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

The Singaporean F-35B order also started off as a purchase of 8, so I'd imagine there's likely an option in that contract for another four.
They started of with 4x F-35B, then take up the option for another 8x F-35B, and now another 8x F-35A .....

With a defence budget of USD11.5 billion, will take a multi-year budget to pay up for these 20 jets .....
 
Last edited:
Very interested in how they will utilize both the A and Bs, such as which base? which roles?

I understand Singapore is interested in building LHDs. Not sure if they are intended for F-35B operations. From images, they look quite small.
 
I think Singapore's concern is that it has one military airfield and one civilian airport (admittedly quite large) inside its borders. So STOVL has advantages from a land basing point of view for them.
 
I think Singapore's concern is that it has one military airfield and one civilian airport (admittedly quite large) inside its borders. So STOVL has advantages from a land basing point of view for them.
Ah, the old NBMR3 that lead to Harrier...


Reminds me of the legends of riveted ships with an apprentice or two accidentally sealed away.
I don't believe that they'd have voids without any access.
 
There are more than one military air bases and more than one civilian airports ..... besides the Singaporeans do demonstrate taking off and landing on its highway every few years ..... Check out Ex Torrent .....


 
There are more than one military air bases and more than one civilian airports ..... besides the Singaporeans do demonstrate taking off and landing on its highway every few years ..... Check out Ex Torrent .....



I'll take your word for it. A quick google map look made it looks like it was only two locations; I've only spent 36 hours there myself.
 
Taylor Swift proves that Singapore has another airport other than the one at Changi ......

 
(via wiki) Singapore has Changi East, Changi West, and Changi Airport sharing three runways, plus Paya Lebar, Seletar and Sembawang

But they're all squished into a small area, so if one can be brought under fire, likely so can all the others, making the F-35B's ability to be runway independent potentially useful.
 
I will be surprised if Singapore does not order more F--35Bs over the F-35As since the B as you say DWG can be operated without the use of runways.
I'm kinda surprised that Singapore didn't order F35Cs instead of the -As, the extra wing area to take off and land in less distance...
 
It could be done I suppose by either developing a longer nose section or developed from the -B by having a second seat in place of the lift-fan.
 
The Cs have a much shorter runway requirement but they also are the heaviest version and the slowest acceleration.
To use Cs capabilities they will have to train yet another set of pilots from scratch, though.
 
To use Cs capabilities they will have to train yet another set of pilots from scratch, though.
Not really, they're not operating them on carriers, or using catapults/arresting gear on land.

Just a bigger wing and new NLG, I think.
 
Not really, they're not operating them on carriers, or using catapults/arresting gear on land.

Just a bigger wing and new NLG, I think.
I meant this:
View: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/KLAOPg6AxFM


If we want to use STOL qualities of C, it requires different basics. Like, if you overpay for all that reinforced structure - may as well use it...or just buy more A, range difference is negligible.
 
The extra wing fold area on the F-35C does not contain any fuel (correct me if I am wrong) so range wise it is exactly the same as the F-35A as you rightly say Ainen. I would rather Singapore buy more F-35A and B models rather than the C for obvious reasons.
 
The extra wing fold area on the F-35C does not contain any fuel (correct me if I am wrong) so range wise it is exactly the same as the F-35A as you rightly say Ainen. I would rather Singapore buy more F-35A and B models rather than the C for obvious reasons.

Range is similar. C has more fuel but more drag. Shorter takeoffs and landings would be the only advantage, at the expense of acceleration.
 
So there is very little in the difference between the A and C models range wise, I am surprised at the extra drag but I suppose that is the consequence of the extra enginering required to handle the stress of carrier take off's and landings.
 
So there is very little in the difference between the A and C models range wise, I am surprised at the extra drag but I suppose that is the consequence of the extra enginering required to handle the stress of carrier take off's and landings.

More drag but also more lift due to larger wing area. It balances out in the end.
 
So there is very little in the difference between the A and C models range wise, I am surprised at the extra drag but I suppose that is the consequence of the extra enginering required to handle the stress of carrier take off's and landings.
Drag come from bigger control surfaces. There is also extra weight from the reinforced structure, even more than the lift fan from what I recall.
 
Range is similar. C has more fuel but more drag. Shorter takeoffs and landings would be the only advantage, at the expense of acceleration.
The range is not similar. The C has a substantially higher range than the A when flying the same profile. It can fly at higher altitudes and lower speeds thanks to its big wing. The published range figures are for the C flying a carrier profile and the A flying a land based profile, hence why they are similar.
 
(via wiki) Singapore has Changi East, Changi West, and Changi Airport sharing three runways, plus Paya Lebar, Seletar and Sembawang

But they're all squished into a small area, so if one can be brought under fire, likely so can all the others, making the F-35B's ability to be runway independent potentially useful.
It's missing Tengah airbase. Seletar is a regional airport that mainly services small passenger planes/private flights. Paya Lebar is where the F-15s are, Tengah is F-16.
 
The range is not similar. The C has a substantially higher range than the A when flying the same profile. It can fly at higher altitudes and lower speeds thanks to its big wing. The published range figures are for the C flying a carrier profile and the A flying a land based profile, hence why they are similar.
I’ll take your word for it; I am just using published figures.
 
Your link is not available to me
It is a .mil link, that's probably why. Here is the relevant screenshot. As I said, the C's profile involves loitering for the carrier landing pattern which takes up some range. I will also make note of the comments by several F-35 pilots, most notably Billie Flynn on the Afternburn Podcast, that " the A was really meant to have the C's wings". This indicates that there is a tangible range benefit to the C's wings that outweigh extra drag and weight.
1709359615981.png
 
I meant this:
View: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/KLAOPg6AxFM


If we want to use STOL qualities of C, it requires different basics. Like, if you overpay for all that reinforced structure - may as well use it...or just buy more A, range difference is negligible.
I don't know that there's a whole lot of reinforced structure unique to the -C model. Only parts I'm positive are different are the larger wings and catapult bar twin wheel nose landing gear. The mains may well be unique to the -C as well, but I haven't seen anything that says so.

Also, every short landing looks like the typical Navy landing. Full flaps, high sink rate, plant the main gear on the numbers and have the speedbrakes pop as soon as there is weight on the wheels.
 
I used to think that the heaviest F-35 was the B model due to the fact of the lift fan but now I know that it is the C model due to the bulkheads.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom