LowObservable said:Right... A-12. Sure.
What it's not, given it does not look like a swing-wing, is an AF/X, since it's not carrier-suitable.
I don't know what it is but it looks like GD... a grown-up F-16XL. Or this, with tails:
JSF F-35A and F-35C variants should also be as common as possible, but look how it ended - the level of the commonality is decreasing almost every minute.
flateric said:keyword is "landing speed"
LO treated wing angles sweep not good for massive lift devices
Colonial-Marine said:Seems much of the concept art I had thought was Lockheed's NATF, was actually the Lockheed/Boeing A/F-X offer. From what I gather none of the other designs progressed as far as this AFX-635?
From the shaping and size of the nose it looks like the APG-77 or a similarly sized radar wouldn't fit in there. Was a smaller, less capable radar planned, since this was largely an attack aircraft?
So if the Navy's plans had worked out, a carrier wing in the 2000s would be based around the F-14D, A/F-X, and the F/A-18C or an upgraded Hornet variant? Two variable sweep wing designs sounds mighty expensive to maintain. In that regard (maintainability and cost) it seems like one of the other proposals would have been preferable, even if they were limited to subsonic speeds.
Colonial-Marine said:Yet in either scenario (F-14D and A-X or just A/F-X) wouldn't there have been a need for a "light fighter" to complement the costlier designs? Or were they not going to worry about that until the F/A-18s were closer to retirement?
It is unfortunate that so little is available on the other submissions. I hope the respective companies release more information about them someday.
I am guessing that all of the concept art of the Lockheed/Boeing/GD design is depicting the definite AFX-635, but the radome still seems awfully small. I must say I prefer the sleeker design of the version prior to the final AFX-635 design. It certainly made a nice looking test model as Stuka showed.
F-14D said:Don't want to go too deeply into this because that will take us off topic, but basically the "light fighter" concept was imposed on the Navy from the outside to begin with. The Navy, with its limited number of carriers (and getting smaller, apparently) is constrained by spotting factor, so you're going to have about the same amount of aircraft aboard whether they're lower capability or not. The F/A-18A/D actually took more deckspace than the strike aircraft it replaced, the A-7, and Super Bug is not a light fighter. Then, of course you get into the situation that whether the lower operating costs offset the lesser capabilities and R&D to get the aircraft into service. Again, another topic for another time.
To give you my thoughts to your question as it relates to AX or A/FX, what I'm saying was that from the perspective of the late '80s, very early '90s, the vision didn't seem to have a plan for replacing the Hornet at all. F-14 and AX (or A/FX) would be doing the work. Remember, Super H. was to be a "bridge" to A/FX.
Colonial-Marine said:F-14D said:Don't want to go too deeply into this because that will take us off topic, but basically the "light fighter" concept was imposed on the Navy from the outside to begin with. The Navy, with its limited number of carriers (and getting smaller, apparently) is constrained by spotting factor, so you're going to have about the same amount of aircraft aboard whether they're lower capability or not. The F/A-18A/D actually took more deckspace than the strike aircraft it replaced, the A-7, and Super Bug is not a light fighter. Then, of course you get into the situation that whether the lower operating costs offset the lesser capabilities and R&D to get the aircraft into service. Again, another topic for another time.
To give you my thoughts to your question as it relates to AX or A/FX, what I'm saying was that from the perspective of the late '80s, very early '90s, the vision didn't seem to have a plan for replacing the Hornet at all. F-14 and AX (or A/FX) would be doing the work. Remember, Super H. was to be a "bridge" to A/FX.
I see, although wouldn't an air wing with ST-21s and A-Xs (or only A/F-Xs) have seemed a bit unrealistic to the Navy due to the post-Cold War cuts?
Regarding the Super Hornet being a bridge to A/F-X, didn't the first SH prototype fly 2+ years after A/F-X was canceled? I presume by the time they new A/F-X was going to be canceled they were stuck with the choice. Naturally few sources today mention the SH was intended to be an interim aircraft like you said.
Not that I think the Super Hornet is a bad aircraft, it is just somewhat disappointing compared to what we could have had.
Back on topic, once A-X became A/F-X, on which proposals (besides for the Lockheed/Boeing/GD design) did work continue? I doubt the revamped A-12 for example would have been suited to the new requirements.
From what I remember, the a/f-x has bigger radar than the APG-77. The nose looks shorter, but not smaller. I don't know the reason why it's shorter, but my wildly assumption is that so it would provide better Also, the a/f-x would also have improved stealth feature against ground threat than the f-22. However, it doesn't have engines with supercruising features as the f-22 because of weight saving.Colonial-Marine said:From the shaping and size of the nose it looks like the APG-77 or a similarly sized radar wouldn't fit in there. Was a smaller, less capable radar planned, since this was largely an attack aircraft?
donnage99 said:From what I remember, the a/f-x has bigger radar than the APG-77. The nose looks shorter, but not smaller. I don't know the reason why it's shorter, but my wildly assumption is that so it would provide better Also, the a/f-x would also have improved stealth feature against ground threat than the f-22. However, it doesn't have engines with supercruising features as the f-22 because of weight saving.Colonial-Marine said:From the shaping and size of the nose it looks like the APG-77 or a similarly sized radar wouldn't fit in there. Was a smaller, less capable radar planned, since this was largely an attack aircraft?
