F-35A vs B vs C

Dragon029 · by **Dragon029** » 22 Oct 2015, 15:54

G force = (velocity^2)/radius = ((rad/s)^2)*radius

In other words, if they're pulling the same amount of Gs at the same airspeed, they're turning at the same rate. The difference will be whether or not they can maintain that G force and velocity, which comes down to asking whether the overall L:D ratio of an F-35C is better than an F-35A's at the given altitude and airspeed, and also how each aircraft is loaded (100% fueled F-35A vs 30% fuel F-35C?).

At higher airspeeds for example, the superior T:W of the A model, combined with it's lower wave drag should result in a lesser reduction in airspeed, while still providing sufficient lift to reach the same G force, ultimately giving it a greater turn rate in that part of the envelope.

oldiaf · by **oldiaf** » 22 Oct 2015, 16:01

Regarding the 3 models ... It is true the C is going to be slightly more expensive but I can't understand why the UK hadn't choose to purchase it instead of B variant especially when they have aircraft carrier that can operate them, plus the added extra-range the C provides over the B.
Maybe they should have chose the B model for RAF and C for RNFA

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 22 Oct 2015, 16:11

'oldiaf' your ignorance is getting really old really quick these days. Read this thread to find out the answer:

UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969

oldiaf · by **oldiaf** » 22 Oct 2015, 16:25

spazsinbad wrote:'oldiaf' your ignorance is getting really old really quick these days. Read this thread to find out the answer:

UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969

So one of the reasons the UK didn't chose F-35C because it didn't want to develop F-35C to F-35C refuelling capability on its own ?! ... I found this strange because the F-35C has more range than the B variant and in case of emergency the C variant has more chance to reach shore or carrier.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 22 Oct 2015, 16:42

'oldiaf' you have obviously not read the thread. Put in some reading effort there - it will be rewarding.

charlielima223 · by **charlielima223** » 23 Oct 2015, 10:11

I remember reading an old article over at Flightglobal about early F-35B testings on the USS Wasp. Unfortunately due to Flightglobals restructure of their website... the article in question no longer exists

. I do remember however that pilots remarked that the F-35B is kinematically comparable to an F/A-18C/D. During a round table table talk with USN pilots (luckily you can still find on youtube) a USN pilot stated that the F-35C is comparable to a clean Super Hornet, "slicked with no pylons and no EFTs".

zero-one · by **zero-one** » 23 Oct 2015, 10:41

charlielima223 wrote:I remember reading an old article over at Flightglobal about early F-35B testings on the USS Wasp. Unfortunately due to Flightglobals restructure of their website... the article in question no longer exists . I do remember however that pilots remarked that the F-35B is kinematically comparable to an F/A-18C/D. During a round table table talk with USN pilots (luckily you can still find on youtube) a USN pilot stated that the F-35C is comparable to a clean Super Hornet, "slicked with no pylons and no EFTs".

I've seen the USN round table discussion, however has the USN gone through full envelope expansion with the F-35C yet?
So the question is, what kinematic parameters was the F-35C compared to?

Perhaps when it comes to acceleration and deceleration the F-35C handles like a slick Superhornet, although I'm impressed it can do this as the C model is almost 3,000lbs heavier with 1,000 lbs less thrust.

Will the C model still be comparable to the SHornet when it comes to climb rates, turn rates, sustained and instantaneous G.
A detailed assessment of F/A-18E is found here:

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/ ... Hornet.htm

With the test pilot having the following conclusion:

This airplane will be quite comfortable in any type of a "phone booth" close-in dogfight.

I know it's like beating a dead horse, but its quite sad that the statement above is in sharp contrast to what Gen. Carlisle has said about the F-35.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/mili ... /72403642/

Military leaders have repeatedly responded that the aircraft is built for long-range engagements, and is never meant to get near enemies.

quicksilver · by **quicksilver** » 23 Oct 2015, 14:03

charlielima223 wrote:I remember reading an old article over at Flightglobal about early F-35B testings on the USS Wasp. Unfortunately due to Flightglobals restructure of their website... the article in question no longer exists . I do remember however that pilots remarked that the F-35B is kinematically comparable to an F/A-18C/D. During a round table table talk with USN pilots (luckily you can still find on youtube) a USN pilot stated that the F-35C is comparable to a clean Super Hornet, "slicked with no pylons and no EFTs".

