What will the Government buy if the F35 is cancelled?

[IanMorewood]

mph1977 said:

imagine a compound helicopter version of the Apache ... far more useful , as fast / slow as an A10 but capable of flying like an Apache when you need it to

An AC-22 Osprey? Already been considered by USMC but I'm not sure how well the Osprey stands up against small arms fire so I would stick to the a10 for now.

[Tango13]

mph1977 said:

imagine a compound helicopter version of the Apache ... far more useful , as fast / slow as an A10 but capable of flying like an Apache when you need it to

Like the Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne?

[IanMorewood]

Tango13 said:

Like the Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne?

I would suspect it's survivability at low altitudes in a hostile environment would be significantly limited, hence the Apache going down a different route.

[Tango13]

IanMorewood said:

Tango13 said:

Like the Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne?

I would suspect it's survivability at low altitudes in a hostile environment would be significantly limited, hence the Apache going down a different route.

That's part of the reason it was cancelled, the Cheyenne would be above the tree tops and vulnerable to shoulder fired SAMS, the Apache would be down below the tree line so theoretically only at risk from smallish calibre AA fire.

[MartG]

Tango13 said:

IanMorewood said:

Tango13 said:

Like the Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne?

I would suspect it's survivability at low altitudes in a hostile environment would be significantly limited, hence the Apache going down a different route.

That's part of the reason it was cancelled, the Cheyenne would be above the tree tops and vulnerable to shoulder fired SAMS, the Apache would be down below the tree line so theoretically only at risk from smallish calibre AA fire.

The original Apache would have been above the trees too - only when it was retrofitted with the Longbow mast mounted system could it hide behind things

[telecat]

The Ideal V/STOL would have two engines in a side by side layout with Harrier style Nozzles on the inside and Thrust vectoring rear nozzles. It would have the look of the F-14 where the engines "droop" off the main airframe. Where the F14 carried munitions in the Gap is where the Harrier style nozzles would be. It could even be a series of trap doors that once opened allow down thrust. Using a cross over thrust asynchronous pattern would allow it to retain some VTOL capability in case an engine was damaged. In Normal flight the Harrier nozzles/trapdoors would be closed and the thrust directed out of conventional rear nozzles.

The Engine would be different or could the thrust be shared using fuselage traps? Any Thoughts?

[mcdjl]

telecat said:

The Ideal V/STOL would have two engines in a side by side layout with Harrier style Nozzles on the inside and Thrust vectoring rear nozzles. It would have the look of the F-14 where the engines "droop" off the main airframe. Where the F14 carried munitions in the Gap is where the Harrier style nozzles would be. It could even be a series of trap doors that once opened allow down thrust. Using a cross over thrust asynchronous pattern would allow it to retain some VTOL capability in case an engine was damaged. In Normal flight the Harrier nozzles/trapdoors would be closed and the thrust directed out of conventional rear nozzles.

The Engine would be different or could the thrust be shared using fuselage traps? Any Thoughts?

When hovering one engine failing would be just as fatal as a single engine going down unless you could make some complicated sharing/cross over air system.

[IanMorewood]

F14 sized aircraft would be way too big for our carriers though.

[Mave]

telecat said:

The Ideal V/STOL would have two engines in a side by side layout with Harrier style Nozzles on the inside and Thrust vectoring rear nozzles. It would have the look of the F-14 where the engines "droop" off the main airframe. Where the F14 carried munitions in the Gap is where the Harrier style nozzles would be. It could even be a series of trap doors that once opened allow down thrust. Using a cross over thrust asynchronous pattern would allow it to retain some VTOL capability in case an engine was damaged. In Normal flight the Harrier nozzles/trapdoors would be closed and the thrust directed out of conventional rear nozzles.

The Engine would be different or could the thrust be shared using fuselage traps? Any Thoughts?

What problems are you trying to fix with this concept?

[IanMorewood]

He’s after a twin engine vtol aircraft, presumably one that can afterburn as well. I'm not 100% convinced you need two engines on a fighter/strike aircraft (Lightening, F2 Viper, F16 Falcon, Gripen and Rafale) and as I said earlier if you make something the size of an F14 you won’t be able to stick it on 90% of carriers.

