F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
WO - Mtce on the back of the flight-deck?
As a USAF colleague likes to tell Marines: "Check the signature levels out of the factory. You'll never see them again."
Spaz - We all know what the official numbers and brochures say. Take them back to your fankiddy forum buddies, who think that you're smart and well informed.
As a USAF colleague likes to tell Marines: "Check the signature levels out of the factory. You'll never see them again."
Spaz - We all know what the official numbers and brochures say. Take them back to your fankiddy forum buddies, who think that you're smart and well informed.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO:
Maintenance on the back of a flight deck?
Err...yes, actually. That's part of the thing called naval aviation. The F-35 has been designed expressly to be 'operable and supportable' from an LHD, and the facilities on those ships are really quite limited. That fact drove a number of design decisions on the aircraft. One of the areas most impacted, as I've posted before, was the whole area of LO maintenance.
Again, I'm not sighted on figures and numbers (and couldn't share them if I was) but I can state with some certainty that the LO schemes applied to the F-35 are some years on and quite different to those used on the 'legacy' LO aircraft such as B-2 and F-22. Most of those differences were aimed at providing the required supportability.
Will supporting an F-35 on the deck of any ship be a challenge? Yes. Can it be done? I think yes, having done that sort of stuff for some years. Can the FAA do it? Yes, just give them the tools and freedom to do the job.
LO, I don't expect you to agree with me - that's fine and good, it's a free forum. But I do sincerely hope that you don't think I'm a 'fankiddy forum buddy'.
Best regards as ever to all those who know something about naval aviation (and those who want to learn)
Engines
Maintenance on the back of a flight deck?
Err...yes, actually. That's part of the thing called naval aviation. The F-35 has been designed expressly to be 'operable and supportable' from an LHD, and the facilities on those ships are really quite limited. That fact drove a number of design decisions on the aircraft. One of the areas most impacted, as I've posted before, was the whole area of LO maintenance.
Again, I'm not sighted on figures and numbers (and couldn't share them if I was) but I can state with some certainty that the LO schemes applied to the F-35 are some years on and quite different to those used on the 'legacy' LO aircraft such as B-2 and F-22. Most of those differences were aimed at providing the required supportability.
Will supporting an F-35 on the deck of any ship be a challenge? Yes. Can it be done? I think yes, having done that sort of stuff for some years. Can the FAA do it? Yes, just give them the tools and freedom to do the job.
LO, I don't expect you to agree with me - that's fine and good, it's a free forum. But I do sincerely hope that you don't think I'm a 'fankiddy forum buddy'.
Best regards as ever to all those who know something about naval aviation (and those who want to learn)
Engines
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
Just a question for those who know,
Given the difference in size and Fuel-need, can the F35 realistically replace the AV8B on a 1 for 1 base anyway ?
20 Harriers on a big US LHD might well be feasible for a limited amount of time but can they also operate 20 F35B's (not talking about the new LHA's or any of the other new non-welldeck carriers like CAVOUR and such).
Spot size difference alone suggest a 33% difference, fuel needs probably even more.
Given the difference in size and Fuel-need, can the F35 realistically replace the AV8B on a 1 for 1 base anyway ?
20 Harriers on a big US LHD might well be feasible for a limited amount of time but can they also operate 20 F35B's (not talking about the new LHA's or any of the other new non-welldeck carriers like CAVOUR and such).
Spot size difference alone suggest a 33% difference, fuel needs probably even more.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kbrock,
Good question - hope I can help out here.
CONOPS are always a moving target, but at the time when I worked the programme, the USMC was looking at embarking roughly the same number of F-35s as AV-8Bs on LHDs - which meant around 6, not 20. At LM, we did look at deck layouts for larger air wings, but as far as I know (and I could very well be wrong) embarking 20 F-35s on an LHD would not be a normal event.
You're quite right that an F-35's fuel requirements will be different to an AV-8Bs, but how different I couldn't say. They will very probably use a good deal more. In any case, a ship operating aircraft like the F-35 (even a CVN) will have a tanker in closed company.
