Quick guide to the F-35 JSF versions.

In article ,
Hobo wrote:

In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:

While air superiority is always nice for bomb droppers, the F-35
itself is inherently stealthy and quite maneuverable.

I thought the F-35 had poorer wing loading than modern Russian jets and
was not considered very maneaverable.

About the same as the Su-33, apparently.

446 kg/m^2 versus 442.5 kg/m^2

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

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
.

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 08:09:40 -0800, Henry J Cobb wrote:

Why do we need three different versions of the F-35?

What are the service requirements that are driving these three versions?

Gotta say you make some interesting assumptions.

The Air Force's F-35A is the least expensive version and it requires
F/A-22s to clear the way so the Air Force needs runways anyway. Because
the Air Force always needs permission slips to operate they can't assume
that their bases will be in the country next door so they need more
range than the F-35B offers.

While air superiority is always nice for bomb droppers, the F-35
itself is inherently stealthy and quite maneuverable. Don't make an
unnecessary dependency link between 22s and 35s. They probably will
function in concert, but not necessarily.

Range from operating bases is generally irrlevant today with in-flight
refueling capability. Witness the distances and endurance requirements
of the Afghanistan campaign.

The Navy needs a F-35C that won't break up during a high speed carrier
landing and they need greater range because they don't have these
"deals" with tanker builders like the AF does so they'll have to rely on
Super Hornet tankers.

Once again, notice Afghanistan. Tankers don't know the color of the
aircraft to whom they pass gas. The gratuitous reference to "deals"
has nothing to do with the aircraft selection. The AF doesn't get
kickbacks from aircraft suppliers. They simply establish requirements
and Congress then acts (or not.)

The Marines are desperate to get their airpower on the ground as quickly
as possible in case the Navy pulls another Leyte Gulf on them and so
they're willing to accept a half-sized bombload on the S/VTOL F-35B.

GMAFB. A "Leyte Gulf"? Are we living in the pre-historic past?


-HJC

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

"John S. Shinal" wrote in message
...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:


"Henry J Cobb" babbled
The Air Force's F-35A is the least expensive version and it requires
F/A-22s to clear the way

No more than the F-16s need F-15s to clear the way. When using
AWACS the IDM and AIM-120s, it's a whole new BVR engagement these
days. It's safe to say the F-35A won't need much of anything except to
divide tasks among the various members of the strike force.

The Navy needs a F-35C that won't break up during a high speed carrier
landing and they need greater range because they don't have these
"deals" with tanker builders like the AF does so they'll have to rely
on
Super Hornet tankers.

Never heard of "joint operations", huh Henry? Heck, a lot of USN tanking
requirements during OEF were provided by *RAF* tankers, in addition to
(gasp!) USAF KC's.

I think these "deals" are either the proposal to lease tankers
(horrors - adopt commercial practices !) or they consider the original
purchase of KC-135s thirty (?) years ago as some sort of sweetheart
deal. Conspiracy people see them everywhere, it seems.

More like forty (plus) years ago; the last A models (which have since been
modified to E and R models) were produced in 1964; first flight had been in
1954 and the first airacraft were ordered in 1955.



The USMC wants the *STOVL*
capability (what the heck is "S/VTOL"?) to allow them to both provide air
support from vessels other than CVN's (thus improving their versatility
as a
force) and to allow them to establish air operations from ashore without
having to seize intact or build a complete airstrip--kind of
understandable
given their expeditionary nature.

If the Marines' version is operated CTOL from a carrier deck,
is the useful load more in line with the Navy version, and/or is the
aircraft intended for CTOL carrier work ?

I seriously doubt they will be capable of CTOL carrier operations except in
their normal STOVL configuration. The latest reports indicate that the B
model is the most overweight of the versions (the A model already being
under the required weight) at this point in development and is undergoing a
"diet" as is. They will most definitely not want to add pounds by
strengthening the landing gear and structure to allow catapult assisted
takeoffs and arrested landings. And it would beg the question of "why"? One
advantage of the B model is that they can get it into action from smaller
vessels (i.e., LHA's) and can leave the deck space on the CVN's for the CTOL
birds.

Brooks



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...

Why do we need three different versions of the F-35?

Because of differing operational requirments.

(snip)


The Air Force's F-35A is the least expensive version and it requires
F/A-22s to clear the way

Where did you get that strange idea?

so the Air Force needs runways anyway. Because
the Air Force always needs permission slips to operate they can't assume
that their bases will be in the country next door so they need more
range than the F-35B offers.




