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

[colay]

Would here have been any merit in having a CATOBAR F-35 that could accept either the conventional F135 engine or the lift-fan version thus allowing more flexibility?

You mean having a STOVL variant that can also be catapult-launched?
If so, I think the weight penalties required to make it more robust to handle the stresses would be severe. Also, that would open a can of worms i.e., start a serious discussion on the case for big-deck CATOBAR ships.. maybe build more LHA-6 types instead. Definitely no where as capable but more affordable.

 

[ADMk2]

Would here have been any merit in having a CATOBAR F-35 that could accept either the conventional F135 engine or the lift-fan version thus allowing more flexibility?

Doubtful. You seem to be referring to STOBAR style operations. STOBAR represents the worst of both worlds. You don't get the range and payload of a full conventional carrier fighter, nor the short landing capability and take-off flexibility of a STOVL fighter.

It's somewhere in between and why you'd opt for it when you can get a real catapult launched fighter or a STOVL fighter in the same family, I'm not sure.

F-35B can take off from a ship without a ski-jump or a catapult already anyway.

F-35B Ship Suitability Testing - YouTube

 

[RobWilliams]

It seems like it'd negate the advantage of the C over the B with increased fuel and larger payloads whilst at the same time making the STOVL performance worse as the airframe is heavier and erodes the bringback limits.

 

[ADMk2]

It seems like it'd negate the advantage of the C over the B with increased fuel and larger payloads whilst at the same time making the STOVL performance worse as the airframe is heavier and erodes the bringback limits.

Precisely. No one would opt for STOBAR style carriers if they could afford either of the other options.

 

[John Fedup]

It seems like it'd negate the advantage of the C over the B with increased fuel and larger payloads whilst at the same time making the STOVL performance worse as the airframe is heavier and erodes the bringback limits.

I was thinking that having a C version that could be converted back and forth to a B by simply swapping engines might be useful but if the heavier weight of the C screws the STOVL performance then it is a price too high.

 

[Volkodav]

What would be interesting is if a QE or Cavour fitted with arrester gear of some sort could cross deck Cs in a limited fashion.

 

[John Fedup]

Doubtful. You seem to be referring to STOBAR style operations. STOBAR represents the worst of both worlds. You don't get the range and payload of a full conventional carrier fighter, nor the short landing capability and take-off flexibility of a STOVL fighter.

It's somewhere in between and why you'd opt for it when you can get a real catapult launched fighter or a STOVL fighter in the same family, I'm not sure.

F-35B can take off from a ship without a ski-jump or a catapult already anyway.

F-35B Ship Suitability Testing - YouTube

The B doesn't need a ski-ramp? I was not aware it could do conventional take-off without a ramp.

 

[ADMk2]

The B doesn't need a ski-ramp? I was not aware it could do conventional take-off without a ramp.

Certainly can. The Wasp Class don't have ski-ramps. They were used for initial suitability trials...

 

[ADMk2]

What would be interesting is if a QE or Cavour fitted with arrester gear of some sort could cross deck Cs in a limited fashion.

I've read that L-M is investigating whether the -C could be used for STOBAR operations off a ship with a ski-jump (similar to the Chinese J-15's) but I don't imagine it's a high priority. Maybe just a quick study to see if it's feasible so they could propose the idea IF a customer for such could be identified (India maybe?)

Most Western nations will use Harrier, F-35B, Super Hornet or Rafale -M from their carriers. I can't see anyone bar the USN (and the USMC being forced to buy some) purchasing the -C model.

Be cheaper to remove the arresting system on your ships and just run F-35B's...

 

[colay]

Certainly can. The Wasp Class don't have ski-ramps. They were used for initial suitability trials...

Neither do the new America-class LHA. AFAIK the Navy argues that a ramp will subtract from total landing spots

The F-35Bs taking off from CVF will launch with heavier loads using their ramp. Likewise, using SRVL, they will also be able to recover aboard ship with a higher allowance for unexpended ordnance.

 

[John Fedup]

Certainly can. The Wasp Class don't have ski-ramps. They were used for initial suitability trials...

Yep, I watched a video. The lift fan seems to be used in take off so I guess this is why no ramp is required. I assume there would be no advantage to using a ramp with the B and not using the lift fan during take off?

 

[colay]

Yep, I watched a video. The lift fan seems to be used in take off so I guess this is why no ramp is required. I assume there would be no advantage to using a ramp with the B and not using the lift fan during take off?

Using the lift fan makes taking off without a ramp possible carrying a full internal ordnance load.

 

[ADMk2]

Yep, I watched a video. The lift fan seems to be used in take off so I guess this is why no ramp is required. I assume there would be no advantage to using a ramp with the B and not using the lift fan during take off?

Not sure, haven't seen the F-35B take off from a ski jump yet. I know L-M has tested it as they have a land based ramp for this purpose, but haven't seen a vid of it yet, nor any pics so not sure what configuration it uses.

It won't ever be a problem however, not when the F-35B is capable of this...

WATCH: Marine F-35B Executes First Vertical Takeoff & Vertical Landing - YouTube

 

[colay]

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.


AFAIK, aboard ship, STOs will be the rule using lift fan to allow max fuel and max internal ordnance. STO used in conjunction with a ramp,as in CVF, will be even better allowing external ordnance in addition

 

[Air Force Brat]

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.


AFAIK, aboard ship, STOs will be the rule using lift fan to allow max fuel and max internal ordnance. STO used in conjunction with a ramp,as in CVF, will be even better allowing external ordnance in addition

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..

 

[HurricaneDitka]

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.

 

[ADMk2]

(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...

 

[HurricaneDitka]

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 ...

 

[Air Force Brat]

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

 

[RobWilliams]

AFAIK those trials are planned for October, don't get ahead of yourself just yet

I'm really looking forward to them.