Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

Big issue is that the F35 originalated with the Marines, meaning that the B was basically the base line.

And since the entire F35 deal was the old Combine 3 air Frames into one Great Idea Fairy mallet...
 
Firefinder said:
Big issue is that the F35 originalated with the Marines, meaning that the B was basically the base line.

And since the entire F35 deal was the old Combine 3 air Frames into one Great Idea Fairy mallet...
Click to expand...
But what would actually change about the overall capability of the F-35 had it been longer?
- Would it be faster? No because the requirements didn't ask for mach 2 speed.
- Would it carry more fuel? Possible but it already carries more internal fuel that its market rivals and the same as the F-22 which is 11ft longer.
- Would it carry more weapons internally or externally? Unlikely as again the bays were built to the requirement.
- Would it have better acceleration? Possible but the A model at least meets or in most cases exceeds the aircraft it was designed to replace. The B model certainly exceeds the Av-8B and while the C is slower than a SH across some payload weight combinations it isn't significant.
- Would it be more efficient and use less fuel? Perhaps but I'm not sure that this would be significant enough to move away from the benefits of a single airframe across the three services and the export potential of the aircraft.
 
Ozair said:
But what would actually change about the overall capability of the F-35 had it been longer?
- Would it be faster? No because the requirements didn't ask for mach 2 speed.
- Would it carry more fuel? Possible but it already carries more internal fuel that its market rivals and the same as the F-22 which is 11ft longer.
- Would it carry more weapons internally or externally? Unlikely as again the bays were built to the requirement.
- Would it have better acceleration? Possible but the A model at least meets or in most cases exceeds the aircraft it was designed to replace. The B model certainly exceeds the Av-8B and while the C is slower than a SH across some payload weight combinations it isn't significant.
- Would it be more efficient and use less fuel? Perhaps but I'm not sure that this would be significant enough to move away from the benefits of a single airframe across the three services and the export potential of the aircraft.
Click to expand...
Making it longer would reduce drag, let it carry more internal fuel, and maybe let it carry normal drop tanks. And yes, it would be quicker.
 
Sferrin said:
and maybe let it carry normal drop tanks.
Click to expand...
Nope.

Just...

No.

The plane is already 2 feet longer then the F16.

It doesn't carry drop tanks cause the missions you would want tanks...


You want stealth more.

And guess which one keeps you alive...

As is the A and C has over 200 more miles of range without tanks over the F16, F18, and F22 with similar loads.
 
Sferrin said:
Making it longer would reduce drag, let it carry more internal fuel, and maybe let it carry normal drop tanks. And yes, it would be quicker.
Click to expand...
But would it carry more fuel and be quicker? The aircraft was built to the requirements, which obviously included a max length, and so unless those along with the length were changed to not seek M1.6, 2k internal weapon, single engine and a mission radius of x distance etc that would be unnecessary engineering.
 
Sferrin said:
Making it longer would reduce drag, let it carry more internal fuel, and maybe let it carry normal drop tanks. And yes, it would be quicker.
Click to expand...
The only point of giving the F-35 "normal" drop tanks would be ferrying them from one place to another. You do NOT want "normal" drop tanks in combat missions on a reduced-RCS aircraft.

As I have been repeatedly reminded, drop tanks are type-specific in shape anyways. So for an LO airframe, you might as well design LO tanks/pylons! See the F-22 finally getting LO 600-gal drop tanks.
 
Firefinder said:
Nope.

Just...

No.

The plane is already 2 feet longer then the F16.

It doesn't carry drop tanks cause the missions you would want tanks...


You want stealth more.

And guess which one keeps you alive...

As is the A and C has over 200 more miles of range without tanks over the F16, F18, and F22 with similar loads.
Click to expand...
Yep.

Just...

Yes.

https://themerge.co/p/f-35-fuel-tanks
https://www.twz.com/israel-has-extended-the-range-of-its-f-35s-report
https://www.twz.com/air/plans-to-finally-give-f-35-external-fuel-tanks-emerge-in-new-air-force-bud
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/f-35-getting-big-new-upgrade-external-fuel-tanks-wl
 
TomS said:
They fit Vigilantes on the same basic elevator dimensions and it was 77 feet long.
Click to expand...

Scott Kenny said:
A carrier elevator is some 50x85ft. And you can hang everything up to the MLGs off the side of the elevator for length.

The length limit was the LHwhatever elevators.
Click to expand...

32*55 ft.

The elevators that according to net folklore imposed dimension limits to the F-35B were not the ones used by the US Navy, but the ones on good old HMS Lusty and its two sisters.

Can anyone around here actually confirm if this is correct?

