Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5373
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post25 Jun 2011, 14:55

underhill wrote:The good news here is that the B is clearly in trouble, which is why someone has paid Goure to shill for it.


Why is the idea of the B being in trouble good news?
"There I was. . ."
Offline

underhill

Banned

  • Posts: 488
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2008, 17:09

Unread post25 Jun 2011, 15:05

Because it is a misbegotten piece of carp, and the sooner it is put out of its misery the better for as all (particularly for the JSF program as a whole).

It has comprehensively and rather expensively demonstrated that a STOVL. LO, supersonic fighter is not worth what it adds to a nation's military capability.
I'm a troll/fol-de-rol/And I'll eat you for my supper
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5373
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post25 Jun 2011, 15:16

underhill wrote:Because it is a misbegotten piece of carp, and the sooner it is put out of its misery the better for as all (particularly for the JSF program as a whole).

It has comprehensively and rather expensively demonstrated that a STOVL. LO, supersonic fighter is not worth what it adds to a nation's military capability.


Apparently the DoD doesn't agree. Nor does the USMC. Sorry.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

underhill

Banned

  • Posts: 488
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2008, 17:09

Unread post25 Jun 2011, 15:26

Oh, the USMC doesn't accept that its major program is stuffed? Color me shocked.

And as far as the DoD is concerned, the version is still on probation. Everything else comes from the USMC propaganda mill and its supporting cliques.

Yes, the fact that FT has picked up is good news - because had it not done so, cancellation was a certainty. However, its miserable range and weapon load and astronomical acquisition and O&S costs will kill it, as they drove the Brits to bail out.
I'm a troll/fol-de-rol/And I'll eat you for my supper
Offline

shingen

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 582
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2010, 03:27
  • Location: California

Unread post25 Jun 2011, 16:59

How much war winning load can be carried STOVL? What sensors and networking capability are better carried by a STOVL platform than anything else? Did anyone ask that before they started JAST or did they just add "Harrier Replacement" on to the list of stuff it needed to do?
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8385
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post25 Jun 2011, 18:37

It all comes down to Sortie rate. For the A/B/C it it 3.68/6.51/4.05.

As you can see, the forward-deployed F-35B can almost do twice the missions as a rear-deployed F-35A (1.77x) or F-35C (1.61x).
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

underhill

Banned

  • Posts: 488
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2008, 17:09

Unread post25 Jun 2011, 21:29

Spudman - Absent conditions and assumptions that is utter meaningless bilge.

Shingen - It's a long story, but where we have ended up is that the USAF and Navy are getting modified versions of a Marine aircraft.
I'm a troll/fol-de-rol/And I'll eat you for my supper
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post25 Jun 2011, 21:48

madrat wrote:503,
And for the record my idea for a light carrier is solely for sending COIN-related aircraft into parts of the globe where it's purely a low intensity conflict situation. I'm arguing that we need a sustainable force to attack terrorists in an effort to keep our country from spending too much money on the WoT.

So, you're suggesting that we cancel F-35B and the Harrier in favor of airframes like the OV-10?


As for you underhill,

Why so angry? You hate light carriers; you hate supercarriers. Is there any course of action (not involving regression to crossbows) that would make you happy? You've done nothing but complain on this thread. Why don't you tell us your ideas to fix whatever's pi$$ing you off?
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5373
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post25 Jun 2011, 23:30

1st503rdsgt wrote:
madrat wrote:503,
And for the record my idea for a light carrier is solely for sending COIN-related aircraft into parts of the globe where it's purely a low intensity conflict situation. I'm arguing that we need a sustainable force to attack terrorists in an effort to keep our country from spending too much money on the WoT.

So, you're suggesting that we cancel F-35B and the Harrier in favor of airframes like the OV-10?


As for you underhill,

Why so angry? You hate light carriers; you hate supercarriers. Is there any course of action (not involving regression to crossbows) that would make you happy? You've done nothing but complain on this thread. Why don't you tell us your ideas to fix whatever's pi$$ing you off?


Me thinks he's a fan of the Eurocanards. In that case I'd be pissed too as his favorite jet is already obsolete. :lol:
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5373
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post25 Jun 2011, 23:31

underhill wrote:However, its miserable range and weapon load.


