No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...Sortie rate smells like a poor reason to knock -B if it can do 6/day - but it perhaps shows the USAF is looking for reasons to knock it.....one wonders why!
The USAF did lose some A10 squadrons in the recent cut backs though, and the F35A is due to take over their role although not the most natural of substitutes methinks. Perhaps, behind the scenes, they have been asked to convert some As to Bs, maybe to help reduce the latter's unit costs and arguing it's more suited to this CAS role? All pure speculation on my part to try and make sense of a curiosity.
KB - If you had a USAF and Navy version only, the difference might be less - the 35-foot span limit (a Marine requirement) is a bear, with the wide body and quad tail layout, because you need lots of flap to get Navy-acceptable VApp.
With Rafale, the air force and navy clearly collaborated and (to some extent) compromised, although the AF today is probably happy to have a relatively smaller aircraft. But the canard delta is good for low VApp even with a small span (cf Gripen) and Rafale is MUCH lighter than F-35C.
However, the Frogs also realized that it was quite a complex task to balance two pressures: reduce the scar weight for the AF as much as possible, but maintain commonality. Result: Dassault invented and improved CATIA, the design software that almost everyone uses these days.
With Rafale, the air force and navy clearly collaborated and (to some extent) compromised, although the AF today is probably happy to have a relatively smaller aircraft. But the canard delta is good for low VApp even with a small span (cf Gripen) and Rafale is MUCH lighter than F-35C.
However, the Frogs also realized that it was quite a complex task to balance two pressures: reduce the scar weight for the AF as much as possible, but maintain commonality. Result: Dassault invented and improved CATIA, the design software that almost everyone uses these days.
Thread Starter
Surely the key question is - is the capability difference between B and C material when measured against the current SAG scenarios?
I'd be surprised if the answer wasn't "choice of B/C doesn't affect campaign outcome", even if in some cases there are some minor advantages to one over the other (and vice versa perhaps). As such B/C doesn't really matter.
Seems to me the only real weakness with the B option is if it gets cancelled. This would be bad.
I'd be surprised if the answer wasn't "choice of B/C doesn't affect campaign outcome", even if in some cases there are some minor advantages to one over the other (and vice versa perhaps). As such B/C doesn't really matter.
Seems to me the only real weakness with the B option is if it gets cancelled. This would be bad.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JFZ90
...Sortie rate smells like a poor reason to knock -B if it can do 6/day - but it perhaps shows the USAF is looking for reasons to knock it.....one wonders why!
Originally Posted by longer ron
Seriously I doubt the USAF ever had any serious intentions of buying the 'B'
Originally Posted by JFZ90
No doubt they won't buy it, but why do they feel they need to say so?
Originally Posted by Lowe Flieger
Indeed. A strange story. The USAF has never been going to get the B has it, so why go out of their way to criticise it?
The USAF did lose some A10 squadrons in the recent cut backs though, and the F35A is due to take over their role although not the most natural of substitutes methinks. Perhaps, behind the scenes, they have been asked to convert some As to Bs, maybe to help reduce the latter's unit costs and arguing it's more suited to this CAS role? All pure speculation on my part to try and make sense of a curiosity.
The USAF did lose some A10 squadrons in the recent cut backs though, and the F35A is due to take over their role although not the most natural of substitutes methinks. Perhaps, behind the scenes, they have been asked to convert some As to Bs, maybe to help reduce the latter's unit costs and arguing it's more suited to this CAS role? All pure speculation on my part to try and make sense of a curiosity.
Simple... the USAF, flush from its success in first stealing the C-27J from the US Army and then getting it canceled completely, has now turned its attention to something that has annoyed it since 1947... USMC TacAir.
The USAF believes it has a "divine right" to own all land-based fixed-wing aviation, and has always resented that the USMC has its own fighters and tactical transports.
It probably feels that if it can get the -B killed that it can convince Congress to take the Marines' fighter squadrons away... sending the 5 planned USMC -C squadrons to the Navy and taking those planned to receive the -B for itself, equipping them with -As instead.
The USMC KC-130Js would be next, merging into the USAF Air Mobility Command... then the USAF would be much happier.
Last edited by GreenKnight121; 17th May 2012 at 04:18.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Backwards,
Hope this helps:
The C isn't really a larger aircraft than the A - it needs larger wings to land more slowly, is all. And larger tails to control itself at lower speeds. The main weight drivers are the hundreds of lumps of extra metal inside the airframe to handle launch and recovery loads. Oh, and the landing gear.
