitplane01 wrote:

And that the aero engineers who worked on the F-35 were smart enough that there were no "obvious" simple fixes that would improve aero performance.

That is incorrect. It was the thrust of the F135 engine and the F-35B requiring vertical lift that determined the small packaging and most optimised design. Or should we call it a compromised design, everything is a design compromise. Commonality between each variant was a design goal and they had limits on how far each version could go.

(I've edited the snark out of this post. It was snarky).

I believe that someone somewhere in LM is smart, and that any obvious, low cost, no tradeoff improvements to the F-35 that are so obvious an internet discussion forum can think of them have also been considered by professionals.

And as to cost ... I bet Saab could do something like this at low cost. I don't believe LM can.

FlapOperator wrote:

The Navy doesn't need more hardware than it needs the personnel footprint to man what it has already. It also needs to figure out how to leverage its reserve force like the rest of the DOD figured out how to do in the 1990s, rather than use it for budgetary sleight of hand and Joint manning requirements.

If the Navy grows anything, it needs to figure out what comes after Aegis/Standard which despite their eye-watering performance, increase SSN underway time, improve the improving mine capability, improve countermine capability, and improve expeditionary basing and support.

Interesting.

Is there some thing you would change ... move assets or money or personnel or emphasis from some area to another? Do you believe for instance that the navy has the anti-air vs anti-submarine balance right, or would you emphasize one more than the other as compared to what is done now? The right mix of carriers, cruisers, and submarines?

kitplane01 wrote:

I believe that someone somewhere in LM is smart, and that any obvious, low cost, no tradeoff improvements to the F-35 that are so obvious an internet discussion forum can think of them have also been considered by professionals.

I will repeat for the third time as you keep missing the point. The F-35 was designed around the VTOL F-35B and an engine with 190kn of thrust. It was designed perfectly.

They now have an engine with 210+kn of thrust and lower fuel burn. The most optimised design is now different. The aircraft can be heavier while still maintaining the same thrust to weight.

Here is a perfect example. The F414 is the exact same size as the F404 but it gained 20% more thrust. What did Saab do with the Gripen E? They stretched it and added extra fuel. Are Saab engineers dumb? Did they get the fuselage length wrong with the original Gripen?

Nope. Someone somewhere in Saab is smart. Engineers at Saab worked out that stretching the fuselage was an obvious, low cost solution with no trade off. All thanks to the extra engine thrust.

The vast majority of development costs is the complex internal systems and sensors. A stretch of a F-35 fuselage would be incredibly simple. You wouldn't even believe that the section aft the cockpit and forward of the weapon bays is its own section that gets bolted together in assembly.



Now Lockheed could easily stretch this section. You can even see the leading edge extensions are part of this section. So the leading edge extensions can also be made longer which fixes any centre of gravity issues. A 1m stretch of this section would add more than 1,000kg of fuel capacity for less than 1,000kg of empty weight. The extra fuel would increase range considerably. Combined with the adaptive bypass engine the F-35C combat radius would be around 900nm. This is DOUBLE the combat radius of the Super Hornet.

With the improved thrust and mach angle the stretch would have no disadvantages over the current F-35C.

Just like how the F-16's are now flying around with 1,700kg conformal tanks and 50% greater fuel capacity and still have better performance than the original F-16A thanks to 30% higher engine thrust.

kitplane01 wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

The Navy doesn't need more hardware than it needs the personnel footprint to man what it has already. It also needs to figure out how to leverage its reserve force like the rest of the DOD figured out how to do in the 1990s, rather than use it for budgetary sleight of hand and Joint manning requirements.

If the Navy grows anything, it needs to figure out what comes after Aegis/Standard which despite their eye-watering performance, increase SSN underway time, improve the improving mine capability, improve countermine capability, and improve expeditionary basing and support.

Interesting.

Is there some thing you would change ... move assets or money or personnel or emphasis from some area to another? Do you believe for instance that the navy has the anti-air vs anti-submarine balance right, or would you emphasize one more than the other as compared to what is done now? The right mix of carriers, cruisers, and submarines?

You're missing his point. There aren't enough sailors to go around. The Burkes are well rounded AAW/ASW platforms.

johns624 wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

The Navy doesn't need more hardware than it needs the personnel footprint to man what it has already. It also needs to figure out how to leverage its reserve force like the rest of the DOD figured out how to do in the 1990s, rather than use it for budgetary sleight of hand and Joint manning requirements.

