Register here

Author Topic: Navy may add conformal fuel tanks to F/A-18E/F  (Read 20761 times)

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: Navy may add conformal fuel tanks to F/A-18E/F
« Reply #45 on: May 26, 2013, 05:26:53 pm »
 
So the redesign with the horizontal tail was to improve what element of the flight performance? Control during landing flares? I'm curious.

As mentioned here and in the press hundreds of times the X-32’s change in planform from delta to conventional tail was entirely because of a change in the specified requirements during the project. The Navy changed their requirement for control during the landing approach to a carrier (not flared landing) and Boeing had to change the design to meet the new spec. It is in no way indicative of a design flaw.
 
the X-32 failed miserably with regard to the "VL" part of the requirement, based on reports the rest of it's performance exceeded that of the X-35. It was faster and more maneuverable than the X-35.

The X-32 didn’t fail miserably in the vertical recovery testing rather Boeing failed miserably to present the aircraft. The X-32B demonstrated transition from horizontal to vertical flight (and back again) and also hovering and vertical landings.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11155
Re: Navy may add conformal fuel tanks to F/A-18E/F
« Reply #46 on: May 26, 2013, 06:01:42 pm »
The X-32B demonstrated transition from horizontal to vertical flight (and back again) and also hovering and vertical landings.

By leaving parts on the ground, having to go down to sea level to demonstrate it etc.  Yes, most vertical landings would be at sea level in service but it really put a spotlight on how close to the margin it was as well as how limited it was in dealing with inevitable weight gain during development.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: Navy may add conformal fuel tanks to F/A-18E/F
« Reply #47 on: May 26, 2013, 06:08:39 pm »
 
By leaving parts on the ground, having to go down to sea level to demonstrate it etc. Yes, most vertical landings would be at sea level in service but it really put a spotlight on how close to the margin it was as well as how limited it was in dealing with inevitable weight gain during development.

Just like the X-35… your point is?
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11155
Re: Navy may add conformal fuel tanks to F/A-18E/F
« Reply #48 on: May 26, 2013, 06:15:16 pm »
By leaving parts on the ground, having to go down to sea level to demonstrate it etc. Yes, most vertical landings would be at sea level in service but it really put a spotlight on how close to the margin it was as well as how limited it was in dealing with inevitable weight gain during development.

Just like the X-35… your point is?

The X-35 had to go to sea-level and leave parts on the ground to do a vertical landing?  Funny, I seem to recall them doing it at Edwards (el. ~2200ft) with all parts intact.  As I recall, the general consensus of the time was, "if Lockheed can get the lift fan to work it's all over".  And it was.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: Navy may add conformal fuel tanks to F/A-18E/F
« Reply #49 on: May 26, 2013, 06:25:04 pm »
 
The X-35 had to go to sea-level and leave parts on the ground to do a vertical landing? Funny, I seem to recall them doing it at Edwards (el. ~2200ft) with all parts intact. As I recall, the general consensus of the time was, "if Lockheed can get the lift fan to work it's all over". And it was.

So you’ve seen a TV show… A pity you don’t seem to understand how the project worked. I was referring to your ridiculous weight gain comment.
 
The X-32 and X-35 were just there to demonstrate technology. Despite the same configuration they actually were very different to the F-35 and proposed F-32. Commenting on F-35 or F-32 weight gain by comparing to the X-32 or X-35 is completely ridiculous. The important thing was actual performance matching predicted performance which the Boeing aircraft achieved.
 
The F-32 was always going to be able to lift less weight than the F-35 (as in the X-32 and X-35) because of its configuration. But that same configuration meant it could be a lot less weighty. Removing a door or two and flying in thicker air does not mean the Block III F-32B couldn’t recover back onto a LHD in the Persian Gulf summer with required bring back. Just as the X-35s ease of hovering at Edwards didn’t mean the F-35 didn’t have to go through a massive redesign on the dime and clock of the customers so it could hover (PS it did).
 
Frankly I would imagine the weight savings in the design of the F-32 and the far better achievement of Boeing in meeting KPIs during the JSF demonstration phase would indicate it could achieve this far better than Lockheed. But this discussion has been had before and last time round such facts and understanding weren’t enough to overpower the Boeing bad, Lockheed good crowd. So no expectation things will change.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11155
Re: Navy may add conformal fuel tanks to F/A-18E/F
« Reply #50 on: May 26, 2013, 06:35:17 pm »
The X-35 had to go to sea-level and leave parts on the ground to do a vertical landing? Funny, I seem to recall them doing it at Edwards (el. ~2200ft) with all parts intact. As I recall, the general consensus of the time was, "if Lockheed can get the lift fan to work it's all over". And it was.

