shotdown 8 Posted August 5, 2009 Stupid question:¿Why 3 X-35? ¿Couldn't be easier/cheaper to buy just 1 model? I mean, you build all of them a little bigger (to keep range an weapons load) and with V/STOL capability (easier to take off/land in an airplane carrier and still able to take off/land the classical way if you prefer to save fuel) and then you only need to develop 1 plane and have no problem with parts compatibility. ¿Was it really possible?¿was it a stupid idea? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Julhelm 266 Posted August 6, 2009 Interservice rivalry. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+ST0RM 145 Posted August 6, 2009 Interservice rivalry. More like different requirements. The Marines have placed all of their future aviation plans in the F-35. They said no thanks to the Super Hornet. They want a STOVL jet to replace the Harrier. Now where I think there is excess, is in the A and C. Why can't the Air Force use the C model? They don't have the weight limitations. And can use a gunpod like the Navy will. It worked for the Phantom. At first, everyone flew the B. The whole concept of the JSF was a common airframe. As I see it, this program is anything but that. Each variant is it's own aircraft. They only have the F-35 name in common. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FastCargo 412 Posted August 6, 2009 The USAF still wants the internal gun. In addition, both the B and C models are significantly heavier than the A model...more weight equals less range, endurance, performance, etc. That's an acceptable tradeoff for a carrier or STOVL variant, not for a land based version. FC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slartibartfast 153 Posted August 6, 2009 Looks like the RN is finally ditching the jumpjet version as well http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/06/te..._f35c_carriers/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Julhelm 266 Posted August 7, 2009 Why is it that pet issues of the USAF (internal gun, less weight) and Marines (VTOL ...sigh) are allowed to f*** up what could otherwise have been a perfectly good common airframe, if not for interservice rivalry? What does the USAF care about airframe weight anyway? It relies on operation from gigantic airstrips and supports its aircraft with inflight refuelling so technically range and payload isn't an issue. And why do the marines need VSTOL? They sure as hell never needed it in WW2 or Vietnam, or until they acquired the Harrier which hasn't been that effective anyway. Why couldn't they be content with operating their F-35's from expeditionary forward airstrips? At this point it's just TFX all over again and a lot of taxpayer money is wasted that could have been put to much better use funding a plethora of other projects that have now been relegated to R&D land. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted August 7, 2009 The USMC has a number of vessels designed around Harriers. The F-35B is the only variant that will operate off it. Buying new vessels would waste far more money. If you want to argue if the Harrier replacement should've been folded into the F-16/18 replacement program, that's different. However, while the USMC could use F-35Cs to replace their Hornets, they couldn't replace the Harriers. In fact, you could probably argue it was silly to meld the F-16 and Hornet replacement programs in the first place. The last plane that both USN and USAF used largely the same was the A-7 and it wasn't anything spectacular, just a bomb truck. In addition, the F-35C is also notable in that it will be the first single-engine plane the USN has had on a carrier since the A-7's retirement. Anyway, whether or not it would've been cheaper to build 2 or 3 separate planes or 1 plane with 3 variants is a moot point now, the F-35 is what we've got. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Julhelm 266 Posted August 7, 2009 It would probably have been cheaper building 2-3 different airframes with shared avionics than trying to make this single airframe cover such vastly differing requirements. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Caesar 305 Posted August 7, 2009 Well, the Navy C-model has to be heavier/stronger in both gear and airframe to withstand catapult launches and upwards of 50-tons of pull on the tailhook every time it lands. It has a bigger wing to hold more gas, but possibly more critically, to allow for lower approach speeds, although I have no idea why the gun isn't internal. As a result, the Navy and Air Force versions really can not be the same, unless the Air Force was to go with the C, and then it'd have needlessly strong landing gear/reinforced airframe for what types of flying/landing it'd have to do, keeping it heavier than need be. Just the same, if the Navy went with the A, it would HAVE to be modified because it would have too weak landing gear and an airframe without the structural design to withstand that pull on the tailhook, not to mention a faster approach speed, leading to a stronger pull to get from x-knots to 0. Those mods would make it become heavier anyhow. The "Jointness" of the JSF comes from the fact that the designs are highly similar, but there are certainly divergences because there has to be. