via Flight Global.
Former US Navy chief of naval operations Adm Gary Roughead says the US Department of Defense (DoD) should consider eliminating the F-35A version of the Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) in favour of the carrier-based F-35C. In recent weeks, the idea has gathered momentum with current and former defence officials saying the Pentagon's office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) is studying the idea even though the DoD officially denies those claims.Read the entire article for yourself, but I'm getting F-35 overload.
Roughead says the question must be asked as to whether it is better to reduce the number of F-35 variants to a short take-off and vertical landing variant and one version that can take-off and land conventionally. "My simple logic says it probably is, but there are a lot of factors that go into it," he says.
Roughead says it makes sense to have the US Air Force adopt the C-model jet because it can operate from land bases as well as from the US Navy's 11 "big deck" aircraft carriers, whereas the A-model cannot. "The reason that I said to go with the C is because you will still want to be able to use the JSF from aircraft carriers," he says. It also has greater range than the USAF's A-model aircraft.
"There will clearly be some firmly-held beliefs in play," Roughhead says. "But I think that when you're in the budget times in which we're in, there are no dumb ideas."
I personally see this as a move to lower the cost of the C model. I think some like the former Admiral, probably know the F-35's capabilities and know that they need it aboard carriers. These same people also see the handwriting on the wall and realize that its going to be the "least" produced model and with the F-35B picking up orders, probably soon the most expensive.
How do you get the price down in a big way?
You make everyone that was going to buy the F-35A, instead buy the C.
Will it work? I don't know, but on the surface it seems like a bad idea.
Other considerations? You might get a squadron or two of USAF F-35's that could operate off big carriers.
Already the USN/USMC have an MoU about combined purchase of 340 F-35Cs (260 USN + 80 USMC) for USN; with 340 F-35Bs for USMC. Perhaps the CanUKs will go for the F-35C for 'hook use' on their icy runways (that other icy runway F-35A users do not seem concerned about). Whatever.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/03/navy_dfn_jsf_031411w/
ReplyDeletethey're working on putting a hook on the F-35A for icy conditions. with the UK buying F-35B's...with Japan and Korea not saying but having LHD's...and with Singapore saying they're buying the B model i can safely say that the F-35B is easily shaping up as the second most numerous and might challenge for being the best seller to our allies.
the C model is in a hurt locker.
Not sure what you mean about the 'A' model 'hook for icy conditions'. The F-35A already has an emergency hook (which is quite different to the F-35C hook) but it is a hook nevertheless. Do you say that an F-35C style hook will be fitted to the F-35As?
ReplyDeletereally? are you really gonna say that after you said the CANUK might go for the C model for use on icy runways because of the hook? are you really gonnna try and use this as an out????? really?
DeleteSolomon, my second last sentence in first post here starts with 'Perhaps' with my tongue firmly in cheek referencing the CanUKs and their icy runways. I'll desist from any further humour on this website. Probably I will just desist.
DeleteThis is starting to sound like the ridiculous RAF vs FAA fights of the 1970's. Madness
ReplyDeleteI guess graphics do not show here so here is a direct link to a 'not to scale' view of both F-35A (emergency) and F-35C arrestor hooks:
ReplyDeletehttp://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/F-35CF-35AemergencyHookNotToScale.jpg:original
i'm well aware of the program to install ice hooks on F-35's for use in "ice countries" the illustration is unnecessary.
DeleteSolomon you seem to have become tangled up in 'hooks'. The F-35A has always had an 'emergency hook'. One of the first tests the first F-35A did was test this hook at Edwards AFB - the arrestor gear people wrote a story about it amongst other stories. What are 'ice hooks'? for 'ice countries'?
DeleteStory about F-35A AA-1 hook test in this pdf: http://esco.zodiac.com/downloads/documents/BrakingNews_summer10.pdf
DeleteESCO BAK-12 at Edwards AFB tested in Feb 2010 using 'emergency hook'.
Hmmm... I missed adding this 'other' story about installing USAF portable MAAS arrestor gear at Edwards AFB to support taxi & brake testing in July 2011 in this PDF:
Deletehttps://76586.gridserver.com/downloads/documents/Feb2011_lr.pdf
This link may not work - it seems to freeze on me here now.
I think it is a great idea, been saying that for at least 3 years now to cancel -A and force USAF to be -C. Worked when USAF was buying Phantoms so they can live with -C version. Take it or leave it....
ReplyDeleteIt would sure bring back the original concept of parts commonality between the airframes. Right now the C model has upwards of 43% unique parts to it. By the AF and Navy sharing the same plane it would drive down parts, training and operating costs greatly. However, I think the C model should than get the internal gun put into it. Just my 2cents.
ReplyDeleteit would cause more changes than just that. you'd be looking at the Air Force adopting the Navy refueling system. that's a big no go for the AF. they can refuel multiple planes more quickly using there method than the USN/European model. its also suppose to be safer although i don't understand how. additionally the AF will have a big problem with losing 9G maneuverability. the idea that they would have an airplane that can't out turn an F-16 is going to make alot of airmen sick. and we can talk range all day long to beat these systems upside the head but the AF isn't making a move to replace tankers just so they can sit on the sidelines. they're part of the warfighting effort. so perhaps we're making a bigger deal out of a fighters range than the AF theorist. especially considering that neither the Russians or Chinese have proven themselves as good at the art as the Western forces.
DeleteActually the Navy's Hose and Drogue style can refuel multiple planes faster the USAF. Just saying. But also it would be relatively easy for the installation of the Probe style refuelling receptacle on the F-35C. It would give the option to refuel from any style tanker, anywhere at anytime. Besides, the new KC-46a has both Probe and Drogue style refuelling built into it.
DeleteAs far as losing 1.5 of a G I don't know, I mean at the end of the day it is a strike aircraft, not a dogfighter, that's where the F-22s will come in. Small price to pay perhaps?
i'll recheck my facts but i believe that the amount of fuel that can be delivered via the boom negates any advantage found in the drogue and chute method. the differences in speed become even more pronounced when you're talking large cargo planes. from my understanding thats the reason why the AF has refused to follow the international standard.
DeleteA single flying boom can transfer fuel at approximately 6,000 lbs per minute. A single hose-and-drogue can transfer between 1,500 and 2,000 lbs of fuel per minute. Unlike bombers and other large aircraft, however, fighter aircraft cannot accept fuel at the boom’s maximum rate. (Today’s fighter aircraft can accept fuel at 1,000 to 3,000 lbs per minute whether from the boom or from the hose-and-drogue). Thus, the flying boom’s primary advantage over the hose-and-drogue system is lost when refueling fighter aircraft.
DeleteBut like I said, the new USAF KC-46A (unless they cancel it) will have both styles of refuelling methods. Problem solved.
Also, Hose and Drogue method can refuel 2 fighters at once compared to the Boom style where only one fighter can refuel at a time.
DeleteYour welcome :)
ReplyDeleteThe advantages to this are massive.
The USAF F35 Cs would last far longer than the As are expected to, because they are built to handle CATTRAP conditions and wont face them.
The A may be a better fighter, but if its dumped, that should fund all round sensors for the rest, so it wont need to be, lets face it why out turn the other fighter when you can shoot a missile at someone on your tail?
In the event of a war in the pacific, it becomes a simple(r) matter to Carrier Certify airforce pilots, rather than train new pilots. and build more C's.
There is precedent, the Aussies operate the Super Hornet as their only "fighter".
I've been arguing for years that the UK should have built a single Fast Jet for the RN and RAF, either a "Harrier Three" (probably a bad idea) or a Naval Typhoon, either CATOBAR or stick a bigger engine in it and just use brute force for a STOBAR.
I think its a brilliant idea, even if it sees the F35 complement drop from 50 per carrier to, 35 say, or a flat reduction in the number of airwings.
