Quick guide to the F-35 JSF versions.

R. David Steele wrote:
How much payload do you lose in the STOVL version?

http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avf35.html
The F-35A and F-35C can carry two 900 kilogram (2,000 pound) JDAMS
internally, while the STOVL F-35B is limited to internal carriage of two
450 kilogram (1,000 pound) JDAMs.
....
Only the USAF F-35A has a built-in gun, with an "Advanced 27 Millimeter
Cannon", an improved version of the Mauser BK-27 revolver-type cannon,
in the left wingroot. The other variants do not have a built-in gun, but
can accommodate a cannon pack plugged into one of the weapons bays.

So the answer seems to be half the internal bombs and the gun.

Is a F-35B with a gun pod non-stealthy?

-HJC

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.

Henry J Cobb wrote:
R. David Steele wrote:
How much payload do you lose in the STOVL version?

http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avf35.html
The F-35A and F-35C can carry two 900 kilogram (2,000 pound) JDAMS
internally, while the STOVL F-35B is limited to internal carriage of
two 450 kilogram (1,000 pound) JDAMs.
...
Only the USAF F-35A has a built-in gun, with an "Advanced 27
Millimeter Cannon", an improved version of the Mauser BK-27
revolver-type cannon, in the left wingroot. The other variants do not
have a built-in gun, but can accommodate a cannon pack plugged into
one of the weapons bays.

Out of date information, again.

The 27mm has been replaced by a 25mm Gatling. And the gun pack goes on a
conformal stealthy belly pod, not in the weapon bay.

Here's more up to date info.
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...03/phispr03.ht
ml

So the answer seems to be half the internal bombs and the gun.

OTOH, for Marine Corps targets, a 1000-lb bomb is usually as good as a
2000-lb bomb. In fact, the Marines often want 500-lb bombs instead, due to
their smaller danger space.

The real loss is not weapon load but range. The STOVL version has a combat
radius of roughly 450 nm, compared to more than 600nm for the CTOL model and
750nm for the carrier version.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

R. David Steele wrote:

BTW, we need to be thinking of merging the 20mm, 25mm and 30mm
weapon systems into one (pick one). I had thought that the 25mm
as used by the Army on the Bradley would be a good choice, if it
is not too long. But we have a logistics problem. And the less
things that we have to carry, the better. It also lowers the
unit cost if munitions are used across a variety of platforms.

As noted, they dropped the 27mm in favor of a 25mm gatling. This is
basically the same gun as in the current AV-8B and fires the same ammo as
the LAV, Bradley, and some shipboard mounts.

BTW, you sound like an engineer.

God, I hope not. Henry has a sketchy history of understanding technical
subjects.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
ink.net...
R. David Steele wrote:

BTW, we need to be thinking of merging the 20mm, 25mm and 30mm
weapon systems into one (pick one). I had thought that the 25mm
as used by the Army on the Bradley would be a good choice, if it
is not too long. But we have a logistics problem. And the less
things that we have to carry, the better. It also lowers the
unit cost if munitions are used across a variety of platforms.

As noted, they dropped the 27mm in favor of a 25mm gatling. This is
basically the same gun as in the current AV-8B and fires the same ammo as
the LAV, Bradley, and some shipboard mounts.

BTW, you sound like an engineer.

God, I hope not. Henry has a sketchy history of understanding technical
subjects.

And he's none to swift with the non-technical ones, either.

Brooks

--
Tom Schoene

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
news

capability (what the heck is "S/VTOL"?) to allow them to both provide air

An olden days description of a plane that could do
Short take-offs or landings
or
Vertical take-offs or landings.

It does seem to have fallen out of use some time in the last
thirty years.

Damn, I'm old enough now that new fangled terms have
reached the forgotten obsolescent state...

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:35:19 -0700, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

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.

BVR the JSF should be good,but WVR it would suffer if it didn't have
an high off boresite missle and an helmet to cue the missile.

It may lack in areas of the flight envelope that is useful for post
missile launch maneauvre to deny the opposition a shot, but its
stealth should make up for it.


Thats my take on it, it all depends on how good the avionics are!
consider the price, lots of stuff may get left off due to weight and
costs...

Cheers




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

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

Chad Irby wrote:
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.

Extremely loose definition of "development," too. The V-22 is hardly
a new concept as tilt-rotors have been under "development" since
what...1951?!

John Keeney wrote:
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
news

capability (what the heck is "S/VTOL"?) to allow them to both
provide air

An olden days description of a plane that could do
Short take-offs or landings
or
Vertical take-offs or landings.

The usual abbreviation for this was the other way around--V/STOL.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)