Deck spotting factors are one of those things that the USN has made quite complicated, but with some reason. Length and span dimensions are larger wight he F-35, but spotting aircraft on a deck (and being able to move them around) also relies on location of landing gear on the aircraft, turning circles, and so on. Where overall dimensions really count is when looking at elevator spotting: the F-35 requirement specifically excluded a requirement to fit down the aft elevators on the earlier (already obsolescent) LHD class ships, so as not to force a folding wing.
Generally, the overall dimensions of the aircraft were driven by the need to get the weight inside the envelope that a STOVL aircraft could handle. Compliance with the required flight deck spotting factor basically happened as a by product of the weight drive. (We also had a 'maintenance box' requirement to meet).
What I can say as a fact is that the F-35B can operate from an LHD in the numbers required by the USMC. And yes, it's essentially on a one for one basis, but not at a hypothetical figure of 20 aircraft.
Hope this helps
Best Regards as ever to those shifting the jets around the decks,
Engines
Good question - hope I can help out here.
CONOPS are always a moving target, but at the time when I worked the programme, the USMC was looking at embarking roughly the same number of F-35s as AV-8Bs on LHDs - which meant around 6, not 20. At LM, we did look at deck layouts for larger air wings, but as far as I know (and I could very well be wrong) embarking 20 F-35s on an LHD would not be a normal event.
You're quite right that an F-35's fuel requirements will be different to an AV-8Bs, but how different I couldn't say. They will very probably use a good deal more. In any case, a ship operating aircraft like the F-35 (even a CVN) will have a tanker in closed company.
Deck spotting factors are one of those things that the USN has made quite complicated, but with some reason. Length and span dimensions are larger wight he F-35, but spotting aircraft on a deck (and being able to move them around) also relies on location of landing gear on the aircraft, turning circles, and so on. Where overall dimensions really count is when looking at elevator spotting: the F-35 requirement specifically excluded a requirement to fit down the aft elevators on the earlier (already obsolescent) LHD class ships, so as not to force a folding wing.
Generally, the overall dimensions of the aircraft were driven by the need to get the weight inside the envelope that a STOVL aircraft could handle. Compliance with the required flight deck spotting factor basically happened as a by product of the weight drive. (We also had a 'maintenance box' requirement to meet).
What I can say as a fact is that the F-35B can operate from an LHD in the numbers required by the USMC. And yes, it's essentially on a one for one basis, but not at a hypothetical figure of 20 aircraft.
Hope this helps
Best Regards as ever to those shifting the jets around the decks,
Engines
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
At LM, we did look at deck layouts for larger air wings, but as far as I know (and I could very well be wrong) embarking 20 F-35s on an LHD would not be a normal event.
http://www.jeffhead.com/usn21/lhar.htm
Aircraft (Sea Control):
- 22 F-35B JSF
- 04 MH-60 SeaHawk
- 04 Other helo/vtol
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC and Others,
I try to be specific on this thread, but sorry if I didn't make myself clear in the previous posts.
The figures I gave reflected the original requirements for embarking F-35B on the LHD 'Wasp' class. (The aft elevator I mentioned was on the earlier 'Tarawa' class LHD). I don't think I mentioned Spanish Navy numbers, but I know that earlier posts did. The 6 aircraft set would be part of a larger Air Wing comprising V-22s, AH-1Z and UH-1Y and CH-53E. Those other aircraft, as much as the ship, limited how many F-35Bs could be embarked.
The 22 F-35B number on the 'jeffhead' site you linked to was referring to a proposed 'Sea Control' mission using the 'America' class LHAs, which are a good bit larger than the LHDs, with a longer and wider deck, and a full length hangar (but no well deck). This mission would add only 6 MH-60s to the Air Wing complement. (The site is a little inconsistent in the numbers of RW for this 'Sea Control' Wing) A more 'normal' wing would use 10 F-35Bs (from the same site). This is what I'd expect from a larger ship.
The larger the ship (like the America) the more aircraft can go on board. The smaller, the fewer. As ever, Air Wings will be tailored and built to meet the specific mission. One thing I think can be expected is that the USMC will try to exploit the F-35B's capabilities as fully as possible with the ships they have. This will very probably involve developing new CONOPS and operating techniques, and Air Wing numbers will probably change with them.
