Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

F-35b

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 9th Jan 2006, 04:41
  #1 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,421
Received 1,593 Likes on 730 Posts
F-35b

Sunday Telegraph
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 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.

Last edited by ORAC; 9th Jan 2006 at 05:56.
ORAC is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2006, 12:14
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Pianosa
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: F-35b

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 is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2006, 15:04
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Pianosa
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: F-35b

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?
Washington_Irving is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2006, 16:59
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: F-35b

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.
Red Snow is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2006, 17:52
  #5 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,264
Received 180 Likes on 106 Posts
Re: F-35b

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!
PPRuNeUser0211 is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2006, 19:13
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Gloucestershire
Posts: 435
Received 7 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: F-35b

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
Tarnished is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2006, 15:38
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,580
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: F-35b

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.
LowObservable is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.