Marketwatch reports that the F-35C variant of the Joint Strike Fighter has passed its Air System Critical Design Review (CDR), which according to the report is “a significant development milestone that verifies the design maturity of the aircraft and its associated systems.” Completion of the CDR allows the F-35C to move into the Low Rate Initial Production phase of the acquisition cycle.
As most DT readers certainly know, the F-35C will be the Navy’s first stealth aircraft. (Remember the A-12?) The JSF is designed to replace the legacy Hornet and serve alongside the Super Hornet.
The Marketwatch report breaks down the variants like this: “While it shares its fundamental design with the F-35A (conventional takeoff and landing) and F-35B (short takeoff/vertical landing), the F-35C is specialized for the catapult launches and arrested recoveries of large aircraft carriers. It features 30 percent more wing area than the other two variants, larger tails and control surfaces, and wingtip ailerons — all contributing to the precise slow-speed handling characteristics required for carrier approaches. The F-35C’s internal structure is strengthened to withstand the punishment of repeated catapult launches and arrested recoveries on the carrier deck.”
Although the Navy variant is heavier than the Air Force variant, it’ll be flown by Navy pilots and therefore be able to kick the F-35A’s booty in any 1-v-1 scenarios.
Bring it …
(Gouge: NC)
– Ward
B-2’s will sink the carrier two weeks before it gets in range of the AF’s F-35 bases. [;-)
Easy, boys! We’re all friends here…
Those would be our B2s…sinking our carrier?
I love how the Navy version is robust to handle carrier landings, but, what about the carrier deck itself?
Not in terms of weight, in terms of heat exhaust during VSTOL. The Osprey melts landing decks, wonder is this does as well…
I sure hope these navy variants do better in real life than they do against a Kenworth in the movies… yeah, I know it was driven by Bruce Willis… still, gotta hope they teach their pilots not to fly too close to their targets… Ha. Scotty
I wonder how the JSF would compare against the Typhoon or the Mig-39, or SU-37 — As well as against the much more significant SAM threat that’s coming on-line these days.
I’m hoping that it’d be able to easily defeat any 4th-Gen aircraft…
Orion
A long way from the old F-9U Panther
I think stovl will get its acceptance after the bad people sink the first carrier. Like the world trade center, a carrier is a symbol of american hegemony to them and a might inviting target. The supercarrier’s very success as power projection platforms [how’s that for alliteration?] will bring their obsolescence.
Would like to see em proven on a couple of bulls eyes some where in Persia. Sick em boyz!
Would like to see em proven on a couple of bulls eyes somewhere in Persia. Sick em boyz!
The Joint Strike Fighters are a drain on our economy at over $200 million each. Today’s wars
as in Iraq and Afghanistan can be fought with the World WarII vintage aircraft. Nothing is indestructible. And it still takes ground forces to secure objectives. These JSF’s would be the right airplane only if they could not be brought down and the cost is much lower.
Ah — we are jesting again! If one aquires weapons for ‘today’s wars’ one will be ‘fighting the last war’with the tactics and weapons of the last war then, eh?
$200M each? WTFO? $200M is somewhat less than the projected unit LIFE-CYCLE cost of the weapon system, including operating it for 20–30 years AND disposing it.
BTW: a B-29 in WWII cost as much as a small destroyer of the same vintage, but if one really wants lower unit costs — just buy more (at least until most economic quantity is reached).
It seems that Navy folks are always bragging that their pilots are better than other U.S. military pilots. It makes me wonder who they are trying to convince. The Air Force just goes about doing its job and doesn’t feel the need to brag. Who is the Navy trying to convince anyway? They brag that their pilots can land on carriers. Well, I’d like to see a Navy pilot land a B-52 on a carrier.
Why would anyone want to land a B52 on a carrier? That isn’t what they were designed to do. Air Force, try to land one of your f-16’s on a Carrier then you can brag! Actually try to land one of your f-16’s at Corona Airport which is stationary and 3 times the length of an Aircraft Carrier then you can really brag!
Don Jensen
USMC
Why would anyone want to land a B52 on a carrier? That isn’t what they were designed to do. Air Force, try to land one of your f-16’s on a Carrier then you can brag! Actually try to land one of your f-16’s at Corona Airport which is stationary and 3 times the length of an Aircraft Carrier then you can really brag!
Don Jensen
USMC
Why would anyone want to land a B52 on a carrier? That isn’t what they were designed to do. Air Force, try to land one of your f-16’s on a Carrier then you can brag! Actually try to land one of your f-16’s at Corona Airport which is stationary and 3 times the length of an Aircraft Carrier then you can really brag!
Don Jensen
USMC
I saw the comment about using WW2 aircraft in wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan. I have often thought that a P47, with 8 50 cal. machine guns, and the ability to loiter at much slower speed than jets would be much more effective in some engagements. The A10 does well, but a 30mm cannon is overkill for personnel. You could probably buld a new P47 for $200,000.00 or less once the lines were restarted. I have watched the gun camera films of P47’s attacking Tiger tanks, and taking them out. For the cost of one JSF, you could fill the air with one of the most incredible ground attack fighters ever. I know the idea sounds crazy, but it is feasible.
It is highly unlikely a MiG-39 will ever be built as the company hasn’t produced new aircraft (only upgraded a few MiG-29s) in a while. And we didn’t have much trouble with any MiG-29 we faced to date anyways. And the Su-37, again, only an upgraded Su-27. As the F-22 Raptor pilots say, they are simply flying chaff waiting to be destroyed. I doubt the F-35 would have much trouble dealing with them either. If fact, the F-22 owes much to the F-35, and vice versa. The Raptors already incredible radar is being updeted with F-35 technology. I am sure US and maybe Brit F-35s will have stealth that is close to that of the F-22. I doubt the rest will be as stealthy though. The only thing that I think the F-35 lacks is a super cruise capability on par with the F-22, but I am sure it can supercruise for a short period of time anyways. I think the STOVL version will lack range and payload, but it should come in handy when flexibilty is required.
Also read a report that pilots even with visual sightings of F-22s were unable to lock weapons on them. What a bit__, you can see the guy, but your targering radar or IR sensors can’t. That is a little tough to deal with.
We down here in Holland are slated for (an initial) 90 F-35 Alpha’s, and we can’t wait for them to arrive.
On the whole subject old vs new — our F-16AMs (for MLU Midlife Update) are flying non-stop combat-ops in Afghanistan (see the recent battle for Chora) and doing just mighty fine. If the JSF just half matches the Falcons capabilities this “cloggie” is a happy camper.
A-10, B-52, P-47 don’t matter. Steel on target does.
Don’t focus too much on STOVL — it’s the conventional fighter capabilites that are mated with STOVL — good range / payload / speed without sacrificing these capabilities just to be able to do the hummingbird mating dance.
Precision strike/CAS mated with STOVL (fast reaction/hi sortie rate) is a drooling concept.
Me like.
Have an ex-employee/friend that works for Lockheed-Martin. He’s been working on the Raptor program for years. Says the F-35 had trouble making weight targets. I’m not sold on the whole “one size fits all” multi-service concept, anyway. Maybe if the plane were cheaper and still had the same capabilities…
It’ll be an ordnance hog, and hopefully will do just fine in that role.
I saw on Military channel F-18 could out fly all the human pilots now. Why spend more money on top priced equipment that can’t be used any more than they are flying now.
The idea of WW2 prop. planes is a good for $ side and slow movers. They still worked in Vietnam.
Okay, this gotta stop because it’s getting ridiculous:
FORGET about prop-driven CAS/GA planes — even the ALX/Super Tucano just is not suited for hi-intensity (urban) combat like REAL WORLD conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan (god forbid Iran/NORKOR).
Any noob who has seen “Black Hawk Down” should get the message: simple RPKs, RPGs and even good old “Ma Dueces” would shred a slow moving (prop-)plane — period.
And Mohammed watched that movie too.
Counter AAA with good intell mated with stand-off weapons — that’s what the JSF / F-35 is build around. Sensor-fusion-gizmos with precision med/long range precision weapons to evade enemy air defenses.
After all: never fight the way your opponent fights best.