Correct me if I'm wrong, but carrier approaches usually have a lot less alpha than that recovery there. Less of a moment problem than you might think?

Surely this "first day" concept is partly due the fact that these aircraft are going to have high attrition rates and most of them won't be coming back, so landing on deck is the least of anyones worries. No point in making work something thats unlikely to happen.
Surely the vary fact that there is a deemed "day one" mission, is a statement that the day one pilots are expendable cannon fodder? They are there just to expend the other sides resources.

No, not in my experience. All approaches are flow at an optimum AoA or 'safe stall margin'. Carrier landings in particular are flown at the minimum safe speed (therefore highest safe AoA) to reduce the energy to a minimum when (hopefully) one grabs the cable. 1/2 M V squared.

We may need a QFI like BEags to confirm my simple pilot's view of this. :cool:

British test pilot marks milestone in the Joint Combat Aircraft
 

British test pilot marks milestone in the Joint Combat Aircraft

Even those who doubt the value of the programme ought to realise that this is good news for the UK. RAF TPs have already flown the F-35B and BAE test pilots have flown the F-35C previously but this is the first RAF chap to fly the C.

More External Weapons Tests
 

PICTURES: F-35B flies with gun pod installed

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&news paperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ae2428ba2-9f16-4be0-90d1-752aa99a673a&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

Pax River in on the act as well, obviously also for day 2 ops.

It's great that Schofs is flying it and I have no doubt about its handling capabilites. It's the operational and capability side of it that concerns me. I tak it (once again) that it's a stealth gun pod strapped on there?

Notwithstanding, Schofs is a bloody good operator so I'd be interested to hear what he has to say about off camera. If he's allowed to.

Courtney, old chum, the only 'carrier' jets I've ever flown were the Buccaneer and F-4. Despite the fact that I only ever flew them from nice, safe land aerodromes, we were still taught to fly them more or less 'the Navy way' - particularly the Buccaneer. Hence hi-AOA blown approaches were the norm with virtually no flare before touchdown - just the merest little 'bijou tweakette' (as once described to me), perhaps. So I'd agree that derotational pitching moments are likely to be significant given the likely vertical velocity component at impact, no matter what the horizontal component for cable engagement requirements might be.

Looking at the video, it seems to be an 'accelerate/stop' manoeuvre rather than a landing - note the jet efflux change during the event.

Hi Courtney,

The pod is stealthy.

Link to image

http://www.f-16.net/gallery_item351577.html

From

http://www.f-16.net/news_article3837.html

I'm impressed, TEEEJ. Even just looking at the pictures I can see the blending that's been done. I take your point.

BEags, thank you. I think that's kind of what I was thinking. 19.2 units AoA, 12th stage BLC, smack it on the deck. Ah, happy navigator's back pain!

Courtney

P.S. I saw your remark about navs and Donny. So harsh!!!

Since you're well within visual and acoustic detection range of the target at the point where you use the gun, the point of any stealth-type shaping on the gun pod escapes me.

Unless you're going to sneak through the IADS on the way to perform gun CAS, which also seems improbable.

Are you in some way suggesting that if you are supporting chaps who are busy bayonetting the enemy that there's every chance that the enemy know, or at least suspect, where you are?

You are clearly wrong because the USMC is buying a fifth generation platform for exactly this task.

Despite the fact you disagree with the USMC you can take a small amount of solace from the fact that you and I agree wholeheartedly. But I'm just a punter on an internet forum - and they're 225,000 tough guys - so you might be backing the wrong horse.

The stealth on the gun (or anything else) is for when you're flying around, into, out of the AOO. Agreed, once you get up close and personal and start strafing people they might notice you - I would hope they would, but not for long!!!

Surely the point is that there's no point having a larger RCS than you absolutely have to.

With a stealthy-ish gunpod and internal weapons only you can still be useful in a higher threat environment without advertising yourself to all and sundry.

Absolutely correct shipmate - but if your role, or your position relative to friendlies or baddies is revealing you anyway why have LO? I understand it isn't exactly 'free'. In fact I have heard it said that it's a very expensive way of skinning the cat.

Four weapons plus a cannon isn't a great CAS load, but it's all you'll get from the F-35B. And that's if there's no air threat. Which there may be, so you'll have to give up a station for a slammer. If there isn't...why have LO?

Ah, you say, but for the CAS job job I can give you external pylons.

Ah, I say, but in that case you're no longer LO. You paid masses for a stealthy aircraft and then paid more to dangle stuff off it. And we go back to square one when I ask why you want a LO CAS aircraft, when you clearly don't.

Not 'you' personally...but figuratively speaking.;)

All excellent points and what is the point of using an aircraft in broad daylight that tries to be invisible for a CAS role? Do we expect those spear chuckers on the ground to close their eyes?

It's coming toward me...Chuck up a wall of lead!!

What are the benefits of using this type of aircraft with that payload when compared to the F-18? (question)

Glojo. You're right, but the F-18 doesn't have a cloaking device. ;)

The second post today that has made me laugh...:ok::ok:

It really hurts when I laugh but boy is it a great feeling :)

Way back when, I believe LM was suggesting that the F-35B would "redefine" CAS by stooging around at medium altitude dropping SDBs. Actual experience in Afg and Iraq told a different story.

Orca - Theoretically the F-35B has six A-to-G stations, with the wing stations designed for 2x 1000-pounders each. However, if you load all of them with weapons your fuel situation is comparable to an F-16 with a warload and no tanks. My guess is that you will any time a B has external weapons it will have tanks = four A-to-G stations, two of which (internal) are either single-store or quad-SDB.

The whole discussion of the value of stealth in CAS leads to another dangerous line of argument: what do we use fighters for, and for which of those uses is stealth worth its cost?

LO your comparison between an F-16 with no tanks and a F-35B with no tanks (both with a similar combat load) is truly shocking.

Are you saying that the fuel fraction on the F-35B is so bad that its 14,000lbs of internal fuel is equivalent to the 7,100lbs carried by the F-16C?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...B_C_Config.png

JTO - I just rechecked the numbers. The most recent internal fuel number from LM for the B is 13500 lb. A quick-and-dirty calc - fuel/fuel+oew - is a little under 0.3 for the F-35B and about 0.27 for the F-16C.

However, I believe that's a later F-16C, and the C/D porked up quite a bit during development. The Block 25 was at 0.3.

That should not be surprising. From the early days of the DARPA Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter (no, don't laugh) the idea was that if the STOVL had a normal fighter fuel fraction, the CV and CTOL versions would have lots of fuel and range. The B is also about 2500 pounds heavier (empty) than was projected at the start of the program.