Turkish F-35C?

[Corsair1963]

I keep wondering why Turkey is so interested with the F-35 when their KAAN Stealth Fighter is just a few years off. That got me thinking maybe Turkey's real interest is not really in the land-based F-35A but the naval F-35C?

Let's not forget that Turkey is developing a large Queen Elizabeth-sized Aircraft Carrier and unlike the latter. It will be a STOBAR design complete with Arresting Gear. This means it could operate conventional naval fighters like the Rafale M, Super Hornet, and yes the F-35C.

This would make a lot of sense to me.

The MUGEM aircraft carrier is designed to be a formidable asset for the Turkish Navy, with the following technical specifications:

• Length: 285 meters
• Beam: 72 meters
• Draft: 10.1 meters
• Displacement: 60,000 tons
• Max Speed: 25+ knots
• Cruising Speed: 14 knots
• Range: 10,000 nautical miles at cruising speed
• Propulsion: Combined Gas Turbine and Gas Turbine (COGAG) system with four LM2500 gas turbines, providing a total of 23 MW each
• Personnel Capacity: Accommodation for at least 800 personnel
• Aircraft Capacity: 50 manned/unmanned aircraft

[kekosam]

Hello.

As far as I know, the F-35C needs a CATOBAR carrier.

[hkultala]

Hello.

As far as I know, the F-35C needs a CATOBAR carrier.

STOBAR would probably also work, but would mean reduced takeoff weight (reduced payload and range).

However, F-35B(STOVL) would probably make more sense than using F-35C without a catapult.

[daswp]

I'd be happy keeping Turkey out of the F-35 community.

[kekosam]

STOBAR would probably also work, but would mean reduced takeoff weight (reduced payload and range).

However, F-35B(STOVL) would probably make more sense than using F-35C without a catapult.

Well, a pliers also can be used as wrench, ando probably also works.

I agree that Bravo version make more sense, and don't need arested recovery. I can only remember two fighters that use STOBAR: SU-33/J-15 and Mig-29K.

[ricnunes]

I agree that Bravo version make more sense, and don't need arested recovery. I can only remember two fighters that use STOBAR: SU-33/J-15 and Mig-29K.

There will also be the Rafale M in the Indian Navy which will be used on Indian STOBAR carriers. The Super Hornet was also tested in this environment but lost the Indian Navy fighter aircraft competition to the Rafale M.

Anyway, Turkey was kicked out of the F-35 program and their F-35A order/delivery cancelled. As such, since Turkey won't receive F-35A's, they wouldn't also receive F-35B's or F-35C's, even if they wanted to.

[disconnectedradical]

The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet has been able to operate off a ski jump ramp with two external fuel tanks, and the F-35C having a similar T/W ratio as a Super Hornet in that configuration, I don’t see why it can’t do so either.
https://www.twz.com/watch-f-a-18-super- ... ndian-navy

Other than not having STOVL, the F-35C is quite a bit more capable than F-35B in terms of range and what weapons can be carried internally. Much more fuel, and internal carriage of weapons like AARGM-ER, JSM, and can accommodate Sidekick for 6 AMRAAMs in the bay. And pilots I’ve spoken to praise the bigger wings that help with high altitude cruise.

But all this is somewhat besides the point, considering there are a lot of diplomatic hurdles to clear before Turkey can be considered to re-enter the F-35 program again.

[Corsair1963]

Hello.

As far as I know, the F-35C needs a CATOBAR carrier.

STOBAR would probably also work, but would mean reduced takeoff weight (reduced payload and range).

However, F-35B(STOVL) would probably make more sense than using F-35C without a catapult.

Unlike the Queen Elizabeth Class. The new Turkish Carriers have arresting gear. This would allow them to use the more capable F-35C vs STOVL F-35B.

The former has more range and payload.

