Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC

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

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23181
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post15 Jan 2011, 07:54

madrat, I don't know where you have the idea that a fully loaded F-35B cannot takeoff from a USMC flat top. The Key Performance Parameters require this capability. Likely these aircraft will do some kind of short takeoff - one of the first things proven in the flight testing of the F-35B.

Yes the possibility of adding an EMALS catapult to an LHD would be there but you watch the USN supporters NAYSAY this idea. Likely an EMALS will have to wait for a future flat top or a big refurbishing of one. Why - a ski jump could be added with the EMALS to make it more efficient (and shorter stroke length). We all know where that idea will go though... :twisted:
Last edited by spazsinbad on 15 Jan 2011, 07:57, edited 1 time in total.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23181
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post15 Jan 2011, 07:56

Before my broadband is slowed/shaped to dialup speed here are some light reading sites for potential USMC use of F-35B in a role not always talked about perhaps. The info is out there though...

Strike Fighter Partners With Pilot By Robert K. Ackerman October 2006

http://www.afcea.org/signal/articles/te ... &zoneid=56

"The F-35 is designed with open-architecture mission systems that feature information fusion. It has no stovepipes, Rubino declares. All of the aircraft’s information is fused through one integrated core processor that can combine data from radar, infrared and electro-optic sensors. This processor can perform more than 1 trillion computations per second, and the pilot can tailor the fused information from the aircraft’s integrated sensor suite to whatever form best suits a situation.

And, this fused situational awareness picture is not limited to input from onboard systems. Pilots can include information from Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) and Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JointSTARS) aircraft, among many air- and land-based platforms.

The flip side is that the F-35 also can serve as an intelligence collection platform. Its Link-16 datalink system allows it to downlink vital intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) information to other platforms and headquarters, including space-based assets. A prognostic health and management system allows the aircraft to downlink mechanical issues automatically to its base as it returns from a mission.

All told, the aircraft has more than 120 information exchange requirements ranging from fellow fighter aircraft to ships and ground-based vehicles, Rubino relates. This permits the aircraft to feed ISR data to weapon systems such as a Patriot missile battery. The aircraft also will be compatible with future systems such as the Joint Tactical Radio System, or JTRS, and the Army’s Future Combat Systems.

The F-35 has its own unique datalink system—the multi-array downlink, or MADL. It is a low-probability-of-intercept/low-probability-of-detection point-to-point datalink. It permits rapid exchange of diverse information with other F-35s at fairly long ranges, Rubino allows, and this provides greater flexibility for conducting operations.

For example, one F-35 could be flying with all of its active sensors in full roar collecting information and building a complete picture for another F-35 operating in a silent stealth mode. The MADL would allow the active F-35 to transfer the fused information to its silent partner some distance away."
___________________

Marines Tap Other Services’ Information Technologies By Robert K. Ackerman May 2007

http://www.afcea.org/signal/articles/te ... &zoneid=37

"The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program (SIGNAL Magazine, October 2006) has a Marine Corps variant, and the Corps is working with the Air Force on the many networking aspects that advanced platform brings to the force. The F-35’s combat capabilities are complemented by an advanced sensor suite that makes the aircraft an ISR platform. Connectivity development relates to JTRS and wideband networking, and the Corps wants to be able to leverage these capabilities fully. Gen. Allen allows that this may require networking across the battlespace in a manner that currently cannot be conceived.

“We have to take it [the F-35] as a completely different concept than the way we do combat now,” he declares. “From a network perspective, the fact that you literally have almost a ‘router in the sky’ that can actually network itself—can change missions on the fly—requires that we look at it not just as an upgrade but as a significantly new capability for network-centric operations in the air.”

The Corps is working on an architecture for that router-in-the-sky combat aircraft, the general continues. Because the F-35 is such an innovative concept and a potentially robust capability, planners will be working on its architecture carefully for several years to come, he adds.
________________

Programmable System Guides Jet to New Heights By Henry S. Kenyon June 2008

http://www.afcea.org/signal/articles/te ... zoneid=234

"Avionics package offers stealthy fighter enhanced, secure communications and mission flexibility.