You are right that naval aircraft (generally) get some benefit from their tougher structure - but it's still a weight penalty whichever way you look at it. In a fast jet combat aircraft, weight is just a bad thing, as the F-35 programme found out to its cost a few years back.
The discussion on weight differentials for F-35 and Rafale is really interesting - it does look as if the French have achieved a near miracle in limiting carrier ops 'scar' weight to 1000 lbs or so. Or, their assumptions for carrier loads are off.
And to respond - properly integrating aircraft ops with ship ops to get best effect is a complex challenge. The RN don't claim it, they state it. That's because it's a fact. Ask the USN, the French, the Chinese, the Indians.......
Best Regards as ever
Engines
Hope this helps:
The C isn't really a larger aircraft than the A - it needs larger wings to land more slowly, is all. And larger tails to control itself at lower speeds. The main weight drivers are the hundreds of lumps of extra metal inside the airframe to handle launch and recovery loads. Oh, and the landing gear.
You are right that naval aircraft (generally) get some benefit from their tougher structure - but it's still a weight penalty whichever way you look at it. In a fast jet combat aircraft, weight is just a bad thing, as the F-35 programme found out to its cost a few years back.
The discussion on weight differentials for F-35 and Rafale is really interesting - it does look as if the French have achieved a near miracle in limiting carrier ops 'scar' weight to 1000 lbs or so. Or, their assumptions for carrier loads are off.
And to respond - properly integrating aircraft ops with ship ops to get best effect is a complex challenge. The RN don't claim it, they state it. That's because it's a fact. Ask the USN, the French, the Chinese, the Indians.......
Best Regards as ever
Engines
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The USAF believes it has a "divine right" to own all land-based fixed-wing aviation, and has always resented that the USMC has its own fighters and tactical transports.
Thread Starter
Right on cue - Panetta effectively counter briefs - 'back in your box USAF'.....!
Panetta reiterates support for F-35B and MV-22
Panetta reiterates support for F-35B and MV-22
GK & JFZ - The AF chief's comments were in response to a direct question as to whether the AF would buy the F-35B. That had been studied and dismissed a few years ago, Schwartz said that the B was fine as air support for the MAGTF. And Panetta's comments would have been scripted before Schwartz had spoken.
Mind you, most people in the AF realize that the idea of the Marines having the second most expensive fighter in history, so that they can put half a dozen of them on their amphibs and do CAS, is plain silly. They just don't say so in public.
Mind you, most people in the AF realize that the idea of the Marines having the second most expensive fighter in history, so that they can put half a dozen of them on their amphibs and do CAS, is plain silly. They just don't say so in public.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO,
The USMC are a highly effective fighting force with a great history. They have a first class ethos, fight hard and play hard. They also have an excellent record of leadership, and spend a lot of time developing their concept of operations with the US Joint Staffs. They also encourage open debate with their young officer corps. Go to an open seminar at Quantico if you don't believe me.
And the considered judgement of the Air Force on the USMC concept of ops for F-35B? Apparently it's 'plain silly'.
I don't think I can add to that.
No, I really can't.
Best regards
Engines
The USMC are a highly effective fighting force with a great history. They have a first class ethos, fight hard and play hard. They also have an excellent record of leadership, and spend a lot of time developing their concept of operations with the US Joint Staffs. They also encourage open debate with their young officer corps. Go to an open seminar at Quantico if you don't believe me.
And the considered judgement of the Air Force on the USMC concept of ops for F-35B? Apparently it's 'plain silly'.
I don't think I can add to that.
No, I really can't.
Best regards
Engines
Thread Starter
Mind you, most people in the AF realize that the idea of the Marines having the second most expensive fighter in history, so that they can put half a dozen of them on their amphibs and do CAS, is plain silly. They just don't say so in public.
It almost implies the USAF view is that the USMC aren't worthy of having a decent aircraft. Feels like a sticky wicket.
Last edited by JFZ90; 17th May 2012 at 16:09.
Engines,
You are absolutely right as to the Marines as a combat force. And I hold them in great regard for such efforts as their use of ScanEagle UAVs.
However, their record in the driving seat of MDAPs is very different. V-22, EFV and F-35B are classic examples of overloaded and compounding requirements: Fitting a tilt-rotor on a narrow deck; 20-25 knots in an armored vehicle, demanding a hot-rodded tank engine; stealth + STOVL + supersonic.
Have you asked the basic question: What is the scenario in which you require a stealthy, multi-sensor, supersonic fighter, but don't also need the AEW, EA and ISR that the carrier air wing includes? Because that's the only kind of scenario where F-35B (for the US) does more than add a handful of jets to the CV's 50-some.
