Navy version of F-35 clear for production

UPI ^ | 06/28/07

[nypokerface]

FORT WORTH, Texas, June 28 (UPI) -- All three versions of the U.S. Joint Strike Fighter have now cleared the final milestone needed before entering the production phase.

The carrier version of the cutting-edge F-35 recently passed its Air System Critical Design Review, putting it on track for Low Rate Initial Production.

The conventional and short-takeoff, vertical landing variants of the plane passed the CDR earlier and have been approved for LRIP.

"The die is now fully cast for the unique, three-variant Joint Strike Fighter program envisioned when the planning began in the late 1990s," said Air Force Brig. Gen. C.R. Davis, the JSF Program Executive Officer.

Lockheed Martin said in a statement Thursday that the naval variant, designated the F-35C, had an extra 200 pounds shaved off its design prior to the CDR.

The F-35C will be the Navy's first stealthy plane and will eventually replace the F/A-18 Hornet and fly alongside the newer F/A-18E/F Super Hornet as the main combat assets of U.S. naval aviation. The F-35A is the conventional version for the Air Force and will supplant the F-16 and A-10 attack planes beginning in 2010 while the F-35B will replace the Harrier jets flown by the U.S. Marines and the British military.

Lockheed is also eyeing major foreign markets for the JSF.

[SevenMinusOne]

Folks made similar arguments about the F-18 when it first came out. The Hornet now has more combat experience than any other aircraft flying and is arguably the most succesful fighter/attack aircraft ever built.

Is this from war-gammers / stats talking? Because I know guys on the ground were begging for F-14 Bombcats over 18's until the day they left the PG. That's no BS. (and hell, that isn't even what the 14's were built for! Yet they were doing it better then 18s). I will say I've heard mostly nothing but good things regarding the 18F's.

On another side note? Are 18's really considered more successful in the F/A role then 15E's?

[hosepipe]

[.. The ordnance needs to be cheap so we can buy lots of them ..]

Good point...

[Magnum44]

The early F-18’s had difficulty with unguided munitions, the pylons caused trajectory perturbations that gave them poor CEP. Fixed with later deisgns and better munitions.

The Hornet has more combat time than the Eagle. My comment merely reflects the combat experience difference of the two aircraft. My comment may also be dated. This was certainly true a few years ago. Of late, both have gained lots of combat hours. The Hornet still has more Air-to-air experience in combat. But there hasn’t been much of that since 91

[hosepipe]

[.. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how stealth works. ..]

Microwaves(radar) moves in a straight line and return in a straight line.. bat them away as with a "ping pong racket".. Hows that?.. Or absorb them..

[SevenMinusOne]

Question. - Is the USN F-35c a two-seater or not?

If it is one seater with one engine I think we are buying a world of trouble down the road.

The two-seater 18Fs are one of the reasons (of several) they are clearing out performing the other variants.

Two-Seaters make a tremendous amount of sense to me. Especially for the USN situations.

[Magnum44]

Theres much more to it, sorry....

[Magnum44]

I dont believe, could be wrong here, but I dont believe F-35 is designed to replace the two seat F-18E/F roles.

[sargunner]

Desert Storm Air-to-Air Victories

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_217.shtml

[SevenMinusOne]

The problem with A-10 that most are overlooking here is it would take a pounding in a dense IADS environment, despite its survivability. Thats not dissing the A-10, its just acknowleding that it has a limitation on employment.

Those that are poo-pooing the stand-off CAS support are failing to recognize that against a sophisticated enemy with dense IADS (AA and missiles), low is not where you want to be. Afghanistan and present day Iraq are not dense IADS environments, so A-10 shows its stuff there.

I agree to a point with what you are saying here - But the reality is we need both - We need A-10s for what they can surely provide (without question of getting the job done) while also understanding the need for the newer aircraft (F-35 types) for the more IADS environments we are likely to see in the future. But that future is always going to include the down and dirty CAS type roles (those that think otherwise are simply foolish and wrapped in technology, while never having been in the sh*t on the ground).

The original notion of the F-35 taking on the A-10 role was utterly ridiculous. It is evident that clearer thinking heads recognized this reality with the new updated A-10 programs.

[SevenMinusOne]

Irrelevant. ISR from UAVs provides eyes on target now. No need to fly a pilot in close to get shot at. You are arguing from a 10-15 year old obsolete perspective.

Get out of here - You think when your butt is in the sh*t you have time to wait for some slow-mover UAV to come provide eyes on the target? Your guys are dead by the time that happens (or you've lost ground and the initiative at best).

CAS is routinely called in at times of opportunity or times of unexpected risk. Waiting on some silly, straw-hole seeing UAV is an absurd notion.

Eyes in the sky, UAVs have without question a needed role and have helped tremendously. But suggesting they are to be used in the emergency role of CAS for us to put bombs on targets is just foolish.

[A.A. Cunningham]

and hell, that isn't even what the 14's were built for!

BS once again. As pictured below the Tomcat was designed as a fleet air defender/bomb hauler from the get go; carrying up to 18 Mk82s if desired. That's one of the major reason why the Marine Corps reluctantly agreed to buy 70 of them, not to help keep the per plane cost down as the Navy wanted. The Navy chose not to utilize the strike capability for a couple of reasons. First they'd have to explain to congress why their expensive FAD platform was being used to haul bombs when they already had much cheaper A-6s, A-7s and F-4s doing that and until it was clear that the Intruder was indeed dead and the Hornet demonstrated that it did not have adequate range for long range strike there was no need.

Image Courtesy of Mike Kern

F-14A prototype with 14 Mk 82 500lb bombs.

[SevenMinusOne]

Oh come on - The F-14 was first and foremost a fleet defender / interceptor. That there were prototype A's showing some dumb-bomb dropping capabilities is a long way off from saying it was designed as was/is the F/A 18 series.

Leap-frog ahead 30 years, re-outfit 14's into Bombcats and tell me we (or DOD) expected them to outperform all the updated (sans Fs) 18's.

Give me a break. You are trying to cause an argument where none need exist. Nor do I have time for it.

Regards,

[Jet Jaguar]

What is a UCAV?

Unmanned Combat Aerial vehicle.

http://www.af.mil/photos/media_search.asp?q=reaper&btnG.x=0&btnG.y=0

[Chode]

if it's my azz on the line... i'll take two thank you.

i'd like to know the number of planes that came back aboard with only one engine in the last thirty year.

[A.A. Cunningham]

As has been repeatedly demonstrated on this thread, you are full of s***.

[SevenMinusOne]

As has been repeatedly demonstrated on this thread, you are full of s***.

How so? By stating the reality that most USN aviators today believe going with the single engine F-35 was a foolish choice? That they don't want to be left out to dry flying mainly over water with one engine (for the sake of costs)....That such a choice rings one's memory of building F-4s sans any guns (because of costs and they wouldn't be needed in the era of the missile).

By telling the reality that A-10s (and 14s until they left the PG) were birds of choice routinely by guys on the ground...

By asserting that the USN would have been better off pushing / demanding for an equivalent F-22 type aircraft to take over AS role...

Nah, you're a prick, looking to argue a point that doesn't exist. Put it back in your pants bud...it's not attractive.

[A.A. Cunningham]

FOAD you ignorant pogue.