# Comparing P-38 v/s F-35



## Grampa (Aug 6, 2009)

Here's a comaring view of a P-38 to an F-35


----------



## beaupower32 (Aug 6, 2009)

Nice shot!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 6, 2009)




----------



## Dark Matter (Aug 6, 2009)

Looks like a F-35A and a P-38F.


----------



## imalko (Aug 6, 2009)

Nice photo indeed. However, apart from tricycle landing gear I fail to see any other family resemblance.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 6, 2009)

made me think of that they are quite comparable in the sense of both being heavy fighters capable of striking deep into enemy territory. Then again, one can also compare it with the British Lightning: a very fast climbing interceptor.


Kris


----------



## Gnomey (Aug 6, 2009)

Nice shot! 8)


----------



## leonardmorpho (Aug 6, 2009)

well, they both have 2 powerplants


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 6, 2009)

Both pretty dam beautiful!


----------



## Dark Matter (Aug 7, 2009)

leonardmorpho said:


> well, they both have 2 powerplants



No thats a F-35A, a conventinal takoff and landing.

The 2 engined one is the F-35B.

And the Aircraft carrier one is a F-35C.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 7, 2009)

Dark Matter said:


> No thats a F-35A, a conventinal takoff and landing.
> 
> The 2 engined one is the F-35B.
> 
> And the Aircraft carrier one is a F-35C.



The F-35 does not have 2 engines. It has a lift fan powered by the main engine.


----------



## Dark Matter (Aug 7, 2009)

Thank you Joe, That is what I kinda ment.


----------



## Dark Matter (Aug 7, 2009)




----------



## comiso90 (Aug 7, 2009)

cool photo Dark..

it sucks that a Goose sucked into the intake can turn that beautiful engine into a a cloud of metal shards.

.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 7, 2009)

What does that front section do ?? Is that also for lift ?? Or what is that ??

Kris


----------



## Dark Matter (Aug 7, 2009)

It produces lift...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 7, 2009)

F-35 Lightning II - Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) - Air Force Technology


----------



## Flyboy2 (Aug 7, 2009)

I like seeing the size comparrison... The P-38 was a large aircraft it seems, it looks like it has a longer wingspan the the F-35


----------



## marshall (Aug 7, 2009)

Does anyone else while looking at the picture of P-38 and F-35 gets a feeling it's a diorama?


----------



## Civettone (Aug 7, 2009)

It's not a diorama ?? damn ...


Anyway, I found a nice cutaway for the F-35 which really shows the engines. I'm posting it in a link because I don't want to hotlink it.

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/imagesbig/f35-cutaway.jpg

Kris


----------



## Waynos (Aug 8, 2009)

I really wish the RAF was not so fixated with its 'Harrier legacy' and would instead get the much better F-35A and C instead of the rather crappy B model with its unique combination of 'Less weapons, Less range, Less performance, More Complexity and More cost. Woooo, go RAF!


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Aug 9, 2009)

Nice picture. 


Wheels


----------



## Civettone (Aug 9, 2009)

Waynos said:


> I really wish the RAF was not so fixated with its 'Harrier legacy' and would instead get the much better F-35A and C instead of the rather crappy B model with its unique combination of 'Less weapons, Less range, Less performance, More Complexity and More cost. Woooo, go RAF!


But then they would probably also have to chage the design of their carriers, no? and it would also mean they could only operate from proper air fields. The VTOL capability can provide some impressive tactical advantages.


Kris


----------



## Waynos (Aug 10, 2009)

Hi Kris, the current carriers will be gone before the F-35 enters service and the new ones are already designed to be able to handle Super Hornets, F-35C's and Rafales on joint ops, so the only change we would need to make would be the installation of CATOBAR equipment on the first one straight away instead of later on, which is the current plan, no change needed on the second carrier at all for it to operate the F-35C.

Also there seems to be a general misunderstanding of the F-35B's capability. It is not VTOL, never has been, never will be, unless you count the smaller, lighter and un-equipped X-35B which did demonstrate VTO, if rather pointlessly.

It is nominally a STOVL aircraft, though how the STO part is achieved without vectored thrust I have not yet figured out, so it is more of a 'CTOVL' aircraft, and the number of ops where vertical landing has been needed over the last two decades, even the ones carried out by Harriers, is zero, so, it is my belief, the RAF and RN are trading range, performance and capability for somethingh they will never need to use.

There is a reason that nobody else bar the the UK and USMC are going for this model.

