f-14 replacement

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

CockpitEng RE:f-14 replacement -- bsl tomcat upgrade 3/26/2003 11:06:48 PM

Don't know of one off hand. The Grumman ATF reportedly borrowed X-29 Forward Swept Wing Technology. That would make it the most maneuverable entry in the competition, however an FSW platform has a big radar return at the wing root, so it has a relatively large radar signature. That was the main reason for the demise of FSW investigation by USAF.

Quote Reply

CockpitEng RE:f-14 replacement -- bsl tomcat upgrade 3/26/2003 11:15:51 PM

Hellfire-- This is the only link I could find on a google search. link Interesting description of the ATF program

Quote Reply

Slade RE:f-14 replacement -- bsl tomcat upgrade 3/28/2003 8:55:19 AM

It isn't a link but there is a book called Lockheed Stealth by Bill Sweetman that has a discussion of the NATF proposals by various companies, along with a discussion of the JSF. For the previous poster there are 3 versions of the JSF, F-35A conventional, F-35B STOVL, and F-35C the carrier version. The F-35C made it's first flight on Dec 16, 2000 so it does exist and is at least in flight testing at this point. My source is the prviously mentioned book.

Quote Reply

fred79 RE:f-14 replacement -- bsl tomcat upgrade 3/28/2003 11:44:57 AM

thanks I appreciate that I would not have access to that kind of information. I was basing my coment on the discovery channels documentory on the project and the competition system. in that show neither compan y had time to develope a carrier version. but I still think that the carrier versions are vastly different than the other two versions and with the b version of the f-35 it is also very different due to teh added turbofan. I really wonder how different the range and armerment are between the carrier and the vstol air craft. the only reason I can think that the navy would still need a carrier version is if teh vstol doesn't have anywhere near the range or load carring capacity of a standard horizontal launch vehicle.

Quote Reply

x-29/a-12 RE:f-14 replacement -- bsl tomcat upgrade 3/28/2003 12:18:27 PM

I would guess that the vstol version of the F-35 would have a lot less payload and/or range than a carrier suitable version. Big problem with VSTOL is that you have to lift your own weight and their is a certain limit. This limits the max gross weight of the VSTOL aircraft. If VSTOL aircraft can get a forward roll they can increase their payload substantially.

Quote Reply

x-29/a-12 RE:f-14 replacement -- bsl tomcat upgrade 3/28/2003 12:18:33 PM

Quote Reply

Thomas RE:f-14 replacement -- bsl tomcat upgrade 5/8/2003 3:23:48 AM

If you look at history: The really difficult problem in aircraft development is the development of the aircraft ENGINE. If the F-119 engine lives up to hopes and expectations. Any aircraft with this engine will have enough power to dispense with the need for VTOL/STOVL, as the take off run will be limited. It will have enough power to carry the low speed devises for low landing speed. Simultaneously the development in precision munition will reduce the need for sheer weightlifting. The drastically improved specifik fuel consumption will increase range to get out of the uncomfortable range shortage of the F18 (alphabet soup), compounded with the carriers need to stay out Exocet-type range. Nasty Air Force jibe: If the navy can't sail their expensive toys close enough to the bad guys, their planes can't reach the bad guys without refuelling - then why not dispense with naval airpower all-together: Use real BOMBERS, which could be produced at a reasonable price once you learn that stealth is expensive and overrated. There is no greatewr radar reflector than the B-52, which is still in daily use after half a century.

Quote Reply

x-29/a-12 RE:f-14 replacement -- bsl tomcat upgrade 5/8/2003 11:12:37 PM

<> Take off roll is as much a function of wing design, angle of attack etc. While you may be able to get the plane of the ground without a lift fan or ducted exhaust the aircraft would be horrible at or near supersonic speeds. Look at something like the YC-14. You have to look at the entire flight envelope not just the takeoff. I don't think that precision munitions will necessarily reduce the payload weight. I think it will reduce the overall number of delivery platforms instead. Precision weapons may allow one 500 lb bomb to take out a target but that doesn't mean that the payload will be reduced from 8 Mk-82's to 1. I means that the same aircraft can service 8 targets. The analogy is in the Ballistic Missile realm. When the warheads got better, the number of warheads went up but the number of launchers went down.

Quote Reply

Thomas RE:f-14 replacement -- bsl tomcat upgrade 5/9/2003 2:58:09 AM

To X-29/A-12 I agree with you. My point was on another level: The really difficult thing is to develop aircraft engines (and submarine designs). Once You've got the engine the wrapping of aluminium and plastic foil around the engine is much easier. No great aeroplane has been made with a bad engine, but a lot of bad aircraft has had a good engine. About number of bombs. It might very well proceed in the direction you mention - which goes to my Air Force comment - Why not have a big bomber with bookkeepers that dispatch ordnance according to requests?

Quote Reply

x-29/a-12 RE:f-14 replacement -- bsl tomcat upgrade 5/17/2003 8:41:36 PM

<> I would disagree on that point. I think that engine design is extremely important, but the design of aircraft is not tied to a particular engine. Most commercial aircraft are designed to accept 3 different engines if not more. Most Boeings, except PW's GE's and Rolls. Often times the services will saddle a particular engine on a design team for cost constraints. Most designers tend to see engines as a source of thrust and are somewhat interchangable. Again, some aircraft are designed to accept multiple engines. The F-14 had a clunker of an engine with the TF-30 but the plane was great. The B-52 is another case in point. In this day and age, the airframe will long outlast the engine and engine technology. I can think of another example. I worked on a program where the old Grumman S2F had its old Wright Cyclone engines replaced with turboprops adding significant performance. A similar example is the KC-135R program. New engines can breathe new life into old airframes. Re precision weapons. My old B-52 is a great bus for dispensing precision weapons. Has two decks for lots of bookkeepers.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT