Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Air Force & Aviation

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


F-35B/C - Naval Air Discussions (USN & USMC)

This is a discussion on F-35B/C - Naval Air Discussions (USN & USMC) within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by colay Vertical takeoffs will offer drama but little else..,the B weighs 32,300lbs empty and generates 40,500lbs thrust ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 3 votes, 5.00 average.
Old August 23rd, 2014   #76
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 44
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by colay View Post
Vertical takeoffs will offer drama but little else..,the B weighs 32,300lbs empty and generates 40,500lbs thrust per LM website.. the difference is just 8,200lbs for,ordnance and fuel..,presumably pilot also. Not a useful configuration for going to war.
(I'm a dumb civvy noob, so apologies if I mess this up)

LM says F-35B has an internal fuel capacity of 13,100 lbs and a "standard internal weapons load" of 2 AIM-120Cs and 2 GBU-32s (which I believe weighs 2,738 lbs all together).

Could something like an LPD (or any other ship capable of operating an MV-22) launch an MV-22 with the roll-on/roll-off aerial refueling kit, have an F-35B vertically land, re-arm it with 2,738 lbs of bombs and missiles, fill it with something like 5,000 lbs of fuel, and then have it take off vertically and top off its fuel tanks from the MV-22 nearby (which is supposed to be able to give away 12,000 lbs of fuel, I think)?

I realize this wouldn't be a practical way to sustain operations, but could it work for a one-off rearm & refuel?

ETA: If 7,738 lbs of ordnance and fuel doesn't leave enough of a safety margin for the F-35B to successfully / safely take off, then please consider my same question but with 4K (or 3K or 2K) lbs of fuel.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; August 23rd, 2014 at 05:55 PM.
HurricaneDitka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24th, 2014   #77
Just a bloke
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,211
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
(I'm a dumb civvy noob, so apologies if I mess this up)

LM says F-35B has an internal fuel capacity of 13,100 lbs and a "standard internal weapons load" of 2 AIM-120Cs and 2 GBU-32s (which I believe weighs 2,738 lbs all together).

Could something like an LPD (or any other ship capable of operating an MV-22) launch an MV-22 with the roll-on/roll-off aerial refueling kit, have an F-35B vertically land, re-arm it with 2,738 lbs of bombs and missiles, fill it with something like 5,000 lbs of fuel, and then have it take off vertically and top off its fuel tanks from the MV-22 nearby (which is supposed to be able to give away 12,000 lbs of fuel, I think)?

I realize this wouldn't be a practical way to sustain operations, but could it work for a one-off rearm & refuel?

ETA: If 7,738 lbs of ordnance and fuel doesn't leave enough of a safety margin for the F-35B to successfully / safely take off, then please consider my same question but with 4K (or 3K or 2K) lbs of fuel.
It could be done, but why bother? F-35B can do STO's from flat tops without ski-jumps, that's how'll they will operate from wasp Class ships etc. With ski-jumps equipped flat tops, they'll be launching with more fuel and ordnance far more efficiently...
ADMk2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24th, 2014   #78
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 44
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADMk2 View Post
It could be done, but why bother?
I don't think you'd want to do it, and certainly not regularly, but crazy things happen in war. Like if the flat top got a few holes ripped in the flight deck by missile strikes, or even sunk. Might be nice if an LPD or something else could be used as a platform to provide some minimal air cover or response, or at least cover the MAGTF while it collected casualties and withdrew.

I guess my point was that it doesn't seem like there'd be much extra effort or cost required to prepare for such a contingency. Osprey aerial refueling kit (which LPDs may end up carrying anyways if it ever enters service) + a few bombs and missiles stowed away somewhere.

Somewhere I read that Wasps currently carry a few AIM-120s that they could load on AV-8B+'s in a pinch. That too wouldn't be ideal, but is a lot better than nothing if the MAGTF were to find itself threatened by attack aircraft without any USAF or USN fighters nearby. And it's an option they gain for the price of stowing a few missiles on-board that will likely never see the light of day. An LPD could do the same thing with a handful of bombs and missiles ...
HurricaneDitka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 14th, 2014   #79
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: central obamastan
Posts: 304
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Air Force Brat View Post
that is correct sir, the B will always STO with any kind of a load, and it also provides a much greater margin of safety even at light weights. The C offers superior performance due to its Catobar configuration, and I am anxiously awaiting the first shots of the C off the Nimitz in October. Lockmart recently received the 150th Wing Center Section, so this airplane is starting to be produced in numbers..
Has anyone been able to find any updates on the carrier qualifications of the F-35C aboard the Nimitz,,,, I am supposing that may have been postponed while the post fire restrictions are being flown off????? thanks brat
Air Force Brat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 14th, 2014   #80
Super Moderator
Lieutenant General
RobWilliams's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,757
Threads:
AFAIK those trials are planned for October, don't get ahead of yourself just yet

I'm really looking forward to them.
RobWilliams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 14th, 2014   #81
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: central obamastan
Posts: 304
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobWilliams View Post
AFAIK those trials are planned for October, don't get ahead of yourself just yet

