F-35 A. B or C. Differences.

[Foo Fighter]

OK, I get that the B has the VTOL ability but as far as the rest of the aircraft goes, can anyone tell me the differences? I saw a linked article on this forum about the super hornet and mention was made that the F-35 C cannot carry missiles on the wings. Is this so and does it matter if they manage to fit 6 missiles internally?

 

[GTX]

the F-35 C cannot carry missiles on the wings.

Utter garbage.

Look here for the variant info: https://www.f35.com/about/variants

This old graphic is still useful too:

 

[Rickshaw]

Why the longer landing gear on the 'C? For great shock absorbing on landing?

 

[Dragon029]

Why the longer landing gear on the 'C? For great shock absorbing on landing?

Where do you get the idea that it's longer? The graphic states that it's stronger; the F-35C has a double-wheeled nose gear as well.

On the ground the difference is negligible or non-existent:

A:

C:

 

[Rickshaw]

OK, my mistake. Why the need to strengthen the gear?

 

[Hood]

Another interesting question, if the UK does operate a mixed A/B fleet then I suppose the A will need some additional design work to fit the hose and drogue refuelling system of the B/C, or does the A already have designed-in provision for it based on the B/C structure?

 

[Dragon029]

OK, my mistake. Why the need to strengthen the gear?

Because it's landing on a carrier.

Another interesting question, if the UK does operate a mixed A/B fleet then I suppose the A will need some additional design work to fit the hose and drogue refuelling system of the B/C, or does the A already have designed-in provision for it based on the B/C structure?

There's structural provisions / empty volumes on the jet. When Canada was originally planning on getting the F-35, they planned to use probe & drogue on the A variant. Alternatively, the UK could upgrade their Voyagers with booms; the Australian, UAE & Saudi versions of the Airbus A330 MRTT at least have booms for example.

 

[ikke666]

what is the diffrence between F35A and F35I? :

 

[GTX]

what is the diffrence between F35A and F35I? :

Israeli “F-35i Adir” fighters will include compatible communications systems and datalinks, and provisions to insert some locally-built ECM and defensive electronics.

Israel will also want to broaden the plane’s weapons array to include Israeli weapons, as a subject of future agreements. Items mentioned in reports to date include Python short-range air-to-air missiles, and dual-mode guidance Spice GPS/IIR smart bombs.

(Source)

 

[Apophenia]

... When Canada was originally planning on getting the F-35, they planned to use probe & drogue on the A variant. ...

Out of curiosity, do you have a source for Canada's decision to go with probe & drogue for the F-35? In the released Statement of Operational Requirement for the 'Next Generation Fighter Capability' project, details relating to air-to-air refueling were redacted.

It was my impression that it was Lockheed Martin which proposed the option of fitting refuelling probes to any Canadian F-35As (perhaps at RCAF instigation - as with adding drag chutes). Meanwhile, Canada's Department of National Defence considered (but ultimately rejected) the option of modifying its two CC-150(T) Polaris MRTTs to take USAF-style booms.

In KPMG LLP's 27 November 2012 report, Next Generation Fighter Capability: Independent Review of Life Cycle Cost, it was stated under Other Potential Acquisition Cost that "With respect to air-to-air refuelling requirements, DND will rely on NORAD , coalition partners, or commercial refueling assets to meet operational requirements ...".

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/hgw-cgf/finances/rgs-erdg/wwad-cqnf/col/irlc-eiccv/irlc-eiccvpr-eng.asp

I'd be very interested in any details you have that conflict with that KPMG report.

 

[Foo Fighter]

the F-35 C cannot carry missiles on the wings.

Utter garbage.

Look here for the variant info: https://www.f35.com/about/variants



This old graphic is still useful too:

If you are going to quote me, at least get it right or else what are you trying to suggest?

 

[Dragon029]

... When Canada was originally planning on getting the F-35, they planned to use probe & drogue on the A variant. ...

Out of curiosity, do you have a source for Canada's decision to go with probe & drogue for the F-35?

Shimooka tooks about it here: https://www.cdainstitute.ca/blog/entry/issues-analysis-aerial-refueling-northern-defence-and-the-f-35

 

[GTX]

If you are going to quote me, at least get it right or else what are you trying to suggest?

I answered what you asked.

 

[Apophenia]

... When Canada was originally planning on getting the F-35, they planned to use probe & drogue on the A variant. ...

Out of curiosity, do you have a source for Canada's decision to go with probe & drogue for the F-35?

Shimooka tooks about it here: https://www.cdainstitute.ca/blog/entry/issues-analysis-aerial-refueling-northern-defence-and-the-f-35

Okay, thanks. I thought perhaps something from the original SOR had snuck out.

 

[Foo Fighter]

If you are going to quote me, at least get it right or else what are you trying to suggest?

I answered what you asked.

You gave a partial quote which, with your answer seems to suggest "I" had stated that the C wing could not carry weapons on the wings. I would like a quote to be right rather than partial.

 

[GTX]

The partial quote was used simply to cut down post size whilst still making it clear what part I was responding to. I was not trying to imply that you had made the ascertain that the F-35C couldn't carry missiles on its wings. I thought it was quite obvious to anyone reading that you had already stated that you had seen "a linked article on this forum about the super hornet" whereby "mention was made that the F-35C cannot carry missiles on the wings." How anyone could interpret that comment (or my partial quote - in your case) as implying that was your view/implied view is beyond me.