Woody Beal wrote:

On 4/23/04 13:04, in article
et, "Frijoles"
wrote:

Similarly configured, the STOVL JSF has better legs than the E/F Hornet --
the jet that will fill the lion's share of the duty on "conventional
carriers." It will also have a lower RCS, and similar or better weapons
system.

Does this mean we shouldn't have big deck CVs -- nope. It just means there
will be more platforms available to put tacair at sea.



Comparing apples to apples though, it will have less range than the A or C
models which can carry more payload and will be more capable. Better to
scrap the STOVL and buy more A's and C's instead--especially now that the
airframe is 2500-3000 lbs overweight.

How are you going to put an F-35A/C on an LHD? And how are the other countries
with navies who are planning to buy it (the Brits, Italians, etc.) going to put
an F-35A/C on their STOVL carriers? How are you going to operate F-35A/Cs from
FOLS/FARPS? The weight problems are clearly there now, but then that's par for
the course for just about every a/c; we'll have to see if they can pare it down.
There was a good article in AvLeak recently on what steps were being taken to
prune the weight. I forget all the details, but apparently one area where they
think they're going to be able to save a fair amount of weight is on the
(production vice development) engine, with the usual knock-on effects elsewhere.

Guy