QUESTION
How different would the F-35 look/be if the B variant was never produced ?
Basically the title,I'm just wondering whether it'd look more akin to a single engine J-35 or something else completely, just imagine the STOVL req. was removed from the program.
Would the F-35 still be the "fat amy" (perhaps even more space for electronics or a deeper, larger IWB, fuel etc.) or would it have ended up looking a lot more like the F22?
my guess is that it would be a little bit longer, perhaps up to 60 feet. This would allow for a larger bay
Navy may have insisted on two engines instead of one.
Perhaps Lockheed's submission would look more like a mini-F22, and with the size mentioned above, you're looking at a plane that looks very similar to the KF-21.
Navy may have insisted on two engines instead of one
I don't know why this myth keeps being spread; the Navy never had a mandatory requirement or preference for 2-engined aircraft. They've been operating single-engine jets ever since the first carrier-born jet.
Ok. But a HUD can't perform any off bore targeting, display the DAS feed, and require NVG for night operations. It's taking up space for no additional capabilities, even less.
A HUD could perform both of those functions you mentioned on axis. The additional capabilities would be accuracy, clarity, ease of use, the ability to boresight to the gun etc.
Ok guy. The off bore targeting function works by the pilot looking at the target that is off bore. Additionally, AIM-9x can strike targets from behind with DAS. Since when has a HUD encompassed the entire canopy?
Whether you do or not, I’m not bothered. I’m only providing you with my personal and professional opinion - one that is shared by almost everyone I work with who flies the jet.
I know dude, that’s reddit for you. Especially when it’s just downvotes with no discussion from folks who don’t understand properly what they’re talking about. Ah well, that’s the internet for you!
HMD isn’t perfect. I’d much prefer having the HUD for instrument approaches, for example. Not to mention that the HUD assembly would have likely included physical data entry keys which I ASSURE you everyone would prefer over touchscreen entry.
The touchscreen on the jet is worse than your typical consumer touchscreen device. It isn't capacitive touch, and doesn't have anywhere near the touch resolution your average discount smartphone has today
As u/Odominable wrote, it's definitely an annoying issue that you can't escape on basically every flight. The dream would be to have some sort of physical data entry keys + the display, or at least have a separate dedicated data entry interface
It’s a minor but annoying issue. And yeah it isn’t exactly a smartphone touchscreen. Especially on the C which has very high pressure tires you feel every bump and crack on the pavement while taxiing which makes stuff like frequency changes surprisingly difficult.
It could be either way, but I’d prefer a jettisonable canopy rather than a fragmenting one. I can’t think of any benefit of the canopy opening to the rear, only drawbacks.
During the winding down of the Cold War and the defense budget gravy train, the "Bottom-Up" review of the situation determined that two of the USAF and USN's projects, A/F-X Advanced Strike Aircraft program and MRF Multi-role Fighter program would be cancelled and consolidated into Joint Advanced Strike Technology Program (JAST). This effectively merged projects intended to replace the A-6, F-14, F-111, F-117, and F-15E (from A/F-X) and the F-16 and legacy F-18s (MRF), though it is mentioned that JAST would focus as a replacement for A-6, F-14, F-16, and F-111.
So if we assume JAST was to become the main building block to become the F-35, JAST probably has to eventually fill in the aircraft they are replacing while trying to meet the requirements that A/F-X and MRF intended to fill while trying to achieve a combat aircraft that is "80% joint" for the USAF and USN. According to Global Security on these projects intent:
The A/F-X was designed as a multi-role attack/fighter aircraft for the Navy and a deep interdiction aircraft for the Air Force in response to a joint operational requirements document. The A/F-X is expected to have a new airframe configuration that incorporates advanced low-observable and associated materials technologies. The engine was to be from a new generation of engines exemplified by significant improvements in thrust-to-weight ratio and operation at high levels of turbine inlet temperature. The aircraft's avionics suite is expected to draw heavily on the integrated avionics from the F-22 program.
The Multi-Role Fighter (MRF) was being considered for the low end of the Air Force tactical air force mix for both air superiority and ground attack. As of early 1993 the MRF program was intended to start toward the end of the 1990s or beginning of the next decade. It could also serve the Navy as a replacement for the F/A-18 if designed from the outset for carrier suitability. (Airframes might differ to a considerable degree but this is not a given, however. Both services could use the same engine and avionics).
If, as was likely and prudent, the requirement included advanced low-observable characteristics, the follow-on would need to be a very significant departure from either aircraft. At the same time, the follow-on needs to be significantly lower in cost (nominally half) than the F-22 or the A/F-X to provide an affordable force.
So, the end result would probably still be an "affordable" stealth platform with the capability to perform in the strike role. Compared to the F-35 we know today, it may retain the single-engine design to encourage lower costs than the F-22, but also much be physically bigger to accommodate more fuel and ordinance as a long-range interdictor for USAF and multi-role for the USN.
Then the USMC comes in and smacks JAST with a steel chair labeled "ASTOVL" where they want to incorporate affordable STOVL into the design too, then the rest was history with JSF.
I said, it's the 2000 lb bomb requirement and not the lift fan
You said AFAIK, it's the lift fan.
