Quick guide to the F-35 JSF versions.

Why do we need three different versions of the F-35?

What are the service requirements that are driving these three versions?

The Air Force's F-35A is the least expensive version and it requires
F/A-22s to clear the way so the Air Force needs runways anyway. Because
the Air Force always needs permission slips to operate they can't assume
that their bases will be in the country next door so they need more
range than the F-35B offers.

The Navy needs a F-35C that won't break up during a high speed carrier
landing and they need greater range because they don't have these
"deals" with tanker builders like the AF does so they'll have to rely on
Super Hornet tankers.

The Marines are desperate to get their airpower on the ground as quickly
as possible in case the Navy pulls another Leyte Gulf on them and so
they're willing to accept a half-sized bombload on the S/VTOL F-35B.

-HJC

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 08:09:40 -0800, Henry J Cobb wrote:

Why do we need three different versions of the F-35?

What are the service requirements that are driving these three versions?

Gotta say you make some interesting assumptions.

The Air Force's F-35A is the least expensive version and it requires
F/A-22s to clear the way so the Air Force needs runways anyway. Because
the Air Force always needs permission slips to operate they can't assume
that their bases will be in the country next door so they need more
range than the F-35B offers.

While air superiority is always nice for bomb droppers, the F-35
itself is inherently stealthy and quite maneuverable. Don't make an
unnecessary dependency link between 22s and 35s. They probably will
function in concert, but not necessarily.

Range from operating bases is generally irrlevant today with in-flight
refueling capability. Witness the distances and endurance requirements
of the Afghanistan campaign.

The Navy needs a F-35C that won't break up during a high speed carrier
landing and they need greater range because they don't have these
"deals" with tanker builders like the AF does so they'll have to rely on
Super Hornet tankers.

Once again, notice Afghanistan. Tankers don't know the color of the
aircraft to whom they pass gas. The gratuitous reference to "deals"
has nothing to do with the aircraft selection. The AF doesn't get
kickbacks from aircraft suppliers. They simply establish requirements
and Congress then acts (or not.)

The Marines are desperate to get their airpower on the ground as quickly
as possible in case the Navy pulls another Leyte Gulf on them and so
they're willing to accept a half-sized bombload on the S/VTOL F-35B.

GMAFB. A "Leyte Gulf"? Are we living in the pre-historic past?


-HJC

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Why do we need three different versions of the F-35?

What are the service requirements that are driving these three versions?

The Air Force's F-35A is the least expensive version and it requires
F/A-22s to clear the way so the Air Force needs runways anyway. Because
the Air Force always needs permission slips to operate they can't assume
that their bases will be in the country next door so they need more
range than the F-35B offers.

No F-22 is required.

The Air Force's F-35A is the least expensive version and it requires
F/A-22s to clear the way

Um ... say what?

snip the rest about how we're building a worthless plane

In article , Henry J Cobb wrote:

Why do we need three different versions of the F-35?

What are the service requirements that are driving these three versions?

The Air Force's F-35A is the least expensive version and it requires
F/A-22s to clear the way so the Air Force needs runways anyway. Because
the Air Force always needs permission slips to operate they can't assume
that their bases will be in the country next door so they need more
range than the F-35B offers.

The Navy needs a F-35C that won't break up during a high speed carrier
landing and they need greater range because they don't have these
"deals" with tanker builders like the AF does so they'll have to rely on
Super Hornet tankers.

The Marines are desperate to get their airpower on the ground as quickly
as possible in case the Navy pulls another Leyte Gulf on them and so
they're willing to accept a half-sized bombload on the S/VTOL F-35B.

Amusing, tongue-in-cheek descriptions.
BTW, it's STOVL, not S/VTOL.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...

Why do we need three different versions of the F-35?

Because of differing operational requirments.


What are the service requirements that are driving these three versions?

From a quick perusal of the fecal material you spouted below, you are the
wrong person to be answering that question. So you have now gone from
lambasting the USN over LCS and DDX in the SMN group, and are now bringing
your "Henry Knows Best" schtick over here to RAM? And now you apparently
want to broaden your claims of intellectual and tactical superiority over
the professional service personnel responsible for these programs from the
USN to three of the four major services?


