4 ms·
Yes, it should have been multiple aircraft, or the scope should have been reduced. It's hard enough to make an aircraft that's good on an aircraft carrier and
by cameldrv 7y ago
Yes, it should have been multiple aircraft, or the scope should have been reduced. It's hard enough to make an aircraft that's good on an aircraft carrier and on land. Adding the vertical landing (B model) version compromised the whole program.
VTOL is a very specialized capability, and there's never been another airplane that has VTOL as an optional feature. You have to design the plane and its engine around this capability, and you compromise on many other things to get it. The A and C models then have to live with many of these design compromises. Even the basic shape of the aircraft, with such a wide front fuselage reduces the performance of the F-35, even though on the A and C models there's no need to be so wide since there's no lift fan.
Meanwhile, it's not even clear that the Marines need a VTOL airplane. The B model has the ability to operate off Navy helicopter carriers, which gives them significantly more punch, but there's basically no real scenario where a helicopter carrier would need it. In a real war, there will always be full deck carriers anywhere a helicopter carrier is. In theory the helicopter carriers would offer additional capacity, but carrier air wings have been scaled back, and full deck carriers only go to sea with 60-65 aircraft even though they have the capacity for 90. If the Marines wanted more of their own air assets they could have just bought C models and operated them off the big carriers like they already do with the F-18.
The B model is also significantly lower performance. It has to takeoff at lower weights, and it has the huge extra weight of the lift fan. This means it has a much shorter range and carries less weapons. If they had simply bought C models and put them on the big carriers, the overall capability would be greater.
- wahern 7y agoMaybe someone more knowledgable about the history can chime in, but the first thought that entered my mind when you were discussing full deck carriers is that the F-35 was designed from the very beginning for international sales. Only a few nations have full deck carriers, while many more have helicopter carriers. It's not surprising then that there are 2 allies with F-35Bs, 3 allies with plans for the F-35B, and none for the F-35C: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#F-35B_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning...
- cameldrv 7y agoYes, that's true, but look at the F-35 orders. There are 563 orders for the B model out of 3200 total. The foreign customers are the UK with 138, to operate on their Queen Elizabeth carriers, 30 for Italy to operate on their small carriers, and 42 to Japan for the same. In 2010, the UK decided to make the QE carriers ski-jump and operate the B model for cost reasons, however they considered making them CATOBAR and operate the C model. If the B model had not existed, they would have simply spent another couple of billion dollars to make them CATOBAR. It's probably not practical from a budget and political standpoint for Japan and Italy to make CATOBAR carriers, but does it really make sense to compromise a 3200 aircraft program that's the backbone of the USAF and USN's fleet so that Italy and Japan can buy 72 aircraft? Italy and Japan could just buy tanker aircraft for long range power projection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_procurement#Planned_purchases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning...
- craftinator 7y agoYour comments make up the most competent and comprehensive analysis I've seen on the F35 program; way more thorough than those presented in Congress or by the various involved aerospace companies. Are you involved in the project in any way?
- cameldrv 7y agoI'm just an interested observer, but my observations are hardly unique. The same points have been made in many forums including congressional hearings.
- craftinator 7y agoMuch of what I've seen in congressional hearings is so watered down and blame-shifted it is difficult to assemble into a coherent story. You did a great job of the spark notes version
- adwww 7y ago
- discordance 7y agoaka, The Homer (also known as "The Car Built for Homer")