In any event, the concept wouldn’t work because of safety issues. USN pilots will use the Magic Carpet system but they will still have to train and be capable of fully manual arrested landings. It’s a basic requirement, otherwise you would start losing aircraft and possibly pilots due to computer problems, airframe damage, or weather beyond the system’s ability to compensate. If you really want a land-based force of F-35s that can be carrier-based in a pinch, you need F-35Bs. Which, of course, we have.

The Navy expects UAVs to be able to operate from carriers, so there is no reason a manned fighter couldn’t land completely autonomously, in which case USAF pilots could operate from carriers with minimal training.

What I wonder though is whether the A could land as accurately as the C. The C has 4 control surfaces on the wings vs 2 for the A so it might be more accurate. Also the arresting system has to be able to be configured to have a lower cable tension to stress the aircraft less. I don’t think the current system can do that, although the new arresting system of the Ford class might have that ability.

Would it make sense for some USAF F-35s to have a secondary capability to land on carrier, possibly yes. If the C is capable of withstanding 2500 carrier landings, the USAF A-C hybrid could be designed for say 250, that would be enough to reinforce the CVW in case of war with China or Russia. For lower intensity wars, the CVWs are powerful enough.

No problem with that, the plane would be a hybrid, take what you want from the C.

They cannot choose a supersonic plane just because of that. There is no real reason why this particular aircraft couldn’t go supersonic if they required it to. The only thing they’d need to add is the AB and they could likely achieve it with a modest design change if something like that is required in the final RFP. The focus is on meeting performance requirements at the lowest possible cost, something that all these will be judged at. Both Raytheon, and now Northrop Grumman have offered no AB designs. I wouldnt be surprised if Boeing did the same. If the requirement to go supersonic in a trainer is strong enough they’d ask for it and I expect most would deliver.

Even if the production cost of a supersonic plane is only a few millions more, that may be too much for the USAF budget. It’s not like they wouldn’t like to have a supersonic capability for better a/a training, they’ll have to make do with what they can afford.

This being said, the T-50 might be a better F-35 trainer given that it is built by LM, so it might have a chance even if it costs more.

Apparently according to the specs it doesn’t have to be supersonic. They might chose a supersonic plane, and ideally I imagine they would like to have a supersonic plane but the budget will be very tight, so they have to make tough choices.

Maybe it would be cheaper to have a high low mix of trainers, like 80-90% subsonic T-Xs and 10-20% F-16s that are already paid for.

ditch manned CAS already, i believe in endurance UAV, and a new very small glide bomb

I think the plane still has to be able to carry large bombs to be able to destroy buildings.

Using the MQ-9 as a CAS plane could be an idea. It can cary 500lbs bombs and with APKWS it can attack lots of targets. it is not very maneuvrable, maybe they could mount the rocket pod on some sort or rotary launcher. The gorgon stare is an amazing sensor, they could use a combo of one reaper with it to find targets, and other reapers as weapon mules.

Keeping the A-10s in service until that kind of capability is available would be cost effective.

i think the radar is a good cue where to look, i’ll agree f-35 would have lower ir signature than a sukoi, but not an f-16

The F-35’s radar is limited in angle of field of view, contrary to the EOTS. I think the F-35 would be better off to not use its reheat after it’s launched.

The total probability of a kill with 3 missiles, each with a single shot PK of 50% is 87.5%… a 12.5% chance of survival. Maybe the drone had a lucky day.

With single shot PK of 30% and 3 missiles fired, the target had 35% chance of survival. Not bad survival odds.

The OP made the point of an F-35 not being able to achieve better than 25% single shot PK I guess to argue that stealth and first shot/s capability offers no advantage in air to air combat.

How would that 25% PK play out in a big picture scenario?

Consider the F-35, it has early warning of non-stealthy, enemy aircraft approaching but the enemy does not get the same luxury. A 4 ship flight of F-35’s detects 4 enemies incoming from a long distance away and calls for backup from another 4 F-35’s in the area, bringing 8 aircraft to bear against the 4 enemies (either in 2 waves or a single ambush). The enemy doesn’t even know its being tracked and therefore does not call for backup before the engagement.

Assuming each F-35 carries 4 air to air missiles for a total of 32 across the 8 aircraft and single shot PK = 25%. Here’s some probabilities:
– Probability 50% of the 4 enemy aircraft will be destroyed possibly prompting the remainder to flee = 99.883%
– Probability 75% of the 4 enemy aircraft will be destroyed possibly prompting the remainder to flee = 99.392%
– Probability 100% of the 4 enemy aircraft will be destroyed = 97%

Now assume block 4 F-35s carrying 6 medium range missiles each for a total of 48 across the 8 aircraft and single shot PK = 25%. Here’s some probabilities:
– Probability 50% of the 4 enemy aircraft will be destroyed possibly prompting the remainder to flee (the uncertainty of how many F-35’s they’re facing will prompt their decision to flee) = 99.998%
– Probability 75% of the 4 enemy aircraft will be destroyed possibly prompting the remainder to flee = 99.986%
– Probability 100% of the 4 enemy aircraft will be destroyed = 99.921%

…lastly, for fun, F-35s carrying 12 CUDA missiles each for 96 total missiles. We’ll reduce single shot PK down to a mere 10% to account for the shorter max and NEZ range compared to amraam/meteor.
– Probability 50% of the 4 enemy aircraft will be destroyed possibly prompting the remainder to flee = 99.953%
– Probability 75% of the 4 enemy aircraft will be destroyed possibly prompting the remainder to flee = 99.725%
– Probability 100% of the 4 enemy aircraft will be destroyed = 98.931%

…how about the same loadout with 5% single shot PK?
– Probability 50% of the 4 enemy aircraft will be destroyed possibly prompting the remainder to flee = 95.6%
– Probability 75% of the 4 enemy aircraft will be destroyed possibly prompting the remainder to flee = 86.419%
– Probability 100% of the 4 enemy aircraft will be destroyed = 71.277%

The thing is though that the F-35 software is designed to engage with only one missile in order to save missiles. The F-35 will have the first shot thanks to its stealth, after that it might not be that easy.

Allowing double shots would be a good idea depending on the situation. If the F-35s have a 2:1 disadvantage, it might be better to take double missile shots with like a 10 sec interval between the shots. As soon as the F-35s have run out of missiles they escape while guiding their missiles from the sides with their EOTS.

IIRC the F-35B in question was trying to hit M1.6 in a limited area so it had to turn 180 degrees and unload several times, ensuring a rather cumbersome process.

I find it unlikely that the DSI is the main factor limiting the aircraft’s top speed. If the aircraft can do more than M1.67 why not see what it can do and then establish the operational limit? Why was it set so low as M1.6 anyway instead of M1.8 which is the same as the F/A-18 and Rafale I believe.

The F-16 with the DSI intake had been tested at mach 2, so the DSI intake is probably not the limiting factor, but the F-35 was designed for a specific max top speed. Not sure it can go faster than that in a safe manner.