The Air Force's F-35A is the least expensive version and it requires
F/A-22s to clear the way

Where did you get that strange idea?

so the Air Force needs runways anyway. Because
the Air Force always needs permission slips to operate they can't assume
that their bases will be in the country next door so they need more
range than the F-35B offers.

Well, range is a key concern for most USAF platforms, but if it was
paramount then why is the USAF not buying the C model with its even longer
range?


The Navy needs a F-35C that won't break up during a high speed carrier
landing and they need greater range because they don't have these
"deals" with tanker builders like the AF does so they'll have to rely on
Super Hornet tankers.

Never heard of "joint operations", huh Henry? Heck, a lot of USN tanking
requirements during OEF were provided by *RAF* tankers, in addition to
(gasp!) USAF KC's.


The Marines are desperate to get their airpower on the ground as quickly
as possible in case the Navy pulls another Leyte Gulf on them and so
they're willing to accept a half-sized bombload on the S/VTOL F-35B.

Your blood sugar must be spiking again. The USMC wants the *STOVL*
capability (what the heck is "S/VTOL"?) to allow them to both provide air
support from vessels other than CVN's (thus improving their versatility as a
force) and to allow them to establish air operations from ashore without
having to seize intact or build a complete airstrip--kind of understandable
given their expeditionary nature.

Brooks


-HJC

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
news

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...

Why do we need three different versions of the F-35?

Because of differing operational requirments.


What are the service requirements that are driving these three versions?

From a quick perusal of the fecal material you spouted below, you are the
wrong person to be answering that question. So you have now gone from
lambasting the USN over LCS and DDX in the SMN group, and are now bringing
your "Henry Knows Best" schtick over here to RAM? And now you apparently
want to broaden your claims of intellectual and tactical superiority over
the professional service personnel responsible for these programs from the
USN to three of the four major services?


The Air Force's F-35A is the least expensive version and it requires
F/A-22s to clear the way

Where did you get that strange idea?

so the Air Force needs runways anyway. Because
the Air Force always needs permission slips to operate they can't assume
that their bases will be in the country next door so they need more
range than the F-35B offers.

Well, range is a key concern for most USAF platforms, but if it was
paramount then why is the USAF not buying the C model with its even longer
range?


The Navy needs a F-35C that won't break up during a high speed carrier
landing and they need greater range because they don't have these
"deals" with tanker builders like the AF does so they'll have to rely on
Super Hornet tankers.

Never heard of "joint operations", huh Henry? Heck, a lot of USN tanking
requirements during OEF were provided by *RAF* tankers, in addition to
(gasp!) USAF KC's.


The Marines are desperate to get their airpower on the ground as quickly
as possible in case the Navy pulls another Leyte Gulf on them and so
they're willing to accept a half-sized bombload on the S/VTOL F-35B.

Your blood sugar must be spiking again. The USMC wants the *STOVL*
capability (what the heck is "S/VTOL"?) to allow them to both provide air
support from vessels other than CVN's (thus improving their versatility as
a
force) and to allow them to establish air operations from ashore without
having to seize intact or build a complete airstrip--kind of
understandable
given their expeditionary nature.

Brooks
Not wanting to stir up a hornets nest, but don't USN/USMC aircraft use a
probe and drogue (like our RAF/RN) arrangement, with the USAF primarily
using a boom? If so, how easy is it to convert USAF tankers to allow
USN/USMC/RAF/RN operations? I know its been done, but wonder if there are
any significant penalties?

"Kevin Brooks" wrote:


"Henry J Cobb" babbled
The Air Force's F-35A is the least expensive version and it requires
F/A-22s to clear the way

No more than the F-16s need F-15s to clear the way. When using
AWACS the IDM and AIM-120s, it's a whole new BVR engagement these
days. It's safe to say the F-35A won't need much of anything except to
divide tasks among the various members of the strike force.

The Navy needs a F-35C that won't break up during a high speed carrier
landing and they need greater range because they don't have these
"deals" with tanker builders like the AF does so they'll have to rely on
Super Hornet tankers.

Never heard of "joint operations", huh Henry? Heck, a lot of USN tanking
requirements during OEF were provided by *RAF* tankers, in addition to
(gasp!) USAF KC's.