35B w/ full internal load is like a clean/slick C Hornet. 35C w/ full internal load is like a clean/slick SH (with 300+nm more radius).

oldiaf · by **oldiaf** » 24 Oct 2015, 00:37

Is stealth worth it ? :
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... h-it-14158
How the C variant will complement the Navy

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 24 Oct 2015, 00:53

From the above 'oldiaf' article URL: I want to know how this is known.

"...Part of the difference in the two services’ diverging positions can be explained by different political messaging strategies. Publicly, the Air Force doesn’t want to admit the utility of electronic attack or support platforms because they seem to believe that might erode support for the F-35. [Who has said this in USAF?] Meanwhile, the Navy has bills to pay other than for aviation and that service doesn’t see the performance differential between the F/A-18E/F and F-35C as being worth the massive cost plus up...." [And what is that pray tell?]

And THEN we have to take the writer word for this kludge....

"...After a discussion with Air Force and Navy officials—it’s apparent that the truth lies somewhere in between. [Please explain] There is consensus that in the future as anti-access/area denial threats evolve, wide-band all-aspect stealth will probably be necessary...."

The last sentence is a doozy that is supposed to excuse the bullcrap speculation (mixed with good quotes we assume) earlier?

"...But only time will tell…"

Yessireee - Time Will Tell - What is the time? The good quotes will reveal all.

oldiaf · by **oldiaf** » 24 Oct 2015, 01:55

I used the search engine this time to make sure no one post it before ... and as you said its a good start

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 24 Oct 2015, 02:14

Thanks. Dave Majumdar used to have credibility but since leaving USNI and before this new job he did some shite pieces for clickbait for various publications including the Daily Beast. Credibility with me now for Dave is zero but he does provide good quotes however the subsequent 'DAVE' [F-35] speculation is pretty uninteresting to say the least - YMMV.

mk82 · by **mk82** » 24 Oct 2015, 02:56

"Meanwhile, the Navy has bills to pay other than for aviation and that service doesn’t see the performance differential between the F/A-18E/F and F-35C as being worth the massive cost plus up...."

It will sure be worth the cost....considering that the F/A-18E/F will like a relative pig carrying EFTs (even just 1), 2 X AMRAAMs, 2 X 2000lb JDAMs, 1 X ATFLIR pod, Full Internal fuel and perhaps an ECM pod. Can you say canted pylons too? The performance differential will be in the F355Cs favour (with a similar load out).

count_to_10 · by **count_to_10** » 24 Oct 2015, 03:17

zero-one wrote:Will the C model still be comparable to the SHornet when it comes to climb rates, turn rates, sustained and instantaneous G.
A detailed assessment of F/A-18E is found here:

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/ ... Hornet.htm

With the test pilot having the following conclusion:
This airplane will be quite comfortable in any type of a "phone booth" close-in dogfight.

I know it's like beating a dead horse, but its quite sad that the statement above is in sharp contrast to what Gen. Carlisle has said about the F-35.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/mili ... /72403642/
Military leaders have repeatedly responded that the aircraft is built for long-range engagements, and is never meant to get near enemies.

Both are true. It was never meant to get near enemies, but it's performance in close-in dogfights will be competitive.

XanderCrews · by **XanderCrews** » 24 Oct 2015, 03:52

spazsinbad wrote:From the above 'oldiaf' article URL: I want to know how this is known.
"...Part of the difference in the two services’ diverging positions can be explained by different political messaging strategies. Publicly, the Air Force doesn’t want to admit the utility of electronic attack or support platforms because they seem to believe that might erode support for the F-35. [Who has said this in USAF?] Meanwhile, the Navy has bills to pay other than for aviation and that service doesn’t see the performance differential between the F/A-18E/F and F-35C as being worth the massive cost plus up...." [And what is that pray tell?]

And THEN we have to take the writer word for this kludge....
"...After a discussion with Air Force and Navy officials—it’s apparent that the truth lies somewhere in between. [Please explain] There is consensus that in the future as anti-access/area denial threats evolve, wide-band all-aspect stealth will probably be necessary...."

The last sentence is a doozy that is supposed to excuse the bullcrap speculation (mixed with good quotes we assume) earlier?
"...But only time will tell…"
Yessireee - Time Will Tell - What is the time? The good quotes will reveal all.

No one tell anyone about the 390th electronic combat squadron.

Don't even Google it. Srs. Dont. No really. Because if you did you would find a USAF squadron that uses Growlers