Best regards as ever to all those working to deliver 'air power' from the sea,
Engines
I try to be specific on this thread, but sorry if I didn't make myself clear in the previous posts.
The figures I gave reflected the original requirements for embarking F-35B on the LHD 'Wasp' class. (The aft elevator I mentioned was on the earlier 'Tarawa' class LHD). I don't think I mentioned Spanish Navy numbers, but I know that earlier posts did. The 6 aircraft set would be part of a larger Air Wing comprising V-22s, AH-1Z and UH-1Y and CH-53E. Those other aircraft, as much as the ship, limited how many F-35Bs could be embarked.
The 22 F-35B number on the 'jeffhead' site you linked to was referring to a proposed 'Sea Control' mission using the 'America' class LHAs, which are a good bit larger than the LHDs, with a longer and wider deck, and a full length hangar (but no well deck). This mission would add only 6 MH-60s to the Air Wing complement. (The site is a little inconsistent in the numbers of RW for this 'Sea Control' Wing) A more 'normal' wing would use 10 F-35Bs (from the same site). This is what I'd expect from a larger ship.
The larger the ship (like the America) the more aircraft can go on board. The smaller, the fewer. As ever, Air Wings will be tailored and built to meet the specific mission. One thing I think can be expected is that the USMC will try to exploit the F-35B's capabilities as fully as possible with the ships they have. This will very probably involve developing new CONOPS and operating techniques, and Air Wing numbers will probably change with them.
Best regards as ever to all those working to deliver 'air power' from the sea,
Engines
Engines - Thanks for the detailed response, which meshes with my understanding. The six-aircraft standard airwing (combined with the differences between the F-35B and Harrier, discussed earlier here) explains why the USMC can say that only 10 per cent of operations will be STOVL mode: at any given time, the number of JSFs deployed on amphibs will be < 6 x the number of deployed amphibs - because some taskings will be all-helo.
The two Americas are an interesting case, trading well decks for aviation capability. While better able to support a larger F-35B complement than the Wasps, or the follow-on subclass (which restores the well deck), they seem to be neither fish nor fowl, compromised both in fast-jet carriage and classic amphib-warfare support, which may explain why no more are to be built.
You'll forgive me for being somewhat skeptical about the F-35's stealth maintenance requirements, given the consistent track record of stealth programs in that regard. The pre-IOC discussions of the F-22 are an almost exact echo of what is being said about JSF.
The two Americas are an interesting case, trading well decks for aviation capability. While better able to support a larger F-35B complement than the Wasps, or the follow-on subclass (which restores the well deck), they seem to be neither fish nor fowl, compromised both in fast-jet carriage and classic amphib-warfare support, which may explain why no more are to be built.
You'll forgive me for being somewhat skeptical about the F-35's stealth maintenance requirements, given the consistent track record of stealth programs in that regard. The pre-IOC discussions of the F-22 are an almost exact echo of what is being said about JSF.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO,
Thanks for coming back.
The discussion over time spent in 'STOVL mode' is always going to be an exercise in prediction, as it rests on a number of assumptions about how many aircraft are shore based, how many afloat on what platforms. I'd suspect that for some nations, STOVL ops may comprise a bigger percentage. I'd also suspect that the USMC are looking very hard at deployed short field ops.
The key thing from the USMC aviation point of view is that you need to have STOVL to get on to the boat and to the war in the first place. And for the UK and the RN, STOVL is our only affordable way of getting these aircraft to sea. Given that, percentages of any notional total are less important.
You make a very good point about the design trade offs in the LHD, LHA(R) and follow on ships. The thing to appreciate is that ship design is always an exercise in compromise, and sometimes aviation capabilities have to take their share of compromise. In the case if the USMC, it's handy to remember that everything (and I mean everything) is built around getting Marines ashore and fighting. It's possible that the two America class LHA(R)s will end up being mainly used for aviation basing and personnel transport, plus possibly V-22 assault ops. Like I said earlier, the only certainty is that the USMC will seek to make the best possible use of the aircraft it has, and it has been planning the changes for some time.