What I do think however is that the MoD cannot face the thought of buying and operating two different spec F-35's as the C is not a close support aircraft and the A is not carrier capable. So, in our usual way we fudge the issue and get one that does neither job sparklingly well, but is at least acceptable, and allows fleet rotation among the so called 'joint force'. Everyone else who buys the F-35 gets a fighter, we don't


----------



## Civettone (Aug 10, 2009)

En"lightning" post Waynos !!  


Kris


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 10, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Also there seems to be a general misunderstanding of the F-35B's capability. It is not VTOL, never has been, never will be, unless you count the smaller, lighter and un-equipped X-35B which did demonstrate VTO, if rather pointlessly.


There was a point behind it - it was in the contract to be able to demostrate that capability.


----------



## Waynos (Aug 10, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> There was a point behind it - it was in the contract to be able to demostrate that capability.



In the X plane contract yes, but it was never a requirement of either JSF or JCA, which was why Ithink that the X-35 doing it it was a bit pointless. As far as I could see the only reason was so that the Yak 41 wasn't the only supersonic VTOL in the world, I can't think of any practical reason for it.

Cive, Ouch, that pun hit me right in the stomach


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 10, 2009)

Waynos said:


> In the X plane contract yes, but it was never a requirement of either JSF or JCA, which was why Ithink that the X-35 doing it it was a bit pointless.


They did it to evaluate each design team's ability to deliver specific contract requirements that involved engineering, performance and the ability to deliver by a specific date. There was also something about technology demonstration. Pointless? I don't think so as it was a challange to show which design (the X-32 or X-35) was superior. in the en the X-35 surpassed the X-32 by leaps and bounds.


----------



## Waynos (Aug 10, 2009)

But the X-32 also demonstrated VTO capability, it was just rubbish everywhere else, which if anything, reiterates the utter pointlessness of that particular request.
You surprise me, There was no call for VTO in either requirement the F-35 was ultimately intended to fill, as I mentioned, there was no prospect of it ever being carried over to the fully fledged fighter, but you don't feel this was a bit of a pointless excercise? To me, that is the epitomy of one.

" Yeah, we did it" - then everyone turns away to get on with the job of making a fighter plane. Hmmm. I disagree with you on this FlyboyJ as I cannot see the benefit.


----------



## Butters (Aug 10, 2009)

I wonder what the STOVL F-35 is gonna cost? The plain jane air force model is already gonna be over 200 million a pop for the first couple of hundred produced. Not to mention the outrageous maintenance costs, if the F-22 is anything to go by...

These 'gee-whiz' fighters are gonna put the air forces out of business at the rate things are going. Reminds me of the old proverb -"Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it..."

JL


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 10, 2009)

Waynos said:


> But the X-32 also demonstrated VTO capability, it was just rubbish everywhere else, which if anything, reiterates the utter pointlessness of that particular request.


 You just made my point - Boeing couldn't fulfill the contract requirement that would have brought on a larger and more complex program



Waynos said:


> You surprise me, There was no call for VTO in either requirement the F-35 was ultimately intended to fill, as I mentioned, there was no prospect of it ever being carried over to the fully fledged fighter, but you don't feel this was a bit of a pointless excercise? To me, that is the epitomy of one.


Again you're missing the point. The US Government called the shots and wanted to see VTOL in the demonstrator. I could assure you there was a method in their seemed madness.


Waynos said:


> " Yeah, we did it" - then everyone turns away to get on with the job of making a fighter plane. Hmmm. I disagree with you on this FlyboyJ as I cannot see the benefit.


Your prerogative to disagree but this is one program I know a little about - my former roommate (who later was my best man at my wedding) designed the electrical system on the X-35. I also knew about half of the design team.

Although the F-35 is being advertised as a STOVL, don't be surprised if you see the F-35B doing vertical take offs.


----------



## Waynos (Aug 11, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> You just made my point - Boeing couldn't fulfill the contract requirement that would have brought on a larger and more complex program



But what if the X-32, freed from the VTO aspect, had turned out to be a better fighter overall and trying to make it do that ruined an otherwise good design? Speculative yes, but what I'm saying is why compromise a design for something that is not wanted? See also Dive bombing on the He 177 and Manchester for other examples of what I am trying to say.


> Again you're missing the point. The US Government called the shots and wanted to see VTOL in the demonstrator. I could assure you there was a method in their seemed madness.



I don't think I am missing your point - but I think you missed mine. Before this developed into a discussion of its own we were discussing the F-35. In relation to the F-35 (and the powerplants arrangement is totally specific to this programme and relates to nothing else) the X-35's VTO demo's were pointless, as the F-35 can not only not do this, but is not required to. I think we will have to agree to diagree on this point as I can see us continuing spiralling down into the ground otherwise.