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gbnavy61 1 Posted August 7, 2009 Looks like the RN is finally ditching the jumpjet version as wellhttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/06/te..._f35c_carriers/ I didn't realize the RN was considering anything but the B model. What's the latest with their carrier plans? Sounds like they're going toward a big-deck supercarrier type. I'd have thought that they could get more bang for their buck with multiple helo/jumpjet carriers rather than a couple big-deck jobs. Interesting to see how this all works out and what the RN's strategy/posture will be for the future. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fallenphoenix1986 603 Posted August 7, 2009 The idea behind the CVF's was to get a design that could operate either STOVL or CTOL aircraft, in the case of the STOVL option the ship still retains the ability to have the steam plants, cats and arrestor gear retrofitted. Why the FAA/RAF/MOD are pinning on STOVL is beyond me. The most expensive, most complex, least capable, slowest, heaviest model when the RAF has no requirment for a STOVL aircraft and the Navy is getting carriers that are more than capable of operating CTOL designs... Apparently a STOVL approach to naval aviation can produce higher sortie rates (less time between launches and recovery) however the STOVL design will always be more mechanically complex and as a result spend more time below decks, and what the hell does it matter if you can launch 25% faster if the jets dont have the range or payload to take out the target, resulting in the ship needing to be closer to shore and thus at greater risk. Finally as I'm sure your all aware a CTOL ship allows for fixed wing AEW which is vastly superior to rotory winged AEW in every respect and also alows for the use of COD types. trust the politico's to bugger things up... Poly= many tics = tiny blood sucking creatures Craig - fingers are crossed for the F-35C but I'm fairly sure we'll see the "BAC (bacon) - F-42: Flying swine" in the fleet first.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MigBuster 2,861 Posted August 8, 2009 (edited) It wouldnt be that bad surely - weve managed for the past 29 years okay with Harriers. Some positives would be: 1. Ramps don't fail like steam catapults. 2. The Jets can land pretty much anywhere and don't need long runways 3. A quantum leap in progress from the Harrier. And before anyone says - yes they can land pretty much anywhere so when the carrier goes down at least we save the planes! The AEW thing is not so good - agree there As for refuelling - even A-4s with buddy packs managed that - they can get something for the F-35 too surely Edited August 8, 2009 by MigBuster Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fallenphoenix1986 603 Posted August 8, 2009 (edited) I agree, the F-35 in the B model will be a quantum leap over the Harrier however the Harrier is far from perfect. The only reason the Navy ever had them was that the large carriers were withdrawn and replaced with the Invincibles which were incapable of operating anything else, it was a case of Harrier or nothing. Theres a pretty good comparison done in Phoenix Squadron between what the Ark Royal and her Bucaneers did and what would have been different if it was up to an Invincible and Harriers, page 345 if you have a copy. The jist of it is that the Ark Royal herself having greater speed and fuel capacity and thus endurance than the Invicible combined with the fact that the Buccaneer had approximatly twice the range of the Sea Harrier would have meant that an Invincible would have to continue on for two days beyond the point at which the Ark launched her strike. Bearing in mind that the Buccs were refueled twice on this mission and the Sea Harriers would have to do it all with internal and tanks that gives the Bucc the potential to fly six times further than the Shar. If some form of buddy system can be deveoped for the 35B then its worth looking into though personally I'd far rather see the FAA go with the 35C and a couple of flights worth of S-3's from the bonyard since many still had over half their fatigue life ramaining when they were retired. Craig Edited August 8, 2009 by fallenphoenix1986 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gbnavy61 1 Posted August 8, 2009 A little OT, but what sorts of helo assets are used for AEW missions, and any idea what the future platform would be (assuming the RN goes to conventional catapult/arresting gear carriers)? Is there something in the works, or would the RN be looking outside - E-2D maybe? Also, if the RN goes with big carriers, are they looking to make them nukes? That would seem the smart choice, though perhaps not the affordable one. It'd probably be more money at the front, but maybe less in the long run. Conventionally powered carriers would have to make port more often and/or have the logistical support for replenishment at sea, whereas nukes could avoid some of that necessity. Again, I think the question is, what is the RN's strategy? What to they want to be able to do with naval air power? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted August 10, 2009 I think it's safe to say they won't go with nuke power. The French built one and then decided not to for their 2nd carrier because of the costs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
