John Keeney wrote:

"puttster" wrote in message
om...
"John Carrier" wrote in message
...
Now if you want to argue that the F-35B is an aircraft designed as a
Carrier
Aircraft, I know some Marines that would like to chat with you. The B
will
be replacing AV-8B's and land based F-18's. Sure, it can land on a
carrier
but it is not being built to trap aboard CV/N's using arresting gear
or
Cat
launches.

True in a sense, but as a VSTOL and STOVL design, it's fully carrier
suitable w/o the need for catapult gear (I suspect it does have a
tailhook).
I'd also be much surprised if its CNI suite didn't include ACLS and
SPN-41
in their latest incarnations.

R / John


With an excellent V/STOL capability in the F-35B, why does the Navy
still demand those giant carriers? Seems like something can be done
there to make the whole system more efficient. Why design a plane
(the F-35C) to fit their ships?

Because the F-35C flies farther with a bigger load than the F-35B.

As always, the question is how much do you need that extra range, and should the
navy a/c do that mission when it is needed? Kind of depends how you define the
littorals -- you can see claims and studies made for everything from 200nm to
650nm from the coastline, depending on whose ox is being gored -- here's one
that discusses this issue, and decides based on historical evidence that 400nm
is about right, and that the STOVL JSF is more than adequate for all three
services:

http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA331611

Note, while you'd expect this to be a USMC paper, it was actually written at
ACSC. Still, there were definitely Marines involved in writing it, so take the
analysis and conclusions with as large or as small a grain of salt as you think
appropriate.

Because the ships aren't going away since they need the deck for
the E-2 and C-2 anyway.

Of course, when (if) the V-22 or some similar VSTOL support a/c enters service,
that particular justification need no longer exist. IIRR it was Adm. Holloway,
when CNO in the '80s(?), who planned to have the navy go all VSTOL sooner rather
than later. The slow pace of VSTOL development slowed things down, especially
the support a/c requirement (ASW, AEW, COD, tanker, ESM, SOJ, CSAR, what have
you), as only now is an a/c (the V-22) with roughly the required performance, in
view. It is inferior in performance for each specific mission than the more
specialized individual aircraft types that now perform these functions, but the
ability to use a single basic airframe for all these missions means big savings
on training, spares and unit cost.

Whether this changeover actually happens is another matter, as there doesn't
appear to be a big VSTOL backer inside the navy at the moment, and the navy is
afraid that going all VSTOL will make it easier for politicians to decide that,
because VSTOL a/c _can_ operate from smaller, cheaper carriers, there's no need
to buy big ones, ignoring the operational benefits of larger carriers in power
projection. OTOH, the USAF's recent volte-face (they want some again) on buying
some STOVL F-35s for themselves, may put more pressure on the navy to go VSTOL.
Or not :-)

Guy