As Bill Sweetman explains, STOVL is a single-engine airframe because there is no feasible recovery from a engine failure in a dual-engine airframe. This USMC-driven single-engine mistake had deleterious effects on weapons bay layouts and electrical/hydraulic/etc systems runs besides weight and logistics not to mention (which Bill does) constraints due to shipboard elevator dimensions. Apparently the USMC-driven requirements were the gift which keeps on taking.
US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Lockheed Martin designed the F35 A and C before the B version. The USAF has extensive experience in operating single engine fighters so No the F35B did not have detrimental impact on the A and C. The USN also has experience with single engine aircraft.
Yes the B version did require special attention to accommodate the weight limits of the Lift system but that shouldn’t be a surprise. VTOL fighters are notoriously difficult to build.
Yes the B version did require special attention to accommodate the weight limits of the Lift system but that shouldn’t be a surprise. VTOL fighters are notoriously difficult to build.
The initial X-35 and X-32 prototypes were demanded to have the vertical takeoff option. It was a significant part of the demonstrator program. The VTOL is baked into the design. So I would have to say I disagree. The F-35B was also the first to enter service.
For the Navy having a single engine fighter adds risks to naval aviators. It is harder to recover from engine failure with a single engine. And this is a significant hassle when you are operating over the ocean.
I am not against single engine aircraft in principle. The F-16 for example is a good and fairly reliable single engine design and there are others. The F-35 however is a highly compromised design. It cannot reach high speeds because of the stealth coatings and loss of effective thrust due to the stealth engine intakes, it has a relatively small wing area given its size, and has limited maneuverability. But the worst thing has been the avionics development program where they can't seem to make a stable release with all the required features.
They basically decided to throw away all the legacy software development and rewrite the whole thing from scratch in C++. I think this would have been better done by starting the software development on a legacy airframe first and then switching to the new airframe.
For the Navy having a single engine fighter adds risks to naval aviators. It is harder to recover from engine failure with a single engine. And this is a significant hassle when you are operating over the ocean.
I am not against single engine aircraft in principle. The F-16 for example is a good and fairly reliable single engine design and there are others. The F-35 however is a highly compromised design. It cannot reach high speeds because of the stealth coatings and loss of effective thrust due to the stealth engine intakes, it has a relatively small wing area given its size, and has limited maneuverability. But the worst thing has been the avionics development program where they can't seem to make a stable release with all the required features.
They basically decided to throw away all the legacy software development and rewrite the whole thing from scratch in C++. I think this would have been better done by starting the software development on a legacy airframe first and then switching to the new airframe.
Last edited:
Page 76 of Bill's most excellent book: Timeline. First entry is January 1986 "US-UK Advanced STOVL Study agreement signed as NASA Ames Research Center, California"
Page 18 titled DAY-ONE MISTAKES "The F-35's program's strategic goals were established 1994-1995, before any contracts were issued. They were ambitious, and the difficulties facing the program were underestimated. The objective of replacing almost the entire US fighter inventory is well known and sometimes discussed as if it was the only objective, but there were other important aims.
...
"JSF was intended to improve the US position in global combat aircraft market from leadership to near-total dominance. ... The STOVL version played a strateg role, because Britain and Italy wanted to maintain the maritime air power, but developing a STOVL aircraft to replace the Anglo-US Harrier was not economical unless the USMC was a customer..."
I can't speak to L-M's design order but in November 1996 "JSF awards to L-M (X-35) and Boeing (X-32). Each is to build two demonstrators to represent STOVL, CTOL and CV configurations."
USMC STOVL requirements were in the program from the beginning and stayed there...and here we are today.
Page 18 titled DAY-ONE MISTAKES "The F-35's program's strategic goals were established 1994-1995, before any contracts were issued. They were ambitious, and the difficulties facing the program were underestimated. The objective of replacing almost the entire US fighter inventory is well known and sometimes discussed as if it was the only objective, but there were other important aims.
...
"JSF was intended to improve the US position in global combat aircraft market from leadership to near-total dominance. ... The STOVL version played a strateg role, because Britain and Italy wanted to maintain the maritime air power, but developing a STOVL aircraft to replace the Anglo-US Harrier was not economical unless the USMC was a customer..."
