Navy F-35C Gets A Big Wing

[[email protected]]

See:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3af8cdf63d-e706-409e-9ab5-0be0b200c7de

This means the F-35C will have a bigger wing than the F-15.

[John[_1_]]

On Jul 5, 10:07 pm, wrote:
> See:
>
> http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController...
>
> This means the F-35C will have a bigger wing than the F-15.

Crap . . . Don't even want to think what this redesign will cost. I
think JSF is an airplane we need, but does anyone recall the last time
a "clean sheet" design came even close to the estimated cost. I
understand part of the problem rests with the vendors trying to
underbid each other . . . and another part of the problem is that it
would be nice for the customer to have a better developed idea of what
he wants. Problem with that idea development process . . . is that it
costs money too. Dang . . . almost Catch 22

Sorry for the rant . . . take care all

John

[John Carrier]

"John" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jul 5, 10:07 pm, wrote:
>> See:
>>
>> http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController...
>>
>> This means the F-35C will have a bigger wing than the F-15.
>
> Crap . . . Don't even want to think what this redesign will cost. I
> think JSF is an airplane we need, but does anyone recall the last time
> a "clean sheet" design came even close to the estimated cost. I
> understand part of the problem rests with the vendors trying to
> underbid each other . . . and another part of the problem is that it
> would be nice for the customer to have a better developed idea of what
> he wants. Problem with that idea development process . . . is that it
> costs money too. Dang . . . almost Catch 22
>
> Sorry for the rant . . . take care all
>
> John

One of my oldest and best friends is part of the F-35C carrier suitability
group. There are a lot of issues with the aircraft, many of which stem from
the design team's unfamiliarity with carrier operations and the design
requirements imposed: approach speed, attitude on touchdown, wingfold to
reduce deck multiple, maintenance implications ... the engine size makes R&R
difficult ... etc.

While the aircraft should introduce many capabilities that strike aviation
would love to have, I wonder if we'll be able to afford it in its final
configuration or live with the several OBTW's that will undoubtedly
accompany its introduction.

R / John

[R. Scott]

You realize that WE ... as in where I work had the airplane
that met all the requirements AND we were ready for production
not a total redesign needed as it seems Lockheed is now doing.


BUT, the airforce didnt like ugly (And im sure some politicals pulled
strings).


Ya gets what you pay for.

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, "John Carrier"
> wrote:

> "John" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > On Jul 5, 10:07 pm, wrote:
> >> See:
> >>
> >> http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController...
> >>
> >> This means the F-35C will have a bigger wing than the F-15.
> >
> > Crap . . . Don't even want to think what this redesign will cost. I
> > think JSF is an airplane we need, but does anyone recall the last time
> > a "clean sheet" design came even close to the estimated cost. I
> > understand part of the problem rests with the vendors trying to
> > underbid each other . . . and another part of the problem is that it
> > would be nice for the customer to have a better developed idea of what
> > he wants. Problem with that idea development process . . . is that it
> > costs money too. Dang . . . almost Catch 22
> >
> > Sorry for the rant . . . take care all
> >
> > John
>
> One of my oldest and best friends is part of the F-35C carrier suitability
> group. There are a lot of issues with the aircraft, many of which stem from
> the design team's unfamiliarity with carrier operations and the design
> requirements imposed: approach speed, attitude on touchdown, wingfold to
> reduce deck multiple, maintenance implications ... the engine size makes R&R
> difficult ... etc.

I went through Carrier Suitability training back in the 90's as a prelim to the
JAST program, which eventually morphed into JSF.
A very interesting class.


> While the aircraft should introduce many capabilities that strike aviation
> would love to have, I wonder if we'll be able to afford it in its final
> configuration or live with the several OBTW's that will undoubtedly
> accompany its introduction.

Note that the F-35C will be the last version produced. The Navy has F/A-18E/Fs
and it may well come to pass that they would rather continue to buy F-18s
than pay through the nose for F-35Cs.
I personally predict that few F-35C's will be built.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[John Carrier]

SNIP

> Note that the F-35C will be the last version produced. The Navy has
> F/A-18E/Fs
> and it may well come to pass that they would rather continue to buy F-18s
> than pay through the nose for F-35Cs.
> I personally predict that few F-35C's will be built.

Agreed. Few or none.

R / John

[Eunometic]

On Jul 7, 8:03 am, (Harry Andreas) wrote:
> In article >, "John Carrier"
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > "John" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > > On Jul 5, 10:07 pm, wrote:
> > >> See:
>
> > >>http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController...
>
> > >> This means the F-35C will have a bigger wing than the F-15.
>
> > > Crap . . . Don't even want to think what this redesign will cost. I
> > > think JSF is an airplane we need, but does anyone recall the last time
> > > a "clean sheet" design came even close to the estimated cost. I
> > > understand part of the problem rests with the vendors trying to
> > > underbid each other . . . and another part of the problem is that it
> > > would be nice for the customer to have a better developed idea of what
> > > he wants. Problem with that idea development process . . . is that it
> > > costs money too. Dang . . . almost Catch 22
>
> > > Sorry for the rant . . . take care all
>
> > > John
>
> > One of my oldest and best friends is part of the F-35C carrier suitability
> > group. There are a lot of issues with the aircraft, many of which stem from
> > the design team's unfamiliarity with carrier operations and the design
> > requirements imposed: approach speed, attitude on touchdown, wingfold to
> > reduce deck multiple, maintenance implications ... the engine size makes R&R
> > difficult ... etc.
>
> I went through Carrier Suitability training back in the 90's as a prelim to the
> JAST program, which eventually morphed into JSF.
> A very interesting class.
>
> > While the aircraft should introduce many capabilities that strike aviation
> > would love to have, I wonder if we'll be able to afford it in its final
> > configuration or live with the several OBTW's that will undoubtedly
> > accompany its introduction.
>
> Note that the F-35C will be the last version produced. The Navy has F/A-18E/Fs
> and it may well come to pass that they would rather continue to buy F-18s
> than pay through the nose for F-35Cs.
> I personally predict that few F-35C's will be built.
>
> --
> Harry Andreas
> Engineering raconteur

The F-35C will have good export prospects. One rumor has it that the
USAF purposely limited F-35 wing area so that only the F-22 had the
low wing loading to be a top class dog fighter so that program would
not be jeopardized in favor of an F-35.

The result is that the high wing load F-35 does not offer good dog
fighting abilities to nations that can't afford are can't be given an
F-22.

An F-35C adresses this issue.

[John Carrier]

SNIP

> The F-35C will have good export prospects. One rumor has it that the
> USAF purposely limited F-35 wing area so that only the F-22 had the
> low wing loading to be a top class dog fighter so that program would
> not be jeopardized in favor of an F-35.
>
> The result is that the high wing load F-35 does not offer good dog
> fighting abilities to nations that can't afford are can't be given an
> F-22.
>
> An F-35C adresses this issue.

It's possible. But I doubt that either choice in wing area (USAF or USN)
was determined based on relative maneuvering capability versus F-22.

R / John

[Harry Andreas]

In article . com>,
Eunometic > wrote:


> The F-35C will have good export prospects. One rumor has it that the
> USAF purposely limited F-35 wing area so that only the F-22 had the
> low wing loading to be a top class dog fighter so that program would
> not be jeopardized in favor of an F-35.

Having worked with both Lockheed Burbank and Lockheed Fort Worth
I express extreme skepticism at this rumor.

From the day it was selected up until very, very recently USAF has
stated that the F-22 was not and would not be available for export for
security reasons.

Knowing that, why would LMAC shoot themselves in the foot?

Besides, dogfighting is not the envelope in which the F-22 is designed to fight.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[[email protected]]

On Jul 9, 12:00 pm, Herbert Viola > wrote:

>
> Last time I checked the wing loading on the F-35A was around 90lbs/inch2, very
> similar to the F-16 and MiG-29. I don't think wing loading will hinder the F-35
> as a fighter. Also, don't low flying aircraft, such as CAS platforms, need to
> avoid low wing loading for flight stability?
>

I think the F-35 was meant to drop JDAM's from on high, not get
down in the weeds like the A-10 does.

Also, according to:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f35/

The F-35C's large wing was also to be used in a proposed
F-35D model (which was cancelled) which would also have
featured an internal gun (right now, only the F-35A gets
an internal gun, the B and C models have provisions for
a gun pod though).

