3 ms·

I strive for rigor in facts. Look, the fact is that the plane is kind of stubby looking and is not the quantum leap in maneuverability that, say, generation 4 r

I strive for rigor in facts. Look, the fact is that the plane is kind of stubby looking and is not the quantum leap in maneuverability that, say, generation 4 represented from the previous gen. But I get very, very tired of people taking a poorly researched article that takes major sections of a report out of context (yes, I'm aware that Axe published the whole thing, but he still doesn't draw the correct conclusions from it) and then using that to say, "See? The F-35 sucks after all". The F-35 is a complex answer to a complex question, and it cannot be so simply understood. I wish it could. I love engineering simplicity and elegance and strive for it in my own designs, but anything in the military-industrial complex is hairy and ugly. And yes, I know that from personal experience. Is that a bad thing?

alkonaut 11y ago
The F-35 could be the best solution to the complex problem (of making a joint stealth fighter with stovl). No one is arguing it could be done much better, but right from the start it should have been obvious that it's a problem without a good solution at all. The problem just shouldn't have been solved! It should have been two (or even three) different airframes sharing engines, electronics. Some craft wouldn't need full stealth, some wouldn't need stovl. Cramming everything into the same body and adding stealth just made it expensive, heavy, slow and unmaneuverable.
- engi_nerd 11y ago
  Well, look at the graphic here: https://i.imgur.com/WdOZcNF.jpg https://i.imgur.com/WdOZcNF.jpg Parts in green are identical across variants. Parts that are similar but require slight changes from one variant to another are called "cousin" parts and are shown in blue. Unique parts are shown in purple. It was originally intended that the three variants share at least 75% of their parts in common. That required a modular kind of construction. That didn't work out so well. A modular construction requires "holes", right? But holes are heavy because you have to reinforce the structure around them to carry structural loads. Now retired test pilot Jon Beesley says this in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ5gmZ74YBY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ5gmZ74YBY at 2:57. It's actually less costly, weight-wise, to build the aircraft structure without holes. For background, the aircraft that he's standing in front of is AA-1, which is the first F-35 aircraft. It represented a design that was 5000 pounds or so overweight. Many changes were done before the next F-35 to roll out, resulting in the current overall config. So in reality we are probably doing much of what you suggested, even though that was not the original intention. They share engines (well, the STOVL variant engine is a different part number because it has to interface with the lift fan, but it's highly similar) and electronics.

alkonaut 11y ago

The F-35 could be the best solution to the complex problem (of making a joint stealth fighter with stovl). No one is arguing it could be done much better, but right from the start it should have been obvious that it's a problem without a good solution at all. The problem just shouldn't have been solved! It should have been two (or even three) different airframes sharing engines, electronics. Some craft wouldn't need full stealth, some wouldn't need stovl. Cramming everything into the same body and adding stealth just made it expensive, heavy, slow and unmaneuverable.

engi_nerd 11y ago
Well, look at the graphic here: https://i.imgur.com/WdOZcNF.jpg https://i.imgur.com/WdOZcNF.jpg Parts in green are identical across variants. Parts that are similar but require slight changes from one variant to another are called "cousin" parts and are shown in blue. Unique parts are shown in purple. It was originally intended that the three variants share at least 75% of their parts in common. That required a modular kind of construction. That didn't work out so well. A modular construction requires "holes", right? But holes are heavy because you have to reinforce the structure around them to carry structural loads. Now retired test pilot Jon Beesley says this in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ5gmZ74YBY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ5gmZ74YBY at 2:57. It's actually less costly, weight-wise, to build the aircraft structure without holes. For background, the aircraft that he's standing in front of is AA-1, which is the first F-35 aircraft. It represented a design that was 5000 pounds or so overweight. Many changes were done before the next F-35 to roll out, resulting in the current overall config. So in reality we are probably doing much of what you suggested, even though that was not the original intention. They share engines (well, the STOVL variant engine is a different part number because it has to interface with the lift fan, but it's highly similar) and electronics.