A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Quick guide to the F-35 JSF versions.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 25th 04, 05:09 PM
Henry J Cobb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Quick guide to the F-35 JSF versions.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

-HJC

  #2  
Old February 25th 04, 05:36 PM
Ed Rasimus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #3  
Old February 25th 04, 06:16 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Why do we need three different versions of the F-35?

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

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.


No F-22 is required.


  #4  
Old February 25th 04, 06:23 PM
t_mark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


Um ... say what?

snip the rest about how we're building a worthless plane


  #5  
Old February 25th 04, 06:56 PM
Harry Andreas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , 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?

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.

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.

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.


Amusing, tongue-in-cheek descriptions.
BTW, it's STOVL, not S/VTOL.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur
  #6  
Old February 25th 04, 07:41 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...

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


Because of differing operational requirments.


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


From a quick perusal of the fecal material you spouted below, you are the
wrong person to be answering that question. So you have now gone from
lambasting the USN over LCS and DDX in the SMN group, and are now bringing
your "Henry Knows Best" schtick over here to RAM? And now you apparently
want to broaden your claims of intellectual and tactical superiority over
the professional service personnel responsible for these programs from the
USN to three of the four major services?


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.


Well, range is a key concern for most USAF platforms, but if it was
paramount then why is the USAF not buying the C model with its even longer
range?


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.


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.


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.

Brooks


-HJC



  #7  
Old February 25th 04, 09:45 PM
Ian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
news

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...

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


Because of differing operational requirments.


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


From a quick perusal of the fecal material you spouted below, you are the
wrong person to be answering that question. So you have now gone from
lambasting the USN over LCS and DDX in the SMN group, and are now bringing
your "Henry Knows Best" schtick over here to RAM? And now you apparently
want to broaden your claims of intellectual and tactical superiority over
the professional service personnel responsible for these programs from the
USN to three of the four major services?


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.


Well, range is a key concern for most USAF platforms, but if it was
paramount then why is the USAF not buying the C model with its even longer
range?


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.


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.


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.

Brooks

Not wanting to stir up a hornets nest, but don't USN/USMC aircraft use a
probe and drogue (like our RAF/RN) arrangement, with the USAF primarily
using a boom? If so, how easy is it to convert USAF tankers to allow
USN/USMC/RAF/RN operations? I know its been done, but wonder if there are
any significant penalties?


  #8  
Old February 25th 04, 10:18 PM
John S. Shinal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.


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 ?



----== 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 =---
  #9  
Old February 26th 04, 12:10 AM
Guy Alcala
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ian wrote:

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
news

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...

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


Because of differing operational requirments.


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


From a quick perusal of the fecal material you spouted below, you are the
wrong person to be answering that question. So you have now gone from
lambasting the USN over LCS and DDX in the SMN group, and are now bringing
your "Henry Knows Best" schtick over here to RAM? And now you apparently
want to broaden your claims of intellectual and tactical superiority over
the professional service personnel responsible for these programs from the
USN to three of the four major services?


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.


Well, range is a key concern for most USAF platforms, but if it was
paramount then why is the USAF not buying the C model with its even longer
range?


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.


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.


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.

Brooks

Not wanting to stir up a hornets nest, but don't USN/USMC aircraft use a
probe and drogue (like our RAF/RN) arrangement, with the USAF primarily
using a boom? If so, how easy is it to convert USAF tankers to allow
USN/USMC/RAF/RN operations? I know its been done, but wonder if there are
any significant penalties?


Depends. The KC-135 was for years limited to a *******ized afterthought of a
drogue that was attached to the end of the boom. Pilots of all services are
united in their detestation of the thing, and it can only be changed on the
ground. More recently, the USAF has bought some number of FR Mk.32B wing-mounted
pods, and modified an appropriate number of KC-135Rs, so that a/c using either
system can be refueled on the same sortie.

In the case of the KC-10, it's alaways had a single drogue on the centerline, in
addition to the boom, so it can refuel either type on the same mission.
However, to improve the number of a/c it can refuel simultaneously, like the
KC-135Rs mentioned above some a/c have been modified to carry Mk. 32B pods on
the wings.

The Feb. 23rd AvLeak has an article on Boeing's proposed Blended-Wing-Body
designs, one of which is a tanker with two(!) booms and what appeared to be
drogue pods outboard of the booms, possibly with another on the centerline.

Guy


  #10  
Old February 26th 04, 12:35 AM
Ed Rasimus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:57:33 -0800, 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.


Wing loading isn't a very good index of agility. There are a lot of
factors in the mix including the shape, the airfoil, the lift/drag
coefficients, the excess thrust available and the design stability.
Stealthy forms typically are less agile than non-stealthy, but the
state-of-the-art has advanced considerably.

Once you've got sustainable g-available over 7, the terms "not very
maneuverable" become quite relative.


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




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wanted: copy of Flying Buyers' Guide 1983 or older Ren? Aviation Marketplace 1 January 14th 05 07:06 AM
FS: 1996 "Aircraft Of The World: A Complete Guide" Binder Sheet Singles J.R. Sinclair Aviation Marketplace 0 July 14th 04 07:34 AM
RV Quick Build build times... [email protected] Home Built 2 December 17th 03 04:29 AM
FA: Congested Airspace: A Pilot's Guide The Ink Company Aviation Marketplace 0 August 10th 03 05:51 PM
FA: Used Aircraft Guide The Ink Company Aviation Marketplace 0 July 15th 03 03:17 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.