And afterburner makes you shines like a beacon on the enemy's IRST. One of the advantages of supercruise is that it would negate the use of afterburner, reducing IR signature. Supercruising engines tend to eat more fuel overall, but at the same time it offers supersonic flight with less fuel consumption than afterburner. This holds especially true for an aircraft that would be tasked with carrier fleet defense intercepting enemies bombers armed with long range cruise missiles. Supersonic flight was very nessecary for such mission. The reason why it doesn't feature supercruise, as I know, is because of weight saving.F-14D said:A/FX didn't have supercruise because the missions of the aircraft were different from that of F-22, the Navy, unlike USAF, understood and believed in IRST systems and supercruise does tend to make you hotter
donnage99 said:And afterburner makes you shines like a beacon on the enemy's IRST. One of the advantages of supercruise is that it would negate the use of afterburner, reducing IR signature. Supercruising engines tend to eat more fuel overall, but at the same time it offers supersonic flight with less fuel consumption than afterburner. This holds especially true for an aircraft that would be tasked with carrier fleet defense intercepting enemies bombers armed with long range cruise missiles. Supersonic flight was very nessecary for such mission. The reason why it doesn't feature supercruise, as I know, is because of weight saving.F-14D said:A/FX didn't have supercruise because the missions of the aircraft were different from that of F-22, the Navy, unlike USAF, understood and believed in IRST systems and supercruise does tend to make you hotter
What's your point, man? If A/F-X doing strike mission, going subsonically, the A/F-X will not use supercruise. But in missions required the A/F-X to best go supersonically, it has the option to use supercruise which is stealthier in term of IRS and less fuel consumption than the other alternative. Your argument only works if supercruise requires the aircraft to always use it. You are irrelevantly comparing subsonic flight with supersonic flight.F-14D said:For strike missions, when it needed maximum stealth, A/FX would be operating subsonically, at least on the ingress and predetection phase. Thus, it wouldn't be using afterburners then.
Not bombers AND cruise missiles, but bombers ARMED WITH cruise missiles that engage the fleet from significantly far away distance. The interceptor must be fast to get there before the bombers looses its missiles, or even if the bombers already shot its missiles, the interceptors must get there before the bombers ran away. AAAM provide a significant range against its predecessor, but doesn't make it a magical weapon against these types of scenario.Regarding the Fleet Air Defense mission against bombers and cruise missiles, don't forget that A/FX (or even AX with F-14Ds) would be armed with AAAM (addressed elsewhere on the forum).
donnage99 said:What's your point, man? If A/F-X doing strike mission, going subsonically, the A/F-X will not use supercruise. But in missions required the A/F-X to best go supersonically, it has the option to use supercruise which is stealthier in term of IRS and less fuel consumption than the other alternative. Your argument only works if supercruise requires the aircraft to always use it. You are irrelevantly comparing subsonic flight with supersonic flight.F-14D said:For strike missions, when it needed maximum stealth, A/FX would be operating subsonically, at least on the ingress and predetection phase. Thus, it wouldn't be using afterburners then.
Not bombers AND cruise missiles, but bombers ARMED WITH cruise missiles that engage the fleet from significantly far away distance. The interceptor must be fast to get there before the bombers looses its missiles, or even if the bombers already shot its missiles, the interceptors must get there before the bombers ran away. AAAM provide a significant range against its predecessor, but doesn't make it a magical weapon against these types of scenario.Regarding the Fleet Air Defense mission against bombers and cruise missiles, don't forget that A/FX (or even AX with F-14Ds) would be armed with AAAM (addressed elsewhere on the forum).
donnage99 said:I'm saying that you arguing that supercruise brings penalty in term of infrared signature makes completely no sense. If anything, supercruise helps IR signature.
Supercruise gives you the ability to do that without penalty in IR footprint and fuel consumption.
donnage99 said:You completely missed it, F-14D. I'm arguing against Navy's decision of not having supercruise requirements,
Same thing about the speed: high speed needed is always desired in aircraft with intercept mission is a no brainer. You want to get there as fast as you can to engage the enemies. That's the foundation behind the f-14 design.
I'm not challenging navy's decision; like I said, I think the decision is for weight saving, and I'm completely OK with that. However, what I'm saying is that the reasons you made up to justify their decision are clearly illogical, not the decision itself.
And I never argued against it. I suggest you get my point first before trying to argue with it.Abraham Gubler said:Supercruising DOES bring an IR signature penalty compared to subsonic cruising.