Three fighters, 39 years

[Uncle Fester]

There was a Facebook post from the Naval Aviation Museum yesterday, commemorating the first flights of Grumman’s first (FF-1) and last (Tomcat) fighters, which occurred 39 years apart to the day, Dec 21 1931 and 1970. A lot of design evolution in 39 years.

I looked it up, and this year is 39 years since the first flight of the YF-18 (Nov 18, 1978). So 39 years got Naval Aviation from a biplane to a Mach-2 interceptor; 39 years more, the same basic airframe is still in service.

My question is, did innovation in military aircraft design slow down so much because there are no more big leaps to be made? Or is there some other underlying reason? Why did we go from innovation to preferring refinement of existing designs?

 

[robav8r]

Great post (and question), thanks for sharing . . . . . .

 

[Pags]

1. Relative amounts of funding have gone down
2. Since the 90s needed capabilities have been more focused on mission systems, integration, and precision weapons. You could just as easily have a graph of the # of a/c required to destroy a target and see that it's gone from multiple airplanes to hit a target (say a bridge) in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam to today where one airplane can strike multiple targets from stand off distances. Also the fact that these multiple targets can be targeted real time from off board sensors via the link is also a large change in capability. Higher, faster, etc apparently isn't as important as it once was and that's all driven by requirements from who we've been fighting and who we think we'll be fighting.

 

[jmcquate]

Why did we go from innovation to preferring refinement of existing designs?

Short answer, cost per unit. Also, I would argue the real innovation is what's inside the airframe, and that the F-22/F-35 aren't refinements of existing designs

 

[xj220]

As others have said, it's really the mission systems that have seen the leaps. As for aircraft performance, we could go all out on something but eventually there's a limit to what the human body can tolerate. Also, based on budgets, multi-role aircraft are more favorable than point design and today's aircraft are (supposedly) capable of most everything you need done.

 

[sevenhelmet]

there's a limit to what the human body can tolerate.

UAVs are the future. That way, we can all spend more time on GMT and staff tours.

 

[Uncle Fester]

Well I’m not saying there haven’t been innovations and improvements. More about the pace of change. If our current pace of change was the historical norm, we’d have still been flying Corsairs in Vietnam. Have we just hit a practical limit for major advances in aircraft design?

 

[xj220]

I'd say we still have a pace of change but we definitely don't go through as many aircraft and instead just update them. With current designs we can accomplish what we need with the physical platform but the majority of changes are under the skin.

 

[sevenhelmet]

I think we have, particularly from an aerodynamic standpoint. Could we make better point designs? Sure, but (right or wrong) the trend has been toward more "multi-mission" aircraft, which necessitates a compromise, with most of the funding going to mission system and weapon improvements, rather than to the airframe itself. The practical limits are really money and necessity. Do we need improvements? Sure. Are they on the order of piston to turbine? Not really, at least not yet.

 

[xj220]

UAVs are the future. That way, we can all spend more time on GMT and staff tours.

Gross. I had my “fun” there, no thank you.