What is up with the F-35? Part II

[Gun Grape]

Incidentally, the same reasoning (redundancy) was used by the US Navy for specifying a twin-wheel nose gear on ALL naval aircraft; the twin nose-wheel on the F-111 (and the F-4) is a legacy of this requirement. There are NO single nose-wheel aircraft on an aircraft carrier!

if you mean on carriers now, then your statement is good. But if we are going back to F-4/FB-111 days you would be incorrect. The A-4 and F-8 pop in my head off the bat.

[Jimmy]

Considering the Bring-Back requirement for the F-35B's Vertical landing mode is 4940lb inc Fuel, or 3000lb exc Fuel, or 2X1,000lb JDAM + 2X Aim-120 + Reserve Fuel, It's safe to say the F-35B can have no problem in launching with full Stealth load out.

"Full stealth load out" doesn't matter. If it's a CAS bird, it needs to carry more than that for 99% of its missions.

[Chunder]

Which it will if it has external hard points - if it can manage the extra load (I dunno).

I think I'm lost as to where this conversation was going :).

yep, the Marines need CAS, so does the Army - so do the armies of Britain, Spain, Italy...

Small Diameter Bomb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Brimstone (missile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit: Wiki says (no reason to doubt) that 1 rail = 3 missiles. Wiki goes on to say that a RAF harrier has flown with 12 missiles on board.

[Stitch]

if you mean on carriers now, then your statement is good. But if we are going back to F-4/FB-111 days you would be incorrect. The A-4 and F-8 pop in my head off the bat.

Yes, and they would regularly blow out their nosewheel, particularly the F-8:





I can't find my source now (I think it may have been in SD-24 "General Specification for Design and Construction of Aircraft"), but that's why newer naval aircraft have twin nose-wheels now, including the T-45 Goshawk, which is a navalised version of the single nose-wheel BAE Hawk.

[cr9527]

"Full stealth load out" doesn't matter. If it's a CAS bird, it needs to carry more than that for 99% of its missions.

Well, that is fairly simple.

3,000lb for weapons only for bring back weight.

That gives fair amount of flexibility for CAS missions, certainly superior to the Harriers which it is replacing.

1X 600lb Gunpod
2X 500lb JDAM
2X 600lb Maverick
----------------------
1X 600lb Gunpod
8X 300lb SDB
----------------------

While it is no competitor to the A-10 and the likes, but it can carry more than enough to replace the Harrier.

[Jimmy]

I don't care about landing weight, I care about takeoff performance. I care how it compares to what they could've had instead of driving the cost of the F-35 program through the roof and guaranteeing that nobody will ever get as many aircraft out of this as they should have.

[Chunder]

I don't think in the political climate of the 90's, especially with the V-22 Program going sour, that congress, let alone the Pentagon thought much of a USMC specific jet.

[Jimmy]

If they hadn't been loading the V-22 with passengers it wouldn't have been a PR disaster. They only crashed 4 aircraft in about 15 years of flight. The only reason anyone cared is that one of those Ospreys was full of Marines. But that was around 2000 or so. Prior to that Congress loved the Osprey, saving it from Dick Cheney on several occasions.

But again: I understand the politics involved, and I know how we got here. My entire point is that it's the wrong tool for the job.

[Stitch]

If they hadn't been loading the V-22 with passengers it wouldn't have been a PR disaster. They only crashed 4 aircraft in about 15 years of flight. The only reason anyone cared is that one of those Ospreys was full of Marines. But that was around 2000 or so. Prior to that Congress loved the Osprey, saving it from Dick Cheney on several occasions.

Just to back that up a little, the F-22 program has had nearly the same number of losses (3), with loss of life (unfortunately) in two of those instances, but we never heard anybody saying anything about "shutting the program down", or that the Raptor was "unsafe".

[Chunder]

Just to back that up a little, the F-22 program has had nearly the same number of losses (3), with loss of life (unfortunately) in two of those instances, but we never heard anybody saying anything about "shutting the program down", or that the Raptor was "unsafe".

I recall quite a bit of public speculation on boards like these that the F-22 program was just that. One of the incarnations of T5C springs to mind. Over the same principles, Including but not limited to:
Type specific software architecture
International climate
Utility
Cost
Ability for the Pentagon to afford it in it's desired numbers. This was before the F-35 Program experienced it's cost grown.

[Stitch]

I recall quite a bit of public speculation on boards like these that the F-22 program was just that. One of the incarnations of T5C springs to mind. Over the same principles, Including but not limited to:
Type specific software architecture
International climate
Utility
Cost
Ability for the Pentagon to afford it in it's desired numbers. This was before the F-35 Program experienced it's cost grown.

Will, IMHO, compared to the JSF program, the F-22 program went VERY smoothly, even with all of the minor glitches along the way; I guess hindsight is 20/20, though.

[Jimmy]

Just to back that up a little, the F-22 program has had nearly the same number of losses (3), with loss of life (unfortunately) in two of those instances, but we never heard anybody saying anything about "shutting the program down", or that the Raptor was "unsafe".

The F-22 was on the chopping block since at least the late 90s. I remember hearing about potential cancellation in high school.

[Chunder]

Will, IMHO, compared to the JSF program, the F-22 program went VERY smoothly, even with all of the minor glitches along the way; I guess hindsight is 20/20, though.

With Respect - GF has underlined the networked capability focus of the F-35 being transferred from a platform to a systems type integration. The Capability of U.S forces has undertaken a fundamental leap forward in capability.

Orchestrating that effort - not only having to develop an airframe, but integrate that system onto it is unparalleled. It doesn't just mean that Anything developed outside that will have it's own platform requirements, it will also be unhelpful to the fight.

Picture this: F-35 Takes off from LHD. F-35 is linked into Aegis, Aegis is present on the 1 or more DD's escorting the LHD. USMC identifies a target on the battlefield and Aegis, not just the weapons load of the platform (F-35) is able to process that Data and use it...

Conversely. Harrier takes off from LHD, Harrier see's target, can't prosecute/maybe get's shot down Harrier hasn't passed on the information electronically.
USMC, wants that capability, now has to integrate / find room on it's platform for that capability.

Makes the F-14/Phoenix capability look vintage.

[Jimmy]

None of those things are the holdups in the F-35 program.

[Albany Rifles]

My entire point is that it's the wrong tool for the job.

Okay, then what should the USMC have gotten?

And how did the USMC conduct the operational needs analysis which got it so wrong?