Originally Posted by
ORAC
The idea of the entire force having the F-35B is that it allows a surge capability to be able to fully man both carriers whilst still allowing training at home and roulement to take place. The aircraft and landing systems on the carriers supposedly allow currency to be maintained.
Accepting that the F-35A may be more closely matched to the RAF role, the ability to surge the aircraft to sea would be lost. It may never be needed and the aircraft may spend the vast majority of their life in theatres such as Afghanistan, but the capability will be there.
The balance between flexibility and performance would seem to be tending towards flexibility.
I don't think we're used to aircraft being lined up for the distant possibility of in depth protracted capability and why just the Carriers? What about other areas? If the surge is required for overland, say Central Europe, it would be a really raw deal for the RAF to be saddled with F-35Bs and not As and or Cs. Again, the B carries 14,000lbs of internal fuel, the A 18,000lbs, the space occupied by the lift fan and its drive shaft are a liability once airborne and not trying to land. The aircraft is 3,000lbs heavier, doubtless as a result of the additional metal denying room for more fuel and ordnance, some of that reduced fuel load has to support the drive of the lift fan when landing, more fuel denied for operational performance out of the already substantially reduced amount. If there isn't a significant penalty affecting the B's performance when all is considered then I'll accept that the B's cockpit canopy is an improved design over A and C as well!
FB
