What if
July 26, 2014, 01:09:30 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Links Gallery Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
Author Topic: F-32 JSF (the Boeing contender)  (Read 9542 times)
Jeffry Fontaine
Don't need no stinking instructions
Needs A Life Outside What-If
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3380


What-If's "Uncle Jeffry"


WWW
« Reply #15 on: January 23, 2009, 11:52:24 PM »

I have some 1/48th scale Hellfires here that won't get used if you decide to go that route.
Did you manage to find an XF-32 then??

Wicked idea to scale-o-rama the AGM-114 Hellfire missiles and create a larger version of the same weapon for attacking larger targets that needed a larger warhead to achieve destruction.  Need to come up with a suitable M-Number and letter designation for the missile.  This could also apply to a 1/32nd or 1/35th scale AGM-114 on a 1/48th scale project. 
« Last Edit: February 03, 2009, 07:42:31 PM by Jeffry Fontaine » Logged

Unaffiliated Independent Subversive
----------------------------------
"Every day we hear about new studies 'revealing' what should have been obvious to sentient beings for generations; 'Research shows wolverines don't like to be teased" -- Jonah Goldberg
joncarrfarrelly
Bertie Bassett
What-IF SIG
Needs A Life Outside What-If
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4420



« Reply #16 on: January 24, 2009, 06:51:28 AM »

Schemes for production type F-32.

Jon

Logged

"L'avion accuse ..." - Le Corbusier
kitnut617
That's got his tum rumbling already just by the sound of it.
Needs A Life Outside What-If
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6658



« Reply #17 on: January 24, 2009, 04:14:17 PM »

I guess this just begs the question,  why did they use a delta on their prototype when the production versions were going to look like these?
Logged

If I'm not building models, I'm out riding my dirtbike
joncarrfarrelly
Bertie Bassett
What-IF SIG
Needs A Life Outside What-If
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4420



« Reply #18 on: January 24, 2009, 05:19:03 PM »

I guess this just begs the question,  why did they use a delta on their prototype when the production versions were going to look like these?

Schedule and changes in requirements after the layouts of the X-32 and X-35 had been frozen.

The X-32 and X-35 were not prototypes in the usual sense, i.e. the first aircraft of a type, they were
built as flying proof-of-concept/technology demonstrators. While the X-35 and F-35 are generally
similar in appearance in fact they are two very different aircraft. The same thing happened with the
F-22, the YF-22 and the production type are not the same aircraft.

Jon
Logged

"L'avion accuse ..." - Le Corbusier
Jschmus
Needs A Life Outside What-If
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3249



WWW
« Reply #19 on: January 24, 2009, 09:40:53 PM »

I have some 1/48th scale Hellfires here that won't get used if you decide to go that route.
Did you manage to find an XF-32 then??

Wicked idea to scale-o-rama the AGM-114 Hellfire missiles and create a larger version of the same weapon for attacking larger targets that needed a larger warhead to achieve destruction.  Need to come up with a suitable M-Number for the missile or call it the AGM-114G ("G" for "Giant"), AGM-114J ("J" for "Jumbo"), or AGM-114L ("L" for "Large") 8^)

This could also apply to a 1/32nd or 1/35th scale AGM-114 on a 1/48th scale project. 

I got to leaf through some promotional material from a presentation given at the Joint Warfighting Center last month.  There was some material regarding a project called "JAGM" for Joint Air to Ground Missile.  The illustrated missile looked like a larger version of the Hellfire.
Logged

"Life isn’t divided into genres. It’s a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."-Alan Moore
dy031101
Needs A Life Outside What-If
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2812

Prefers tanks and guns over swords and magics


« Reply #20 on: January 25, 2009, 12:51:57 AM »

I guess this just begs the question,  why did they use a delta on their prototype when the production versions were going to look like these?

Half-way during the programme they decided to get more manuverability out of the design.

(IMHO, the F-32 looks ugly with the new control surfaces arrangement...... but whatever works......)
Logged

To the individual soldiers, *everything* is a frontal assault!