Your blood sugar must be spiking again. The USMC wants the *STOVL*
capability (what the heck is "S/VTOL"?) to allow them to both provide air
support from vessels other than CVN's (thus improving their versatility as a
force) and to allow them to establish air operations from ashore without
having to seize intact or build a complete airstrip--kind of understandable
given their expeditionary nature.

Actually the AF is talking about putting some of their buy into the
-B model because they want the short take-off capability for places
like Afghanistan. Jumper announced this in the latest AF Times.

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

Ed Rasimus wrote:

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.

You're not alone. Very few aviators (military or civilian) have shown
much interest in obtaining the FAA's new "Powered Lift" rating since
the V-22 seems to crash with distressing regularity.

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.

Sepecat Jaguar? Soft-field and STOL capabilities, geared for ground
attack (10,000 lbs. of ordinance) supersonic....

"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.

You may be surprised to know that the USAF has resurrected the concept of
buying the STOVL version as part of its F-35 force. Announced this week, and
the marines are tickled pink because it may mean their unit cost could go
down.

Brooks


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

"George" wrote in message
om...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...

Why do we need three different versions of the F-35?

Because of differing operational requirments.

(snip)


The Air Force's F-35A is the least expensive version and it requires
F/A-22s to clear the way

Where did you get that strange idea?

so the Air Force needs runways anyway. Because
the Air Force always needs permission slips to operate they can't
assume
that their bases will be in the country next door so they need more
range than the F-35B offers.




Your blood sugar must be spiking again. The USMC wants the *STOVL*
capability (what the heck is "S/VTOL"?) to allow them to both provide
air
support from vessels other than CVN's (thus improving their versatility
as a
force) and to allow them to establish air operations from ashore without
having to seize intact or build a complete airstrip--kind of
understandable
given their expeditionary nature.

Actually the AF is talking about putting some of their buy into the
-B model because they want the short take-off capability for places
like Afghanistan. Jumper announced this in the latest AF Times.

Yep. I read the release after I wrote the above.

Brooks

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:36:54 -0700, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 08:09:40 -0800, Henry J Cobb wrote:

Why do we need three different versions of the F-35?

What are the service requirements that are driving these three versions?

Gotta say you make some interesting assumptions.

The Air Force's F-35A is the least expensive version and it requires
F/A-22s to clear the way so the Air Force needs runways anyway. Because
the Air Force always needs permission slips to operate they can't assume
that their bases will be in the country next door so they need more
range than the F-35B offers.

While air superiority is always nice for bomb droppers, the F-35
itself is inherently stealthy and quite maneuverable. Don't make an
unnecessary dependency link between 22s and 35s. They probably will
function in concert, but not necessarily.
wasnt one of the requirement of the JSF to be just as manuverable as
F-16 if not more?

Range from operating bases is generally irrlevant today with in-flight
refueling capability. Witness the distances and endurance requirements
of the Afghanistan campaign.

The Navy needs a F-35C that won't break up during a high speed carrier
landing and they need greater range because they don't have these
"deals" with tanker builders like the AF does so they'll have to rely on
Super Hornet tankers.

Once again, notice Afghanistan. Tankers don't know the color of the
aircraft to whom they pass gas. The gratuitous reference to "deals"
has nothing to do with the aircraft selection. The AF doesn't get
kickbacks from aircraft suppliers. They simply establish requirements
and Congress then acts (or not.)

The Marines are desperate to get their airpower on the ground as quickly
as possible in case the Navy pulls another Leyte Gulf on them and so
they're willing to accept a half-sized bombload on the S/VTOL F-35B.

GMAFB. A "Leyte Gulf"? Are we living in the pre-historic past?


-HJC

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

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:39:55 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"George" wrote in message
. com...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...

Why do we need three different versions of the F-35?

Because of differing operational requirments.

(snip)


The Air Force's F-35A is the least expensive version and it requires
F/A-22s to clear the way

Where did you get that strange idea?

so the Air Force needs runways anyway. Because
the Air Force always needs permission slips to operate they can't
assume
that their bases will be in the country next door so they need more
range than the F-35B offers.




Your blood sugar must be spiking again. The USMC wants the *STOVL*
capability (what the heck is "S/VTOL"?) to allow them to both provide
air
support from vessels other than CVN's (thus improving their versatility
as a
force) and to allow them to establish air operations from ashore without
having to seize intact or build a complete airstrip--kind of
understandable
given their expeditionary nature.

Actually the AF is talking about putting some of their buy into the
-B model because they want the short take-off capability for places
like Afghanistan. Jumper announced this in the latest AF Times.
sounds like they want to use the B version to replace the A-10

Yep. I read the release after I wrote the above.

Brooks