LO maintenance - please carry on being sceptical. We all certainly were at Fort Worth. (We had some excellent ex FAA maintainers on our team who were incredibly experienced and not easy to convince on anything). The fact is that stealth technology has shown steady progress from the F-117, through B-2 to F-22. F-35 is nearly 20 years on from the Raptor. There's a clue in the way that the panel joins on F-35 look very different to F-22, that may indicate that the 35 is not aiming for the lowest levels of signature. (I say 'may' as I'm not read into that stuff).
I don't, for one minute, believe that all will be sweetness and light. I don't think getting F-35B to the fight will be easy. But delivering high performance fixed wing naval aviation is never easy. It never was. It takes good people, well trained as a team on the ship, to do it. That's what the USMC does, and so did the FAA. The FAA will, given the time and the resources, do it again.
Best regards as ever to all
Engines
Thanks for coming back.
The discussion over time spent in 'STOVL mode' is always going to be an exercise in prediction, as it rests on a number of assumptions about how many aircraft are shore based, how many afloat on what platforms. I'd suspect that for some nations, STOVL ops may comprise a bigger percentage. I'd also suspect that the USMC are looking very hard at deployed short field ops.
The key thing from the USMC aviation point of view is that you need to have STOVL to get on to the boat and to the war in the first place. And for the UK and the RN, STOVL is our only affordable way of getting these aircraft to sea. Given that, percentages of any notional total are less important.
You make a very good point about the design trade offs in the LHD, LHA(R) and follow on ships. The thing to appreciate is that ship design is always an exercise in compromise, and sometimes aviation capabilities have to take their share of compromise. In the case if the USMC, it's handy to remember that everything (and I mean everything) is built around getting Marines ashore and fighting. It's possible that the two America class LHA(R)s will end up being mainly used for aviation basing and personnel transport, plus possibly V-22 assault ops. Like I said earlier, the only certainty is that the USMC will seek to make the best possible use of the aircraft it has, and it has been planning the changes for some time.
LO maintenance - please carry on being sceptical. We all certainly were at Fort Worth. (We had some excellent ex FAA maintainers on our team who were incredibly experienced and not easy to convince on anything). The fact is that stealth technology has shown steady progress from the F-117, through B-2 to F-22. F-35 is nearly 20 years on from the Raptor. There's a clue in the way that the panel joins on F-35 look very different to F-22, that may indicate that the 35 is not aiming for the lowest levels of signature. (I say 'may' as I'm not read into that stuff).
I don't, for one minute, believe that all will be sweetness and light. I don't think getting F-35B to the fight will be easy. But delivering high performance fixed wing naval aviation is never easy. It never was. It takes good people, well trained as a team on the ship, to do it. That's what the USMC does, and so did the FAA. The FAA will, given the time and the resources, do it again.
Best regards as ever to all
Engines
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a funny dream.
I was in charge of defending a target against attack by an aircraft.
Then I heard it was either a Lancaster or a B-17. So I got the youngsters in and told them to enjoy themselves as I was going to bed.
Then I heard it was an AV-8B. Mmm - Ok chaps let's put the A team on, check everything and stay awake.
Then I heard it was an F-35B. **** - plan B chaps let's move back a bit.
Sure numbers matter but not on a 1:1 basis.
I was in charge of defending a target against attack by an aircraft.
Then I heard it was either a Lancaster or a B-17. So I got the youngsters in and told them to enjoy themselves as I was going to bed.
Then I heard it was an AV-8B. Mmm - Ok chaps let's put the A team on, check everything and stay awake.
Then I heard it was an F-35B. **** - plan B chaps let's move back a bit.
Sure numbers matter but not on a 1:1 basis.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,581
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Hello Noddy - This is Big Ears
Navy: F-35C Will Be Eyes and Ears of the Fleet 31 Dec 2013 Dave Majumdar
Navy: F-35C Will Be Eyes and Ears of the Fleet | USNI News
Navy: F-35C Will Be Eyes and Ears of the Fleet | USNI News
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
Originally Posted by JohnFarley
I had a funny dream.
