crowl@cs.rochester.edu (Lawrence Crowl) (11/29/90)
From: crowl@cs.rochester.edu (Lawrence Crowl)
The US Air Force and Navy appear to be pushing towards multi-role aircraft.
One reason is that they use a larger fraction of their aircraft even as the
needs for different kinds of airpower change. This capability is especially
important when your resources are limited (through either budget or treaty).
The problem is that multi-role aircraft tend to be both more expensive and
less capable than a single-role aircraft, _in_that_role_. Can we make
multi-role aircraft cost effective relative to single-role aircraft?
My (almost completely uninformed) opinion is that we can, provided that we
only ask that the aircraft change roles on the ground. My idea is that we
should be able to reconfigure an aircraft among appropriate roles by swaping
modules stored at the airbase. We must account for several differences in
aircraft depending on their role.
Airframe Size
We are obviously going to need different airframes for radically different
roles. I am not going to claim that you can convert an air superiority
fighter into a mid-air tanker. But for roles in which the airframes are
close in size and required performance, we ought to be able to use a
single airframe
Avionics
I believe we have the technology to modularize the avionics and change
avionics modules as appropriate to the mission. This will require a large
effort to standardize flexible avionics interfaces. This approach will
also payoff when it comes to upgrading avionics in single-role aircraft.
Wing Loading
Air supperiority fighters want a light wing loading so that they have a
great deal of maneuverability. Strike aircraft want a high wing loading
so that they can fly fast on the deck. We can change the wing loading by
changing the wings. Bolt on the air supperiority wings one day, and the
strike wings the next. Surely, if we can adjust the wing angle in flight
we can bolt a new set on. I think the primary techinical difficulty is
that you want to keep the hydraulic connections to the wing to a minimum.
This in turn implies that the landing gear be on the fuselage. (It's
probably stronger there anyway.)
The production runs on multi-role aircraft are likely to be longer than those
of single-role aircraft, which means that per-unit costs are reduced, even
when there is a fixed number of aircraft. Development costs are less clear
--- higher per aircraft type, but fewer aircraft types. With modular
avionics, long-term improvements are probably cheaper.
Can we make cost effective, modular, multi-role aircraft? What are the
problems?
--
Lawrence Crowl 716-275-9499 University of Rochester
crowl@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department
...!rutgers!rochester!crowl Rochester, New York, 14627