3 ms·

One idea I've not seen examined. Since most of the cost is in the software, engine and systems, why make the airframe commonality such a big point? There could

One idea I've not seen examined. Since most of the cost is in the software, engine and systems, why make the airframe commonality such a big point? There could be an F-35D that would be a totally new airframe but would use everything else from the other models. There will be lots of F-35:s manufactured, maintained and upgraded over the lifespan so it would make sense to "tap into" that ecosystem. Composite manufacturing has been advancing a lot. If the structure can be uncoupled from the rest, then it would allow for better performance. The current shape of the F-35 variants is limiting their supersonic performance. One could also optimize the airframe for cost or speed of manufacture. It might be deemed now that the airframe performance is adequate. This might change in the future as adversaries improve.

nradov 4y ago
The biggest problem with the F-35 airframe is that it's fat and thus the aerodynamics kind of suck. This design was essentially forced by the need for the B model to have a single engine with sufficient thrust for vertical landing. The A and C models would have been better as twin engine designs with the weapons bay in between, like a smaller version of the F-22. But at this point it's too late and there's no way to fund the development of a D model with a radically different outer mould line.
- Gravityloss 4y ago
  Exactly! Also the length was limited because it has to fit to small aircraft carrier lifts. Something a new design for non-naval use wouldn't need to take into account. YF-23 had a narrow and deep weapons bay that was considered problematic since if a weapon jammed to the rail, it would prevent release of other weapons above it. Maybe it's also bad if you want to shoot a lot of missiles in a very short time span. The production design had a wider bay, worsening the aerodynamics a bit: https://yf-23.webs.com/F-23A.html https://yf-23.webs.com/F-23A.html
ianburrell 4y ago
Using common airframe for three variants was probably the major flaw of F-35 program. I think they were concerned about the design costs. They made it work but it was expensive to get working. Plus, the electronics and software were the really expensive pieces. It would have probably been cheaper and better to design two planes, one conventional (F-35A, F-35C) and one vertical take-off. Then save money by using common parts and the same avionics.

nradov 4y ago

The biggest problem with the F-35 airframe is that it's fat and thus the aerodynamics kind of suck. This design was essentially forced by the need for the B model to have a single engine with sufficient thrust for vertical landing. The A and C models would have been better as twin engine designs with the weapons bay in between, like a smaller version of the F-22. But at this point it's too late and there's no way to fund the development of a D model with a radically different outer mould line.

Gravityloss 4y ago
Exactly! Also the length was limited because it has to fit to small aircraft carrier lifts. Something a new design for non-naval use wouldn't need to take into account. YF-23 had a narrow and deep weapons bay that was considered problematic since if a weapon jammed to the rail, it would prevent release of other weapons above it. Maybe it's also bad if you want to shoot a lot of missiles in a very short time span. The production design had a wider bay, worsening the aerodynamics a bit: https://yf-23.webs.com/F-23A.html https://yf-23.webs.com/F-23A.html

ianburrell 4y ago

Using common airframe for three variants was probably the major flaw of F-35 program. I think they were concerned about the design costs. They made it work but it was expensive to get working. Plus, the electronics and software were the really expensive pieces. It would have probably been cheaper and better to design two planes, one conventional (F-35A, F-35C) and one vertical take-off. Then save money by using common parts and the same avionics.