F-35b

[ORAC]

Sunday Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/01/08/ccom08.xml)
Ignoring the financial editors appaling ignorance concerning the design of the CVF and the fact that we could, with some changes, purchase the F35C instead, this appears to be a reappearance of the proposal to chop the STOVL version. Anybody heard any more rumours of this - again - or is he just recycling old rumours?
As far as I was aware the proposal to cut the F-35B had been dropped from the QDR before Xmas.

DID (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/01/reports-cuts-on-the-way-to-f35-jsf-rd-engine-programs/index.php) confirms the rumours that the pentagon still wants to cut a version out of the program, but thinks the F-35B is secure. I´m not so sure.

[Washington_Irving]

Am not convinced that the work required to bring an "A" model up to Naval "C" specs would cost an extra $15m a pop. Surely savings can be made from a common design and economies of scale. In terms of possible loss of export orders, surely the Italians, amongst others, would welcome a jet that could be slammed into the deck without damage. Personally I think that the bickering over the A/C debate is little more than interservice rivalry- the same reason why the USAF mandated all kinds of useless changes to the F-4 to produce the C/D models back in the day.

I also think the F-35 got short shrift this time around because the USAF fighter mafia wanted to make sure that their $400m turkey got green lighted.

[Washington_Irving]

As I understand it, the big difference between "A" and "C" is that "C" has a bigger wing and control surfaces, more fuel and a beefier airframe.

It would appear that while "C" can do the job of "A", "A" can't do the job of "C". So what's the point of "A"? Why wouldn't the USAF want a jet that has longer legs, is stronger and has better low speed handling?

[Red Snow]

Not sure about the C being stronger - seem to remember that the C pays the penalty of its bigger wing/tails by being limited to 7.33(?) g instead of 9.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

red snow, IIRC you are correct though not sure about the exact figures.... Sure I'd live with 7 1/2 g with an over the shoulder asraam tho... oh no, wait, can't have that and stay stealthy.,... errr... arse!

[Tarnished]

pba_target: surely if you are in a position to be wanting to use over the shoulder ASRAAM your cloaking device has already let you down?? Even so, if you wanted to do so from an internally carried ASRAAM you would only be less-than-stealthy for a very short period and probably less unstealthy than your high g turn has made you anyway. Well it makes sense to me.

Tarnished

[LowObservable]

The last version considered for the chop was the A (CTOL). Sea-based airpower is considered A Good Thing these days; the Marines usually get what they want; the USAF has half-endorsed STOVL; and there are those who would like to target the C (CV) but they are not ready yet, and don't really need to be.
The A was spared apparently because cancelling it would not save very much money. Reason - the basic structure, landing gear and up-and-away aero are the same as the B, while the propulsion system and weapon bays are the same as the C. Also, most of the early flight-test aircraft are As and it's too late to change that.