What is up with the F-35? Part II

[Gun Grape]

Ok I saw the CAG/ Squadron Cdr high Vis bird of VX-23.

Does anyone have a pic of the VFA-101 Hi Viz bird?

[Dazed]

Ok I saw the CAG/ Squadron Cdr high Vis bird of VX-23.

Does anyone have a pic of the VFA-101 Hi Viz bird?

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/f...e35d&mode=view

Better pic

http://gpx741k9ffd3p5zv840ulv3j.wpen...999-210b11.jpg

[bfng3569]

Out of curiosity.... and I don't if it's been asked... but did the Airforce ever consider the larger wing of the C version for added fuel/range?


Or was it a negligible difference when all was said and done?

[surfgun]

The USAF preferred the higher G-load capability and lighter weight of the A type for their needs. The C model also costs more.

[Gun Grape]

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/f...e35d&mode=view

Better pic

http://gpx741k9ffd3p5zv840ulv3j.wpen...999-210b11.jpg

Thanks

[Albany Rifles]

Was in school last week with several personnel across DOD for an Acquisition Logistician Managers course. In my table group were a Navy PM who is responsible for providing maintenance support And a Marine Master Guns from the Marine G4 Maintenance Office. Both guys confirmed that within the Fleet and the Corps pilots, maintainers, planners, ordnancemen, FRICKIN' EVERYBODY love the aircraft! its a dream to repair, easy to fly, and puts warheads on foreheads like magic.

Congrats to the various PM offices and industry for staying the course and getting it right.

I remember in the 1970s when the naysayers were trashing the XM-1, the XM-2 and the YH-60 & YH-64. When you are pushing the technology envelope you make mistakes.

As the Brits would say...good piece of kit!

[jlvfr]

I remember in the 1970s when the naysayers were trashing the XM-1, the XM-2 and the YH-60 & YH-64. When you are pushing the technology envelope you make mistakes.

And the Harrier. And the Osprey. And...

The main problems with the F-35 have been the costs and extra time needed to get it to work. 3 versions, in insight, might have been too many. If the F-18 was allready working well working with (basically) the same version in the USN and non-US air forces, I think the USAF and USN could have come up with a version that worked for both; basically use the F-35C for both. This would, I believe, have cut costs.

[Albany Rifles]

And the Harrier. And the Osprey. And...

The main problems with the F-35 have been the costs and extra time needed to get it to work. 3 versions, in insight, might have been too many. If the F-18 was allready working well working with (basically) the same version in the USN and non-US air forces, I think the USAF and USN could have come up with a version that worked for both; basically use the F-35C for both. This would, I believe, have cut costs.

Marines need the Bravo model. C cannot work off of the amphib ships...B can.

A model meets USAF needs...C does not.

We have something called the JCIDS process...it works. All have already modified their doctrine and tactics about as far as they can go.

All 3 models needed.

[jlvfr]

Marines need the Bravo model. C cannot work off of the amphib ships...B can.

A model meets USAF needs...C does not.

We have something called the JCIDS process...it works. All have already modified their doctrine and tactics about as far as they can go.

All 3 models needed.

I was thinking of keeping the B model and, if not the "pure" C, compromising on the A/C. Australia, Spain and Canada always used the F/A-18 without (afaik?) any major changes.

[JA Boomer]

I was thinking of keeping the B model and, if not the "pure" C, compromising on the A/C. Australia, Spain and Canada always used the F/A-18 without (afaik?) any major changes.

Probably feasible. There's a long list of naval aircraft adopted into air force service such as the F-4 Phantom II, A-7 Corsair II, F-14A Tomcat, F/A-18A Hornet, and F/A-18F Super Hornet. In Canada there's no structural modifications to the CF-18, we added a search light and a false canopy painted under the cockpit.

The problem is why would the USAF have wanted a compromised F-35A/C? They were the service who needed the F-35 the least in my mind. They'd have been much better off by buying 381 F-22A's and developing an FB-23 while recapitalizing the F-16C and F-15E fleets. However, that would have left the USN and USMC up a creek with aging strike fighter fleets and no replacement. The F-35 procurement scheme made sense to recapitalizes everyone's fleets, while being a bit of a compromise itself. If you had asked the USAF to accept a less maneuverable and g-limited F-35C they may have walked on the program (although maybe the C-model wasn't 7.5g limited at the outset of the program).

Even if there's only approximately 27% parts commonality between the variants, they're synergies in training, tactics, logistics, ect.

[SteveDaPirate]

I was thinking of keeping the B model and, if not the "pure" C, compromising on the A/C. Australia, Spain and Canada always used the F/A-18 without (afaik?) any major changes.

Any A/C compromise would have to favor the C model heavily to handle carrier landings, salt water, stall speed etc. History has shown that the airforce can make better use of naval aircraft than the reverse.

As it stands, the price difference between the two models is about $18 million. Multiply that by the ~2000 A models slated for production and you are looking at an increase of $36 billion.

Meanwhile the production run of 340 for the C model is $39 billion as prices stand. The difference in savings isn't all that drastic, and there would be performance compromises that are avoided by letting the services customise their own requirements.

[JA Boomer]

As it stands, the price difference between the two models is about $18 million. Multiply that by the ~2000 A models slated for production and you are looking at an increase of $36 billion.

You're forgetting the cost savings achieved without the design, development, prototyping, testing, and evaluation of a third variant.

If any variant would have been axed I would have thought it would be the B-model. I thought the USMC would have been pressured into giving up the MEU's organic, ship-based, fixed-wing air support in order to cut-off the most technically complicated variant. There's also the argument of whether the USMC needs a stealthy CAS platform.

In any case it looks like things are starting to buff out in a major way, and whatever hurdles the program has jumped over, and they've been both many and significant, it was all worth it.

[jlvfr]

You're forgetting the cost savings achieved without the design, development, prototyping, testing, and evaluation of a third variant.

This. Tbh, I think both the USN and USAF fell prey to a mix of good-old-fashioned rivalry and some greed relating to "we want our version". And I'd be willing to be that having one less production line would have also lowered the costs

If any variant would have been axed I would have thought it would be the B-model. I thought the USMC would have been pressured into giving up the MEU's organic, ship-based, fixed-wing air support in order to cut-off the most technically complicated variant. There's also the argument of whether the USMC needs a stealthy CAS platform.

The USMC wanted a Harrier replacement. And the Royal Navy would have screamed bloody murder.

[JA Boomer]

The USMC wanted a Harrier replacement. And the Royal Navy would have screamed bloody murder.

You don't always get what you want. When the B-model was the red-headed, over-weight, over-budget anchor weighing down the whole JSF program a few years back many people were evaluating whether the USMC needed the capability the F-35B provides.

I think the Royal Navy would've been dancing in the streets had the F-35B been cancelled (at the time), they would have switched the the F-35C and had real carriers (they DID switch to the F-35C for a time, before returning to the F-35B buy and a STOVL configuration for the Queen Elizabeth-class).

[Stitch]

The USAF preferred the higher G-load capability and lighter weight of the A type for their needs. The C model also costs more.

Plus, there's a lot of stuff on the "C" that the Air Force really doesn't need, like dual front gear wheels, beefier arresting hook, folding wings, stronger (i.e.: heavier) landing gear, etc.