What is up with the F-35? Part II

[SteveDaPirate]

Here's hoping they try to incorporate some stealth design as a 'base' air frame for the tanker with an eye towards the future UCLASSS.

I'm sure the design will fall into the "reduced RCS" category and take RCS considerations into account whenever possible even if it doesn't go full stealth including RAM coatings.

I actually like the way the USN seems to be going here. I'm not sure how much fuel a Shornet with Buddy Store could offload, but I imagine it is quite a bit less than an unmanned design of similar dimensions. The ability to use unmanned assets for refueling also means that the Navy should be able to get more mileage out of their strike fighters, since they don't have to use up service life hours orbiting the carriers and topping off the guys who just came off the catapult.

On that note, will the EMALS system on the Fords allow strike fighters to cat with full fuel and weapons loads?

[bfng3569]

Navy is going all in on f35 after all. Admits urgent need for more stealth in 2020s. Abandoning UCLASSS in favor of unmanned tanker to boost standoff range:
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/02/g...n-2017-budget/

Here's hoping they try to incorporate some stealth design as a 'base' air frame for the tanker with an eye towards the future UCLASSS.

Essentially use the unmanned tanker as a test bed (design wise) for the future stealth unmanned strike platform.

With no real requirement for stealth for the mission, I would think working in simple design 'cues' that can be built off of in the future shouldn't be that difficult or costly.

plus, any actual reduction in the RCS wouldn't hurt.

[bfng3569]

it seems much smaller than F-35 though

looks like a trainer.....

[citanon]

Navy is going all in on f35 after all. Admits urgent need for more stealth in 2020s. Abandoning UCLASSS in favor of unmanned tanker to boost standoff range:
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/02/g...n-2017-budget/

[Stitch]

it seems much smaller than F-35 though

Well, it IS a technology demonstrator; and, yes, it is considerably smaller than the F-35 (and especially the F-22; it actually looks like the F-22's little brother).

What I find interesting is that the installed thrust in this aircraft is still significantly smaller than the thrust from a single F-119 engine; in fact, the F-119 (not to mention the F-135) puts out three times the thrust of one of the XF5 engines in the ATD-X.

[drhuy]

Here comes the competition

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uxMG3n03uI

..again.

it seems much smaller than F-35 though

[Versus]

Here comes the competition

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uxMG3n03uI

..again.

[Stitch]

That maybe true, but CATOBAR system gives the aircraft a lot more lifting capacity. A fighter/attacker is worth as much as the fuel and munitions it could carry. A fighter taking off vertically but can't carry fuel or weapons is worthless.

A submersible carrier is not practical. The man power needed to operate that vessel is not worth the few jets she could carry. There's also the landing part. Landing an F-35B on the back of a submarine will be rather difficult. It could be done, but then how does one handle the jet once it lands? Need to clear the deck for the next jet. Where would one park it? There must be a hanger space for every single plane because what happens when the carrier dives?

What we need is one of these:

[citanon]

[SteveDaPirate]

Footage from the AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System