Cheers
 
DWG said:
It's MRF (AF) and CALF/ASTOVL (USMC/UK) smooshed together. The B is the red-headed stepchild in that family.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't the C be the red-headed stepchild since having a CATOBAR variant of the aircraft was added to the mix at a later stage in the timeline?
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I've grown to appreciate its appearance, but I can't help but imagine how it might look if the designers had a few more feet of length to work with (no length restriction due to LHA/LHD elevator area).
Click to expand...
I'd say that China has taken the right lessons from the US' experience in designing and operating the F-35 and has addressed most of its shortcomings.

Granted, it took them a while to settle on the FC-31v2 design and turn it into a naval (and land-based) jet worthy of induction. But in the end, I'd argue they've succeeded where the U.S. couldn't 15 years ago.

IMO, this is clearly what the US Navy and the Air Force have needed all along...

1000006454-jpg.748998
54645567424_00f4636636_k.jpg

54641967697_c9f402794b_o.jpg
 
Grey Havoc said:
It was supposed to ultimately replace the Hornet in USMC service, especially in the five VFMA squadrons that are tapped for carrier duty.
Click to expand...
But I always assume the F-35B was specifically meant for the USMC, kinda the reason it exists (and compromised the other two variants). So having the USMC go with the F-35C too is kinda...ironic.

Makes sense as a Hornet replacement, although it doesn't make much sense why the USMC had Hornets to begin with.

"Why does the Navy's Army need an Air Force?"
 
The USMC should stick with the STOVL F-35B and do away with the CTOL carrier based F-35C, but I suppose it will take a change of doctrine to make the Marines change.
 
snne said:
IMO, this is clearly what the US Navy and the Air Force have needed all along...
Click to expand...

No, the USAF wanted a single engined jet.
The USN wanted something else entirely, but were forced to go with the F-35C once all other options have been run into the ground.

Re. F-35C for the USMC: Originally, they were supposed to be an all F-35B force. But then then Navy decided they should continue to provide some squadrons for the carriers.
 
EmoBirb said:
Makes sense as a Hornet replacement, although it doesn't make much sense why the USMC had Hornets to begin with.
Click to expand...
Because ever since the start of Naval Aviation, the Marines had planes on boats. They'd also fly strictly land-based planes, like Corsairs (before the Brits figured out how to land them on carriers) and B-25s.
 
EmoBirb said:
Why does the USMC need F-35C?
Click to expand...

The decision was made in 2011.

Navy and Marine Corps leaders today signed an agreement by which the Corps will join the Navy in buying the F-35 joint strike fighter variant designed for aircraft carriers, service leaders announced today.

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead, and Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James F. Amos signed a memorandum of agreement today on the purchase of F/A-18E/F and F-35B/C fighter jets they say will improve air capabilities for both services.

Under the agreement, the two services will buy 680 F-35s. The Navy will buy 260 of the F-35C carrier variant, and the Marine Corps will buy 80 of the F-35Cs, along with 340 of the F-35Bs, a short-take off, vertical-landing variant. The Corps will assign five of its air squadrons to flying the F-35Cs in the Navy’s carrier air wing, the agreement says.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced in January that he was placing the F-35B on the equivalent of two years probation due to testing problems with the STOVL aircraft.

Today’s agreement demonstrates the commitment of Gates, Mabus and Roughead to the purchase of the F-35B, Thomas E. Laux, the Navy’s deputy assistant secretary for air programs, said during a press briefing. “These quantities match the fiscal 2012 budget request,” he said.

The F-35Cs will be assigned to the Navy’s aircraft carriers, while the “B” variants are assigned to L-class ships, Laux said. “Our priority is to do testing of the F-35Cs on the carrier,” he said. “We will learn a lot about the F-35Bs on the L ships” to determine if the STOVLs may be used on carriers.

The agreement reflects the “enduring partnership” of Navy and Marine Corps aviation, Laux said. Training for the aircraft will be “completely integrated,” and there will be only one pipeline, he said.

The combination of F-35B and C variants, along with the F-18s, will improve the services’ advance air capabilities, service officials said.

“Together, the Navy and Marine Corps are stronger than they are alone,” Laux said. “Together, we are more formidable than we are apart.”
Click to expand...
https://www.dvidshub.net/news/513725/plan-improves-navy-marine-corps-air-capabilities
Recent change has been an increase to eight F-35C squadrons from the originally negotiated five.
 
Sintra said:
32*55 ft.

The elevators that according to net folklore imposed dimension limits to the F-35B were not the ones used by the US Navy, but the ones on good old HMS Lusty and its two sisters.

Can anyone around here actually confirm if this is correct?

Cheers
Click to expand...
For the Invincible class the lift platforms were 16.75m (55') long by 9.75m (32') wide.
As these were fully enclosed by the flight deck, these were "hard" limits on aircraft dimensions.