I asked Amos that, in public, and got no answer except the usual talking points.
Also, the Marines and Navy have never managed to sort out the problem of supporting much heavier and complex aircraft (JSF replaces AV-8B, V-22 replaces CH-46, CH-53K replaces E) on the same size ship. LHA-6/7 dispense with the well deck, with more aviation space and fuel capacity, but that has been ID'd as a mistake and LHA-8 and subsequent will revert.
You are absolutely right as to the Marines as a combat force. And I hold them in great regard for such efforts as their use of ScanEagle UAVs.
However, their record in the driving seat of MDAPs is very different. V-22, EFV and F-35B are classic examples of overloaded and compounding requirements: Fitting a tilt-rotor on a narrow deck; 20-25 knots in an armored vehicle, demanding a hot-rodded tank engine; stealth + STOVL + supersonic.
Have you asked the basic question: What is the scenario in which you require a stealthy, multi-sensor, supersonic fighter, but don't also need the AEW, EA and ISR that the carrier air wing includes? Because that's the only kind of scenario where F-35B (for the US) does more than add a handful of jets to the CV's 50-some.
I asked Amos that, in public, and got no answer except the usual talking points.
Also, the Marines and Navy have never managed to sort out the problem of supporting much heavier and complex aircraft (JSF replaces AV-8B, V-22 replaces CH-46, CH-53K replaces E) on the same size ship. LHA-6/7 dispense with the well deck, with more aviation space and fuel capacity, but that has been ID'd as a mistake and LHA-8 and subsequent will revert.
stealth + STOVL + supersonic
Last edited by Phil_R; 17th May 2012 at 14:16.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO,
Thanks for coming back, and I appreciate your sentiments.
No, I haven't asked the basic question about the scenario because I'm not sighted in the details of the USMC's concept of operations here - it's out there on the Web, just haven't had time to go and read it through.
But I can take a very good bet that the USMC have worked out their CONOPS, and argued it through the Joint Chiefs, and got it underwritten by Congress, and have sold it to their officer corps from top to bottom.
As I remember it from a few years ago., their basic position was that they wanted the ability to deliver survivable CAS to their Marines, without recourse to a CVN. They forecast that CVN numbers would drop (dead right) and that the position could arise where a MAG was the USA's 'first responder' on the scene. They also forecast that advancing technology, plus political instability post collapse of the USSR would cause the spread of highly capable air defence systems to 'third world' countries. (Not so far off there).
Of course, it's a free world, a free thread, and anyone can criticise their doctrine and CONOPs. But for my part, I like the way that they stick with their programmes and don't try to get them by shafting the other Services. Yes, they've reached high, and have come unstuck on occasions. That's the American way, and it doesn't always deliver.
Your point about larger and heavier aircraft on L class ships is a very good one, and the arguments about 'well deck, no well deck' are alive and 'well'. But again, contrasts with the UK process are instructive. They've had an open, well informed and courteous debate, often in the pages of their professional journals. They have maintained a good relationship with the USN, and have moved a long way to integrate their FW aviation more with the 'black shoe' fleet.
You've probably worked out that I have a great deal of time for the USMC. They are honest, open and also very effective. A very good RAF friend of mine once said that the UK should look to recast its Armed Forces along the lines of the USMC. I think he had something there.
Hope this helps the thread,
Best Regards
Engines
Thanks for coming back, and I appreciate your sentiments.
No, I haven't asked the basic question about the scenario because I'm not sighted in the details of the USMC's concept of operations here - it's out there on the Web, just haven't had time to go and read it through.
But I can take a very good bet that the USMC have worked out their CONOPS, and argued it through the Joint Chiefs, and got it underwritten by Congress, and have sold it to their officer corps from top to bottom.
As I remember it from a few years ago., their basic position was that they wanted the ability to deliver survivable CAS to their Marines, without recourse to a CVN. They forecast that CVN numbers would drop (dead right) and that the position could arise where a MAG was the USA's 'first responder' on the scene. They also forecast that advancing technology, plus political instability post collapse of the USSR would cause the spread of highly capable air defence systems to 'third world' countries. (Not so far off there).
Of course, it's a free world, a free thread, and anyone can criticise their doctrine and CONOPs. But for my part, I like the way that they stick with their programmes and don't try to get them by shafting the other Services. Yes, they've reached high, and have come unstuck on occasions. That's the American way, and it doesn't always deliver.
Your point about larger and heavier aircraft on L class ships is a very good one, and the arguments about 'well deck, no well deck' are alive and 'well'. But again, contrasts with the UK process are instructive. They've had an open, well informed and courteous debate, often in the pages of their professional journals. They have maintained a good relationship with the USN, and have moved a long way to integrate their FW aviation more with the 'black shoe' fleet.
You've probably worked out that I have a great deal of time for the USMC. They are honest, open and also very effective. A very good RAF friend of mine once said that the UK should look to recast its Armed Forces along the lines of the USMC. I think he had something there.
Hope this helps the thread,
Best Regards
Engines
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very good RAF friend of mine once said that the UK should look to recast its Armed Forces along the lines of the USMC. I think he had something there.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are several reasons the USMC wants to have fighters it can fly off LHD/LHAs... providing dedicated CAS for an amphib landing is only one.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s there were 3 incidents where a USN amphibious group responded to a political crisis in Africa where US and Europeans were threatened, and where there was no CVN available (due to Operation Southern Watch off Iraq, or ongoing combat ops). While the Marines were able to evacuate embassies and other "foreigners" without having to shoot their way in or out that cannot be guaranteed in the future.
The USMC wants to have strike aircraft (preferably with some A-A capability) available in case one side of the local fighting tries to block such evacuations (AH-1Zs wouldn't do well against even a short handful of jet fighters).
While the AV-8B is fine for that, they won't be around past the mid-late 2020s... the F-35B is the only option available.
In addition, the F-35B would allow the USMC to be able to forward-base fighters near a combat area without needing a very long stretch of asphalt or concrete... being able to land & take off in 1,000' or less would help greatly.
Having spent 1981-1989 in the Aviation part of the USMC, I am familiar with exactly what USMC headquarters is thinking, and have paid attention to the real-world incidents which created the perception of need that drove their specs and operational plans for F-35B.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s there were 3 incidents where a USN amphibious group responded to a political crisis in Africa where US and Europeans were threatened, and where there was no CVN available (due to Operation Southern Watch off Iraq, or ongoing combat ops). While the Marines were able to evacuate embassies and other "foreigners" without having to shoot their way in or out that cannot be guaranteed in the future.
The USMC wants to have strike aircraft (preferably with some A-A capability) available in case one side of the local fighting tries to block such evacuations (AH-1Zs wouldn't do well against even a short handful of jet fighters).
While the AV-8B is fine for that, they won't be around past the mid-late 2020s... the F-35B is the only option available.
In addition, the F-35B would allow the USMC to be able to forward-base fighters near a combat area without needing a very long stretch of asphalt or concrete... being able to land & take off in 1,000' or less would help greatly.
Having spent 1981-1989 in the Aviation part of the USMC, I am familiar with exactly what USMC headquarters is thinking, and have paid attention to the real-world incidents which created the perception of need that drove their specs and operational plans for F-35B.
Last edited by GreenKnight121; 18th May 2012 at 06:03.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rafale
Dumb question - whilst the Rafale M is not much heavier than the land based version, does this suggest that the land-based Rafale is heavy versus an optimal land-based only Rafale?
No idea, a genuine question. If not, then bravo to Dassault for achieving the improbable!
S41
No idea, a genuine question. If not, then bravo to Dassault for achieving the improbable!
S41
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Squirrel...probably. I'd suggest the land based Rafale was slightly over-engineered in order to retain as much commonality as possible with the M.
In a similar vein, the F-35A's aerodynamic/kinetic abilities are compromised by the STOVL requirement of the B and the CV recovery abilities of the C.
In a similar vein, the F-35A's aerodynamic/kinetic abilities are compromised by the STOVL requirement of the B and the CV recovery abilities of the C.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAFALE weights
While the RAFALE C is probably overweight to keep as much commonality with the M , it cannot be by very much.
It has very similar dimensions in common with ,the also 2-engined, TYPHOON save for a couple of inches left and right but weighs about 1 ton less than the typhoon ,probably due to the latters bigger wing (comparing TYPHOON vs RAFALE M here, the heaviest of the 2).
If you take G-load limits , max framelife and MTOW in consideration, they (both EF and RAFALE) didn't compromise on strength and durability.
All this compared with the one-engined F35, one wonders where all this weight has gone, empty weight is substantially more ,2 to 5 tons heavier than the Eurocanards, but dimension wise it really is not any bigger.
All this with a much smaller wing ,apart for the F35C, which is therefor no less than +5 tons heavier than the RAFALE M @OEW, giving no edge in framelife, G loads, while , according to the latest list of problems that still need to be solved, still having structural issues up until today.