> Your prerogative to disagree but this is one program, which were I know a little about - my former roommate (who later was my best man at my wedding) designed the electrical system on the X-35. I also knew about half of the design team.



Although the F-35 is being advertised as a STOVL, don't be surprised if you see the F-35B doing vertical take offs.[/QUOTE]

Your sources would seem impeccable, but as for the last sentence, I wouldn't be surprised, I would be absolutely amazed. The aircraft is at the beginning of its lifecycle so future developments offer all sorts of possibilities. However the aircraft is *cuurrently* too heavy to get off the ground in the length of the deck of HMS Queen Elizabeth, which presents s serious problem to the UK until resolved (which I am sure it will be). 

As you do have good sources however, can you tell me how STO is achieved without the benefit of vectored thrust? 

I think this is going to be another 'agree to disagree', as when your thrust is less than your normal loaded weight and about two thirds of your max loaded weight I don't see how VTO is a realistic option? although when the F-35 does operate in VTO mode feel free to back and berate me for my negativity.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 11, 2009)

Waynos said:


> But what if the X-32, freed from the VTO aspect, had turned out to be a better fighter overall and trying to make it do that ruined an otherwise good design? Speculative yes, but what I'm saying is why compromise a design for something that is not wanted? See also Dive bombing on the He 177 and Manchester for other examples of what I am trying to say.


There were something like 25 points that each demostrator had to meet, VTO was only one of them. From what I remember the X-32 only met half of them.



Waynos said:


> I don't think I am missing your point - but I think you missed mine. Before this developed into a discussion of its own we were discussing the F-35. In relation to the F-35 (and the powerplants arrangement is totally specific to this programme and relates to nothing else) the X-35's VTO demo's were pointless, as the F-35 can not only not do this, but is not required to. I think we will have to agree to diagree on this point as I can see us continuing spiralling down into the ground otherwise.


Fine





Waynos said:


> Your sources would seem impeccable, but as for the last sentence, I wouldn't be surprised, I would be absolutely amazed. The aircraft is at the beginning of its lifecycle so future developments offer all sorts of possibilities. However the aircraft is *cuurrently* too heavy to get off the ground in the length of the deck of HMS Queen Elizabeth, which presents s serious problem to the UK until resolved (which I am sure it will be).


Too heavy? Where are you getting that from?



Waynos said:


> As you do have good sources however, can you tell me how STO is achieved without the benefit of vectored thrust?


Without the benifit of vectrored thrust? Again where are you getting that from? The F-35 will still use a vectoing rear nozzle as well as the lift fan. The thrust from the engine/ lift fan combination puts out more than the aircraft weighs.



Waynos said:


> I think this is going to be another 'agree to disagree', as when your thrust is less than your normal loaded weight and about two thirds of your max loaded weight I don't see how VTO is a realistic option? although when the F-35 does operate in VTO mode feel free to back and berate me for my negativity.


I won't berate your negativity, but I'd invite you to look more into the program.

F-35B Joint Strike Fighter

LOCKHEED MARTIN F-35B SUCCEEDS IN STOVL PROPULSION GROUND TEST | Lockheed Martin

Lockheed Martin F-35B STOVL Stealth Fighter Achieves Successful First Flight | AVIATION-NEWS


----------



## Waynos (Aug 11, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> There were something like 25 points that each demostrator had to meet, VTO was only one of them. From what I remember the X-32 only met half of them.



Yes, correct. The question I was putting out there though is "what if" allowing for VTO compromised a design that would otherwise have worked superbly? I am not saying that it did, or trying to detract from the X-35 (to which this question might equally apply) I only put it forward to illustrate why I think getting a demonstrator to do something the customer does not want is not a good idea generally.



> Too heavy? Where are you getting that from?



Programme reports from Lockheed, news updates from Flight International and many other sources since the programme began. Your own link refers to the SWAT team that was tasked with reducing weight. Oddly it gives the impression that this mission is accomplished. In part it is, however the F-35B has not yet been able to demonstrate a take off run that is less than the the deck length of the the new UK carriers (directly from an RAF friend of mine, but also seen reported on the web about a year ago) and both BAE and Lockheed are working on this still. I am sure it will be done, but I think the F-35C would have been a better option is all I'm saying.



> Without the benifit of vectrored thrust? Again where are you getting that from? The F-35 will still use a vectoing rear nozzle as well as the lift fan. The thrust from the engine/ lift fan combination puts out more than the aircraft weighs.