I was in charge of defending a target against attack by an aircraft.
Then I heard it was either a Lancaster or a B-17. So I got the youngsters in and told them to enjoy themselves as I was going to bed.
Then I heard it was an AV-8B. Mmm - Ok chaps let's put the A team on, check everything and stay awake.
Then I heard it was an F-35B. **** - plan B chaps let's move back a bit.
Sure numbers matter but not on a 1:1 basis.
I was in charge of defending a target against attack by an aircraft.
Then I heard it was either a Lancaster or a B-17. So I got the youngsters in and told them to enjoy themselves as I was going to bed.
Then I heard it was an AV-8B. Mmm - Ok chaps let's put the A team on, check everything and stay awake.
Then I heard it was an F-35B. **** - plan B chaps let's move back a bit.
Sure numbers matter but not on a 1:1 basis.
I'm fairly certain you would have called for a plan B too back in the 40's with some B17's and Lancasters overhead, same thing in the 80's with the AV8B.
You really think that today quantity is no longer a factor with the F35?
Originally Posted by SPASZINBAD
Navy: F-35C Will Be Eyes and Ears of the Fleet 31 Dec 2013 Dave Majumdar
From what we've seen in the past year it is ever more likely that, coming 2030 and beyond, not the F35C will be the ultimate eyes and ears but rather the derivative of the X47 program which according to the latest reports from the same NAVY could very well be used as a very advanced UCAV and sensor platform in the, not too distant, future.
Spaz,
You usually choose the articles about JS"F" you post rather carefully to shine good light on the programme. Have you not read this article or can you not recognize the stupidity of what it says? I'm not going to spend much time pulling it to bits, but here are a couple of howlers.
At least he recognizes that the stealth is X-Band technology; let's say missile guidence and AI radar in the main. Of course, ground based radars are going to be S or L band (or lower depending on where in the world he's thinking of).
He also seems to be implying (or perhaps from his words I'm inferring) that JS"F" will be the replacement for a host of ISTAR assets. This isn't the first FJ platform to have sensors and datalink and we haven't managed to phase out all the other gathering platforms just because they arrived.
Oops, we still need the old platforms to carry and launch the stand-off stuff. Why?
We knew that, we've discussed it before.
Yes, but let's hope it doesn't distract them from actually getting the platform out there and working.
I hope so too. If the range needs extending, as he suggests, I would hope there is more in place than hope.
Link is a radio. Never believe that it cannot be received (the people you want to receive it can, so it is receivable) or jammed. Technology always moves on.
Indeed. So the rest of the wishlist in the article is not only right, but necessary.
Is he suddenly claiming that JS"F" can take on the Air Dominance role as well as everything else?
Not the best advert for the jet in terms of credibility because it claims a lot based on very little.
You usually choose the articles about JS"F" you post rather carefully to shine good light on the programme. Have you not read this article or can you not recognize the stupidity of what it says? I'm not going to spend much time pulling it to bits, but here are a couple of howlers.
“Let’s say we’re in an anti-access environment and we’re going to go deep, we would launch all the airplanes off, get them all set, and we would push the F-35C way inside,” Rear Adm. Mike Manazir, the Navy’s director of air warfare told USNI News on Dec. 20. “He would go in there using his X-band stealth technology, and go in there and he would get radar contacts and surface contacts and would ID them for us.”
He also seems to be implying (or perhaps from his words I'm inferring) that JS"F" will be the replacement for a host of ISTAR assets. This isn't the first FJ platform to have sensors and datalink and we haven't managed to phase out all the other gathering platforms just because they arrived.
F-35Cs flying deep inside enemy territory would also play a key role in providing terminal guidance for long-range stand-off weapons launched by other platforms such as Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet or a warship.
However, the F-35C will need some data-link modifications
Lockheed Martin is working with other contractors to make that capability happen,
In order to extend the F-35C’s range, the Navy hopes to refuel the stealthy new fighter from the service’s future Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) aircraft
We need to have that link capability that the enemy can’t find and then it can’t jam.