If the Navy grows anything, it needs to figure out what comes after Aegis/Standard which despite their eye-watering performance, increase SSN underway time, improve the improving mine capability, improve countermine capability, and improve expeditionary basing and support.

Interesting.

Is there some thing you would change ... move assets or money or personnel or emphasis from some area to another? Do you believe for instance that the navy has the anti-air vs anti-submarine balance right, or would you emphasize one more than the other as compared to what is done now? The right mix of carriers, cruisers, and submarines?

You're missing his point. There aren't enough sailors to go around. The Burkes are well rounded AAW/ASW platforms.

I'm exactly not missing his point. I'm accepting the point.

One could move sailers into aircraft carriers, or submarines, or land based air (P-8). Or maybe the USN should build fewer ships/planes and spend more money on recruiting/pay/vacations. I'm asking if he would make any such moves, or if the current "shape" of the USN is right.

kitplane01 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Interesting.

Is there some thing you would change ... move assets or money or personnel or emphasis from some area to another? Do you believe for instance that the navy has the anti-air vs anti-submarine balance right, or would you emphasize one more than the other as compared to what is done now? The right mix of carriers, cruisers, and submarines?

You're missing his point. There aren't enough sailors to go around. The Burkes are well rounded AAW/ASW platforms.

I'm exactly not missing his point. I'm accepting the point.

One could move sailers into aircraft carriers, or submarines, or land based air (P-8). Or maybe the USN should build fewer ships/planes and spend more money on recruiting/pay/vacations. I'm asking if he would make any such moves, or if the current "shape" of the USN is right.

You don't just "move sailors around". They all have specialties. It could take years to train someone for subs, for instance.

We need ships with far smaller crew. The total US defense budget for 2022 is projected at $725 billion. Over $200 billion of that is personnel costs. That doesn't include the $ 269 billion the VA wants for 2022.

A carrier with a blue and gold crew of approximately 10000 per year is $1.4 billion and that's probably low.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

We need ships with far smaller crew. The total US defense budget for 2022 is projected at $725 billion. Over $200 billion of that is personnel costs. That doesn't include the $ 269 billion the VA wants for 2022.

A carrier with a blue and gold crew of approximately 10000 per year is $1.4 billion and that's probably low.

Carriers don't have two crews, only SSBNs. The problem with lean crews is that it makes damage control, maintenance and combat operations much harder...fewer people doing more in the same timeframe. It's fine in peacetime, not so much during hostilities.

This is the evolved higher performance USAF version. Taking advantage of the increased thrust of the adaptive bypass XA100 engine. Approximately 2,200kg of extra empty weight. 1,600kg of extra fuel capacity. It looks like it uses parts from the F-35C such as larger tail surfaces.

Wikipedia has this listed:

Proposed variants
F-35D
A study for a possible upgrade of the F-35A to be fielded by the 2035 target date of the USAF's Future Operating Concept

It wouldn't surprise me the rumoured "6th gen" aircraft that was secretly flown by the USAF is just a modified stretched F-35D version. They would be validating aerodynamic and transonic performance before the XA100 engine arrives. That would be very disappointing but it would explain the rapid development and early F-22 retirement. We all hope the secret fighter that has flown is actually a big sleak twin engine monster.

I am certain the US Navy has a similar improved F-35C in the works for F/A-XX program taking advantage of the XA100 engine.

How disappointing would it be if both the USAF and US Navy get stretched F-35 derivatives. Now they just need to make a drone derivatives for both services with a fuel tank where the pilot sits with 1,500nm range.

kitplane01 wrote:

What synergy? I honestly don't yet understand.

It's ok. It's the difference between technical capabilities vs. how a service will actually employ the aircraft in certain roles/missions to leverage the strengths and weaknesses of their disparate platforms. The F-35 is great for many roles, but an F-18F would be perfect in certain roles where the F-35C isn't quite there. Think Pacific OPLANs with dynamic missions, naval fires, and multiple DMPIs.

If there's a two-seat F-35 coming along I'll be the first person to vote for it over the F-18F. On most days, single seat F-35 is amazing and it's not an issue, but for really tough missions, having the second seat is gold. With the data-flow, a second seat would be best for certain missions.

johns624 wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

You're missing his point. There aren't enough sailors to go around. The Burkes are well rounded AAW/ASW platforms.