The U.S. military’s newest combat aircraft, the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, is designed as a multirole platform capable of carrying out a range of missions for different services and foreign allies. Its brains are an advanced software programmable avionics package that can be rapidly reconfigured for new operations. The package manages the aircraft’s navigations, communications, electronic warfare, and identification friend or foe functions. Although it was developed for use in fighter aircraft, the electronics package can potentially be installed in a range of airborne and ground-based vehicles."
&
"The F-35’s avionics system consists of a variety of software-programmable channels. Depending on the particular mission need, each channel can be programmed for a specific function. Phan notes that the JSF can perform more than 30 different system functions. Its identification friend or foe (IFF) system has five different modes to classify and identify friendly aircraft. Communications functions range from basic ultrahigh/very high frequency to single channel ground and airborne radio system (SINCGARS) and Have Quick. The aircraft also supports several datalinks for communications and situational awareness such as Link 16 and a specialized multi-array datalink (MADL) for stealthy communications between aircraft. He shares that MADL is scheduled to become the standard method for data transfer between the F-35 and F-22.

MADL was developed specifically to maintain JSF’s stealth capability. It is a K-band, narrow beam point-to-point datalink. Phan explains that when aircraft share data with each other via their datalinks, they can be tracked. He says that MADL is stealthy because it uses a narrow beam to communicate with other aircraft, making it very difficult to track an F-35 via its emissions.

The JSF’s software programmable communications system is written to the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) software common architecture standard."
______________

On the horizon for F-22 and for F-35 and others perhaps?

Phased Array System Opens New Horizons By Henry S. Kenyon July 2006

http://www.afcea.org/signal/articles/te ... zoneid=188

"Modified radar operates as a data modem and sensor to move information in seconds."
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23181
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post15 Jan 2011, 20:11

Interesting possibility revealed I guess:

Jeep Carriers

http://www.neptunuslex.com/2011/01/13/j ... ent-675137

Navig8r - January 14, 2011: "The first Jeep carrier is already under construction. LHA 6 is a copy of LHD 8 without a well deck and with expanded hangar deck and aviation facilities. It can carry 22 STOVOL varients of JSF. Since it will not have cats or traps, UCAVs would be problematic. LHA 7 will be a copy of LHA 6, but the design for LHA 8 is still fluid. While some are considering putting the well deck back, others are thinking about EMALS/AAG [Advanced Arrestor Gear]. That would give it the ability to handle UCAVs.

Maybe I’m a linear thinking ‘shoe, but I can’t figure out why we would build an amphib that can’t deliver anything heavier than an unarmored HMMV to the beach. Maybe that was a clever ploy to get a pocket carrier authorized by the bean counters."
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23181
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post16 Jan 2011, 07:50

Precis of more guff about origins of SRVL (for CVF) on this forum.... Scroll down the page at URL below (or read on)...

SRVL for CVF: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... c&p=172178

Date Posted: 11-Dec-2008 International Defence Review

http://militarynuts.com/index.php?showtopic=1507&st=120

Preparing for take-off: UK ramps up F-35 carrier integration effort
EDITED
"A range of simulation, modelling, risk-reduction and technology-demonstration activities are under way to optimise the safety and operability of the ship/air interface between the UK's new aircraft carriers and the F-35B Joint Strike Fighters that will operate from them. Richard Scott reports....

....SRVL manoeuvre
As currently conceptualised, an aircraft executing an SRVL approach will follow a constant glidepath (five to six degrees) to the deck. This angle is about twice that of a normal CV approach, offering increased clearance over the stern and less touchdown scatter. The touchdown position on the axial flight deck is about 150 ft from the stern, similar to that of a conventional carrier.

No arrestor gear is required. Instead, the aircraft brakes are used to bring the aircraft to a stop.

Low-key studies to investigate the SRVL technique were initiated by the MoD in the late 1990s, but the work has latterly taken on a much higher profile after the MoD's Investments Approvals Board (IAB) in July 2006 directed that SRVL should be included in future development of the JCA design to mitigate the risk to KUR 4. Accordingly, the JCA IPT amended the CVF integration contract in mid-2008 to include this requirement.