====================

Current Hobby Priority...... Sun Yat-Sen Heavy/Medium/Battle Tank, S-67 Blackhawk

To-do list here
Rafael
Senõr Cartón (also known as Commandante' Cartón)
Needs A Life Outside What-If
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2347


Banana-Land Wonder


« Reply #21 on: February 02, 2009, 08:32:26 PM »

Hola, Trev!!!

I've always wondered the same, the X-32 being my favorite (I have a weak spot for chin inlets). As far as I've been able to investigate, this is because the X-32 was a concept, experimental aircraft. It had one weps bay because it wasn't a series production aircraft, and the vehicle's internal space was packed with test gear. So, no need for a second weapons bay, which would be present in series production aircraft.

Rafa
Logged

Understood only by fellow Whiffers....
1/72 Scale Maniac
UUUuuumm, I love cardboard (Cardboard, Yum!!!)
OK, I know I can't stop scratchbuilding. Someday, I will build something OOB....

YOU - ME- EVERYONE.
WE MAY THINK DIFFERENTLY
BUT WE CAN LIVE TOGETHER
pyro-manic
Needs A Life Outside What-If
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5209


Master Procrastinator


WWW
« Reply #22 on: February 02, 2009, 08:44:27 PM »

One weapons bay would be on each side on the production model. The rest is mostly engine:


Logged

Some of my models can be found on my Flickr album >>>HERE<<<
ysi_maniac
Kit Surgeon First Class
Needs A Life Outside What-If
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5221



« Reply #23 on: February 03, 2009, 02:05:14 PM »

Charlie S. brought his production type F-32, approximately 1/40th scale solid resin Boeing modelshop casting.

One thing I forgot to mention, he shot the cammo in lacquer with a production type spray gun rather than an airbrush, its covered with over twenty coats of clear. He's currently sanding it all smooth and sez its slow going.  Grin

Cheers, Jon


That swedish F-32 is just superb ... and not easy. Thumbs Up
Logged

Will die without understanding this world.
Jeffry Fontaine
Don't need no stinking instructions
Needs A Life Outside What-If
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3380


What-If's "Uncle Jeffry"


WWW
« Reply #24 on: February 03, 2009, 06:30:14 PM »

One weapons bay would be on each side on the production model. The rest is mostly engine
Which brings up another question about where the internal gun was supposed to be mounted.  Since there is not much space along side the engine for two weapons bays full of stores and a gun where was it supposed to be mounted?
Logged

Unaffiliated Independent Subversive
----------------------------------
"Every day we hear about new studies 'revealing' what should have been obvious to sentient beings for generations; 'Research shows wolverines don't like to be teased" -- Jonah Goldberg
pyro-manic
Needs A Life Outside What-If
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5209


Master Procrastinator


WWW
« Reply #25 on: February 03, 2009, 07:21:29 PM »

In the wing root, I would think. The colour profiles on the previous page show a panel at the root of the right wing that looks like it could cover a gun. The F-22's gun is in a similar position, and the F-35A's is in the port wing root.
Logged

Some of my models can be found on my Flickr album >>>HERE<<<
joncarrfarrelly
Bertie Bassett
What-IF SIG
Needs A Life Outside What-If
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4420



« Reply #26 on: February 03, 2009, 08:59:59 PM »

Being a 'Stealth' Jet, where would systems such as Lantirn pods or Sniper pods be found?

They wouldn't be, the F-35 uses EOTS(Electro-Optical Targeting System) and the AN/AAS-37 system
both of which are built in to the airframe.

EOTS

Jon

Logged

"L'avion accuse ..." - Le Corbusier
pyro-manic
Needs A Life Outside What-If
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5209


Master Procrastinator


WWW
« Reply #27 on: February 03, 2009, 09:47:39 PM »

what are Lantirn and Sniper?

Lantirn and Sniper are targeting systems, used to mark targets for guided weapons. They contain infrared and TV cameras, laser target marker and seeker, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LANTIRN
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_Sniper_XR
« Last Edit: February 03, 2009, 09:53:03 PM by pyro-manic » Logged

Some of my models can be found on my Flickr album >>>HERE<<<
Sauragnmon
Knows the Tao of Putty-Fu
Needs A Life Outside What-If
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2432


They say I'm crazy, I say it looks cool.


