Quick guide to the F-35 JSF versions.

Most don't understand that the technology hurdles unique to STOVL were
hurdled prior to downselect. This issue with the B and the C is weight.
Though they are both predicted to make the KPPs at current weight, given
historical weight growth of most TACAIR programs (3-4% a year IIRC), they
decided to deal with it now. Also, the B is the 'canary in the coal mine"
wrt weight because of the way it is more sensitive to weight than the other
two. (The C is a close second due to Vpa issues.) Because the A is
essentially the baseline, it gets some attention too. The B has the same
payload capability as the A (it was announced by Gen Hough with little
fanfare sometime in the last year).

The PVI is very simple -- even fighter guys can do it on the first try.


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:14:35 GMT, "Frijoles"
wrote:

Whoa, easy there Ed. First gig him on the fact that it was Guadalcanal
not
Leyte Gulf. Then you are cleared hot on bringing him into the 21st
century
.


Gimme a bit of slack please. It's before my time (even mine!) and I've
always been a bit weak in Marine Corps history.

The point, of course, is that there's nothing wrong with the
technology development of the STOVL version. I'm skeptical but have
been proven wrong before. I'm not a great believer in vertical
aircraft--AV-8 has been troublesome and we probably don't want to get
into Osprey discussions.

I've got the feeling that a useful CAS platform might be easier to
develop, less costly and more maintainable with soft field capability.
The effort to get extreme short T/O and vertical recovery seems to be
so much whiz-bang. I'd like more payload and less pilot workload.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8