I realise the Navy wont like the idea of Airforce planes operating on its ships, tough, sack up :)
If you're refueling small planes,Probe and Drouge works well and has some advantages (e.g. buddy refueling, 2 at a time), but the more fuel you need to transfer the more important the flow rate is for efficiency.
ReplyDeleteThe USAF went to boom refueling in the B-47 / B-52 era when A. the planes being refueled were much less maneuverable than fighters so it was harder to hit a drouge and B. the USAF needed to move a lot of fuel, far more than any fighter could hold.
The Navy never had planes big enough or un-maneuverable enough to need to realize the advantages of boom refueling.
TrT, you are exactly right.
ReplyDeleteBB1984, again, a fighter cannot receive fuel at a booms maximum rate of transfer. This is where refuelling two fighters at the same time using Hose and Drogue becomes more effective. I am not denying that the bigger planes should use the Boom Method as this is more efficient for them but this is where it will be good when the KC-46A comes online as it has both methods of refuelling.
Bad idea in my opinion to switch to the F-35C this late in the game. If the F-35 had been designed for the aircraft carrier FROM THE START I would look more favorably on the idea (the F-4 Phantom served well in U.S.A.F. service, as did the A-7 Corsair, the F/A-18 Hornet has served on land and on carriers,etc.) And as Wallzy pointed out the F-35A has an internal gun, the F-35B and C don't. Which for the STOVL "B" model I can see the sense in that (where every pound counts), for F-35C carrier model that seems to be a dumb move in my opinion (I KNOW we've come a long way from Vietnam and Navy F-4 Phantoms but still sometimes you want a gun)! Just my two cents.
ReplyDeleteYour raise good points too FlightDreamz. I just think that if the F-35 program is to be saved to a point, than this might work. A common aircraft would drive down both operating and acquisition costs a great deal. However, it does have its fair share of drawbacks as pointed out.
ReplyDeleteSpecifically, how many ppm can a Super Hornet take? An F-15 can take 3,400 ppm and a F-16 can take 2,600 ppm. Also from the Air Force pilots I've talked to the boom is faster for them because the boom operator 99.9% of the time knows his stuff and can get an aircraft on the boom faster than a pilot fishing for the drogue.
ReplyDeleteWe're getting away from the point here. Simply the F-35C could surely be easily fitted with the Boom receptacle giving the plane the ability to refuel from either Hose and Drogue or Boom. When the KC-46A comes online it will have both methods as well, so really the best method for the situation at hand will be chosen. This debate over specific ppm's is beside the point.
ReplyDeleteDamn dude I was just asking out of curiosity. I support the F-35A having both Probe/Drogue and Boom like the F-105. But, I don't agree with giving up 1.5gs and the internal gun. The F-35's sustained G turn has already been reduced by 1.3gs I believe, we don't need even more sacrifice. I would have went with a KC-777 fleet (replacing both the KC-135 and KC-10) Maybe the 777-8LX will be the KC-Y.
ReplyDeleteon what model has the model lost the ability to pull g's? KC-777 sounds awesome but its bigger than the A-330 and would have blown the competition parameters even further..but it would probably have been the right choice.
DeleteQuote Elportonative77," I support the F-35A having both Probe/Drogue and Boom like the F-105. But, I don't agree with giving up 1.5gs and the internal gun."
DeletePlus one! Completely agree!
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pentagon-lowers-f-35-performance-bar-381031/
ReplyDeleteF-35 sustained g turn reduced from 5.3 to 4.6. So .7gs instead of 1.3.
Cancel the F-35C in favor of the new Block III and IV SuperHornets and F-35B's and early design work on the F/A-XX. cancel CVN-79 in favor of 4 modified LHA-6 that cuts back on the ground assault component. start composite training for a mixed group of 20 F-35B, 6 V-22 for AEW&C and COD duties, and 6 MH-60's also begin UAS integration with a navalized Reaper and Predator.
ReplyDelete