F35 - Money well spent.

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
I am sure they are but I am not incorrect their primary aim is to get them on land
Not at all, if you look at how a MEU/MAGTAF operates they'll happily deploy CAS from afloat as opposed to creating any beach head FOB. Indeed you said it yourself "support from sea".

twentyfirstoffoot said:
But why not operate F35Bs from carriers also, the biggest maritime customer the USN sees no use for them.
Why? Shorter range/weapons payload principally, compared to a full-fat version that can use Cats/Traps and has greater operationally capability as a result. In essence the same reason they rarely operated AV-8 from a CVN and concentrated on the WASP class.

twentyfirstoffoot said:
That is simply a cop out, we will operate with them and should be compatible
We are compatible and interoperable with the US in most respects, but we will never achieve full equipment compatibility, that's simply never going to happen.

twentyfirstoffoot said:
It's on a par with a leak, preparing the ground for a possibility, the Times also quoted two Defence sources saying the RAF want out of the F35B game
There is zero real evidence of that. The RAF, as a Service, have fully bought into F35. Individuals may have a view and they are entitled to that.

twentyfirstoffoot said:
I presume you mean SRVL? Because if you mean STOVL that is probably true but not the technique we would use predominantly.
The a/c will use a variety of configurations, whichever is best for the prevailing conditions/loadouts/operations.

Why if the F35B is optimised for shipborne use does it not also have the folding wings of the C version ? Surely the space saving would be beneficial.
F35B is optimised for shipborne operations from carriers without cats/traps. Folding wings just adds cost, complexity and weight.
 

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
But I think your view of USN vice USMC may be askew, they are not as separate and distinct as you might imagine. No matter what they might wish the USMC still come under the Dept. of Navy hence Sec of the Navy. It's not that the USN has "no interested in the F35b" it's more a case of the Department of the Navy view is that F35B is more appropriate for LHA/LHD operations, leaving F35C for CVN operations, which makes absolute sense. They get the benefits and relative commonalities of the two airframes and use them in the most appropriate manner (noting the USMC will also get some F35C for its CVN contribution, and if SRVL works well, could they just use their B's?).
 
But I think your view of USN vice USMC may be askew, they are not as separate and distinct as you might imagine. No matter what they might wish the USMC still come under the Dept. of Navy hence Sec of the Navy. It's not that the USN has "no interested in the F35b" it's more a case of the Department of the Navy view is that F35B is more appropriate for LHA/LHD operations, leaving F35C for CVN operations, which makes absolute sense. They get the benefits and relative commonalities of the two airframes and use them in the most appropriate manner (noting the USMC will also get some F35C for its CVN contribution, and if SRVL works well, could they just use their B's?).
I don't disagree with you, the point I was attempting to make earlier was, by dint of some pretty poor political decisions we have been pushed down the road of having large Carriers capable of flying the C variant whereas for all intents and purposes we could have followed the USMC model with smaller and cheaper vessels and had the same result.
Out of interest do the USMC have a lower payload to allow vertical landing?
 
I honestly don't know, I've not followed the US flying trials programme that closely but with First Of Class Fixed Wing trials imminent we are very close to being able to do this if it hasn't already been done.
I think the gamble is, if it can't be done there is going to be some pretty eggy faces as 1st SL and SoS explain to Parliament why we then have two very large helicopter carriers or a very large bill to insulate the decks more effectively.
 
Out of interest do the USMC have a lower payload to allow vertical landing?
Consider that the payload includes fuel, not just weapons - and that STOVL allows much lower safe fuel margins, on the basis that CATOBAR aircraft need to ensure that they always have sufficient fuel for the event that Biggles cocks up their F-35C controlled crash onto the deck, and (hopefully) goes around to try again; or (worst case) closes the deck while they clear the wreckage... [1][2]

Always having to carry an extra ton or two of fuel, just because you might not be able to land when you want (unlike F-35B), goes a long way towards negating the advantage of "losing a fuel tank so you can carry around a lift fan and gearbox".

[1] The Admiral Kuznetsov lost an aircraft that way, on their recent Mediterranean trip. Pilot 1 crashes; Pilot 2 runs out of fuel waiting to land, and has to eject.

[2] While the F-35B could (worst case) recover to anything with a large flat space... see "Sea Harrier and Spanish container ships"
 
… we could have followed the USMC model with smaller and cheaper vessels and had the same result.
1. Smaller ≠ cheaper
2. Was the QE designed purely on the requirements of one of the aircraft it might operate? Otherwise we could just use …

… While the F-35B could (worst case) recover to anything with a large flat space... see "Sea Harrier and Spanish container ships"
 
And at that point Orville still had to learn if he was going to crash and burn or not.
Or alternatively, he was confident the technique would work; he just had to perfect it...all without hundreds of practices in the dim before hand.

Regards,
MM
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
old_bloke MoD News 3
2/51 The Intelligence Cell 49
schwarzie Tanks, planes & ships 46

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top