[telecat]

Equally Typhoon and F-22 and the very successful F-15, Mig29 and the SU28 family are twins. I accept that on one engine it's VTOL capability would be hampered but by having a Asynchronous thrust pattern with computer assisted flight controls it would not necessarily crash. Limp into STOL mode and you can get the plane on the ground. The main problem is getting the thrust under the aircraft as well as out of the vectored nozzles at the rear without using a fan.

[Mave]

IanMorewood said:

He’s after a twin engine vtol aircraft, presumably one that can afterburn as well.

But there's no point trying to put reheat on an engine with harrier type forward nozzles, and if the engines are in an f-14 type position then the centre of thrust is well behind the c of g :-(

[Mave]

IanMorewood said:

I'm not 100% convinced you need two engines on a fighter/strike aircraft (Lightening, F2 Viper, F16 Falcon, Gripen and Rafale)

The rafale is a twin:-) but I agree twins aren't necessarily needed.

[Mave]

telecat said:

I accept that on one engine it's VTOL capability would be hampered but by having a Asynchronous thrust pattern

What do you actually mean by asynchronous thrust pattern? Where is theThrust, and how is it getting there?

[telecat]

Mave said:

IanMorewood said:

Heâ??s after a twin engine vtol aircraft, presumably one that can afterburn as well.

But there's no point trying to put reheat on an engine with harrier type forward nozzles, and if the engines are in an f-14 type position then the centre of thrust is well behind the c of g :-(

The Harrier style nozzle is Brilliant for Hovering and directing thrust but is rather inefficient when it comes to top speed. Hence My caveat regarding trap doors rather than Harrier style vectoring nozzles.

[Dr Jekyll]

Mave said:

IanMorewood said:

I'm not 100% convinced you need two engines on a fighter/strike aircraft (Lightening, F2 Viper, F16 Falcon, Gripen and Rafale)

The rafale is a twin:-) but I agree twins aren't necessarily needed.

And the Lightning.

[telecat]

Dr Jekyll said:

Mave said:

IanMorewood said:

I'm not 100% convinced you need two engines on a fighter/strike aircraft (Lightening, F2 Viper, F16 Falcon, Gripen and Rafale)

The rafale is a twin:-) but I agree twins aren't necessarily needed.

And the Lightning.

The F22 was renamed "Raptor" and the F35 given the "Lightning" name

[Mave]

telecat said:

The Harrier style nozzle is Brilliant for Hovering and directing thrust but is rather inefficient when it comes to top speed. Hence My caveat regarding trap doors rather than Harrier style vectoring nozzles.

It's not the nozzle that's the problem, it's the engine cycle which is dictated by engine position and c of g. How are your trap doors going to duct air forward in VTOL mode, and where does the air go when the doors are closed?

[telecat]

Mave said:

telecat said:

The Harrier style nozzle is Brilliant for Hovering and directing thrust but is rather inefficient when it comes to top speed. Hence My caveat regarding trap doors rather than Harrier style vectoring nozzles.

It's not the nozzle that's the problem, it's the engine cycle which is dictated by engine position and c of g. How are your trap doors going to duct air forward in VTOL mode, and where does the air go when the doors are closed?

You would need an engine that could "bleed" thrust though a second outlet into a vent tunnel or set of nozzles forward and also provide some thrust to the "normal" outlets which would be fully variable like the F22 or the F35B. What I would be looking for would be an application of existing reliable tech as against the rather Heath Robinson Yak technology they are using at the moment. Let's face facts the Harrier has been in service for 50 Years and counting. The YAK was dead after 30 and it never reliably went into combat. It's a Dead end technology. I do not think that throwing modern engineering at it is ever going to work either.

As it stands Rolls-Royce and BAE have produced what appear to be viable concepts for a Supersonic V/STOL fighter that do not stray too far from the Harriers concept. The costs couldn't have been worse and the lead time even with MOD and DOD interference could have been a lot better.

[Mave]

telecat said:

As it stands Rolls-Royce and BAE have produced what appear to be viable concepts for a Supersonic V/STOL fighter that do not stray too far from the Harriers concept.

I disagree. The F35 is conceptually totally different to the Harrier.