The F-35B is 15.6m (51' 1.4") long and 10.7m (35' .8") wingspan.

So no, those lifts were NOT a consideration at all.


The aircraft elevators on the LHD-1 class are 50' x 45' (15.3 x 13.7 m).
Those on the LHA-6 class are supposed to be the same size.

As both the elevators on the LHD/LHAs are mostly edged by air, it is easy to stick a nose or tail over the edge to deal with that pesky extra couple of feet of length.

Room inside the hangar to maneuver aircraft is a more-critical limit on F-35B length than the elevator dimensions, and would weigh against a lengthened variant.

LHD-1 Wasp in South China Sea 28 March 2019:

LHD-1 Wasp in South China Sea 28 March 2019.jpg


LHA-6 America August 2019:

America F-35Bs Oct 19.jpg
 
Scott Kenny said:
Because ever since the start of Naval Aviation, the Marines had planes on boats. They'd also fly strictly land-based planes, like Corsairs (before the Brits figured out how to land them on carriers) and B-25s.
Click to expand...
Fuck, this again!

VF-17 of the US Navy had fully qualified the F4U-1 Corsair aboard the carrier Bunker Hill CV-17 with no accidents by June 1943 (before the first British pilot ever flew in one) - the squadron had formed with Corsairs in January 1943.

As the ship arrived in Pearl Harbor in the late summer of 1943 the squadron was re-assigned to ground-based basing in the South Pacific, due to the USN wanting to not complicate the maintenance/supply situation aboard ship with only a couple of carriers having one Corsair squadron each among all of the F6F squadrons in the fleet.


Tom Blackburn, CO of VF-17:

Tom Blackburn CO of VF-17.jpg

And yes, the USN was already using a curved landing approach with other aircraft for its carriers before the prototype Corsair first flew!
 
EmoBirb said:
But I always assume the F-35B was specifically meant for the USMC, kinda the reason it exists (and compromised the other two variants). So having the USMC go with the F-35C too is kinda...ironic.

Makes sense as a Hornet replacement, although it doesn't make much sense why the USMC had Hornets to begin with.

"Why does the Navy's Army need an Air Force?"
Click to expand...
Same reason they had F-4s and A-4s. Until the Harrier the USMC (they also flew fighters in WW2 just FYI) had to hitch a ride on USN carriers. If they had more amphibious assault ships, and F-35Bs, they could probably do away with the Cs (but of course you'd be losing capability).

Vought_F4U_Corsair_(USMC).jpg
 
Last edited:
snne said:
I didn't say wanted, I said needed.
Click to expand...

They don't need two engines either.
What the USAF wanted and needed was a CALF (Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter) without the STOVL baggage or in other words a continuation of the Multi-Role Fighter (MRF) programme. IMHO ;)
 
The F-35 no doubt would've been in service sooner with less technical hiccups and at a lower price if the F-35B STOVL variant had been dropped.
 
BlackBat242 said:
F4U-1 CORSAIR Bunker Hill CV-17 43:

View attachment 777987


F4U-1 visiting aboard Enterprise CV-6 March 1943:

View attachment 777988
Click to expand...

The F4U-1 landing qualification program in March 1943 was a failure, the Corsair wasn't qualified to land on US carriers until the F4U-2 in 1944 and then the F4U-1A/D was qualified in 1945. After the British successfully demonstrated a banked landing and reinforced struts modification and cockpit alterations to allow carrier landings on USS Illustrious in June 1943 this was incorporated into US production as the F4U-1A and F4U-1D (Called the Corsair Mk2 by Britain). The F4U-1A in USMC and RNZAF service even had the arrestor hooks removed because it wasn't carrier qualified until years later and only for use on land, and they didn't want to give the pilot ideas.
 
Last edited:
eagle said:
They don't need two engines either.
What the USAF wanted and needed was a CALF (Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter) without the STOVL baggage or in other words a continuation of the Multi-Role Fighter (MRF) programme. IMHO ;)
Click to expand...
Ironically, the X-32 was the CALF design, not the X-35.

Though I'm pretty sure the "F-32" would have been fine as a CTOL strike fighter.
 
https://defence-industry.eu/lockhee...er-and-ongoing-talks-with-european-countries/
Lockheed Martin also confirmed that formal discussions are ongoing with three other European countries. In addition to previously mentioned Portugal and Spain, Austria has now entered talks regarding future acquisition options.

Austria has been working for several years on enhancing its military aviation capabilities. Among the options under consideration is replacing its Eurofighter fleet, with the F-35 Lightning II identified as one potential successor, following Switzerland’s example.
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom