"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
John Keeney wrote:

"puttster" wrote in message
om...
"John Carrier" wrote in message
...
Now if you want to argue that the F-35B is an aircraft designed as
a
Carrier
Aircraft, I know some Marines that would like to chat with you.
The B
will
be replacing AV-8B's and land based F-18's. Sure, it can land on
a
carrier
but it is not being built to trap aboard CV/N's using arresting
gear
or
Cat
launches.

True in a sense, but as a VSTOL and STOVL design, it's fully carrier
suitable w/o the need for catapult gear (I suspect it does have a
tailhook).
I'd also be much surprised if its CNI suite didn't include ACLS and
SPN-41
in their latest incarnations.

R / John


With an excellent V/STOL capability in the F-35B, why does the Navy
still demand those giant carriers? Seems like something can be done
there to make the whole system more efficient. Why design a plane
(the F-35C) to fit their ships?

Because the F-35C flies farther with a bigger load than the F-35B.

As always, the question is how much do you need that extra range, and
should the
navy a/c do that mission when it is needed? Kind of depends how you
define the

I want to see the carriers able to hit Afganistan from the Indian Ocean
and a few other places that might be a tad less accessible. Call it the
"anywhere in the second country in from the beach" rule.

littorals -- you can see claims and studies made for everything from 200nm
to
650nm from the coastline, depending on whose ox is being gored -- here's
one
that discusses this issue, and decides based on historical evidence that
400nm
is about right, and that the STOVL JSF is more than adequate for all three
services:

http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA331611

I tried to look, but I became too impatient and gave up on the down load.

Note, while you'd expect this to be a USMC paper, it was actually written
at
ACSC. Still, there were definitely Marines involved in writing it, so
take the
analysis and conclusions with as large or as small a grain of salt as you
think
appropriate.

Because the ships aren't going away since they need the deck for
the E-2 and C-2 anyway.

Of course, when (if) the V-22 or some similar VSTOL support a/c enters
service,
that particular justification need no longer exist.

Putting a spinning top on a V-22 sounds scary to me, have to be plum tall to
see
over those rotors. Might do an EV-22 with a phased array.
As for the COD role: the C-2 does 10,000 pounds over a distance in excess of
1,000 nm. The CV-22 can provide VTOL with 8,300lb of cargo for 220 nm.
Obviously you aren't going to move as much as fast using CV-22 vs C-2.

Let's assume for the moment that the V-22 can handle COD and radar missions.
Then you are stuck with the tanker problem and three choices:
1) Use the V-22 as a tanker.
r) Odds on bet the V-22 is too slow.
2) Buddy store off a F-35B.
r) Yea, that would make buddy storing off F-18s look positively lovely.
How much passable gas could you actually get off the deck?
3) Call the Air Force.
r) Left as an exercise for the reader.

than later. The slow pace of VSTOL development slowed things down,
especially
the support a/c requirement (ASW, AEW, COD, tanker, ESM, SOJ, CSAR, what
have
you), as only now is an a/c (the V-22) with roughly the required
performance, in
view. It is inferior in performance for each specific mission than the
more
specialized individual aircraft types that now perform these functions,
but the
ability to use a single basic airframe for all these missions means big
savings
on training, spares and unit cost.