Miserable range and weapon load compared to what?
"There I was. . ."
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2620
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post26 Jun 2011, 01:22

shingen wrote:How much war winning load can be carried STOVL? What sensors and networking capability are better carried by a STOVL platform than anything else? Did anyone ask that before they started JAST or did they just add "Harrier Replacement" on to the list of stuff it needed to do?


Oh please, that's utter nonsense. Even Sweetman said so in his book ("Ultimate Fighter" -- Zenith Press 2004). See discussion of the Common Affordable CALF pages 37-48. From page 108 I quote -- "Despite its origins in a program called the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter the JSF is no lightweight..."; From page 100, "The F-22 has four tails because it had to meet requirements for both stealth and agility...The F-35 has four tails because it has to land on a carrier...". From page 101, "The hard fact is, though, that the four tail layout is not the lightest or most efficient layout for the STOVL or CTOL airplanes."
Offline

shingen

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 582
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2010, 03:27
  • Location: California

Unread post26 Jun 2011, 02:58

quicksilver wrote:
shingen wrote:How much war winning load can be carried STOVL? What sensors and networking capability are better carried by a STOVL platform than anything else? Did anyone ask that before they started JAST or did they just add "Harrier Replacement" on to the list of stuff it needed to do?


Oh please, that's utter nonsense. Even Sweetman said so in his book ("Ultimate Fighter" -- Zenith Press 2004). See discussion of the Common Affordable CALF pages 37-48. From page 108 I quote -- "Despite its origins in a program called the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter the JSF is no lightweight..."; From page 100, "The F-22 has four tails because it had to meet requirements for both stealth and agility...The F-35 has four tails because it has to land on a carrier...". From page 101, "The hard fact is, though, that the four tail layout is not the lightest or most efficient layout for the STOVL or CTOL airplanes."


What about all the space for the fan?
Offline

underhill

Banned

  • Posts: 488
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2008, 17:09

Unread post26 Jun 2011, 14:07

Why so angry? You hate light carriers; you hate supercarriers. Is there any course of action (not involving regression to crossbows) that would make you happy? You've done nothing but complain on this thread. Why don't you tell us your ideas to fix whatever's pi$$ing you off?

I don't hate supercarriers - I have mixed feelings. They're very useful but they cost too much and institutional inertia has long prevented anyone from doing anything about it.

I don't hate light carriers. But you can't have a light carrier with a fighter that's bigger than an F-4. Or a well designed light carrier that's also an LHA/LHD.

Fix? Determine how many JSFs the USAF can afford to buy and operate, which will be well south of 1,000. The fallout from that will be that the B is ridiculously expensive, while the Super Hornet, versus the C, becomes the 80-plus per cent solution for 50-minus per cent of the price.

If you want Marine air, think of a smaller A-10 with big flaps and thrust reversers operating in STOBAR mode. Or a Harrier III with an off-the-shelf engine core and fly-by-wire.

What does pi$$ me off is that the longer we delay the inevitable drawdown the more it will cost.

Miserable range and weapon load compared to what?

Pretty much anything in the same empty weight and price bracket.
I'm a troll/fol-de-rol/And I'll eat you for my supper
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5373
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post26 Jun 2011, 14:51

underhill wrote:If you want Marine air, think of a smaller A-10 with big flaps and thrust reversers operating in STOBAR mode. Or a Harrier III with an off-the-shelf engine core and fly-by-wire.


The first can't operate off amphibious assault ships (the whole reason for STOVL) and the latter is a pipe dream.

underhill wrote:Pretty much anything in the same empty weight and price bracket.


So basically you have no relevant arguement. Surprise surprise.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

underhill

Banned

  • Posts: 488
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2008, 17:09

Unread post26 Jun 2011, 16:22

Someone's cranky-pants are a little tight today.

I should have suggested Sea Gripen but you would have had a stroke.

How hard would it be to install arrest gear (much smaller than a 140-kt, 50 klb+ CV fit) on an LHA/D? Easier than making the deck heatproof...

Aircraft in the same weight and price band? Typhoon, Rafale, Shornet, all of which can beat 450nm and 3000 pounds without too much trouble.
I'm a troll/fol-de-rol/And I'll eat you for my supper
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests