MadRatI always considered the MiG-23 to be the equivalent of a third Gen EE Lightning. Chin missiles. Radar. VWG. Internal gun. Stuff the Lightnings lacked. They lacked the elegance of the Lightning, though, using a single engine.
MadRatFirst I’ve heard they don’t have radios. Everything I’ve read suggested otherwise. And mothership doesn’t imply a larger boat, its just the phrase coined for the boat carrying the leader. It’s used as a slur more than a definitive identity. These are irregulars with macho attitudes.
MadRatToo much coastline, & those Apaches can’t tell fishermen from pirates.
Honeypots. Troll around and draw them in. When they take the bait you play options out dynamically, looking for big fish.
MadRatI guess the Harriers/LPD scenario really doesn’t do anything to bolster the need for F-35B. The example seems to suggest that STOVL wasn’t helpful until the beach head was already established. Overall the Harriers didn’t drop a significant amount of ordnance during either Gulf War. It seems Harriers were more justified by the RN because they adapted around it. In US hands it is hard to justify.
MadRatNot true the 24 Harriers deployed on the USN LHD’s was supplied by a LPD to support its Air Operations. It had nothing to do with Kuwait………..
That will be interesting to hear the story behind that. The LPD isn’t exactly made for that role. I’d think it would be awfully difficult for one to support 24 Harriers due to the nature of its load out, its limited internal space for that kind of stuff, and its already difficult role supporting a beach head. Please, enlighten everyone how that worked.
MadRatThe arsenal ship concept wasn’t a simple cruise missile battery. It offered quite a flexible mission profile. No doubt it wouldn’t be better with today’s tech.
MadRatArtillery is the answer. Imagine if they actually spent money from the B model for an artillery ship group. Cheaper. Available sooner. No technology hurdles in the way. No airfield to keep open. And with today’s air breathing rocket technology added later (which back then means available now) you can fire over the horizon and on target in under 5 minutes.
The F-35B then doesn’t cripple the JSF design dimensions. And the USN and USAF get what they originally wanted.
MadRatThe V-22 cannot do the hard manuevering required in a hostile drop zone, therefore it doesn’t need such an escort. Otherwise the F-35B would be justified as that escort. And it’s warload is getting significantly smaller than the other two models which knocks it as the CAS savior. And it’s fuel fraction on short takeoff is getting low enough now it can’t stay up with it’s over the horizon role. It’s just not living up to any of it’s early marketing.
MadRatWill F-35B have the endurance to escort V-22’s end route to a hostile drop zone? Oh wait, V-22 can’t land there anyhow…
MadRatThe Marines are aiming for autonomy. Trouble is their B model will be so hamstrung that it will never be possible. The B model was never meant to take off vertically with a full fuel AND war load. It has to choose. And that choice basically removes justification of it’s own value. If it had performed a niche role much closer to the C model then it can overcome some of it’s current shortcomings. First off, because it wouldn’t need to be VTOL – in my scenario – you no longer redesign it’s internal weapons carriage. It sticks to a common bomb bay. And because it’s not VTOL it doesn’t need the problematic internal struts of the current B model. These are two features that further make the B model different. The tailhook of the C model should have been included in the B model. And the tailhook shouldn’t have used the same lever as the rear exhaust controls as is now on the B model. Quite frankly the B and C pilots should have been more interchangeable. As is now they have extensive training unique to each aircraft.
And one other option should have been on the table, a two-seated option that sits in the same body module as the lift fan. That way the A and C models could have been made in two-seat models. You trade mostly just two and a half tons of fuel and the internal cannon for the second seat.
Edit: in earlier posting I mused about using different designations for each model. The different designations would have removed all confusion on what they did.
Single-seater/two-seater
F-24A/B Super Hornet
F-25A/B Wildcat II
F-26A Diplomat
F-27A/B Lightning II
MadRatIn the vertical mode it cannot, but if you decided to move to a more realistic EMALS-launch with SRVL recovery then it made more sense. VTOL is too expensive and limits you way too much. When it operates as a true VTOL machine it is going to be so hamstrung operationally that it really cannot be justified for the program cost. What a waste in these interesting times.