But the Navy has never operated a stealthy aircraft with the kinds of sensors found onboard the F-35C before
Manazir described a recent long-range air dominance simulation exercise in which there were Marine Corps weapons officers flying the F-35C.
Not the best advert for the jet in terms of credibility because it claims a lot based on very little.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 31st Dec 2013 at 18:08.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,581
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
'CM' cannot I not post articles that are neither fish nor turkey? Being a 65 year old F-35 NAFYOB I always thought that was possible. I can see there are many rivers to cross for both the F-35 family and the F-35C in particular, as described, along with development of the UCLASS. Yes some of these ideas have been discussed earlier along with the maintainability of F-35B/C stealth on carrier decks, so revisiting earlier discussion bits is not out of the question - for some.
Perhaps I misled earlier by stating that F-35C arrested landings were easily faked. Just use a roll-in arrest with a smoke machine or two and bobs my uncle. Anyway I like the meeting of UCLASS 'Noddddddy' with 'BigEars' F-35C as seen here: [just to get in a cartoonie before 'LO' does]
Perhaps I misled earlier by stating that F-35C arrested landings were easily faked. Just use a roll-in arrest with a smoke machine or two and bobs my uncle. Anyway I like the meeting of UCLASS 'Noddddddy' with 'BigEars' F-35C as seen here: [just to get in a cartoonie before 'LO' does]
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,581
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Over page 'CM' said:
My response not to the article in question but to the bit above from 'CM':
Before responding to anything else I think I should explain the above. There is a perception that I am an 'F-35 fanboy' - hmmm. What I am is a gatherer of information in an effort to understand it and I welcome the excellent responses to the NavAv items on this thread from those who know it.
I take issue with the article critique as outlined by 'CM'; interested that it is seen in such a negative light. Manazir points to a possible future; but that future is uncertain; hence the use of 'hope' for a future UCLASS, which is still under negotiation as far as I can see in public information. The X-47B thread about recent UCLASS events seems to have become mangled. I could go back to post some of the missing recent news but as someone pointed out 'I was talking to myself', so I thought not to do that (my life is as short as anyone else). So I'm glad to post articles about the F-35 that interest me. If that seems to be more on the positive side - then so be it. It seems the negative side is well catered for here. NAFYOB=FANBOY whilst being 65 that term flatters me unnecessarily.
The rest is clear enough referring to an earlier discussion on this thread about F-35 stealth robustness and maintainability. Do I need to find it for you? UCLASS is in the X-47B thread (mangled at the end). The claim that a photo of a fly-in arrest recently was only a 'roll-in' was ludicrous - but you knew that. Many months ago when a video of an earlier fly-in F-35C arrest with the interim hook design was released I made a comment (tongue in cheek) that these things can be easily faked. I then posted a slow motion video of the same sequence to show this 'fakery'. Anything is possible I suppose.
As for the cartoonie of Noddy and Big Ears. It refers to the title of the piece under discussion '...Eyes and Ears of the Fleet'.
Now the critique by CM.... Perhaps assumptions have been made by 'CM' that I myself do not follow. I would have thought Majumdar has more or less accurately reported what RADM Manazir said. I would guess that the RADM was circumspect deliberately; and also hoped for certain future outcomes with UCLASS (yet to be decided). The USN plan is to populate their CVNs with a mixture of Shornets, F-35Cs and now UCLASS. So why not use them co-operatively? The discussion about no MADL for other aircraft is on this thread also, with a future possibility of a new network yet to eventuate, which will cater for the linkages, bearing in mind a group of F-35Cs in a daisy chain can pass MADL info back to rear echelon receivers.
I like that the RADM has acknowledged the work of the USMC with F-35Bs, the USMC will also fly F-35Cs from the CVNs, after the F-35Bs of the USMC have got going. Nice one. As for 'air dominance' that is the future for some Air Forces, such as the RAAF, in concert with our own Shornets/Growlers and whatever is left of the Hornets and the other networking assets. The US Navy, like the USMC, works with what it has - I see no F-22s for them or the RAAF.