I'm exactly not missing his point. I'm accepting the point.

One could move sailers into aircraft carriers, or submarines, or land based air (P-8). Or maybe the USN should build fewer ships/planes and spend more money on recruiting/pay/vacations. I'm asking if he would make any such moves, or if the current "shape" of the USN is right.

You don't just "move sailors around". They all have specialties. It could take years to train someone for subs, for instance.

Sure. It takes years to build ships too. Building a new ship to a new design takes even longer. I didn't think this was a weekend project, but the navy is clearly capable of following plans that takes years.

The Navy is not fixed in shape. One could (and historically this happens all the time) reallocate resources. My question is .. how would you reallocate resources. Would you keep the current ration of carrier, planes, destroyers, subs, and land-based air?

kitplane01 wrote:

My question is .. how would you reallocate resources. Would you keep the current ration of carrier, planes, destroyers, subs, and land-based air?

Maybe you should reread your OP. That is nothing close to what you originally asked.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

We need ships with far smaller crew. The total US defense budget for 2022 is projected at $725 billion. Over $200 billion of that is personnel costs. That doesn't include the $ 269 billion the VA wants for 2022.

A carrier with a blue and gold crew of approximately 10000 per year is $1.4 billion and that's probably low.

Ships with smaller crews are simply not as a survivable as ships with larger crews, and frankly, smaller ships aren't as useful as larger ones.

One significant problem with the surface Navy is that going to sea with suboptimal manning has become commonplace, and there are significant knock on effects to that.

kitplane01 wrote:

The Navy is not fixed in shape. One could (and historically this happens all the time) reallocate resources. My question is .. how would you reallocate resources. Would you keep the current ration of carrier, planes, destroyers, subs, and land-based air?

Its a pretty balanced force, now. There are significant issues, like a traditionally weak countermining force, but overall the best thing the Navy could do is figure out how to use their Reserve to ensure underway units are closer to correctly manned. The other services have been living off this for three decades. A reservist costs 1/7th his active counterpart in total lifecycle costs. I'd be looking to double the size of the Reserve, put stuff that makes sense (like Riverine, aviation) and use the manpower pool to ensure proper deployed manning while not totally burning out the reserve force on mobilization.

What happens when your adversary uses non-traditional weapons such as COVID to infect a CVN? Didn't one of the carriers already have a COVID outbreak? Can a CVN survive a modern cruise/ballistic missile hit? Aren't they are working on autonomous vessels too.

FlapOperator wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

We need ships with far smaller crew. The total US defense budget for 2022 is projected at $725 billion. Over $200 billion of that is personnel costs. That doesn't include the $ 269 billion the VA wants for 2022.

A carrier with a blue and gold crew of approximately 10000 per year is $1.4 billion and that's probably low.

Ships with smaller crews are simply not as a survivable as ships with larger crews, and frankly, smaller ships aren't as useful as larger ones.

One significant problem with the surface Navy is that going to sea with suboptimal manning has become commonplace, and there are significant knock on effects to that.

That bears repeating when looking at the LCS debacle the Navy is in. An experiment in reducing crew size and making the crews jack-of-all tradesmen means you hurt whatever mission you are undertaking when your crews are unable to deploy damage control effectively if attacked or damaged while underway. I find the following article very enlightening when considering the effects of reducing crew manning or attempting to generalize skills in an attempt to reduce costs.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... vy/590647/

I find this interesting as I spent the last 18 years of my working career as a Personnel Manager crewing US Flag freighters. My employer reduced the ships manning from from an average of 21 or 22 to 19 in that time. One change was the removal of job titles such as Watchmen, Oiler, Wheelsman among the unlicensed sailors. All were consider General Purpose meaning they were no longer tied to one job. It worked fine for us. Everyone got a pay raise to match the added responsibilities. 4 Deck Officers and 3 to 4 Engineering Officers. They stayed exclusively in their departments.
The 19 people operated a modern diesel power plant, navigated safely, loaded and unloaded cargoes on a 3 day run. Interesting observation is that ex-Navy types struggled mightily in this environment. Ex-Army and Marines were usually much better at thriving on the ship.

johns624 wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

My question is .. how would you reallocate resources. Would you keep the current ration of carrier, planes, destroyers, subs, and land-based air?

Maybe you should reread your OP. That is nothing close to what you originally asked.

That's true. Sometimes question and answers lead to new questions. "conversation"