Forum: F-35 Lightning II

I support the F-35B for what it offers in terms of flexibility, especially for allies who can't afford to build/operate full-on carriers. However the reasoning by these guys seems to be a little circular.

Q: Why do we need the F-35B?
A: To give ship-builders something to build (eg. new LHAs).

Q: Why do we need the new LHAs?
A: To take full advantage of the F-35B.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... &s=TOP

F-16.net Sponsor

That's called industrial base. Did you object to developing the F-15E? One of the reasons for selecting the F-15E over the F-16XL was to maintain the F-15 production line, also called industrial base.

Circular or not, maintaining the industrial base seems to be a worthwhile objective.

Last edited by maus92 on Nov 03, 2011 - 04:22 PM; edited 1 time in total

johnwill wrote:

That's called industrial base. Did you object to developing the F-15E? One of the reasons for selecting the F-15E over the F-16XL was to maintain the F-15 production line, also called industrial base.

Circular or not, maintaining the industrial base seems to be a worthwhile objective.

Certainly part of the equation, but the F-15E also has 2 engines, and perhaps more importantly, 2 crew.

johnwill wrote:

That's called industrial base. Did you object to developing the F-15E? One of the reasons for selecting the F-15E over the F-16XL was to maintain the F-15 production line, also called industrial base.

Circular or not, maintaining the industrial base seems to be a worthwhile objective.

You know that, I know that, but people outside the defense industry often cry "welfare" over it. One should be able to defend weapon systems this expensive on their own merits, not as "jobs programs."

1st503, I agree completely.

maus92, F-16XL also offered two crew.

Last edited by maus92 on Nov 03, 2011 - 04:30 PM; edited 1 time in total

johnwill wrote:

1st503, I agree completely.

maus92, F-16XL also offered two crew.

Didn't know that - thought it was a single pilot. Did they ever build a prototype of the 2-seat version?

deleted - double post

That is circular. I was originally opposed to the F-35B as unnecessary extravagance. Once I understood that they make the LHA's into mini carriers I supported it.

maus92 wrote:

johnwill wrote:

1st503, I agree completely.

maus92, F-16XL also offered two crew.

Didn't know that - thought it was a single pilot. Did they ever build a prototype of the 2-seat version?

Yes the first XL was a single seater, but the second, with a GE engine had two seats. Both airplanes were based on the original FSD (Full Scale Development) airplanes. One of FSD single seaters was damaged in a landing on the Edwards lake bed with no nose gear, which ground away a substantial portion of the forward electronics bay. To build the two seat XL, a two seat cockpit plus a new 26 inch plug was grafted onto the undamaged part of the FSD airplane. I think it was the No. 3 single seater.

The original nose gear incident was a rather bizarre take off accident, during practice for an airshow. The plan was to delay rotation until an abrupt high speed lift off could be made. The pilot applied lots of forward stick to keep the airplane on the ground, so much so that the tails went trailing edge down and lifted the airplane off the main gear. That added lots of load to the nose gear and it collapsed. The quick thinking pilot quickly lifted off before any additional damage was done and successfully landed on the lakebed.

I digress, sorry.

maus92 wrote:

johnwill wrote:

1st503, I agree completely.

maus92, F-16XL also offered two crew.

Didn't know that - thought it was a single pilot. Did they ever build a prototype of the 2-seat version?

Yes. There's a pic on this site somewhere.

MY HERO (Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos): [last paragraph in story URL above]

"...Concerns about the jet blast from the F-35B's power engine damaging the assault ships' flight decks have proved unfounded, Amos said. Thus far, the analysis is showing "shockingly negligible" impact on the ship's deck, he said."

1st503rdsgt wrote:

I support the F-35B for what it offers in terms of flexibility, especially for allies who can't afford to build/operate full-on carriers. However the reasoning by these guys seems to be a little circular.

Q: Why do we need the F-35B?
A: To give ship-builders something to build (eg. new LHAs).

Q: Why do we need the new LHAs?
A: To take full advantage of the F-35B.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... &s=TOP

I wouldn't characterize the article in the way that you did. The arguments made were for recapitalization, flexibility, and maintaining unique technologies/capabilities, and the industrial base.

spazsinbad wrote:

MY HERO (Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos): [last paragraph in story URL above]

"...Concerns about the jet blast from the F-35B's power engine damaging the assault ships' flight decks have proved unfounded, Amos said. Thus far, the analysis is showing "shockingly negligible" impact on the ship's deck, he said."

After little more than two weeks of tests (over pristine, unweathered decks?) Oh boy, we are in trouble.

maus92 wrote:

spazsinbad wrote:

MY HERO (Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos): [last paragraph in story URL above]

"...Concerns about the jet blast from the F-35B's power engine damaging the assault ships' flight decks have proved unfounded, Amos said. Thus far, the analysis is showing "shockingly negligible" impact on the ship's deck, he said."

After little more than two weeks of tests (over pristine, unweathered decks?) Oh boy, we are in trouble.

After years and years of dire predictions from many quarters about the effects that F-35 would have on the flight deck, equipment, and personnel in proximity to the jet, the results have indeed been shocking -- particularly for those who staked out such prominent positions on the dark side of those predictions.

The tests were not really about damage occurring or not occurring -- the tests would not have gone forward had the risk of immediate damage been anything but virtually zero; no one would sign up to putting sailors and Marines at risk like that. What the tests did was validate (or invalidate as the case might be) a variety of analytical models that might be used to determine what -- if any -- ship alterations might be necessary for the long term sustained operation of F-35s and other aircraft on the flight decks of LHDs and LHA(R) and other aviation-capable ships. The fidelity (or lack of...) of many of these analytical models has been a real issue for a long time.

maus92 - would you explain further what you mean by your comment please (in part) "...After little more than two weeks of tests (over pristine, unweathered decks?). Interested in 'my bold' words of your quote. Thanks.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

The Military's Defense of the F-35B