So you’ve seen a TV show… A pity you don’t seem to understand how the project worked. I was referring to your ridiculous weight gain comment.
 
The X-32 and X-35 were just there to demonstrate technology. Despite the same configuration they actually were very different to the F-35 and proposed F-32. Commenting on F-35 or F-32 weight gain by comparing to the X-32 or X-35 is completely ridiculous. The important thing was actual performance matching predicted performance which the Boeing aircraft achieved.
 
The F-32 was always going to be able to lift less weight than the F-35 (as in the X-32 and X-35) because of its configuration. But that same configuration meant it could be a lot less weighty. Removing a door or two and flying in thicker air does not mean the Block III F-32B couldn’t recover back onto a LHD in the Persian Gulf summer with required bring back. Just as the X-35s ease of hovering at Edwards didn’t mean the F-35 didn’t have to go through a massive redesign on the dime and clock of the customers so it could hover (PS it did).
 
Frankly I would imagine the weight savings in the design of the F-32 and the far better achievement of Boeing in meeting KPIs during the JSF demonstration phase would indicate it could achieve this far better than Lockheed. But this discussion has been had before and last time round such facts and understanding weren’t enough to overpower the Boeing bad, Lockheed good crowd. So no expectation things will change.

The DoD knows more than you or I.  They found Boeing and it's design lacking.  Maybe it was the white paint?
« Last Edit: May 26, 2013, 06:36:49 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: Navy may add conformal fuel tanks to F/A-18E/F
« Reply #51 on: May 26, 2013, 07:25:33 pm »
 
The DoD knows more than you or I. They found Boeing and it's design lacking. Maybe it was the white paint?

 
The US Government selected the Lockheed offer which is not the same as the DoD finding Boeing’s design lacking; no matter what colour it was painted. And if every defence and aerospace technology downsource selection made by Governments around the world were correct and without any room to investigate, criticise or speculate well then it would kind of defeat the entire purpose of this web forum.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2013, 09:41:30 pm by Abraham Gubler »
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2133
Re: Navy may add conformal fuel tanks to F/A-18E/F
« Reply #52 on: May 27, 2013, 03:25:33 am »
Back on the Advanced SH...  It would be rather unusual if the F414 would become the only jet engine in history to be impossible to uprate or improve, 15+ years after service entry. The reason it hasn't been done until now might be connected with the fact that it has had (until recently) one application and one principal customer, who has set other priorities for the weapon system, with the result that there has been no money for an engine uprate. 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11155
Re: Navy may add conformal fuel tanks to F/A-18E/F
« Reply #53 on: May 27, 2013, 05:59:58 am »
Back on the Advanced SH...  It would be rather unusual if the F414 would become the only jet engine in history to be impossible to uprate or improve, 15+ years after service entry. The reason it hasn't been done until now might be connected with the fact that it has had (until recently) one application and one principal customer, who has set other priorities for the weapon system, with the result that there has been no money for an engine uprate.

I don't recall anybody saying it was impossible.  I was simply pointing out that GE/Boeing talking about it might have been news 15 years ago but today it's pretty much a yawner.  Now if they were actually running one on a test stand at those figures that would be news.  It ain't news if they're just blowing the dust off a decade+ old press release and reading it to you again.  See the difference?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2133
Re: Navy may add conformal fuel tanks to F/A-18E/F
« Reply #54 on: May 27, 2013, 06:49:44 am »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11155
Re: Navy may add conformal fuel tanks to F/A-18E/F
« Reply #55 on: May 27, 2013, 07:00:53 am »
Should you feel like passing informed judgment on the latest news, you need only acquire a subscription...

https://w1.buysub.com/pubs/MG/AVW/AWST_1AW_form_070312.jsp?cds_page_id=121076&cds_mag_code=AVW&id=1369662406268&lsid=31470846462022437&vid=1&cds_response_key=WAW27AWCB

Why would I do that?  I subscribed for nearly 20 years but decided not to renew when it became obvious AvWeek supported (or at least turned a blind eye to) your anti-F-35 pogrom.  Besides, why would I want to fork out the dough only to find yet more talk?  If they're actually testing hardware it'll show up somewhere else too. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2133
Re: Navy may add conformal fuel tanks to F/A-18E/F
« Reply #56 on: May 27, 2013, 07:12:21 am »
I can carry out a pogrom by myself? I am clearly quite a talented individual.