Addressing IPLC 2008, Martin Rosa, F-35 technical coordinator in Dstl's air and weapon systems department, said the SRVL studies to date had shown "a way forward exists to achieving operationally useful increases in bring-back, compared to a vertical landing, on board CVF with an appropriate level of safety".

Dstl began early work to examine the feasibility of employing the SRVL manoeuvre in 1999. According to Rosa, an initial pre-feasibility investigation demonstrated the potential payoff of the manoeuvre in terms of increased bring back, but also threw up four key areas demanding further examination: performance (as affected by variables such as deck run, wind over deck, aerodynamic lift and thrust margin); carrier design; operational issues (such as sortie generation rate); and safety.

Further feasibility investigations were conducted in 2000-01 using generic aircraft and ship models. Dstl also ran a two-day safety workshop in late 2001. This showed that there were no "showstoppers, and no SRVL-specific safety critical systems were identified", said Rosa. "Also, the ability to ditch weapons and carry out a vertical landing instead of an SRVL in the event of a failure was seen as a powerful safety mitigation."

During 2002, more representative F-35B information became available which altered assumptions with respect to aircraft 'bring back' angle of attack (from 16 degrees to about 12 degrees, so reducing the lift co-efficient); wing area (revised downwards from 500 ft2 to 460 ft2, reducing lift available on approach at a given speed by 8 per cent); and jet effects in the SRVL speed range (which were significantly greater than those in the hover).

Aggregated, these revised assumptions significantly reduced predicted bring back performance. Even so, the improvement offered by an SRVL recovery was still substantial and MoD interest continued.

In the 2003-04 timeframe, Lockheed Martin became formally engaged in the investigation of SRVL recovery, with the JPO contracting with Team F-35 for a study into methods for Enhanced Vertical Landing Bring Back. Once again, safety and performance characteristics were considered broadly encouraging. "However," pointed out Rosa, "at this stage work on the adaptable CVF design was progressing rapidly.... Consequently the obvious next step was to consider the detailed impacts that SRVL might have on the CVF design."
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2266
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post16 Jan 2011, 12:45

Spazinbad-

The F-35B carries several tons less than the F-35B. It has around 5000 pounds less fuel by design and has a significant lower overall maximum takeoff weight. The idea that it couldn't cope with conventional takeoff and landing stresses with it's modified bulkhead design makes me feel like the F-35 is turning out to be too much about what it cannot do. And it's less and less about what it can now.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23181
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post16 Jan 2011, 12:53

madrat, not sure you make a good case for what you perhaps are trying to say. I get it. You don't like the F-35B. However those intending to use it do like it. You make a mountain out of a molehill with your comment about the bulkhead. This problem has been fixed. Only you are seeing what it cannot do. Make a list of things it can do compared to any other aircraft; not least of all the other variants. Be surprised or Be cynical. Your choice.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2266
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post16 Jan 2011, 17:15

Actually I do like the F-35B. I just don't think the USMC or anyone else should over sell its vertical landing component. I'd much rather see an F-35B that only VL when winchester and perform short field landing when loaded than carry on a charade that isn't going to happen. Repackage it as a very short takeoff and landing catobar-compatible warplane rather than a conventional vtol Marines-centric plane without catobar support. (The Marines corp is getting pie in the face over this debacle.) This charade will get the program cancelled and it may just cause a chain reaction effect through the other two versions. If the USMC is hell bent on a half baked F-35B, that doesn't meet their original goals, then I'm all for cancelling it now and center work around making the other two versions the best they can be for their respective services. As it has metered out so far the F-35B has been an ankle weight upon the others.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23181
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post16 Jan 2011, 18:43

madrat, the F-35B is meeting the goals set if by that you mean Key Performance Parameters (KPP). How the VSTOL capabilities are used operationally is up to the USMC. They have a lot of flexible landing and take off capability to utilise. That is clear. No problem.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

elp

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3143
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 20:08

Unread post17 Jan 2011, 07:22

spazsinbad wrote:madrat, the F-35B is meeting the goals set if by that you mean Key Performance Parameters (KPP). How the VSTOL capabilities are used operationally is up to the USMC. They have a lot of flexible landing and take off capability to utilise. That is clear. No problem.