« Reply #28 on: February 05, 2009, 03:05:21 PM »

Here's a thought - if Boeing was going to get more maneuverability out of the design by adding the elevators, would it not, in principle, have the same effect to mount canards instead?  I don't know, off the top of my head, if the delta had better wing area, but if you matched up the wing to get the same wing area, and put in canards, it might look a little better?

One might surmise, they would have put a second payload bay along the bottom of the aircraft, obviously - I'm guessing it would be somewhere behind the bulge?

Was BAE Systems always on board with the F-35, or did they come in Afterwards - if they came in afterwards, the could likely have put in their two pennies on the design's delta/conventional dispute by putting up the work they've put in on the Tiffie, so we could also see the concept of the F-32 being a little more Tiffied with the delta/canard config, in theory.

Just a little early-morning (I just woke up) brainstorming.
Logged

Putty-fu, Scratch-jutsu and Bash-chi, the sacred martial arts of the What-If. Mastering them, is Ancient Chinese Secret.

Just your friendly neighbourhood Mad Scientist and Ship-whiffer.

Overkill? Nah, it's Insurance.  So are the 20" guns.
joncarrfarrelly
Bertie Bassett
What-IF SIG
Needs A Life Outside What-If
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4420



« Reply #29 on: February 05, 2009, 07:51:42 PM »

Here's a thought - if Boeing was going to get more maneuverability out of the design by adding the elevators, would it not, in principle, have the same effect to mount canards instead?  I don't know, off the top of my head, if the delta had better wing area, but if you matched up the wing to get the same wing area, and put in canards, it might look a little better?

One might surmise, they would have put a second payload bay along the bottom of the aircraft, obviously - I'm guessing it would be somewhere behind the bulge?

Was BAE Systems always on board with the F-35, or did they come in Afterwards - if they came in afterwards, the could likely have put in their two pennies on the design's delta/conventional dispute by putting up the work they've put in on the Tiffie, so we could also see the concept of the F-32 being a little more Tiffied with the delta/canard config, in theory.

The issues were far wider ranging than just adding maneuverability and canards are not
considered stealth friendly in some quarters.

IF the X-32 had won and entered production in its as tested aerodynamic
form it would have had two weapons bay, one each side, just like the X-35.
The design always had two weapons bays, only one was used on the X-32
because that is all that was needed for test purposes.

Ongoing ASTOVL research in the US and UK begat CALF which was joined with JAST to become JSF.

BAe was independently involved with ASTOVL (Advance Short take-off Vertical Landing) research for years.

The companies selected for CALF (Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter) were Lockheed and MDC,
which ever team won, the aircraft was to be designated X-32. BAe teamed with MDC in 1994 for the
project. Boeing was brought in that year when the program was changed to include a direct-lift concept.
Later in 1994 Northrop Grumman was added to the MDC/BAe team, leaving Boeing and Lockheed to discuss
the possibility of combining effort on the X-32. Neither was willing to give up their design so the teaming
never happened.

Meanwhile the JAST (Joint Advanced Strike Technology) was created which combined the USAF MRF (Multi Role Fighter)
and USN A-F/X programs which were aimed at replacing, respectively the F-16 and the F-18/A-6, into one technology
program.

The similarities between CALF and JAST became obvious to everyone so both were merged under the JAST banner.
The plan was changed to have two finalist teams/designs, the X-32 designation was retained from CALF and the new
designation of X-35 was created for the other airframe. The program was renamed JSF in 1996 and contracts were
awarded in November of that year to Lockheed-Martin and Boeing. MDC was excluded and began merger negotiations
with Boeing. L-Mart teamed with Northrop-Grumman and BAe.

The L-Mart proposal had canards at one point but they were dumped by late 1995.

Jon

p.s. for those wondering about the gun in the X/F-32, the intended mounting was in the left side of the
lower forward fuselage behind the intake.


Info from the 1999 Flight International supplement Joint Strike Fighter: Inside the 21st Century Warfighter
Logged

"L'avion accuse ..." - Le Corbusier
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.17 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines
TinyPortal v0.9.8 © Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.218 seconds with 23 queries.

Google visited last this page July 23, 2014, 10:35:35 PM