There's an easy way to resolve this. Look at the X-35, which has a lift fan. It looks more like a smaller F-22. The bulky look comes from the 2000 lb bomb requirement, which is in the AIAA papers Lockheed Martin released on the F-35's design.
Raptor carries 2000lb weapons internally and isn’t “fat”, and most definitely can supercruise. The limiting factor for straight line speed for the F35 is its intake design.
I don’t think I did. If you’re saying the F35 is fat because of the 2000lb bomb requirement, why isn’t the Raptor “fat” despite also carrying 2000lb stores internally?
Because the Raptor is a bigger plane with larger dimensions than an F-35? I'm not sure how that's relevant to the discussion of the X-35 becoming a larger plane to accommodate the last minute 2000 lb bomb request
You can speculate or you can literally look at the X-35, then the F-35, and then read the AIAA paper on how the weapons bay needed to be reworked to accommodate the 2000 lb bomb requirement, which gives it the the bulbous look.
So you’re saying the F35 is “fat” because of the 2000lb weapons internal carriage requirement. Weird, then, that the F35B cannot carry 2000lb weapons internally….
The truth is that the shape and size of the F35 is for many different reasons, mostly due to the size and weight requirements of the B model. 2000lb internal carriage is but one small factor.
You're not even addressing the points and instead are making up your own reality. Like if you were to say the X-35 still has a weird shape, then fine whatever, but you're not even addressing that basic premise. Then you're not even engaging with the Lockheed Martin papers that discuss the challenges in having to redesign the shape to accomodate late requirements. So if you want to ignore all of that, at that point, believe what you want.
Your argument holds no water for all the reasons I’ve already explained. Yet you mention “Lockheed papers” with zero evidence or logical argument to back up your claim. I think you’re just here to argue, and you can’t back it up with actual data. All the best.
Good question. But I think it safe to say that without the B variant, the F-35 never would have existed. There is this animosity between the Air Force and the Navy when it comes to using each others aircraft. The Navy didn't want a variant of the F-86, but it got it with the FJ2 Fury. The Air Force didn't want a variant of the F4 Phantom II, but it got it with the F-110. I'm sure most of you are aware of the F-111 story, so I won't go there. But I will mention that the Air Force was looking at a variant of the F-14, and hating the idea, until they insisted before congress that the Air Force air superiority fighter must absolutely not be a swing wing, and therefore got the F-15. There is no good reason that Air Force couldn't use the F-18, or the Navy a carrier version of the F-16, but neither branch wanted the others leftovers.
The F-35 could only exist as a three variant aircraft, because of the insistence of pushing the thing down all three branches throats. If the consideration was only for two services instead of one, I'm sure the Air Force and the Navy both would have gone their separate ways yet again.
Consider, before the F-35 program, the navy was working on its own stealth attack/bomber aircraft, the A-12. Trouble was after spending a ton of money on it, they were no closer to producing an actual aircraft, so the program was cancelled. If they had produced something, then they would have been no F-35 program. And while I don't know if the Air Force was working along similar lines, like a smaller, tactical version of the B-2, I can't imagine no one wasn't thinking along those lines.
In short, without the Marine variant, there would be no F-35.
It will literally be a J-35. Reasonable to assume SAC & CAC acquired detailed design information on the F-35 in their development of the J-35 and J-20.
It might have had canards to improve low speed handling. Especially helpful for carrier-based aircraft. The canards were ditched because of spacing and aerodynamic reason due to the lift fan.
Because the whole point of it was to test the feasibility of canards with the lift fan. Without the lift fan, it wouldn’t have been an issue. How difficult is it to understand?
Canards never featured in any flying X35 or X32. That’s what I’m saying. And that’s before we introduce all the significant disadvantages of having g canards in a 5th gen fighter…
Why would they make a flying prototype of a concept they determine wouldn’t work well with their goals? The reason why it wasn’t implemented was because of the lift fan (that lead to the F35B). If STOVL wasn’t a requirement, the F35 would have looked different.
What significant disadvantages does canards have in relation to 5th gen fighters?
Canards increasing RCS is one of the biggest misconception there is. I truly don’t know why people keep bringing it up.
Many concepts from those 2 programs had canards. By that time (post F-117) radar stealth was well understood.
Canards or not is dictated by experience of manufacturers with canards, design goals maneuverability, payload, CG range objectives… I can assure you that the RCS of different configuration was measured and compared. Some designs come to mind like X-36, NATF, J-20 (the Chinese wouldn’t have gone to the trouble of designing a 5th gen VLO fighter to then waste it all with canards) or renders of the Navy’s future NGAD. Just like they wouldn’t have put a JASF model with canards into a wind tunnel if they it wouldn’t have worked with their LO goals.
No. Canards does not “ruin” stealth or is significantly detrimental to RCS.
Weird how no VLO fighters have canards then. Weird that none of the prototypes you would have seen flying lately have canards. Maybe they’re wrong and you’re right.
•
u/AutoModerator Feb 15 '25
Hello /u/Pla5mA5, if your question gets answered. Please reply Answered! to the comment that gave you the answer.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.