PS;
Next on the F-35
Sounds far fetched, until you remember what happened to that US drone in IRAN, signals can be intercepted and manipulated, the more integration of something like an advanced datalink and complete sensorfusion, the more possibilities exist for it to be corrupted by enemy forces.
Another negative rant about the F35, I'm getting tired of it myself.
It has very similar dimensions in common with ,the also 2-engined, TYPHOON save for a couple of inches left and right but weighs about 1 ton less than the typhoon ,probably due to the latters bigger wing (comparing TYPHOON vs RAFALE M here, the heaviest of the 2).
If you take G-load limits , max framelife and MTOW in consideration, they (both EF and RAFALE) didn't compromise on strength and durability.
All this compared with the one-engined F35, one wonders where all this weight has gone, empty weight is substantially more ,2 to 5 tons heavier than the Eurocanards, but dimension wise it really is not any bigger.
All this with a much smaller wing ,apart for the F35C, which is therefor no less than +5 tons heavier than the RAFALE M @OEW, giving no edge in framelife, G loads, while , according to the latest list of problems that still need to be solved, still having structural issues up until today.
PS;
Next on the F-35
Next on the F-35’s list of issues? Cyberattacks Provided by iPolitics
Posted on Wed, May 16, 2012, 10:45 am by Colin Horgan
And then there was the software.
Already, the F-35 program has been singled out as a target for international hackers and now a former vice-chairman of the U.S. military Joint Cheifs of Staff is raising the issue again.
Marine Gen. James “Hoss” Cartwright told the Joint Warfighting Conference that he fears the F-35 could prove to be as vulnerable to enemy hackers as older Humvees were to roadside bombs, according to a report from AOL Defense.
“We built the F-35 with absolutely no protection for it from a cyber standpoint,” he said, adding that there ought to be a switch that can shut off the aircraft’s electronic transmission functions in case enemies access them.
Posted on Wed, May 16, 2012, 10:45 am by Colin Horgan
And then there was the software.
Already, the F-35 program has been singled out as a target for international hackers and now a former vice-chairman of the U.S. military Joint Cheifs of Staff is raising the issue again.
Marine Gen. James “Hoss” Cartwright told the Joint Warfighting Conference that he fears the F-35 could prove to be as vulnerable to enemy hackers as older Humvees were to roadside bombs, according to a report from AOL Defense.
“We built the F-35 with absolutely no protection for it from a cyber standpoint,” he said, adding that there ought to be a switch that can shut off the aircraft’s electronic transmission functions in case enemies access them.
Another negative rant about the F35, I'm getting tired of it myself.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure, F-35C is heavier empty, by 5600kg
...it also has a max t/o weight 9600 more than Rafale M, can carry 4200kg more internal fuel, its single engine has ~25% more dry and wet thrust than the -M's two combined.
Contextually -35C is a replacement for the F/A-18 E/F, it is that aircraft's specs that should be used for comparison. Empty, -35C is 1300kg heavier, carries 2000kg more internal fuel, has a mtow 1900kg more, and a (non-ferry) range 125nm greater. Thrust is slightly up on the dual 414s (dry) and a touch down 'wet'. -35C's 7.5g limit is comparable to the 7.6g of -18 E/F.
I suspect that the engine and structure were compromised by the need for the -B, and are to blame for the empty weight difference. Furthermore the provision of an internal weapons bay will increase bulk and weight. Overall dimensions are a red herring. Although similar the '35 is bulkier within those parameters, Rafale is more slender & delicate looking.
...it also has a max t/o weight 9600 more than Rafale M, can carry 4200kg more internal fuel, its single engine has ~25% more dry and wet thrust than the -M's two combined.
Contextually -35C is a replacement for the F/A-18 E/F, it is that aircraft's specs that should be used for comparison. Empty, -35C is 1300kg heavier, carries 2000kg more internal fuel, has a mtow 1900kg more, and a (non-ferry) range 125nm greater. Thrust is slightly up on the dual 414s (dry) and a touch down 'wet'. -35C's 7.5g limit is comparable to the 7.6g of -18 E/F.
I suspect that the engine and structure were compromised by the need for the -B, and are to blame for the empty weight difference. Furthermore the provision of an internal weapons bay will increase bulk and weight. Overall dimensions are a red herring. Although similar the '35 is bulkier within those parameters, Rafale is more slender & delicate looking.
Last edited by Willard Whyte; 18th May 2012 at 11:02.