Delete comment from: Elements Of Power
1) No. ‘Pre-JAST’ the USN wanted a twin engine aircraft, with two crewmen in their predecessor effort, the Advanced-Attack/Advanced/Fighter-Attack (A-X/A/F-X) program (http://www.jsf.mil/history/his_prejast.htm). That program only ran from 1992 to 1993, never got beyond planning and requirements phase and was mercifully killed in Les Aspin’s (spit) 1993 “Bottom-Up Review” aka the ‘BUR”. The Pre-JAST airplane the USAF wanted was in their Multi-Role Fighter (MRF) program, and it was to be a single engine, single-crew airplane like the F-16 it was to replace. Budget cuts and a lack of urgency once the Cold War ended, merged the two services’ efforts into the JAST program. Concurrent with the Navy and USAF pre-JAST efforts, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) was working on the Advanced Short Take-Off/Vertical Landing (ASTOVL) concept for a future Harrier replacement. DARPA in the process of the ASTOVL’s travails approached Lockheed for ideas, and the lift-fan concept became the working basis for the ASTOVL. JAST was a technology maturation program, which absorbed the ASTOVL effort, first by agreement between the programs and then by FY95 legislation. This meant JAST had two of three possible users wanting single–engine designs. With advances in modern engine reliability, the Navy agreed to the single engine approach for commonality purposes, and for all three services, the attraction of just one engine was affordability.
2) No. The F-35’s wings are sized as a balance of many factors. The A and B model wings are actually smaller than they would have to be for the F-35B to use an LHA ship elevator (the limiting size constraint factor without a wing fold). The wing span is about a foot shorter, and wing area about 40 sq ft less than it could have been if the LHA requirements were the only consideration. As to the ill-defined adjective ‘stubby’ claim, if one compares the F-35s to the aircraft they are replacing, the F-35s are as long as or longer than two of the primary aircraft they are replacing. The illusion of being ‘stubby’ is an artifact of the internal carriage scheme, which is in turn an artifact of the need for Low Observability and range.
3. No (Obviously). With systems that enable the pilot to have 360 degree spherical situational awareness, including being able to actually ‘see’ through the aircraft structure, the idea that the F-35 has a vulnerable blind spot from behind is Pierre Sprey-grade ludicrous. There are obviously more blind spots to be found on any other aircraft flying than the F-35.
Nov 30, 2014, 9:52:39 PM