[[email protected]]

Just to illustrate the discussion about U.S. F-35s: That is funny how
the Super Hornet vs. JSF debate may influence their purchase by RAAF.
Here are two interesting news, one against F/A-18:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/the-hornets-nest/2007/07/08/1183833340924.html
and one against F-35:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/f35-dearer-than-admitted/2007/07/08/1183833344654.html

[mike Z]

On Jul 6, 10:52 pm, "John Carrier" > wrote:
> SNIP
>
> > Note that the F-35C will be the last version produced. The Navy has
> > F/A-18E/Fs
> > and it may well come to pass that they would rather continue to buy F-18s
> > than pay through the nose for F-35Cs.
> > I personally predict that few F-35C's will be built.
>
> Agreed. Few or none.
>
> R / John

A conclusion similar to this study.

http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/R.20070620.US_Fighter_Moderni/R.20070620.US_Fighter_Moderni.pdf

Hopefully, if they won't eventually buy the -C model, they will stop
the design/development process before too many costs are racked up.

[W. D. Allen]

No DOD corporate memory - didn't we learn anything from McNamara's TFX
fiasco?

The Air Force has used Navy fighter [F-4s}and attack [A-7s] aircraft
from concrete runways. The Navy can NOT use Air Force fighter and attack
aircraft from carriers!

WDA

end



mike Z wrote:
> On Jul 6, 10:52 pm, "John Carrier" > wrote:
>> SNIP
>>
>>> Note that the F-35C will be the last version produced. The Navy has
>>> F/A-18E/Fs
>>> and it may well come to pass that they would rather continue to buy F-18s
>>> than pay through the nose for F-35Cs.
>>> I personally predict that few F-35C's will be built.
>> Agreed. Few or none.
>>
>> R / John
>
> A conclusion similar to this study.
>
> http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/R.20070620.US_Fighter_Moderni/R.20070620.US_Fighter_Moderni.pdf
>
> Hopefully, if they won't eventually buy the -C model, they will stop
> the design/development process before too many costs are racked up.
>

[R. Scott]

They could have had this

Ready to go

http://www.boeing.com/ids/news/1999/photorelease/photo_release_991214n.htm


"W. D. Allen" > wrote in message
...
> No DOD corporate memory - didn't we learn anything from McNamara's TFX
> fiasco?
>
> The Air Force has used Navy fighter [F-4s}and attack [A-7s] aircraft from
> concrete runways. The Navy can NOT use Air Force fighter and attack
> aircraft from carriers!
>
> WDA
>
> end
>
>
>
> mike Z wrote:
>> On Jul 6, 10:52 pm, "John Carrier" > wrote:
>>> SNIP
>>>
>>>> Note that the F-35C will be the last version produced. The Navy has
>>>> F/A-18E/Fs
>>>> and it may well come to pass that they would rather continue to buy
>>>> F-18s
>>>> than pay through the nose for F-35Cs.
>>>> I personally predict that few F-35C's will be built.
>>> Agreed. Few or none.
>>>
>>> R / John
>>
>> A conclusion similar to this study.
>>
>> http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/R.20070620.US_Fighter_Moderni/R.20070620.US_Fighter_Moderni.pdf
>>
>> Hopefully, if they won't eventually buy the -C model, they will stop
>> the design/development process before too many costs are racked up.
>>

[Bill Shatzer]

W. D. Allen wrote:
> No DOD corporate memory - didn't we learn anything from McNamara's TFX
> fiasco?

> The Air Force has used Navy fighter [F-4s}and attack [A-7s] aircraft
> from concrete runways. The Navy can NOT use Air Force fighter and attack
> aircraft from carriers!

North American FJ-2 and FJ-3 Fury?

Cheers,

[W. D. Allen]

Gotcha!

The Navy/Marine FJ-2/FJ-3/FJ-4B all derived from the Air Force F-86.
BUT, the F-86 was derived from the NAVY FJ-1.

Check out the following web sites:
http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/AC/aircraft/North-American-FJ1/fury.php
http://www.uswarplanes.net/f86f100.html

W. D. Allen
CDR USN Ret.
Former Famous Fury Flyer

end


Bill Shatzer wrote:
> W. D. Allen wrote:
>> No DOD corporate memory - didn't we learn anything from McNamara's TFX
>> fiasco?
>
>> The Air Force has used Navy fighter [F-4s}and attack [A-7s] aircraft
>> from concrete runways. The Navy can NOT use Air Force fighter and
>> attack aircraft from carriers!
>
> North American FJ-2 and FJ-3 Fury?
>
> Cheers,