Navy: F-35C Will Be Eyes and Ears of the Fleet

[SpudmanWP]

IIRC the JPO has to deliver 4 of each version (A/B/C) to the DOT&E for IOT&E. All of IOT&E birds are early LRIP F-35s, not new builds and as such need 3F & TR3 upgrades with a few concurrency upgrades thrown in for good measure.

[saberrider]

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/media/2010_CF01_FW_Paint_04_1267828237_4142.JPG

Because F35 don't have airbrake board ,multiple control surfaces take that role ,but then how can maneuver after all this area planform are deployed to the max.?

[spazsinbad]

The control surfaces are moving all the time (via computer flight controls) even though speed brake deployed. From my experience (in the A4G) the speedbrakes for the F-35 will be very effective. For example at over 400 KIAS the A4G speed brake would just 'crack open' with a dramatic decrease in airspeed (similar to the feel of an arrested landing ashore).

However an A4G at landing weight at optimum angle of attack airspeed would have the speed brake fully deployed - but not very effective (still useful to increase throttle RPM by a small amount for wave off engine response). Therefore one may assume I'll guess that we see the F-35C speedbrakes deployed at a slow airspeed for maximum photo effect?

The F-35C will usually approach the carrier using IDLC (Itegrated Direct Lift Control) with videos showing the control surfaces flapping every which way sometimes but not done by pilot but by the computer flight controls - videos show it.

[KamenRiderBlade]

I'm still hoping that at some point down the line, the F-35A replacement / update will be a F-35C without the folding wing mechanism, but use the same planform with updated engines along with avionics.

Adjust the body ratio / internal structure to meet the 9.0g capabilities.

That enough would make very happy since the C is my favorite variant =D

[marsavian]

It will still have poorer acceleration than the F-35A though due to weight and drag. A fuselage redesign with a smoother area rule and higher fineness ratio would help but then you would lose commonality with the B. A more powerful engine could give you latitude to add weight to the B design but it would be best to redesign all three at the same time if you are going for a new A to ensure the current commonality is not degraded significantly.

[element1loop]

It will still have poorer acceleration than the F-35A though due to weight and drag. A fuselage redesign with a smoother area rule and higher fineness ratio would help but then you would lose commonality with the B. A more powerful engine could give you latitude to add weight to the B design but it would be best to redesign all three at the same time if you are going for a new A to ensure the current commonality is not degraded significantly.

As the aircraft ages and OPFOR sensors and systems improve the detection hemispheres of short-range surface sensors and GBADs will expand. You can deal with the heavy and medium SAMs only until everything else can track you and share data with them. One option to make life easier is a more powerful engine and a bigger wing and fly 15k ft higher (~5 km more distant).

Your and instant smaller target for active or passive ground sensors to get photons off, and more tactical airspace volume and options to operate in. That alone could reduce a lot of future tactical hazards in the same way tactical aircraft during Desert Storm did not operate below 15,000 ft after a few days, due to initial damage and losses. Now SOP is about FL400, for the same hazard reduction reasons.

Critics complain about external stores reducing RCS, and about thermal sensors etc., well take it higher. It makes it harder to get the angles on the jet, and shrinks the engagement range and pk of GBAD, and makes any OPFOR fighter work harder to get to you, while increasing your own sensor and comms footprints and angles, while increasing your early-warning and tactical options (like shooting back before you bug-out).

An F-35D could go from operating at 40K ft presently to 60 k ft, and provide a lot more loiter, speed and range, to tactics and weapons options.

Yes it will accelerate a bit more slowly at low-level but you won't be fighting or operating at low-level in high-threat for A2A or A2G, and an engine update's thrust growth will negate most of the drag on acceleration, and grow high-altitude cruise-speed. Which will greatly extend range performance. And at high-level in thin air it will not be slower, it will actually greatly exceed the current performance envelope, and even sustain super-cruise egress, if required. Plus a kinetic and maneuver advantage in BVR.

Seems a very attractive option to have as things change.

[marsavian]

Sounds good apart from the angles angle. The higher you go the earlier they can see your underbelly compared to your lower RCS frontal quadrant.

[element1loop]

Sounds good apart from the angles angle. The higher you go the earlier they can see your underbelly compared to your lower RCS frontal quadrant.

Yes and no. I'm considering this in a day-two type high-intensity context.

If carrying external LO strike weapons, like JASSM or JSM, it's likely they're shadowing the noisiest part of the pylon connection to the weapon, from the point of view of the shorter-range ground sensors and GBAD. While your ESM can probably detect the longer-range ground sensors OK and you fly to keep out of their detection bubble while they're being dealt with by a weapon. So I think it is providing a better angles advantage also, as you go higher.

[mixelflick]

I like the F-35C, but one thing still really bugs me... that poor (relative to the A) acceleration.

I've often seen it stated here that the F-35 can out-accelerate a clean Flanker by 20%. Is that true of the C too? Or is it just true of the A and B? Otherwise the C rocks. Love that big wing...

[white_lightning35]

I like the F-35C, but one thing still really bugs me... that poor (relative to the A) acceleration.

I've often seen it stated here that the F-35 can out-accelerate a clean Flanker by 20%. Is that true of the C too? Or is it just true of the A and B? Otherwise the C rocks. Love that big wing...

Just curious, but how many times do you have to told about the acceleration differences between the A and C models before you realize that they are not the same? In the beginning of your post, you acknowledge the difference, but them you seem to just forget about it. Do you understand what being heavier and draggier with the same engine would mean? And surely by now you have seen charts about the acceleration differences between the different variants?

[wrightwing]

An F-35D could go from operating at 40K ft presently to 60 k ft, and provide a lot more loiter, speed and range, to tactics and weapons options.