I think these "deals" are either the proposal to lease tankers
(horrors - adopt commercial practices !) or they consider the original
purchase of KC-135s thirty (?) years ago as some sort of sweetheart
deal. Conspiracy people see them everywhere, it seems.


The USMC wants the *STOVL*
capability (what the heck is "S/VTOL"?) to allow them to both provide air
support from vessels other than CVN's (thus improving their versatility as a
force) and to allow them to establish air operations from ashore without
having to seize intact or build a complete airstrip--kind of understandable
given their expeditionary nature.

If the Marines' version is operated CTOL from a carrier deck,
is the useful load more in line with the Navy version, and/or is the
aircraft intended for CTOL carrier work ?



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Ian wrote:

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
news

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...

Why do we need three different versions of the F-35?

Because of differing operational requirments.


What are the service requirements that are driving these three versions?

From a quick perusal of the fecal material you spouted below, you are the
wrong person to be answering that question. So you have now gone from
lambasting the USN over LCS and DDX in the SMN group, and are now bringing
your "Henry Knows Best" schtick over here to RAM? And now you apparently
want to broaden your claims of intellectual and tactical superiority over
the professional service personnel responsible for these programs from the
USN to three of the four major services?


The Air Force's F-35A is the least expensive version and it requires
F/A-22s to clear the way

Where did you get that strange idea?

so the Air Force needs runways anyway. Because
the Air Force always needs permission slips to operate they can't assume
that their bases will be in the country next door so they need more
range than the F-35B offers.

Well, range is a key concern for most USAF platforms, but if it was
paramount then why is the USAF not buying the C model with its even longer
range?


The Navy needs a F-35C that won't break up during a high speed carrier
landing and they need greater range because they don't have these
"deals" with tanker builders like the AF does so they'll have to rely on
Super Hornet tankers.

Never heard of "joint operations", huh Henry? Heck, a lot of USN tanking
requirements during OEF were provided by *RAF* tankers, in addition to
(gasp!) USAF KC's.


The Marines are desperate to get their airpower on the ground as quickly
as possible in case the Navy pulls another Leyte Gulf on them and so
they're willing to accept a half-sized bombload on the S/VTOL F-35B.

Your blood sugar must be spiking again. The USMC wants the *STOVL*
capability (what the heck is "S/VTOL"?) to allow them to both provide air
support from vessels other than CVN's (thus improving their versatility as
a
force) and to allow them to establish air operations from ashore without
having to seize intact or build a complete airstrip--kind of
understandable
given their expeditionary nature.

Brooks
Not wanting to stir up a hornets nest, but don't USN/USMC aircraft use a
probe and drogue (like our RAF/RN) arrangement, with the USAF primarily
using a boom? If so, how easy is it to convert USAF tankers to allow
USN/USMC/RAF/RN operations? I know its been done, but wonder if there are
any significant penalties?

Depends. The KC-135 was for years limited to a *******ized afterthought of a
drogue that was attached to the end of the boom. Pilots of all services are
united in their detestation of the thing, and it can only be changed on the
ground. More recently, the USAF has bought some number of FR Mk.32B wing-mounted
pods, and modified an appropriate number of KC-135Rs, so that a/c using either
system can be refueled on the same sortie.

In the case of the KC-10, it's alaways had a single drogue on the centerline, in
addition to the boom, so it can refuel either type on the same mission.
However, to improve the number of a/c it can refuel simultaneously, like the
KC-135Rs mentioned above some a/c have been modified to carry Mk. 32B pods on
the wings.

The Feb. 23rd AvLeak has an article on Boeing's proposed Blended-Wing-Body
designs, one of which is a tanker with two(!) booms and what appeared to be
drogue pods outboard of the booms, possibly with another on the centerline.

Guy

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:57:33 -0800, Hobo wrote:

In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:


While air superiority is always nice for bomb droppers, the F-35
itself is inherently stealthy and quite maneuverable.

I thought the F-35 had poorer wing loading than modern Russian jets and
was not considered very maneaverable.

Wing loading isn't a very good index of agility. There are a lot of
factors in the mix including the shape, the airfoil, the lift/drag
coefficients, the excess thrust available and the design stability.
Stealthy forms typically are less agile than non-stealthy, but the
state-of-the-art has advanced considerably.

Once you've got sustainable g-available over 7, the terms "not very
maneuverable" become quite relative.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8