I'm really looking forward to them.
Well I am pretty jazzed about watching that C come aboard. It really ought to be a sight.
Air Force Brat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 20th, 2014   #82
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
SpazSinbad's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 226
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Air Force Brat View Post
Well I am pretty jazzed about watching that C come aboard. It really ought to be a sight.
Recent AvWeek article about engine refits had the F-35C trials with USS Nimitz in November this year. However Gen. Bogdan has noted this and other trials may be delayed due the engine fire issues.
SpazSinbad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 21st, 2014   #83
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
SpazSinbad's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 226
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpazSinbad View Post
Recent AvWeek article about engine refits had the F-35C trials with USS Nimitz in November this year. However Gen. Bogdan has noted this and other trials may be delayed due the engine fire issues.
SCHEDULE FRICTION 22 Sep 2014 Amy Butler
Quote:
"....He [LtGen. Bogdan] was referring to events such as the first arrested landing and catapult trials on the USS Nimitz planned for November, and possibly items leading to the U.S. Marine Corps initial operational capability (IOC) date of July 1, 2015. He affirms that Nimitz tests are still on the table, and a program source notes that of the two aircraft slated for those tests, CF-3 is cleared to get to the deck. CF-5 is still undergoing validation flights for deck work, but these are not impeded by the flight-envelope restrictions, the source adds...."
Aviation Week & Space Technology 22 Sep 2014
SpazSinbad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29th, 2014   #84
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Dallas TX
Posts: 54
Threads:
I am fortunate to be living in Dallas Ft worth area and do aircraft spotting in LMT plant / NAS Ft worth. recently we have been spotting quite a bit of F35 traffic even in the weekends!..

DAveC
airwingspotter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 30th, 2014   #85
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: central obamastan
Posts: 304
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpazSinbad View Post
SCHEDULE FRICTION 22 Sep 2014 Amy Butler

Aviation Week & Space Technology 22 Sep 2014
Thanks for the update Spaz, I am really looking forward to those first videos of the C coming aboard the Nimitz, even though I AM the Air Force Brat,,,, I have a warm fuzzy feeling about the C with her bigger wing and tail, she is a "looker".
Air Force Brat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 1st, 2014   #86
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Dallas TX
Posts: 54
Threads:
The C model with the Bigger wing, and beefed up landing gears looks so much better than the A and B model....

DAveC
Attached Images
File Type: jpg _MG_1086.jpg (134.9 KB, 35 views)
airwingspotter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8th, 2014   #87
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 4
Threads:
The problem is your assuming the F-35B will take off vertically. It wont, it'll use a Short Take Off over 544 feet with 2 Aim-120's, 2-SDBs and full tank of fuel. A Wasp has a flight deck length of 844 feet.
Eskodas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 14th, 2014   #88
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Dallas TX
Posts: 54
Threads:
More F-35B in actions.... VMFA-121 Green Knights

DAveC
Airwingspotter.com | Military Aviation Photography and Spotting
Attached Images
File Type: jpg IMG_5375.jpg (361.6 KB, 17 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_5526.jpg (354.5 KB, 15 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_5516.jpg (355.6 KB, 14 views)
airwingspotter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 14th, 2014   #89
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
SpazSinbad's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 226
Threads:
10-20 sec. of thermal input - 400-500F exhaust F=35B VL

Interesting FACTOID in this story about the F-35B heat - often quoted as being 1,700 degrees F (which I always thought was the afterburner signature - the F-35B is NOT in A/B during a VL - but anyway...).

Shipshape Amphibious ship upgrades vital to JSF and MV-22 deployments
13 OCT 2014 Michael Fahey AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY; DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
Quote:
"...Heat and stress continue to be priority problems for the aircraft. The F-35B creates 10-20 sec. of thermal input - 400-500F exhaust - during landings, Navy documents show, apparently requiring a 12 X 12-ft. steel plate 1-in. thick for specific primary landing spots to dissipate intense heat and prevent deck warping. There also is concern about "built-up thermal loading with multiple close-sequence landings."..."
JSF F-35B Landing on Concrete Lecture
Uploaded on Apr 4, 2010 Paul Bevilaqua [LiftFan F135 Designer] Lecture Excerpt
youtube.com/watch?v=m8wSeIz9uL8
SpazSinbad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2014   #90
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Dallas TX
Posts: 54
Threads:
caught F35B from Warlords doing Short/vertical take off and landing yesterday 10/18.. 1st time I see the Marines 35B doing this testing in NAS Ft worth... Awesome Sat with the F35B tearing up runway 35 for the entire morning.

Here are some of the actions!

DaveC

Airwingspotter.com | Military Aviation Photography and Spotting
Attached Images
File Type: jpeg IMG_8793876540739_zpstiwua0lh.JPEG (31.9 KB, 22 views)
File Type: jpeg IMG_8799558803354_zpsg82ktqcs.JPEG (70.0 KB, 22 views)
airwingspotter is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:44 PM.