Forum: General F-35 Forum

Interesting.
Why does B come with signifiant more sorties? Its range short? It's built more reliable and requires less maintain?

F-16.net Sponsor

If the F-35B is stationed near the front lines, then it's time-in-flight is much shorter and can return to the battlefield more often.

SpudmanWP wrote:

If the F-35B is stationed near the front lines, then it's time-in-flight is much shorter and can return to the battlefield more often.

But it can't loiter like an A-10, and that's what grunts want in a CAS platform. It's a lot more helpful when your "fast flyer" can hang out for awhile.

But neither can an A-10 operate off a ship.. a land base will have to be secured for it to operate, either diplomatically or by force, which can take time.
What the infantry want foremost is the threat to. Be dealt with expeditiously. The F-35 can do that even in a hostile environment where even an A-10 would tread to go. The rapid sortie generation I n capability and supersonic dash speed,means the help comes a lot quicker and time is life in such situations.

Last edited by popcorn on May 18, 2012 - 02:18 PM; edited 3 times in total

But neither can an A-10 operate off a ship.. a land base will have to be secured for it to operate, either diplomatically or by force, which can take time.
What the infantry want foremost is the threat to be dealt with expeditiously. The F-35 can do that even in a hostile environment where even an A-10 would dread to go. The rapid sortie generation capability and supersonic dash speed means the help comes a lot quicker and time is life in such situations.

What good is the A-10 on the future battle field with out stealth, sensors, computer displays and networkability? The only thing it will be good for is to act as a decoy for hand launched surface to air missiles and anti aircraft batteries.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BecNTYPYbU

alloycowboy wrote:

What good is the A-10 on the future battle field with out stealth, sensors, computer displays and networkability? The only thing it will be good for is to act as a decoy for hand launched surface to air missiles and anti aircraft batteries.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BecNTYPYbU

Well, to be fair to the venerable Warthog, the C model has been upgraded to deploy precision munitions from standoff distances. No comparison to what the JSF brings to,the fight but still nice to have a pair of longer tusks.

sferrin wrote:

checksixx wrote:

I say throw a cannon in the 'C', eat the weight increase which wouldn't be much, and all services buy the 'C'.

That's why you don't make the decisions. Rolling Eyes

I'm well aware of that...thanks for letting me know though. Why don't you go troll for a fight somewhere else.

Can't people just post their opinion's on this forum without people like sferrin running their little mouths??

river_otter wrote:

checksixx wrote:

I say throw a cannon in the 'C', eat the weight increase which wouldn't be much, and all services buy the 'C'.

The C already has a cannon, it's just in a pod.

Right...so...it DOES NOT have a cannon in it. Like I said.

alloycowboy wrote:

What good is the A-10 on the future battle field with out stealth, sensors, computer displays and networkability?

Uh... close-in air support and counter insurgency.

It actually fills these roles significantly better than does the F-35.

HaveVoid wrote:

The A+ Hornets for a sub-set of the total USMC Hornet force. The D models were still rolling off the line fairly recently (2000) and along with the USMC's fleet of C models, should still have some life in them. At least it was enough life that the USN was looking to make a trade for them not that long ago.

There isn't any trading involved. NAVAIR owns all the aircraft and then assigns them to Navy and Marine squadrons. The single seat Hornet stockpile is in pretty bad shape. With the F-35 delays, they've had to order additional Super Hornets to have enough legacy Hornets to equip Marine squadrons.

[quote]At the end of the day, unless the USAF was looking to embrace a whole new concept of operations involving forward, unprepared strips and shot field landings, etc, why would they ever want the F-35B?/quote]

That's more or less a myth. It takes a lot of effort to build an AM-2 airstrip, unprepared is out of the question with the B because of FOD, and you have to a long enough runway to get a C-17 in incase an airframe is damaged and it has to be flown out. Then there's the pesky issue of resupply. In the end, its just easier to capture an air base or civillian airport.

The USMC will be using the Sea Base concept for F-35Bs. That is what they will do and Ex. Alligator 2012 was such an exercise.

checksixx wrote:

river_otter wrote:

checksixx wrote:

I say throw a cannon in the 'C', eat the weight increase which wouldn't be much, and all services buy the 'C'.

The C already has a cannon, it's just in a pod.

Right...so...it DOES NOT have a cannon in it. Like I said.

But as explained, adding a cannon to it internally takes away the extra fuel tank it needs to meet range KPP. That renders it all-around less capable than the A, and for far more money. With a podded gun it keeps its fuel tank, so at least its range remains comparable to the A. Just for far more money.

And it has a beefed up both the internal structure and its landing gear in significant fashion. Lower the expectations for the potential abuse upon landing when using it from land bases and you can shed weight. Rather than having big and small wing options as is the case now, use a common airframe using a common wing. This is the program for a common workhorse, eliminate as many Cadillac options as practical. It's not like the C model doesn't have advantages over the A model. People are so fixated on their arguments that they hone in on rigid yet inconsequential tact.

So, rather than have the three distinct versions you have now, you would have us create an F-35C (AF) that has been structurally de-rated? So we would be looking at new fatigue and structural testing, which isn't free, some possible re-engineering work which isn't free, and then there is the whole Lack on internal canon issue which I doubt the USAF would accept. I highly doubt there is anywhere near enough power to enable the F-35B to use the C's wing either

Having three distinct F-35 models isn't a Cadillac option, it's how the program was conceived. I guess, in the interest of cutting out all these Cadillac features, everyone should just fly the F-35B.

When it comes to anti-F-35 arguments, people are so fixated on their arguments that they overlook rigid, non inconsequential, facts.

HV

Forum: General F-35 Forum

USAF: F-35B cannot generate enough sorties to replace A-10