F-16.net

As spaz’ article(s) point out, the T-45 is a very different aircraft than the aircraft from which it descended. The original T-45 design was significantly mod’d from the BAE Hawk, and essentially failed its first round of carrier suit’y testing and had to be extensively modified — again. One can see its lineage but it is a very different jet than its ancestor, and the Navy would never deprive young pilots from routine exposure and development of those skills that set them apart from their land-based brethren. I (like most of my colleagues — both USN and USMC) was already pretty good at flying the ball by the time I got to initial FCLPs because I already had dozens of passes in the jet(s), accumulated at the end of every other sortie I had flown up to that point —whether it was Nav, or A-G or BFM or whatever. Save some money in procurement and short-sheet pilot training? Notta chance.

‘Navy’ F-35Bs? They would rather eat raw chicken; that’s how strong the institutional aversion is to that idea amongst Tailhookers. It’s also a zero-sum budget environment; one ‘Navy’ F-35B squadron (about $1B for starters) would come at the expense of $1B for other stuff. And why spend Navy money on the idea when the Marines are already doing it in numbers that will more than fulfill the notional requirements for such a capability?

Lotsa ideas look good until they have to emerge into the often harsh light of reality. If we want the discussions here to be informed by reality (unlike other sites), we should not fairy-dust inconvenient truths.

There’s also been some references to command and organizational relationships afloat that are at odds with the reality. Few things can be more contentious than ‘command authorities’ and the relationships between organizations and individuals with command authorities conferred.

Here’s a couple references; a lot to digest but pay particular attention to adcon, opcon, and tacon. Also, ‘supporting’ and ‘supported’ relationships. Did not find the USN ref but will look some more.

https://www.marines.mil/portals/1/Publi ... 121918-920

https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/ ... nships.pdf

https://www.jag.navy.mil/distrib/instru ... imeOps.pdf

quicksilver wrote:As spaz’ article(s) point out, the T-45 is a very different aircraft than the aircraft from which it descended.

In summary, the equivalent navalized version of the F-35A is the F-35C.

weasel1962 wrote:

quicksilver wrote:As spaz’ article(s) point out, the T-45 is a very different aircraft than the aircraft from which it descended.

In summary, the equivalent navalized version of the F-35A is the F-35C.

Bin dere Dun dat: [previous page this thread]

"Someone has their wires crossed methinks. The original RAF Hawk trainer was heavily modified to become the T-45A and carrier capable. So in some universe we may claim the F-35A was HEAVILY MODIFIED to become the F-35C carrier capable?…" viewtopic.php?f=61&t=56231&p=429042&hilit=methinks#p429042

In summary, the equivalent navalized version of the F-35A is the F-35C, which Spaz has already pointed out.

Several years ago spaz answered why the B model would hinder CATOBAR operations on a carrier, not help increase operational tempo. The B would never add anything to what can already be done on a carrier. And without the support of the carrier aircraft already on the big deck, it doesn't make much sense to disperse B's where you have helicopter decks because then you lose the use of the helicopters.

weasel1962 wrote:If I read Madrat's contention correctly, it is that if USN can use T-45A for carrier training, why can't they use the F-35A, in which case he proposes 2 squadrons worth. No one is questioning that the T-45 is not used by the navy.

Actually using F-35A for carrier landing was never my proposal. I suggested learning to fly F-35 could be done in an A model and then specialize to carrier qualifications in the C. Quicksilver was the one suggesting I said land an A on a carrier. Your still have to learn approaches using the navigational aids prior to going out to sea. That can easily be done on land bases using A models. When you can buy 3 or more A for every pair of C models, it makes sense to utilize the lower operational costs. That leaves more money to buy C models for the carriers.

'madrat' said above: "...Your still have to learn approaches using the navigational aids prior to going out to sea. That can easily be done on land bases using A models...." This may be true in the case of INSTRUMENT approaches but NOT THE FINAL LEG - the CARRIER APPROACH (olden slang: "MEATBALL LINEUP and Airspeed [Optimum Angle of Attack"]). What concerns NAVAL AVIATORS is flying EVERY APPROACH to a no flare touchdown. Can this be done in an F-35A? Can FCLP be conducted in an F-35A? Not only that but there are flying differences with the F-35 variants which probably indicates to most pilots - fly the friendly skies with the F-35C and the F-35C in the simulator if one is to be an F-35C pilot.

Your first paragraph is incorrect methinks. Someone else has explained whatever it is you cite. "Several years ago spaz answered why the B model would hinder CATOBAR operations on a carrier, not help increase operational tempo...." I could probably argue the reverse but would not dare. Why? Because I don't have enough knowledge of CVN/STOVL ops.

“I suggested learning to fly F-35 could be done in an A model and then specialize to carrier qualifications in the C. Quicksilver was the one suggesting I said land an A on a carrier.”