KPPs have to be certified by something more than wishful thinking by the PowerPoint warriors.

That being OPEVAL etc. Still a lot of time before we know what result that will deliver; given all of the out-of-sequence work that is going on.
- ELP -
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23181
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 Jan 2011, 07:58

One of the first taekoff tests were a series of STOs. Have not heard that these were not satisfactory. There are comments by test pilots out there how well these went in the F-35B - because the STO is as important as the VL (or SRVL if needed). Being a self admitted PowerPointMaker 'elp' - you would know a lot I guess.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23181
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post15 Feb 2011, 21:07

Russian sold secrets for China’s first carrier - Ukraine sends him to prison
By Reuben F. Johnson - The Washington Times - Monday, February 14, 2011

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... t-carrier/

"KIEV | Ukrainian authorities have imposed a six-year prison term on a Russian man convicted of spying for China who was assigned to steal military secrets for Beijing’s program to build and operate aircraft carriers.

The Russian national, Aleksandr Yermakov, was blocked from attempting to transfer to China classified data that would have significantly accelerated the Chinese army‘s effort to field its own operational aircraft carrier, according to reports in the Ukrainian newspaper Segodnya and other news outlets.

China's military announced last year that it had begun construction of its first aircraft carrier, confirming Pentagon and U.S. intelligence reports that Beijing was seeking the power-projection platform that requires highly skilled pilots who can take off and land from the relatively short space of a carrier deck at sea.

U.S. and defense and intelligence officials said China‘s deployment of an aircraft carrier would pose significant problems for U.S. plans to defend democratic Taiwan if the communist mainland were to use force to retake the island, which broke away after China‘s civil war.

“It not only extends the range of Chinese strike aircraft that would take out [Taiwanese] military installations, but it also would complicate U.S. Navy assistance of the [Republic of China‘s] defense if the mainland should attack,” said a naval officer and Chinese carrier program specialist assigned to the Pentagon.

China‘s intelligence service directed Yermakov to steal classified information about Ukraine‘s Land-based Naval Aviation Testing and Training Complex, or NITKA, its Russian acronym, according to reports.

The facility is in the Crimea near the city of Saki and was built when Ukraine was a part of the Soviet Union. It remains the only training complex of its kind in the world.


The NITKA base is vital for states that operate one of the Russian-designed carriers equipped with ski-ramp takeoff decks, instead of the flat decks used on U.S. and French aircraft carriers.

The only two ski-jump carriers are the Russian navy‘s Admiral Kuznetsov and its sister ship, the Varyag, acquired by China from Ukraine in 1998 and initially announced in China for use as a floating casino. Russia continues training its pilots in Ukraine while building a similar facility in the Krasnodarsky Krai region of Russia that is expected to be completed in 2012.

...

Chinese intelligence promised to pay the Russian father-son team “$1 million for the delivery of documentation on this training facility and its operations in the form of drawings, digital photos, information on flash drives,” the SBU said. As preparation for the operation “Yermakov‘s son made several trips to the [People's Republic of China] where he visited People’s Liberation Army Navy facilities and met with their representatives.”

The SBU and diplomatic sources told Segodnya, the Ukrainian newspaper, that in addition to “digital data, drawings, and construction documents, the Russian duo had prepared some 1,500 pages of documents to hand over to Chinese intelligence.” This information had a value “to the national interests of Ukraine in the hundreds of millions of dollars.”

China’s navy acquired the Varyag from the Ukrainian Nikolayev shipyards in 1998 for $20 million using a Chinese tourism company as a cover for the sale.

The original Chinese buyers promised that the ship would be turned into a casino and entertainment complex to be moored at the former Portuguese enclave of Macau, but the ship eventually was moved to China‘s Dalian shipyards, where it has been undergoing a refit for several years.

