Dump The Navy's Version Of The JSF (F-35C?)

On Jan 12, 3:57Â*pm, wrote:
""“I’m growing more and more convinced that the Navy variant of the
F-​​35
might not be worth buying. The program is sliding further and further
to
the right, as costs increase. When we have an 80 percent solution in
active production, and significantly cheaper, the F-​​35C looks like a
great
candidate for cancellation,� said one congressional aide."

See:

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/01/12/na...amid-jsf-woes/

Would the Navy be better off skipping the F-35, and using upgraded F/
A-18's
until UCAS-D, or some other solution, is ready?

I'd go the other way around, dump the AF version and make the F-35C be
the only non-STOVL option, then put STOVL off until F-35C is up to
speed. But F-35 is probably going to go the way of the F-22 in any
case.

"Typhoon502" wrote in message
...
On Jan 12, 3:57Â pm, wrote:
""â?oIâ?Tm growing more and more convinced that the Navy variant of the
F-â?â?35
might not be worth buying. The program is sliding further and further
to
the right, as costs increase. When we have an 80 percent solution in
active production, and significantly cheaper, the F-â?â?35C looks like a
great
candidate for cancellation,â?� said one congressional aide."

See:

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/01/12/na...amid-jsf-woes/

Would the Navy be better off skipping the F-35, and using upgraded F/
A-18's
until UCAS-D, or some other solution, is ready?

I'd go the other way around, dump the AF version and make the F-35C be
the only non-STOVL option, then put STOVL off until F-35C is up to
speed. But F-35 is probably going to go the way of the F-22 in any
case.

===

Agreed, the STOVL option is what's pushing up the overall per unit
design/manufacturer costs. Wait until the conventional models are well into
production (and where 90+% of the market is) then develop STOVL for those
with a harrier fixation.

On Jan 12, 6:13*pm, Typhoon502 wrote:
I'd go the other way around, dump the AF version and make the F-35C be
the only non-STOVL option, then put STOVL off until F-35C is up to
speed. But F-35 is probably going to go the way of the F-22 in any
case.

An AF Lt wrote a paper about using the F-35C for short field
operations by setting up arresting wires, but I lost the link.

The problem with the F-35 is the tiny range. The F-35C is only
slightly longer ranged than the F-22.

Just look at the stats:

F-22, RCS of 0.0002 m^2, Combat radius: 410 nmi
F-35C, RCS of 0.0015 m^2, Combat radius: 640 nmi
Sukhoi PAK FA, RCS of 0.5 m^2, Combat radius: 800 nmi (Spots the
F-35 just outside of Sidewinder range and the F-22 just outside of
cannon range.)

-HJC

On 13 Jan, 02:13, Typhoon502 wrote:
On Jan 12, 3:57Â*pm, wrote:





""“I’m growing more and more convinced that the Navy variant of the
F-​​35
might not be worth buying. The program is sliding further and further
to
the right, as costs increase. When we have an 80 percent solution in
active production, and significantly cheaper, the F-​​35C looks like a
great
candidate for cancellation,� said one congressional aide."

See:

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/01/12/na...amid-jsf-woes/

Would the Navy be better off skipping the F-35, and using upgraded F/
A-18's
until UCAS-D, or some other solution, is ready?

I'd go the other way around, dump the AF version and make the F-35C be
the only non-STOVL option, then put STOVL off until F-35C is up to
speed. But F-35 is probably going to go the way of the F-22 in any
case.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Just out of interest what are the benefits of the small wing on the A
model over the big wing on the C? (purely an airframe question,
nothing to do with equipment etc)

Guy