The F-35 in its present state can already operate at nearly 60k ft. There wouldn't need to be a D model, to get above 40k.

[spazsinbad]

Preliminary F-35C Feedback is Positive, As Formal Operational Testing Begins This Fall
11 Oct 2018

"ARLINGTON, Va. — The Navy is beginning the formal operational testing of its first stealth aircraft to determine how well the F-35C Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter performs against stated goals and requirements, the admiral heading the integration office of F-35C said Wednesday....

...In answer to an audience question, Horan said the F-35C “is completely different than any airplane we’re flying.” He was referring to its low-observable stealth characteristic, along with newer technological capabilities and longer reach. He added those kinds of changes mean that pilots training to operate the new plane “are going to have to be a little different than a legacy pilot.”

The aircraft’s advanced sensors, in particular, coupled with its capability and range require that pilots “envision the mission differently than you and I.” But that will only come with time, as the Navy continues to buy more new planes so more pilots can train with them and more squadrons convert to the new platform.

Horan told USNI News, “we want to do things differently” with the Joint Strike Fighter, “and there are ways to do it differently.” He said the Navy is talking with the Air Force about the lessons it is learning with the F-22 Raptor stealth fighter’s operations in Syria and Iraq to see how they apply in sea service planning.

As an example, for an F-35C future mission, he said, “I may want to send them out as singles” rather than four strike fighters operating together to do a job.

Horan added, “We are sending a couple of F-35s out to every Top Gun [class at Naval Air Station Fallon, Nev.] to work with fourth-generation aircraft” to learn how to communicate and operate effectively together. Likewise, he didn’t foresee large obstacles in operating with allies, such as the United Kingdom that is introducing the Marine Corps variant F-35B to its operations and has its own fleet of legacy aircraft, or with allies and partners not in the F-35 program. He acknowledged that “countries use different weapons” and “countries use different ways of communicating,” but those differences can be addressed.

“That’s our job” to operate with others, whether they operate from the sea or from land. “That’s what naval aviation has always done.” The aircraft “has the backbone” to do that, Horan said in his talk...."

Source: https://news.usni.org/2018/10/11/navy-p ... rier-tests

[Corsair1963]

Second Navy Squadron Ready for F-35C Transition
Posted on March 2, 2021 by Richard R. Burgess, Senior Editor

ARLINGTON, Va. — The second Navy strike fighter squadron (VFA) slated for transition to the F-35C Lightning II strike fighter has made its last flight in the F/A-18E Super Hornet.

The Warhawks of VFA-97, based at Naval Air Station Lemoore, California, flew the Super Hornet for the last time on Feb. 26. For more than a year, the squadron has operated older F/A-18Es in an adversary role to help train sister VFA squadrons in aerial combat.

The Warhawks will receive transition training at Lemoore from VFA-125, the fleet replacement squadron for the F-35C.

VFA-97 will become the Navy’s second fleet F-35C squadron. The first, VFA-147, is scheduled to deploy later this year with Carrier Air Wing Two on USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70).

VFA-97 had operated the F/A-18 Hornet since 1991, and the F/A-18E Super Hornet since 2013.

Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 314 (VMFA-314) also has completed transition to the F-35C and is scheduled to deploy on a carrier in fiscal 2022.

https://seapowermagazine.org/second-nav ... ransition/

[spazsinbad]

Same same posted one day earlier here: viewtopic.php?f=59&t=57713&p=450753&hilit=transition#p450753

[doge]

There is no VMFA-323 thread and I was wondering where to post, so I will post to this thread that caught my eye.
https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2021/0 ... 614799638/

Marines' F/A-18 Hornets finish final aircraft carrier deployment
ByEd Adamczyk MARCH 3, 2021
March 3 (UPI) -- The last carrier deployment of F/A-18 Hornet fighter planes ended last week, Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 323 noted, with a transition to F-35 planes.

Personnel of VMFA-323, known as the "Death Rattlers," returned to Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, Calif., after a 10-month deployment with Carrier Air Wing 17 aboard the Navy aircraft carrier USS Nimitz in the Indo-Pacific area of operations.
The historic nature of the actions of VMFA-323, formed in 1944 and with a long history of working with the Navy, and the Marines' oldest planes in service was noted in a teleconference featuring Rear Adm. James Kirk, commander of Carrier Strike Group 11.
"Obviously with older aircraft, they do have challenges, but they rose to those challenges," Kirk said. "Those maintainers did a great job, and those Marine pilots executed those missions ... That Marine squadron met the mark, hit the mission."

Among the missions Kirk noted were "Operation Inherent Resolve, Operation Octave Quartz, or Operation Resolute Support, or the just-presence missions we did or the operations we did during dual-carrier ops in the South China Sea [in 2020] with the Ronald Reagan Strike Group of the TR [Theodore Roosevelt] Strike Group."
With the final fly-off of the F/A-18 planes, first used by the Marines in 1983, the squadron is planned as the last of the Corps' F/A-18 squadrons will upgrade to the F-35B.
The F-35B variant of the aircraft, flown by the Marine Corps and a handful of allied air forces, is capable of short-takeoffs and vertical landings.

The F-35C -- which will be flown by other Marine squadrons -- features larger wings with foldable wingtips, stronger landing gear for the stresses of carrier arrested landings and a stronger tailhook for use with carrier arrestor cables.
Both variants of the F-35 also significantly outpace the legacy F/A-18 planes, with higher speeds, increased lethality and heightened use of computers.
The U.S. Navy is also divesting itself of F/A-18 planes as fast as procurement, and deliveries from manufacturer Lockheed Martin, permit.

Wow! Higher Speeds!