4 ms·

It seems 3 new separate aircraft would have been much better and cheaper. It's true that the F35 seems a little beefy, compared to other aircrafts. A single e

by jokoon 7y ago

It seems 3 new separate aircraft would have been much better and cheaper. It's true that the F35 seems a little beefy, compared to other aircrafts. A single engine is quite bad for survivability. While I can admit that vertical liftoff can be an asset if you want to respond quickly to an attack without building airstrips every 50km, it's hard to really justify building so many aircrafts with a airframe shape that allows VTOL. VTOL is a tough compromise on aircraft. Having an aircraft that can play several roles is not a good idea. Regrouping roles is a good idea, but regrouping them all into only one is really not a good engineering decision. That's like deciding to design a pen-lighter-laser-pointer-usb-drive-knife-screwdriver into a single device. It sounds cool, but in the end, it's better to see what can go together and what should not. Unless the F35 has a next gen radar which allows it to see enemy aircrafts from farther, it will be bad at dogfights.

protomyth 7y ago
> A single engine is quite bad for survivability. True (not as bad as it once was), but is a lot cheaper over the life of the program. They were trying to get a next generation F-16 to go with the next generation F-15 (the F-22), and that didn't happen.
goatinaboat 7y ago
Unless the F35 has a next gen radar which allows it to see enemy aircrafts from farther, it will be bad at dogfights. The point of seeing your enemy from afar is that you launch a missile and avoid the dogfight. It is bad at dogfights http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/07/14/pentagons-big-budget-f-35-fighter-cant-turn-cant-climb-cant-run/ http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/07/14/pentagons-b...
- thunderbird120 7y ago
  It's really not. To put it mildly, the report that that article draws from has been subject to some criticism over the years. To put it less mildly, if you link it in any community that follows military aviation closely they will probably make fun of you[1]. Performance is generally better than F-16s in real wold scenarios due to the more powerful F135 engine and the internal weapons bay which means carried weapons don't cause additional drag as they would if carried on pylons. That second point is extremely significant. The aerodynamic effects of hanging a bunch of stuff of your wings is pretty major, especially at supersonic speeds. Here's a few pilots commenting on differences between the F35 and other aircraft they've flown[2]. [1]https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/129/519/4d0.jpg https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/129/519/4d0... [2]https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/f-35-faces-most-critical-test-180971734/ https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/f-35-faces-mos...
  - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
    The enemy isn't a pilot flying something like an F-16, the enemy is a hypothetical low-cost high-maneuverability remotely controlled drone fighter which isn't limited by human tolerance for G-forces. Or even a linked drone swarm. On that basis, the F-35 will be obsolete against the other superpowers by around 2035 at the latest.
    - imtringued 7y ago
      >The enemy isn't a pilot flying something like an F-16, the enemy is a hypothetical low-cost high-maneuverability remotely controlled drone fighter which isn't limited by human tolerance for G-forces. The F-35 has internal and external mount points that are specifically designed to carry these drones.
    - thunderbird120 7y ago
      See my reply to the other person making that kind of claim https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20796007 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20796007. To expand upon that, manned aircraft aren't going away anytime soon because electronic warfare is a thing and until drones are capable of human level decision making you need a human in the loop. Drones will augment the F35's capability but against a near peer adversary you're going to need a manned aircraft at the center of every drone swarm. Especially if you're taking about small drones as those will be lacking the high powered radar which will be crucial in such engagements.
hencq 7y ago
I liked this quote from the article in that regard: > “This is going to be the first fighter jet produced in the thousands for a very long time,” said Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst with the Teal Group. “None of this is stoppable. It will be remembered, as the smoke clears, as something that worked far better than critics thought it would, but something you’d never, ever want to do again.”
Buttons840 7y ago
> A single engine is quite bad for survivability. Are you sure about this? https://www.quora.com/Do-twin-engine-fighter-jets-provide-higher-safety-Are-they-anyway-better-than-one-with-a-single-engine-jet https://www.quora.com/Do-twin-engine-fighter-jets-provide-hi... From my research it looks like the same is true in civilian aviation. Statistically twin engines are more dangerous. https://www.flyingmag.com/wrong-worry-twins-versus-singles/ https://www.flyingmag.com/wrong-worry-twins-versus-singles/
- redis_mlc 7y ago
  Single-engine fighters are ok for the Air Force, who fly high over land. Twins are preferred by the Navy and Marines, who either fly over water, or down low and get shot at, or both. The civil link you provided refers to "light twins" (ie. underpowered and used in GA) used in training and EMS. Not applicable to airliners, which can safely take off on one engine. Something to think about: all of my former twin instructors have been killed flying light twins. Four-engine airliners are actually preferred for oceanic routes for safety, but regulators now allow twins (ETOPS), for cost reasons. Source: commercially-rated airplane pilot.
LargoLasskhyfv 7y ago
There is a design space betwen VTOL and having to build airstrips every 50km. Sweden has done it: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_37_Viggen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_37_Viggen [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBE41A9VT3Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBE41A9VT3Q [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen Just use some streets and prepared sheds :-)
dgregd 7y ago
Car companies develop platforms on which they build many different models. For example in VW cars you can find exactly the same parts in Golf, Touran, Passat, Tiguan and many other models. All these 3 separate plains probably could share 90% of parts, software, avionics, that VR helmet, etc. Having fewer constraints it would also simplify the plane body design. Just image car engineers are asked to design one car to replace off-road, city and van cars. Even Elon Musk did not come up with that idea.
HillaryBriss 7y ago
> That's like deciding to design a pen-lighter-laser-pointer-usb-drive-knife-screwdriver into a single device. It sounds cool, but in the end, it's ... ... sorta like a smartphone

by jokoon 7y ago

protomyth 7y ago

> A single engine is quite bad for survivability. True (not as bad as it once was), but is a lot cheaper over the life of the program. They were trying to get a next generation F-16 to go with the next generation F-15 (the F-22), and that didn't happen.

goatinaboat 7y ago

Unless the F35 has a next gen radar which allows it to see enemy aircrafts from farther, it will be bad at dogfights. The point of seeing your enemy from afar is that you launch a missile and avoid the dogfight. It is bad at dogfights http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/07/14/pentagons-big-budget-f-35-fighter-cant-turn-cant-climb-cant-run/ http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/07/14/pentagons-b...

thunderbird120 7y ago
It's really not. To put it mildly, the report that that article draws from has been subject to some criticism over the years. To put it less mildly, if you link it in any community that follows military aviation closely they will probably make fun of you[1]. Performance is generally better than F-16s in real wold scenarios due to the more powerful F135 engine and the internal weapons bay which means carried weapons don't cause additional drag as they would if carried on pylons. That second point is extremely significant. The aerodynamic effects of hanging a bunch of stuff of your wings is pretty major, especially at supersonic speeds. Here's a few pilots commenting on differences between the F35 and other aircraft they've flown[2]. [1]https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/129/519/4d0.jpg https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/129/519/4d0... [2]https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/f-35-faces-most-critical-test-180971734/ https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/f-35-faces-mos...
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  The enemy isn't a pilot flying something like an F-16, the enemy is a hypothetical low-cost high-maneuverability remotely controlled drone fighter which isn't limited by human tolerance for G-forces. Or even a linked drone swarm. On that basis, the F-35 will be obsolete against the other superpowers by around 2035 at the latest.
  - imtringued 7y ago
    >The enemy isn't a pilot flying something like an F-16, the enemy is a hypothetical low-cost high-maneuverability remotely controlled drone fighter which isn't limited by human tolerance for G-forces. The F-35 has internal and external mount points that are specifically designed to carry these drones.
  - thunderbird120 7y ago
    See my reply to the other person making that kind of claim https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20796007 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20796007. To expand upon that, manned aircraft aren't going away anytime soon because electronic warfare is a thing and until drones are capable of human level decision making you need a human in the loop. Drones will augment the F35's capability but against a near peer adversary you're going to need a manned aircraft at the center of every drone swarm. Especially if you're taking about small drones as those will be lacking the high powered radar which will be crucial in such engagements.

hencq 7y ago

I liked this quote from the article in that regard: > “This is going to be the first fighter jet produced in the thousands for a very long time,” said Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst with the Teal Group. “None of this is stoppable. It will be remembered, as the smoke clears, as something that worked far better than critics thought it would, but something you’d never, ever want to do again.”

Buttons840 7y ago

> A single engine is quite bad for survivability. Are you sure about this? https://www.quora.com/Do-twin-engine-fighter-jets-provide-higher-safety-Are-they-anyway-better-than-one-with-a-single-engine-jet https://www.quora.com/Do-twin-engine-fighter-jets-provide-hi... From my research it looks like the same is true in civilian aviation. Statistically twin engines are more dangerous. https://www.flyingmag.com/wrong-worry-twins-versus-singles/ https://www.flyingmag.com/wrong-worry-twins-versus-singles/

redis_mlc 7y ago
Single-engine fighters are ok for the Air Force, who fly high over land. Twins are preferred by the Navy and Marines, who either fly over water, or down low and get shot at, or both. The civil link you provided refers to "light twins" (ie. underpowered and used in GA) used in training and EMS. Not applicable to airliners, which can safely take off on one engine. Something to think about: all of my former twin instructors have been killed flying light twins. Four-engine airliners are actually preferred for oceanic routes for safety, but regulators now allow twins (ETOPS), for cost reasons. Source: commercially-rated airplane pilot.

LargoLasskhyfv 7y ago

There is a design space betwen VTOL and having to build airstrips every 50km. Sweden has done it: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_37_Viggen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_37_Viggen [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBE41A9VT3Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBE41A9VT3Q [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen Just use some streets and prepared sheds :-)

dgregd 7y ago

Car companies develop platforms on which they build many different models. For example in VW cars you can find exactly the same parts in Golf, Touran, Passat, Tiguan and many other models. All these 3 separate plains probably could share 90% of parts, software, avionics, that VR helmet, etc. Having fewer constraints it would also simplify the plane body design. Just image car engineers are asked to design one car to replace off-road, city and van cars. Even Elon Musk did not come up with that idea.

HillaryBriss 7y ago

> That's like deciding to design a pen-lighter-laser-pointer-usb-drive-knife-screwdriver into a single device. It sounds cool, but in the end, it's ... ... sorta like a smartphone