Tuesday, December 28, 2010

J-20 design influences from the ATF program.

Many are speculating that the Chinese have used the Mig 1.44 or the PAK-FA as its design influence.

I beg to differ.  Chinese espionage has been so prolific and at times effective against the US, I wonder how much information they on our ATF studies and program.  This via the Lockheed Martin website.


Model Of Boeing's Proposal For ATF

Boeing designers focused on the weapon bay and essentially designed the airplane around it. Wind tunnel results, especially those related to flight at high angles of attack, affected the arrangement, size, cant angles, and placement of the tails. The design used a single chin inlet with an internal splitter to feed the two engines. The inlet had an internal variable ramp (combined with the splitter) to reach its higher design speeds.

Lockheed Proposal Configuration For ATF

Lockheed's proposal configuration, called 090P, had a streamlined nose, trapezoidal wing planform with positive sweep on both the leading and trailing edges, and four tail surfaces (two horizontal and two vertical). The large vertical tails were canted outwards. The leading and trailing edge sweep angles of all of the surfaces were aligned at common angles. The design had a wide strake that ran in a straight line from the wing leading edge outboard of the inlets to the point of the nose.

Lockheed Configuration 090P Four-View

Lockheed's proposal configuration, called 090P, had a streamlined nose, trapezoidal wing planform with positive sweep on both the leading and trailing edges, and four tail surfaces (two horizontal and two vertical). The large vertical tails were canted outwards. The leading and trailing edge sweep angles of all of the surfaces were aligned at common angles. The design had a wide strake that ran in a straight line from the wing leading edge outboard of the inlets to the point of the nose.

Ok, its real.


 images via Key Publishing by way of Mupp (Ares Blog commenter)

And its freakin' huge!  This has to be a strike or interceptor.  Either would make sense and both are holes in the Chinese Air Armada.  An interceptor designed to go after AWACS and tankers would seem to be perfect for a semi-stealthy long range airplane...especially if its equipped with ultra-long range Russian AAM's.

Or the Chinese equivalent of what the B-1 was suppose to be...a deep strike airplane.  The Chinese are mostly operating OLD Russian Bear type bombers in that role.  It would also make sense for them to try for a replacement.

Either way, the response from the Defense Dept will be telling.

PS.
What's with the door to the main landing gear???

Time to put a end to an insidious F-35 lie.


This letter to the editor in the Armed Force Journal says it all...


F-35B’s true mission
Lt. Cmdr. Perry Solomon, [“Hovering at a precipice”, July/Aug AFJ] missed the mark in his criticism of the Marine Corps’ all-in selection of the F-35B STOVL as being unnecessary and the wrong choice.
The author seems to have either misunderstood or merely forgotten the Marine Corps’ primary mission. The article also centers on the dangerous assumption that the U.S. will always have air superiority in all future conflicts. Operations Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom are cited as the only evidence for this contention, a sampling that is too selective and incomplete.
The F-35B, like the Harrier before it, was predicated on the very opposite assumption: that peer (or locally superior adversaries) will either attain air superiority or the next worst thing, the capacity to target and disable/deny access to all friendly airbases or airports. The true archetypical modern-era scenario comes not from Desert Storm, but from the high-intensity battle envisaged during the Cold War, in which Soviet and Warsaw-Pact forces would first have struck all U.S. and NATO air bases, disrupting, debilitating, or perhaps outright denying NATO its vital airpower.
In this adverse scenario, short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) combat aircraft would be immune to the loss of airfields, continuing to conduct combat operations while operating from easily and quickly relocated dispersal sites around the battlefield. It was for this very reason that the British Harrier “jump-jet” was created and deployed, and for the same reasons that the Marines obtained so many copies.
Such threats are very much in play today. The Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s doctrine is similarly based on ballistic- and cruise-missile saturation attacks, alongside aircraft-delivered precision guided missile (PGM) strikes, on all Taiwanese and regionally “friendly” airbases, out as far as Japan, South Korea and even to Guam. PLA doctrine also calls for attacks on American nuclear aircraft carriers and their escorting carrier battle groups. Thus, both U.S. land-based and naval airpower may be denied in-theater access in a future conflict with China, at least in the crucial early stages, as posited by the CSBA’s “Air-Sea-Battle” document of 2010.
Ironically, this adverse scenario is one in which the F-35B is not only meant to continue fighting, but the option the Marines are already opting for, en masse. Indeed, the F-35B STOVL combat aircraft might be the only combat plane still able to fly, fight and win, on or near a target zone such as a Taiwan under attack, siege or occupation.
Unlike the author’s assumptions of guaranteed air superiority, the Marines always plan, equip and train to fight and win in even the most adverse scenarios. They cannot and do not assume that they will have air superiority and leisurely fly-ins to regional airbases or conventional carriers just outside the immediate combat zone. Their primary, mission-generating case studies include Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima and Inchon, not just Desert Storm and OIF. To that end, they are opting for a penetrating combat aircraft that can deploy forward into hostile territory with as much vital airpower as possible with their amphibious and land-borne elements. Also, unlike conventional combat aircraft (including the Navy’s F-35Cs), F-35Bs can operate off Navy LPD ships and helicopter carriers, increasing dispersal, survivability and combined-arms forces’ effectiveness by a factor of many times.
The Marine Corps’ all-F-35B force gives some badly needed redundancy, robustness and flexibility to the Air-Sea-Battle Operations Concept.
— Howard Kleinberg, defense systems engineer-analyst, Department of Public and International Affairs, University of North Carolina, Wilmington, N.C.
Well said Mr. Kleinberg.  Unfortunately the "Horde" of spinners, and deceivers about this program will never listen to reasoned debate.

Like jihadist, they are locked into a belief system that has them chained to a course of action in which they seem to have lost control.

Rise of Marine Forces Worldwide.


Andy Nativi over at Aviation Week has an excellent article that I've hinted at but one that needs to be exposed for all to see.

Despite critics at his own publication (Bill Sweetman most notably), it seems that nations worldwide have decided that Marine Forces are a necessary and essential part of their future military structures.

Read the article here, but these are the highlights.
Theater commanders will say the benefits of a mobile force of marines, operating with naval support and dedicated air and ground assets, cannot be overstated, especially in an era of asymmetric warfare and littoral operations. So effective is this model of rapid light infantry that even landlocked Paraguay has a battalion of marines.
and this
Large amphibious forces are common in the Pacific Rim. China has 7,000 marines and special forces in five regiments. This is likely to expand as the navy builds more amphibious assault vehicles and strengthens its blue water fleet. Taiwan has a bigger marine force, with two active divisions and one in reserve totaling 35,000 troops. They are primarily for defensive operations—e.g., repelling an invasion by China.
All in all its a great roster of Marine Forces world wide and gives an indication of future trends.  The Sweetman's of the world might not want to believe 'their lying eyes' but its apparent that with Western attention turning to the Pacific, Marines of the world will become even more important in the future than they are now.

Polish Rosomak

Jonathan (thanks bud) sent me an article (...read it here) about the Polish Rosomak.  My first impression was WTF is that!?

Well a quick Google search revealed it to be the Polish Patria 8X8.  Nicely done and with its service in Iraq and Afghanistan that means that this family of vehicles is as thoroughly battle tested as any 8X8 on the market.

IF the Marine Personnel Carrier tender survives (extremely doubtful in my opinion) then perhaps this is another vehicle that should be considered. then Lockheed Martin might have a winner on its hands.