STOVL and CTOL from big decks - deconflicting ?

"Guy Alcala" wrote...

When you come to a F-18 / F-35 STOVL loadout, there could be a LOT of F-18
tankers supporting 1+30 cycles for the F-35, or the cycle times will be
reduced
to 1+15 or less.

Don't see why. The F-35B will have considerably more internal fuel than an
F-18A-D
with similar weight, a single engine and no need for 3-5,000 lb. of recovery
fuel
reserve. Marine profile mission radius (KPP) is 450nm from a 550' STO (590nm
for
the USAF F-35A mission profile; 600nm for the USN F-35C mission profile), with
a VL
bringback of .2 x 1k JDAMs and a pair of AIM-120s, plus reserve fuel.

What are the comparative thrust and specific fuel consumptions of the 2
airplanes' powerplants? What will the fuel burn be for a typical approach and
vertical landing for the F-35?

Why will there be a significantly lesser fuel reserve requirement? Will the
bingo fuel requirement be less for a STOVL airplane than a CTOL airplane?

The F/A-18 hasn't met fuel specs yet, to my knowledge. The A/B/C/D never met
the original requirements, and the C/D specs were "adjusted" so much from the
original requirements that it is almost impossible to make an apple-apple
comparison.

So far, I believe the combination of cost and performance requirements for the
F-35 are hopelessly optimistic...