Did you miss the GW1 example? They had a very formidable ADA network but no Air or Naval force to speak of.

The same GW1 where the USN had what, 2? CVN in the Gulf?

That GW1?

Yes, the LHD really would be a “force multiplier” in that scenario.

At IOC, 2x1000lb JDAMS or 2x500lb Paveways and 2xAMRAAMs.
Later, up to ~3000 lbs of mixed munitions.

The F-35B can operate at MTOW off an LHD?

The F-35B’s 500nm range allows it to get from one to the other.

So, what munitions are carried with this “range” off an LHD?

Do you guys always have a problem with reading?
Where does it say “non permissible environment”.
That’s not in the text. You adding that to it!

Ugh. It’s like playschool.

If its a permissible environment, what is wrong with Harriers?

Let’s see what the USMC wants from the F-35B at IOC,:

http://www.janes.com/article/43079/first-operational-f-35b-squadron-on-track-to-meet-deployment-standards

“The USMC plans to declare IOC with Block 2B software installed on its first operational squadron of 10-16 aircraft. The aircraft must be ready to conduct close air support (CAS), offensive and defensive counter-air missions, air interdiction, assault support escort, and armed reconnaissance in co-operation with Marine Air Ground Task Force resources, the Pentagon said in 2013”

So, are the Marines actually going to run counter-air and air interdiction in non-permissible environments off the deck of an LHD?

If so, I’ve some moon rocks containing unobtainium I want to sell, you appear like a fellow that may be interested…

[For CAS, assault support and armed reccie, UCAVs are already doing these jobs. Note they are not “40 yr old battered airframes”.]

The defense budget would have to support a niche aircraft that cannot operate in anything but a permissive environment, one that Ucav’s are rapidly being fielded to fill.

So how is that any different from the F-35B operating off an LHD?

Niche? Yes
Permissible environment required? Yes
Replaceable by UCAV’s for the tasks envisaged within this niche? Yes

Boeing sales are quite healthy considering the year-long head start the Airbus has had in sales.

But relatively around 2/3s that of NEO.

The year head start is irrelevant at this point in time as that 1/3 extra represents many more years manufacturing.

Still Boeing predicts better fuel economy, and they’re saying the new winglets are one of the reasons.
Their computer simulations might be off, but I’d expect they have them fairly well nailed down to avoid disappointing customers…especially since many contracts have penalty clauses if the aircraft doesn’t live up to expectations.

Oh, I’d reckon the disconnect would be between engineering and marketing. Not reality and engineering.

One think I’ve never understood is the original 320 wing could not support blended winglets…whereas Boeing has offered them for years either from the factory or through a kit offered by Aviation partners.

That’d depend on the static and fatigue margins within the wing structure.

(Don’t forget, the A320 wing is older than the 737NG wing.)

A week out of service and $500,000 and you get 2-3% fuel savings.

But may* reduce your inspection intervals – its never black and white.

*==should – otherwise the non-winglet operators are getting a bad deal.

yes Nuno. But consider that the TF34 as far less outsourced electrical power potential than a CFM56 or alike.

There are DIRCM run off similar sized engines to TF34 in the world.