And 'CM' why ask if you are not interested? I'm happy to humour myself - if no one else. At least there are no Turkey/schoolboy cartoons - a bit sad I know.
"Spaz,
You usually choose the articles about JS"F" you post rather carefully to shine good light on the programme. Have you not read this article or can you not recognize the stupidity of what it says? I'm not going to spend much time pulling it to bits, but here are a couple of howlers...."
You usually choose the articles about JS"F" you post rather carefully to shine good light on the programme. Have you not read this article or can you not recognize the stupidity of what it says? I'm not going to spend much time pulling it to bits, but here are a couple of howlers...."
"'CM' cannot I not post articles that are neither fish nor turkey? Being a 65 year old F-35 NAFYOB I always thought that was possible. I can see there are many rivers to cross for both the F-35 family and the F-35C in particular, as described, along with development of the UCLASS. Yes some of these ideas have been discussed earlier along with the maintainability of F-35B/C stealth on carrier decks, so revisiting earlier discussion bits is not out of the question - for some.
Perhaps I misled earlier by stating that F-35C arrested landings were easily faked. Just use a roll-in arrest with a smoke machine or two and bobs my uncle. Anyway I like the meeting of UCLASS 'Noddddddy' with 'BigEars' F-35C as seen here: [just to get in a cartoonie before 'LO' does]"
Perhaps I misled earlier by stating that F-35C arrested landings were easily faked. Just use a roll-in arrest with a smoke machine or two and bobs my uncle. Anyway I like the meeting of UCLASS 'Noddddddy' with 'BigEars' F-35C as seen here: [just to get in a cartoonie before 'LO' does]"
I take issue with the article critique as outlined by 'CM'; interested that it is seen in such a negative light. Manazir points to a possible future; but that future is uncertain; hence the use of 'hope' for a future UCLASS, which is still under negotiation as far as I can see in public information. The X-47B thread about recent UCLASS events seems to have become mangled. I could go back to post some of the missing recent news but as someone pointed out 'I was talking to myself', so I thought not to do that (my life is as short as anyone else). So I'm glad to post articles about the F-35 that interest me. If that seems to be more on the positive side - then so be it. It seems the negative side is well catered for here. NAFYOB=FANBOY whilst being 65 that term flatters me unnecessarily.
The rest is clear enough referring to an earlier discussion on this thread about F-35 stealth robustness and maintainability. Do I need to find it for you? UCLASS is in the X-47B thread (mangled at the end). The claim that a photo of a fly-in arrest recently was only a 'roll-in' was ludicrous - but you knew that. Many months ago when a video of an earlier fly-in F-35C arrest with the interim hook design was released I made a comment (tongue in cheek) that these things can be easily faked. I then posted a slow motion video of the same sequence to show this 'fakery'. Anything is possible I suppose.
As for the cartoonie of Noddy and Big Ears. It refers to the title of the piece under discussion '...Eyes and Ears of the Fleet'.
Now the critique by CM.... Perhaps assumptions have been made by 'CM' that I myself do not follow. I would have thought Majumdar has more or less accurately reported what RADM Manazir said. I would guess that the RADM was circumspect deliberately; and also hoped for certain future outcomes with UCLASS (yet to be decided). The USN plan is to populate their CVNs with a mixture of Shornets, F-35Cs and now UCLASS. So why not use them co-operatively? The discussion about no MADL for other aircraft is on this thread also, with a future possibility of a new network yet to eventuate, which will cater for the linkages, bearing in mind a group of F-35Cs in a daisy chain can pass MADL info back to rear echelon receivers.
I like that the RADM has acknowledged the work of the USMC with F-35Bs, the USMC will also fly F-35Cs from the CVNs, after the F-35Bs of the USMC have got going. Nice one. As for 'air dominance' that is the future for some Air Forces, such as the RAAF, in concert with our own Shornets/Growlers and whatever is left of the Hornets and the other networking assets. The US Navy, like the USMC, works with what it has - I see no F-22s for them or the RAAF.
And 'CM' why ask if you are not interested? I'm happy to humour myself - if no one else. At least there are no Turkey/schoolboy cartoons - a bit sad I know.