I can't speak to L-M's design order but in November 1996 "JSF awards to L-M (X-35) and Boeing (X-32). Each is to build two demonstrators to represent STOVL, CTOL and CV configurations."
USMC STOVL requirements were in the program from the beginning and stayed there...and here we are today.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
I said designed. They converted the X35 to VTOL for demonstration So no. The X35 is not the F35 and the process of transition is where changes started happening.
Older engines were less reliable hence the increased risks. The F135 has a high reliability. It’s the same read why today you rarely see 4 and 3 engine airliners.
You have a funny way of showing it.
Trades. Stealth buys the F35 higher survival chances and lower costs. Sure it’s not as fast as a stripped F16 but fully loaded with a combat load the F35 is just as fast as a stripped one where the added external load slows an F16 or F/A18 to the same speeds as the F35. Being VLO it doesn’t need to dash out as long. Just a short sprint then it’s gone.
Bogus as the F35 uses a lifting body aspect in its fuselage.
Bogus it’s been proven bogus too. The early report on that was based on a FBW that was highly restricted. It was flying with training wheels.
Common problem as new systems and new language are added all the time to any number of systems. This isn’t the 1970s.
It’s almost impossible to do what you are describing and would probably have dragged the project years behind. F35 is a smart fighter. It was meant to undergo changes not physical but in software that gain capability. It’s the difference between a Nokia and an I phone.
And they stepped off the edge of the cliff into the abyss with L-M handing off responsibility by competitively awarding the Integrated Core Processor to subcontractor L3Harris Technologies [LHX, merged in 2019] which is the center of Technology Refresh 3 (TR-3). Which is the source of those 35 software related "challenges" GAO found.
And some of those changes weren't positive. Again from Bill:
"2003-2005 Weight Overrun
"Crisis: as the Critical Design Review approached in 2003, it is discovered that the F-35B is 3,300lb overweight and will be incapable of vertical landing. (Earlier in 2003, it was believed that the jet had margin to spare.)
"Get Well: In 2004, it is announced that the weight improvement program has succeeded and that the project will slip by only 12 months, even though the weight reduction includes substantial change to the outer mold line and much less commonality across the three versions.
"Next crisis: The unrealistic schedule manifests itself in delays in manufacturing the redesigned aircraft for the flight test program."
USMC STOVL requirements were in the program from the beginning and stayed there...and here we are today.
The original F-16 engine from Pratt & Whitney was notoriously unreliable. To the point that several F-16s were retired early in their lifetime because of this. It was only after a contract was awarded to GE as a second engine supplier that Pratt & Whitney got off their butt and fixed the lingering issues in the engine design. Now the exact same thing happened with Pratt & Whitney.
In the long term I expect aircraft to have smart skins. The radar might encompass the entire forward edge of the whole aircraft. This means longer wave radar is possible even on an aircraft airframe. Some claim the Su-35 and Su-57 already use the L-band radar arrays on their wings to do this.
That provides you with lift sure but the centerbody of the aircraft is huge increasing frontal drag tremendously.
Maybe it has decent aerobatic performance. Compared with an F-16. But the world has moved past that. For example the Chinese have canards, the Russians have TVC, the F-35 has neither.
And you rewrite the entire software stack in the process. That takes many years to do. And it shows.
The opposite. They could have added the new software to an F-15 or F-16 variant and it would have entered service much earlier. Problems would start being debugged earlier. Instead they did what we in software call the "Big Bang" approach. They just code a whole mountain of software and then cross their fingers hoping it works.
It is crap at that. It has a monolithic software design. And it seems to be hard to add features without impacting the entire stack. The Gripen seems to surpass it at this capability. The user can actually install their own software modules and packages. In the F-35 you can't program and install anything yourself since the whole platform is locked down so only the vendor can do software upgrades.
This is good news if Hanwha Ocean brings its program management, shipyard workers and shipyard facilities to the Philly Shipyard and if NAVSEA and DOD can work with Congress to overcome any possible Jones Act restrictions. And it would be very good news if Hanwha Ocean and the Philly Shipyard take over the Constellation frigate program. Fincantieri Marinette Marine is easily our worst shipyard.