F-16.net

I was looking to a magizine I am subscribed to and I read and article about the F-35 used by the US Navy. They showed a computer generated image of a F-35 on approach.

Is this correct?

Parkeran

F-16.net Sponsor

Elite 3K Joined: May 10, 2004 Posts: 3098 Status: Offline

Yep

!

Just look around for the F-35"C" Wink

Quote:

Just look around for the F-35"C"

There may also be some f-35B's in the mix as well. Currently the Navy (thanks to everyone's favorite disaster of a secdef Rummsfeld) embarks a Marine F-18 squadron on most deployments. This has allowed them to get by with fewer AC. The Marines are insisting that they will replace not only their Harriers, but their F-18s as well with Bs.

Obviously the Navy (and the rest of us should not be either) is not happy. They will be forced to support yet another plane with short legs, a smaller war load and a different logistical footprint.

The F-35B is a fine AC and a big improvement over the Harrier. It's perfect for the marines and anyone else with LHA like carriers, but it is a waste for the Navy. Hopefully the Marines either replace their Hornets with C's, or the Navy gets enough AC for 11 air wings without the Marines.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 01, 2006 Posts: 1003 Status: Offline

This is the Navy League briefing from April 2007. It is on the JSF.mil site albiet "hidden" without any public links to it.

http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documents/2%20April%20Press%20Briefing%20-%20Navy%20League.pdf

The F-35 has always been intended for Carrier Duty with the US Navy from Day one. This is why there are three versions. F-35A for the Air Force, F-35B with STOVL capability for the marines and the F-35C with a larger wing and more fuel for the Navy.

FYI: The most distinguishing feature that sets apart the Navy variant from the Navy and Marine.....30% larger wing for lower stall speeds. It'll be fun to see when they start landing on carrier decks!!

Don't forget the other most important changes between the B/C is logistics (inclusion of the lift fan ans associated equipment), range, and payload. Those are really big differences.

I meant to say the distinguishing features between the C and the A/B. A and C both dont have the lift fan, so I didnt point that out. Anyways, yes the logistics between the three platforms are completely different. But we could go on and on about other most important changes between in variants, but I was trying to point out the most obvious one...the OML difference. And 30% larger wing = range & payload....I guess I should have pointed that out, sorry.

No problem. Welcome to the forum. What do you do for Lockheed Martin?

Thanks for the welcome. I'm a fresh liaison engineer for the F-35 in fort worth.

Really, the Naval F-35C could be the most capable of all Lightning variants. With longer range and payloads being the most obvious!

Corsair1963 wrote:

Really, the Naval F-35C could be the most capable of all Lightning variants. With longer range and payloads being the most obvious!

....and no internal gun... Rolling Eyes

F-4 all over again? Well, some of it.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 01, 2006 Posts: 1003 Status: Offline

shiz302 wrote:

F-4 all over again? Well, some of it.

Well, the F-35 is going to see even more universal use than the F-4. Not only will it be a land and carrier based aircraft, it will also be a STOVL aircraft on LHA/LHDs.

The F-35C will not have an internal gun. For missions where a gun is deemed useful, a centerline LO gun pod will be carried. This actually has more ammunition than the F-35A's internal cannon (220 vs 180 rounds)

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 Posts: 1092

If the low observable gun pod has no serious disadvantages vs. an internal gun, I see no reason to knock it. If an F-35 is truly operating in a pure strike role, having an internal gun might be like an A-6 having an internal gun. In other words, not necessary and possibly detrimental to overall mission performance. What does using the gun pod take away? Fuel?

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 01, 2006 Posts: 1003 Status: Offline

Raptor_One wrote:

If the low observable gun pod has no serious disadvantages vs. an internal gun, I see no reason to knock it. If an F-35 is truly operating in a pure strike role, having an internal gun might be like an A-6 having an internal gun. In other words, not necessary and possibly detrimental to overall mission performance. What does using the gun pod take away? Fuel?

I doubt it since both the gun and the ammunition are held externally under the centerline. In fact the centerline weapons station is also present on the "A" model although there are no current plans to adapt it to take traditional weapon pylons instead of the gun pod.

If anything it'll simply be additional drag.

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Are the F-35's going to be used for the US Navy?