MadRatYou can’t get the C slow enough to do a SRVL, it would stall far before hand.
I’m not talking about C model, I’m talking about the B model using the C model’s wing. The B model uses the A model wing as it is now and this greatly diminishes what it can carry in a CTOL role. The B model already lost a ton off its maximum load in the CTOL role. This is without carrying two and a half tons less fuel and even less internal weaponry. And because it needed to shed weight they had to limit the B model to 1000-pound class weapons (or less) by shortening the bays in every direction. The knock on the F-22’s air-to-surface capabilities is its limitation to using only 1000-pound class weapons or less. So the F-35B is pretty limited in its role as a mud mover according to that logic.
You have to remember that they’ve already made decisions along to way to limit weaponry on the F-35. The decided to stick with the standard 1760 interface which throws out the ability to carry non-standard weapons that have been fitted into just about every previous 4th generation fighter. There will be no AGM-84 Harpoon carried. The AGM-65 Mavericks won’t be carried. The SLAM-ER won’t be carried. AGM-88 HARM won’t be carried. There are no plans for external reconn pod or any of the existing ECM pods. And there will be no internal dumb bombs carried. Forget about using stealth to pre-empt a land invasion force by scattering land mines at choke points, its not happening. And forget about using stealth to do things like sneak into the mouth of a bay to drop sea mines and whatnot, this also isn’t happening.
MadRatThe F-35C has the lowest approach speed on landing and this would aid it in SRVL use. The F-35B may not ever be practical in true vertical landings because it has such a slim margin of error between it’s weight and available thrust at sea level. But it will be pretty good at SRVL if the simulations pan out to real world practice. It made more sense for F-35B to revolve around the F-35C program rather than the A variant. If the USMC operated both F-35C and a B variant built around the same model then the two services made it easier to interoperate.
MadRatBut that logic means an F-35B CATOBAR design is held back by superficial constraints. Next you’re going to say the cockpit would have to be redesigned because the hook is deployed by the same lever that converts the B version to VTOL.
What is interesting is how the F-35 program design was supposed to be transparent from one variant to the next and how little the three actually have in common. They could have designed all three around the same engine core yet running competitions for each variant. The X-32 may have won the USAF tender and the F-35 may have won the USN tender. Or maybe – without the F-35B defining the dimensions – you end up with some completely different animals altogether. As much as they spent on the JSF program to this point there is no reason to suspect separate versions would NOT have been cheaper.
MadRatIt seems odd that the Marines want a version of F-35 that cannot be launched by catapult. I’d hope they could create a rail system based off EMALS to launch planes from amidships and not from the deck. The F-35B launched from an EMALS could then reach much closer to the normal takeoff weight of an F-35A. If the F-35B never truly became a VTOL system it would help save the mission for them operating from the LHD’s. Launching an underloaded VTOL-only F-35B off an LHD is a terrible waste of resources.
And if they are going to lug around F-35B’s on the LHD’s then the latter should also carry some kind of airborne radar picket. I don’t see why they couldn’t field an AEW system from helicopters like the British; AEW would be solely for supporting F-35B in a secondary air defense role. It’s not like they really need to carry E-2’s. You’re really only augmenting detection of the surrounding fleet anyhow.
I would hope they can figure out how to Shipboard Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) the F-35B onto the LHD’s. Coupling the CATO and SRVL features into the F-35B would certainly make sense. It’s not as stressful as a full CATOBAR capability. We should keep inching the KPP’s downward to accommodate the Marines I supposed or we won’t have anything in the end…
The F-35B carries several tons less than the F-35A. It has around 5000 pounds less fuel by design and has a significant lower overall maximum takeoff weight. Recovery should have included conventional rolling recoveries on CVN’s using arrestor wires. Maybe even if it’s going to use EMALS/SRVL from the start you could have shifted to the big wing with the Rolls Royce fan and aimed for a higher SRVL landing weight, too. 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 with each inch lower expectation it’s less and less about what it can do now.
Sign In
