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

Whoa, easy there Ed. First gig him on the fact that it was Guadalcanal not
Leyte Gulf. Then you are cleared hot on bringing him into the 21st century
.

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
news
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

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:14:35 GMT, "Frijoles"
wrote:

Whoa, easy there Ed. First gig him on the fact that it was Guadalcanal not
Leyte Gulf. Then you are cleared hot on bringing him into the 21st century
.


Gimme a bit of slack please. It's before my time (even mine!) and I've
always been a bit weak in Marine Corps history.

The point, of course, is that there's nothing wrong with the
technology development of the STOVL version. I'm skeptical but have
been proven wrong before. I'm not a great believer in vertical
aircraft--AV-8 has been troublesome and we probably don't want to get
into Osprey discussions.

I've got the feeling that a useful CAS platform might be easier to
develop, less costly and more maintainable with soft field capability.
The effort to get extreme short T/O and vertical recovery seems to be
so much whiz-bang. I'd like more payload and less pilot workload.


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

Ed Rasimus wrote:

The point, of course, is that there's nothing wrong with the
technology development of the STOVL version. I'm skeptical but have
been proven wrong before. I'm not a great believer in vertical
aircraft--AV-8 has been troublesome and we probably don't want to get
into Osprey discussions.

You're not alone. Very few aviators (military or civilian) have shown
much interest in obtaining the FAA's new "Powered Lift" rating since
the V-22 seems to crash with distressing regularity.

I've got the feeling that a useful CAS platform might be easier to
develop, less costly and more maintainable with soft field capability.
The effort to get extreme short T/O and vertical recovery seems to be
so much whiz-bang. I'd like more payload and less pilot workload.

Sepecat Jaguar? Soft-field and STOL capabilities, geared for ground
attack (10,000 lbs. of ordinance) supersonic....

In article ,
Mike Marron wrote:

You're not alone. Very few aviators (military or civilian) have shown
much interest in obtaining the FAA's new "Powered Lift" rating since
the V-22 seems to crash with distressing regularity.

For extremely loose definitions of "regular." Less often than the big
helicopters we're currently using, during their development, and none at
all in what, three years? Four crashes of an experimental aircraft type
in over a decade of development is actually pretty darned impressive.

The one famous accident they had, due to vortex ring state, happened in
conditions that normal helos wouldn't normally even *attempt* (very high
descent rate, about 2.5 times the normal max).

The Chinook and F-14 had very high accident rates when they were in
development, too.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:14:35 GMT, "Frijoles"
wrote:

Whoa, easy there Ed. First gig him on the fact that it was Guadalcanal
not
Leyte Gulf. Then you are cleared hot on bringing him into the 21st
century
.


Gimme a bit of slack please. It's before my time (even mine!) and I've
always been a bit weak in Marine Corps history.

The point, of course, is that there's nothing wrong with the
technology development of the STOVL version. I'm skeptical but have
been proven wrong before. I'm not a great believer in vertical
aircraft--AV-8 has been troublesome and we probably don't want to get
into Osprey discussions.

You may be surprised to know that the USAF has resurrected the concept of
buying the STOVL version as part of its F-35 force. Announced this week, and
the marines are tickled pink because it may mean their unit cost could go
down.

Brooks


I've got the feeling that a useful CAS platform might be easier to
develop, less costly and more maintainable with soft field capability.
The effort to get extreme short T/O and vertical recovery seems to be
so much whiz-bang. I'd like more payload and less pilot workload.


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

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:38:59 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:14:35 GMT, "Frijoles"
wrote:

Whoa, easy there Ed. First gig him on the fact that it was Guadalcanal
not
Leyte Gulf. Then you are cleared hot on bringing him into the 21st
century
.


Gimme a bit of slack please. It's before my time (even mine!) and I've
always been a bit weak in Marine Corps history.

The point, of course, is that there's nothing wrong with the
technology development of the STOVL version. I'm skeptical but have
been proven wrong before. I'm not a great believer in vertical
aircraft--AV-8 has been troublesome and we probably don't want to get
into Osprey discussions.

You may be surprised to know that the USAF has resurrected the concept of
buying the STOVL version as part of its F-35 force. Announced this week, and
the marines are tickled pink because it may mean their unit cost could go
down.

You shouldn't be surprised the idea of a two version JSF will gain
ground, the carrier version and STOVL, with a possible hack for the
CTOL simply ("yeah right!" I hear you shout) by removing the lift fan
and putting in a fuel tank,
This seems the best way to cut costs, the CTOL version could benifit
from the increase fuel.
cheers

Brooks


I've got the feeling that a useful CAS platform might be easier to
develop, less costly and more maintainable with soft field capability.
The effort to get extreme short T/O and vertical recovery seems to be
so much whiz-bang. I'd like more payload and less pilot workload.


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

Unit flyaway cost may be affected slightly, but the biggest benefit is that
it is no longer a Marine-unique asset in the US inventory. "Marine-only"
would make it a target for perpetual $$ starvation by the USN.

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:14:35 GMT, "Frijoles"
wrote:

Whoa, easy there Ed. First gig him on the fact that it was Guadalcanal
not
Leyte Gulf. Then you are cleared hot on bringing him into the 21st
century
.


Gimme a bit of slack please. It's before my time (even mine!) and I've
always been a bit weak in Marine Corps history.

The point, of course, is that there's nothing wrong with the
technology development of the STOVL version. I'm skeptical but have
been proven wrong before. I'm not a great believer in vertical
aircraft--AV-8 has been troublesome and we probably don't want to get
into Osprey discussions.

You may be surprised to know that the USAF has resurrected the concept of
buying the STOVL version as part of its F-35 force. Announced this week,
and
the marines are tickled pink because it may mean their unit cost could go
down.

Brooks


I've got the feeling that a useful CAS platform might be easier to
develop, less costly and more maintainable with soft field capability.
The effort to get extreme short T/O and vertical recovery seems to be
so much whiz-bang. I'd like more payload and less pilot workload.


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

Most don't understand that the technology hurdles unique to STOVL were
hurdled prior to downselect. This issue with the B and the C is weight.
Though they are both predicted to make the KPPs at current weight, given
historical weight growth of most TACAIR programs (3-4% a year IIRC), they
decided to deal with it now. Also, the B is the 'canary in the coal mine"
wrt weight because of the way it is more sensitive to weight than the other
two. (The C is a close second due to Vpa issues.) Because the A is
essentially the baseline, it gets some attention too. The B has the same
payload capability as the A (it was announced by Gen Hough with little
fanfare sometime in the last year).

The PVI is very simple -- even fighter guys can do it on the first try.


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:14:35 GMT, "Frijoles"
wrote:

Whoa, easy there Ed. First gig him on the fact that it was Guadalcanal
not
Leyte Gulf. Then you are cleared hot on bringing him into the 21st
century
.


Gimme a bit of slack please. It's before my time (even mine!) and I've
always been a bit weak in Marine Corps history.

The point, of course, is that there's nothing wrong with the
technology development of the STOVL version. I'm skeptical but have
been proven wrong before. I'm not a great believer in vertical
aircraft--AV-8 has been troublesome and we probably don't want to get
into Osprey discussions.

I've got the feeling that a useful CAS platform might be easier to
develop, less costly and more maintainable with soft field capability.
The effort to get extreme short T/O and vertical recovery seems to be
so much whiz-bang. I'd like more payload and less pilot workload.


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