Posted on 03/14/2016 6:35:50 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
The whole idea behind the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was for it to be, you know, joint. That is to say, the same basic plane would work for the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps and foreign countries.
Lockheed Martin is designing the F-35 to meet all the requirements of all three U.S. military branches from the outset, with — in theory — only minor differences between the Air Force’s F-35A, the Marines’ F-35B and the Navy’s F-35C.
The variants were supposed to be 70-percent common. But Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, head of the JSF program office, told a seminar audience on Feb. 10 that the three F-35 models are only 20- to 25-percent common, mainly in their cockpits.
In other words, the F-35 is actually three different warplanes. The F-35, F-36 and F-37.
There are very few examples of plane designs that effectively meet the requirements of all three American armed services that operate fighters. The F-4 Phantom was a successful joint fighter, but only because McDonnell Douglas developed it for the Navy — and the Marines and Air Force adopted it after the fact without complicating the design process.
By contrast, the JSF’s design has taken the services’ competing, even contradictory, needs into account from the outset. The F-35A is supposed to be able to pull nine Gs. The B-model has a downward-blasting lift fan to allow it to take off and land vertically. The C-variant has a bigger wing and systems for operating from aircraft carriers. Even trying to bend each variant toward the same basic airframe resulted in a bulky, blocky fuselage that limits the F-35’s aerodynamic performance.
And the compromise didn’t result in a truly common design. It’s “almost like three separate production lines,” Bogdan said, according to Air Force magazine. A real joint fighter, the program boss said, is “hard” because each branch is adamant about its requirements. “You want what you want,” Bogdan said.
Bogdan declined to say whether the Pentagon’s next generation of fighters should be joint. But Lt. Gen. James Holmes, the Air Force’s deputy chief of staff for plans and requirements, said in mid-February 2016 that the Navy and Air Force would probably design their next fighters separately.
Typical of government. Take a project and triple everything about it, missions, costs, problems, and planes and length of time in development.
F-111, v2.0...
Short description of the “F=35” Very expensive and useless junk!
They tried to make the F111-B (Screw you Robert F—ing McNamara) a plane that would do everything well. It did none of them well.
The idiots are trying to do it again. They will have the same result.
It is supposed to be stealth. The problem with stealth is the ability to detect stealth with sophisticated look down AWACs is much cheaper than the stealth technology.
In effect we have a less effective fighting platform at a much greater cost that can be shot down with much less investment from the opposing side.
If I were the bad guy I would much rather face one stealth than 10 F-16s. If I had 10 F-16s trying to shoot down the one stealth. Economics determine how many war planes you can have and the cost of the warplanes determine the number.
See my post #5, you are correct.
I understand why the Naval version for carrier landings and takeoffs needs to be different.
Taking off that mod for additional fuel/loadouts makes sense, but I’ve never understood why the rest couldn’t be the same.
WOW!! just like that ship in Star Trek that splits into 3 ships
F-35 = Solyndra, with a canopy.
There have been three plans that have worked well in both settings which I can think of: the F-4, the A-4, and the A-7.
All three were designed and bought for Navy use first, before any land-based air force decided to try them.
We bankrupted the Soviet Union through costly weapons development and won the cold war!
Yipee!
Now why are we now trying to do the same thing to ourselves?
yep, then blame the contractor, therefore using that as an excuse not to pay them for their work.
An elephant is a mouse designed by government committee.
Quantity has a quality all its own. I expect the future will consist of swarms of semi-autonomous drones, possibly with each swarm coordinated by a manned single aircraft. Fewer pilots to lose/train, cheaper airframes, better numbers.
Because the Air Force version can't land on the mini-carriers used by the Marines. (Neither can the Navy version, for that matter).
Better question is why the Navy couldn't use the Marine version, and build cheaper, smaller, carriers. The USS Ford cost over $16 billion, they've been working on it over 6 years, and it is supposed to be ready in a couple of months, and is an easy target for the Russians or Chinese - even, perhaps, the Australians.
Because the Marine version cannot carry the load, fuel capacity, speed nor range for the Navy. Jarheads need about 200 A-10’s and throw in a couple hundred OV-10 Broncho’s.
Those won't operate from the mini-carriers, either. A-10s are generally going to need a paved runway, although it doesn't have to be in pristine condition. And if you have that kind of support facilities available, it probably should be an Army, not a Marine, operation.
Of course, on other threads, I've advocated turning the A-10s over to the Army if the AF doesn't want them. The "B"s are to replace the Harriers (which are basically a 50 year old design).
Hmmm. The STOVL version has the largest weight but the smallest fuel load.
With in-flight refueling, the range of the “B” and “C” are going to be about the same.
The Hogs have a long travel landing gear and could be with slight modification carrier capable with higher nitrogen pressures. The Jarheads also love the down low ground support role and the Navy likes the CAP role. Besides, the AF is not going to let the Army have anything faster than a King Air.
Let the AF and Navy play bomber and let the Jarheads play down in the dirt shootin’ rabbits in the desert.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.