No. What I pointed out was that you can’t fly an A to a no-flare landing ashore, any more than one can do so at-sea. (As spaz notes above). One would therefore lose exposure to all the (substantial) ball flying that goes on at the end of every training flight one has before the first FCLP ever starts. Do you understand how no-flare landings are different from flared landings? Do you understand that ‘ball’ (fresnel lens) flying and non-flare touch-and-go landings are practiced (multiple passes) at the end of almost every trading sortie one flies, whether it be Nav, or Air-to-Ground, or BFM, whatever?

The A and the C also ‘handle’ (respond to ones inputs) differently. Some of it is nuanced, some of it is more pronounced; all of it is vital exposure because in some circumstances, knowing those differences allows you to avoid the loss of the jet and/or your own hide. Your idea would kind of be like qualifying for an Indy car race in one car and then be handed a different car on race day — cockpit looks the same, but you can’t adjust how it handles.

“...it makes sense to utilize the lower operational costs.”

If you’re a bean-counter it might.

“And without the support of the carrier aircraft already on the big deck, it doesn't make much sense to disperse B's where you have helicopter decks because then you lose the use of the helicopters.“

Helps us understand what you mean here, because that statement doesn’t add-up right.

“...the B model would hinder CATOBAR operations on a carrier...”

Debatable...but not worth re-examining. Have heard the story face-to-face many times. Saw some of the briefs in my previous life. But I also heard how the B was going to blow sailors and Marines overboard, and melt flight decks. I also read the after-action report from the FDR many, many years ago, which suggested otherwise.

However, once again, the intrepid Tyler Rogoway found it worthy of writing about —

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-t ... 1692022146

madrat wrote:Actually using F-35A for carrier landing was never my proposal. I suggested learning to fly F-35 could be done in an A model and then specialize to carrier qualifications in the C. Quicksilver was the one suggesting I said land an A on a carrier. Your still have to learn approaches using the navigational aids prior to going out to sea. That can easily be done on land bases using A models. When you can buy 3 or more A for every pair of C models, it makes sense to utilize the lower operational costs. That leaves more money to buy C models for the carriers.

...or you can just buy simulators which is what the navy has done, in this case 8 simulators for the cost of every engineless A. Training is now 50-50 on simulators to actual flight.

madrat wrote:... Actually using F-35A for carrier landing was never my proposal. I suggested learning to fly F-35 could be done in an A model and then specialize to carrier qualifications in the C. ... it makes sense to utilize the lower operational costs. That leaves more money to buy C models for the carriers.

While it could be argued that the Navy has gone to the extreme replacing F-14, A-7, F-18A/C, KA-6, E=6, S-3 etc. or half a dozen types being replaced by the Super Hornet across the board, it is worth examining why they did so. "Lower operational costs," (especially on a carrier, or supporting carrier wings,) is misleading..., as even a cheap cost is additive when you address spares, maintenance personnel/training. It simply can be cheaper to maintain one type, no matter how expensive that type might be.

I would propose that for this reason, even if ... and I 'm not sure we can say this ..., even if the basic training on the A could transfer to C operations, it is not going to save any money, but in fact would cost more. I would propose that even if you offloaded the training to the Air Force, which the Navy would not do, laison and TDY costs would likely offset any savings.

Thus in general trying to shove a square peg into a round hole rarely works out, certainly not when it comes to $$$$.

MHO,
BP

In my opinion, weasel has already summed up the answer quite well:

weasel1962 wrote:...or you can just buy simulators which is what the navy has done, in this case 8 simulators for the cost of every engineless A. Training is now 50-50 on simulators to actual flight.

By the time an F-35 pilot steps to the jet for the first time, (s)he already knows how to fly it. They learned how in a simulator -- they had to, because the F-35, as we all know, is not dual seat... there IS NO SEAT for an instructor.

So what is to be gained by a nasal radiator piloting an Aye model? Nothing. The savings have already been realized in the simulators purchased; a decision made by the JSF program long ago.

steve2267 wrote:In my opinion, weasel has already summed up the answer quite well:

weasel1962 wrote:...or you can just buy simulators which is what the navy has done, in this case 8 simulators for the cost of every engineless A. Training is now 50-50 on simulators to actual flight.

By the time an F-35 pilot steps to the jet for the first time, (s)he already knows how to fly it. They learned how in a simulator -- they had to, because the F-35, as we all know, is not dual seat... there IS NO SEAT for an instructor.

So what is to be gained by a nasal radiator piloting an Aye model? Nothing. The savings have already been realized in the simulators purchased; a decision made by the JSF program long ago.

x2

This quotable quote has been quoted before I guess - but it is a doozy indeedy: http://www.navy.mil/ah_online/ussford/

Introducing Gerald R. Ford Class…
...Ford will be capable of carrying the Navy’s most advanced aircraft, such as the F-35C Lightning II; F/A-18E/F Super Hornet; E-2D Advanced Hawkeye; EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft; MH-60R/S helicopters and unmanned air vehicles. Adding to its versatility, Ford will also be able to recover and launch various Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) aircraft flown by the United States Marine Corps. Finally, the design margins built into the ship will allow for integration of future manned and unmanned aircraft with minimal ship alterations...."