Chinese military officials have been quoted in China‘s state-run press as saying they plan to create a carrier-naval aviation capability; but “the Chinese need their own NITKA” for training their own carrier pilots, according to Ukrainian news reports, “and they have already begun building their own complex.”

U.S. intelligence officials said the first indications of China‘s plan for building aircraft carriers were land-based short takeoff and landing drills going back a decade.

The Chinese are building a massive carrier pilot training base at Xingcheng, in the northeastern province of Liaoning. Other facilities for training of carrier personnel and engineering support specialists have been built in Xian, Shanxi province. The Xingcheng facility has features that duplicate the design of NITKA in Ukraine."
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23181
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post16 Feb 2011, 05:06

Possible Xingcheng NavAv Airfield sites (my guess only - zoom in using Google Earth):

Image
Image
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23181
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post20 Feb 2011, 04:50

AFAIK the first (& only) Harrier 'SRVL' as told by pilot:

David Morgan: The Sea Harrier's Baptism of Fire

http://www.globalaviationresource.com/r ... rganp1.php

"For many the Falklands War of 1982 was the Sea Harrier's finest hour. Lt Cdr David Morgan
DSC served with 899 NAS during the conflict and tells that story in a vivid memoir entitled
"Hostile Skies". David has kindly agreed to provide three features for GAR's Harrier series and
here is the first, telling the incredible story of the attack on Port Stanley on 1st May 1982....

...Once back in the overhead of Hermes, I circled at a height of 5,000 feet whilst Flt Lt Ted Ball came up to
inspect the damage. After a fruitless inspection of the left side of the aircraft, he swapped over to the
right side and after a few seconds said 'Ah yes... you have got a bloody great hole in the tail'. I moved
the control surfaces to and fro and was told that they appeared to be working correctly but there was a
distinct possibility that the reaction controls, critical for vertical landing, might have taken some damage.
I therefore let everyone else land before setting myself up to carry out a rolling landing. This entails
running the aircraft onto the deck with a certain amount of forward speed and is not an approved
manoeuvre as there is a distinct danger of running over the side into the sea. It does, however, reduce
the reliance on the reaction controls and might give me the option to overshoot and try again if the
controls jammed.

I selected my undercarriage and flaps to the landing position, tightened my lap straps and set myself up
for a straight-in approach to the back end of the ship, from about one mile out. As I got closer,
everyone on the flight deck started to creep forwards to get a better view of the impending arrival. This
worried me somewhat as, if I had lost control, I might have taken a lot of people with me. I transmitted
a short call to that effect to the ship and the flight deck crews soon got the message and headed rapidly
for the comparative safety of the catwalks on either deck edge!

I stabilised the speed at 50 knots and adjusted the power and nozzle angle to give me a gentle rate of
descent towards the stern of the carrier. Slight adjustments were required to compensate for the rise
and fall of the deck but I managed to achieve a good firm touchdown about 50 feet in and braked
cautiously to a halt before following the marshaller's signals to park at the base of the ski-jump. As the
chain lashings were attached and I started my shutdown checks, I became aware that I was sweating
profusely, despite the biting 30 knot wind whipping in through the open cockpit canopy. The adrenalin
flow also made it difficult to unstrap and undo the various connections to the ejection seat, before
standing up to leave the cockpit. Outside, on the windswept and slippery deck stood a crowd of people
staring at my tail. Having given a thumbs-up to Bernard Hesketh, the BBC cameraman, I walked a little
unsteadily round the tail of the aircraft to inspect the damage...."
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

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

Unread post20 Feb 2011, 05:21

I actually like the idea of having an F-35B/jeep carrier option. 4 LHAs could be a tougher target than 1 CVN, but they'd have to develop a V-22 AWACS to make the concept viable.
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2885
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post21 Feb 2011, 21:42

1st503rdsgt wrote:I actually like the idea of having an F-35B/jeep carrier option. 4 LHAs could be a tougher target than 1 CVN, but they'd have to develop a V-22 AWACS to make the concept viable.


Oh my Gosh; a V-22 with a MESA onboard :idea: :D
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests