Delete comment from: Elements Of Power
Hi "Unknown".
RE: "Italy has severely constrained resources due to the economic crises and essentially no threats."
Those are both value judgments that have been, are and will be actively debated in any open society. When stated as 'fact' they both PRESUME facts not in evidence and/or are provable: Presumption 1-"Economic crises" makes a certain level of defense pending 'unaffordable'.
Counter- Yet enough people in Italy apparently believe otherwise, else that 'level of defense' or capability would not be sought after.
Presumption 2. "Essentially no threats" are seen to exist.
Counter - I reassert that because they are not seen by some, does not mean either a) they are not seen by others or b) that they do not exist. I gave examples of how unforeseen conflicts have arose in the very recent past. That 'someone' does not see they rose to a level of concern does not mean others did/do not, nor does that mean the next conflict would not be "existential". I've added a link above that I originally intended to incorporate but did not that supports my assertions. The useful life for the F-35 weapon system is planned to cover the next 30-50 years. I do not believe anyone can say with any certainty what 'existential' events will transpire in that timeframe, nor when they will transpire within that timeframe.
RE: STOVL
The F-35's lift fan system is not just newer technology, it is a newer technological approach. If you can't access any of the AIAA papers, at least visit the Wiki Page on Paul Bevilaqua and follow the links to details (such as the patent) of the design, and a nice graph showing how the power of the propulsion system is used for maximum effect in both conventional and vertical flight.
IMHO the beauty of the actual application was in putting the lift fan ahead of the engine where the weight is equal to about a half-full fuel tank -- the fuel tank that sits in the exact same place in the CTOL version. this arrangement yields very similar CGs for "best maneuverability" for both variants. The Harrier was an evolutionary 'dead end' that required a draggy airframe/engine design and installation that could only produce more thrust by making the engine bigger and draggier. There is a diminishing return on payload, range, and speed to any design-- and the AV-8B design was hitting the limit. The F-35B, taps into the Shaft HP of the common F-35 engine installation to drive the fan. The lift fan produces far more thrust pushing colder denser air than would ever be practical with hot gases, and it mitigates the hot gas ingestion problem of the AV-8B technical approach. The F-35 approach already lifts about twice as much as the Harrier approach, can fly well above Mach1, and can land with significant payload (something the Harrier cannot do). All without 'compromising' the CTOL design.
Jul 31, 2013, 11:21:53 PM
Posted to The F-35 Issue: 'Food' for Thought?