[Corsair1963]

The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet has been able to operate off a ski jump ramp with two external fuel tanks, and the F-35C having a similar T/W ratio as a Super Hornet in that configuration, I don’t see why it can’t do so either.
https://www.twz.com/watch-f-a-18-super- ... ndian-navy

Other than not having STOVL, the F-35C is quite a bit more capable than F-35B in terms of range and what weapons can be carried internally. Much more fuel, and internal carriage of weapons like AARGM-ER, JSM, and can accommodate Sidekick for 6 AMRAAMs in the bay. And pilots I’ve spoken to praise the bigger wings that help with high altitude cruise.

But all this is somewhat besides the point, considering there are a lot of diplomatic hurdles to clear before Turkey can be considered to re-enter the F-35 program again.

Of course, it all depends on the US selling Turkey the F-35.

My point is the Turkish Air Force will have the KAAN. Yet, they won't have a Naval Stealth Fighter for their new large aircraft carrier. This could explain why Turkey keeps pushing the US to get the F-35.

[Corsair1963]

I agree that Bravo version make more sense, and don't need arested recovery. I can only remember two fighters that use STOBAR: SU-33/J-15 and Mig-29K.

There will also be the Rafale M in the Indian Navy which will be used on Indian STOBAR carriers. The Super Hornet was also tested in this environment but lost the Indian Navy fighter aircraft competition to the Rafale M.

Anyway, Turkey was kicked out of the F-35 program and their F-35A order/delivery cancelled. As such, since Turkey won't receive F-35A's, they wouldn't also receive F-35B's or F-35C's, even if they wanted to.

Turkey is still negotiating to acquire the F-35 and Trump has been very receptive to such a deal. Which doesn't it will happen but also means such a deal is off the table either!

[Corsair1963]

Hello.

As far as I know, the F-35C needs a CATOBAR carrier.

The F-35C could easily operate from an STOBAR Carrier just like the Su-33, Mig-29K, or Rafale M.

[Corsair1963]

Hello.

As far as I know, the F-35C needs a CATOBAR carrier.

STOBAR would probably also work, but would mean reduced takeoff weight (reduced payload and range).

However, F-35B(STOVL) would probably make more sense than using F-35C without a catapult.

No, it wouldn't the F-35C offers better range and payload than the F-35B. Which would give it an advantage vs the Queen Elizabth, Vikrant, or Chinese Ski Jump Carriers.

[disconnectedradical]

It doesn't matter what Turkey wants, unless there's a major shift in their policies, procurement practices, and relations with Russia, then they should not get the F-35 in the near future.

For Trump, everything is transactional without much consideration for longer term strategic and diplomatic consequences. He may force something through, that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

[hkultala]

Hello.

As far as I know, the F-35C needs a CATOBAR carrier.

STOBAR would probably also work, but would mean reduced takeoff weight (reduced payload and range).

However, F-35B(STOVL) would probably make more sense than using F-35C without a catapult.

No, it wouldn't the F-35C offers better range and payload than the F-35B. Which would give it an advantage vs the Queen Elizabth, Vikrant, or Chinese Ski Jump Carriers.

F-35C offers better range than F-35B if it takes off with full fuel tanks.

But if it takes off with fuel tanks that are half empty, it has worse range than F-35B that has full fuel tanks.

The maximum takeoff weight with STOBAR without thrust vectoring and lift fan is much smaller than the maximum takeoff weight with either CATOBAR, or STOVL with thrust vectoring and lift fan.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

The maximum takeoff weight with STOBAR without thrust vectoring and lift fan is much smaller than the maximum takeoff weight with either CATOBAR, or STOVL with thrust vectoring and lift fan.

That statement is simply not true as written. a Ski Ramp take off is limited in weight by the amount of runup area behind it. 600ft of runup to a ramp is going to be plenty for most any operational weight. The upward speed goes a long way. Remember the F-35C tested cold cat shot mil power launches at high weights to see what the safety margin was. if it can do that, it can do a ski jump at AB no problem.