F-16.net

Newbie Joined: Aug 29, 2006 Posts: 11 Status: Offline

Could the f-35B be a more successful export than the f-35C?

The F-35B design allows for a much simpler design of aircraft carrier than the F-35C potentially does so smaller nations may expolit the availabilty of the F-35B to build slightly larger or cheaper carriers, this would mean there is potentially a much greater export market for the B variant than the C. The UK RN is exploiting this in the CVF program and nations such as spain, itialy which have smaller cariers could also benefit more from the B variant.

Any Thoughts?

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

Currently, the F-35A CTOL model is expected to be main export version. It is the simplest of the 3 variants and has the highest overall performance of the 3 other than range, which is only slightly lower than the C model.

The F-35C is not expected to have a market outside of the U.S. The C model is geared toward operations off of large aircraft carriers (mainly U.S. ones).

The F-35B STOVL model has a market for certain countries such as the UK which desires STOVL capabilities for their carrier designs. The USMC wants STOVL because it can operate in austere airfield conditions closer to FEBA and provide a better time critical CAS platform which the USMC requires.

I agree that Italy and Spain with their smaller carriers could benefit by having the F-35B model. Maybe they will eventually consider getting some B models.

Oh, and the F-35B is in no way a "simple" design. As a matter of fact, it is considered the most high risk of the 3 variants.

Newbie Joined: Aug 29, 2006 Posts: 11 Status: Offline

Paulofische wrote:

The f-35B design allows for a much simpler design of aircraft carrier..

Didn't say it was a simple design i meant the carriers used could be simpler, i.e. no arrestor wires and catapults taking up space and adding to cost.

I get what your saying now. Yes, it would allow for smaller and simpler carrier designs if operating B models. I don't design naval carriers so I don't know for sure.

I believe the only other country capable of launching the F-35C with any real payload and fuel is France. They have a catapult system like the US so they can launch with full weapons and fuel. Ski ramp carriers just don't allow as much fuel or armament. And France is buying the Rafale so likely no export market.

Paulofische wrote:

Could the f-35B be a more successful export than the f-35C?

The F-35B design allows for a much simpler design of aircraft carrier than the F-35C potentially does so smaller nations may expolit the availabilty of the F-35B to build slightly larger or cheaper carriers, this would mean there is potentially a much greater export market for the B variant than the C. The UK RN is exploiting this in the CVF program and nations such as spain, itialy which have smaller cariers could also benefit more from the B variant.

Any Thoughts?

There are several operators besides the USMC and the RAF that are prime candidates for the F-35B. They include Spain and Italy, both of which operate small CVs. Depending on what course the Indo-U.S. relationship takes, India would be an ideal candidate as well. Also, some nations that don't operate CVs may still want an STOVL fighter to exploit its unique survivability characteristics (keeps on ticking after your runways have been cratered) as well as its unique ability to generate high sortie rates. Norway comes to mind (which would make the whole "will it be fitted with a parachute" argument irrelevant).

Clearly, the F-35A will have the most export success of any Lightning model. Yet, the F-35B could be a close second as the USAF has expressed interest and many Navy's will at least want small batches for Carriers and Amphibious Ships. They also make great CAS and tactical strikers. As for the F-35C I don't see any export customer for that model.........of course we mite see parts of the Naval Lightning on other models maybe even a hybrid of sorts. Say a F-35A with the wings and landing gear of the F-35C? (i.e. F-35D?)

Making a land-based F-35C isnt worth it... there is no advantage in it.

What's there to "make"? It is a land based fighter if one decides to use it from fixed runways.

But why pay more for what? 200nm increase in range?

Depends on what the price is, 200NM is not insignificant, also, do those bigger control surfaces offer any other advantages?

Landing speed drecrease and weapon bring back capability to the carrier.

PhillyGuy wrote:

Depends on what the price is, 200NM is not insignificant, also, do those bigger control surfaces offer any other advantages?

One would imagine, given the larger wing, better sustained turn performance. By the way, I don't think the F-35C can fly 200NM farther than the F-35A. I think, in terms of radius, you can get an additional 50NM out of the C model.

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

F-35B to be surprise export success?