I think your sources are letting you down. The F-35B does not possess TVC, this is a result of the engine design in which the nozzle has only two modes, namely, straight back and straight down, so of course the nozzle vectors, but only between two positions, it cannot be vectored to induce STO as the F-22 and Harrier might as this would result in total loss of all forward thrust, not good halfway through a takeoff run. how the system deploys automatically for landings is described in one of the links you provided. How the nozzle vecors for STO or manouvering is not covered anywhere, because it doesn't.

This is why I am asking how STO is achieved. On the other two aircraft a moderate downward deflection at the right speed will propel the bird skywards, F-35B does not have this option.

Regarding VTO. Empty weight of the F-35B is 30,000lb, normal take off weight is 45,000lb and maximum 60,000lb. Of course VTO would never be attempted at the planes max weight so we can forget that figure. But for 'normal' ops the projected figure is 45, 000lb. Your 30,000lb fighter will of course require a pilot, fuel and weapons.

The maximum thrust of the combination F135 is 25,000lb for the main engine and another 18,0000lb for the fan, totalling 43,0000lb, almost exactly the loaded weight at which VTO is supposed to be attempted. Sorry, but I don't buy your assertion about VTO. There is however sufficient margin for a safe vertical landing after burning off the fuel and dropping the weapons, which is what the plane is supposed to do, isn't it


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 11, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Yes, correct. The question I was putting out there though is "what if" allowing for VTO compromised a design that would otherwise have worked superbly? I am not saying that it did, or trying to detract from the X-35 (to which this question might equally apply) I only put it forward to illustrate why I think getting a demonstrator to do something the customer does not want is not a good idea generally.


Spoke to my buddy today about this and he confirmed that the F-35 CAN take off vertically and this was part of the original requirement, I'll explain more.




Waynos said:


> Programme reports from Lockheed, news updates from Flight International and many other sources since the programme began. Your own link refers to the SWAT team that was tasked with reducing weight. Oddly it gives the impression that this mission is accomplished. In part it is, however the F-35B has not yet been able to demonstrate a take off run that is less than the the deck length of the the new UK carriers (directly from an RAF friend of mine, but also seen reported on the web about a year ago) and both BAE and Lockheed are working on this still. I am sure it will be done, but I think the F-35C would have been a better option is all I'm saying.


The weight problem has been ongoing and was even part of the X-35 program. Engineers were given bonuses for weight reduction ideas and I think this is still going on.


Waynos said:


> I think your sources are letting you down. The F-35B does not possess TVC, this is a result of the engine design in which the nozzle has only two modes, namely, straight back and straight down, so of course the nozzle vectors, but only between two positions, it cannot be vectored to induce STO as the F-22 and Harrier might as this would result in total loss of all forward thrust, not good halfway through a takeoff run. how the system deploys automatically for landings is described in one of the links you provided. How the nozzle vecors for STO or manouvering is not covered anywhere, because it doesn't.


Actually it does and along with the lift fan and other parts of the system not spoken about but does provide the maneuvering capability in hover you speak of. Again, I'll state, the F-35 CAN perform VTOL. Between the lift fan, blow out doors and the "snake" nozzle, this provides better stability than the Harrier, and I'll continue to explain more...


Waynos said:


> This is why I am asking how STO is achieved. On the other two aircraft a moderate downward deflection at the right speed will propel the bird skywards, F-35B does not have this option.


Yes it does - the same set up like the X-35 if you ever seen the clips of that (which I'm sure you have). I found this clip earlier today. I know "Mike" and my friend worked for him. You could see some of the system working on the exterior. Although this is the X-35 it best shows the system, while in its infancy, it is what is being deployed right now (except a lot better)

Lockheed Martin X-35, VTOL Test (Vertical Take Off Landing) • videosift.com

The major difference in the F-35 is some of the system components were designed to be interchangeable and mass produced. Watch some of the doors opening and closing. This was the first VT on the X-35 (I was actually there)



Waynos said:


> Regarding VTO. Empty weight of the F-35B is 30,000lb, normal take off weight is 45,000lb and maximum 60,000lb. Of course VTO would never be attempted at the planes max weight so we can forget that figure. But for 'normal' ops the projected figure is 45, 000lb. Your 30,000lb fighter will of course require a pilot, fuel and weapons.


Now my explanation - Just like the Harrier, something will have to be compromised. "Fuel or bombs" were the exact words. 



Waynos said:


> The maximum thrust of the combination F135 is 25,000lb for the main engine and another 18,0000lb for the fan, totalling 43,0000lb, almost exactly the loaded weight at which VTO is supposed to be attempted. Sorry, but I don't buy your assertion about VTO. There is however sufficient margin for a safe vertical landing after burning off the fuel and dropping the weapons, which is what the plane is supposed to do, isn't it


Back to my previous post - it won't do it with a full fuel or bomb load, but like the Harrier does have the capability to operate in a VTOL environment "with compromise."

So with that said - what do you have? A stealth strike aircraft with supersonic capability that could take off vertically with either a minimum fuel load or minimum bomb load, but let's say we go for bombs in lieu of fuel - get in the air and get to a tanker ASAP then continue with the mission.

Now don't ask me what would be the range with a max ordnance load and a VTO. I don't think anyone will know that at least for the short term.


----------



## Waynos (Aug 12, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Spoke to my buddy today about this and he confirmed that the F-35 CAN take off vertically and this was part of the original requirement,



Not according to my information, could you show me something to support that as, ever since the launch of the programme, and in all the quizzing I have done of my freinds (one of whom works at Raytheon is *very* closely linked to the programme) I have always been left in no doubt that VTO was not required from the operational F-35, only as a demo from the X-35. Now you are the first person in 15 years to tell me different so I would appreciate it if you could show me something to back that up. My own web searches since you posted have yielded nothing that contradicts my existing knowledge, however its perfectly possible I may have missed something. Here is the requirement as summarised by the site you linked me to
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/jsf-specs.htm



> The weight problem has been ongoing and was even part of the X-35 program. Engineers were given bonuses for weight reduction ideas and I think this is still going on.



Yes, thats what I was saying.




> Actually it does and along with the lift fan and other parts of the system not spoken about but does provide the maneuvering capability in hover you speak of. Again, I'll state, the F-35 CAN perform VTOL. Between the lift fan, blow out doors and the "snake" nozzle, this provides better stability than the Harrier,



You quoted a passage but this reply does not relate to it at all. I did not mention stability in the hover, this passage is not related to VTO. I specifically mentioned TVC, this stands for Thrust Vector Control and relates to the divergence of the engine thrust for the specific reason of manouvering in forward flight (it used to be called Viffing) and it is also used to shorten otherwise conventional take off runs by deflecting thrust slightly downwards just before the end of the take off run. It is practised by Harriers, F-22's and various, but not all, Flanker models amongst others and was also demonstrated successfully by the X-31. This is what the F-35 does not have. I apologise for assuming you were familiar with the term and not making it more clear.



> Yes it does - the same set up like the X-35 if you ever seen the clips of that (which I'm sure you have). I found this clip earlier today. I know "Mike" and my friend worked for him. You could see some of the system working on the exterior. Although this is the X-35 it best shows the system, while in its infancy, it is what is being deployed right now (except a lot better)
> 
> Lockheed Martin X-35, VTOL Test (Vertical Take Off Landing) • videosift.com



Your video link proves my point. Notice how right at the start the nozzle moves downward, pauses, then moves straight to the vertical. This is what it does. The practical reason for it is that for landing, as the nozzle is briefly paused, the lift fan spins up and the doors open as forward speed is decreased (the various doors etc all acting as additional airbrakes too) whilst stability is maintained in conjunction with the auxiliary actuators in the wings, before it moves to the vertical to complete the landing. This is an automated process and is why it is also doing that for take off in the video, even though the pause is not needed there.This is what I described in my previous post and why the aircraft cannot use TVC, either for manouvering or for STO.



> The major difference in the F-35 is some of the system components were designed to be interchangeable and mass produced. Watch some of the doors opening and closing. This was the first VT on the X-35 (I was actually there)



Sorry, I don't understand the relevance of that to this discussion?



> Now my explanation - Just like the Harrier, something will have to be compromised. "Fuel or bombs" were the exact words.



Well yes, patently. I already gave the approximated weight figures by way of illustration. The point being that with the fuel and weapons one would require, VTO goes out of the window. This is why it wont be used that way in service as it would compromise the mission to the point of uselessness. Is a VTO capability really a capability if you can't do anything useful afterwards?



> Back to my previous post - it won't do it with a full fuel or bomb load, but like the Harrier does have the capability to operate in a VTOL environment "with compromise."



Rather than a full load, my information is 'with any useful load, Which brings right back to the point I made in my very first post that for the RAF and RN the other models would be a better option as *we do not use VTO operationally at all, and only use VL because its the only way to get back on the current carriers* 



> So with that said - what do you have? A stealth strike aircraft with supersonic capability that could take off vertically with either a minimum fuel load or minimum bomb load, but let's say we go for bombs in lieu of fuel - get in the air and get to a tanker ASAP then continue with the mission.



What you (by which I mean we) will have is a stealth strike aircraft that doesn't NEED to take off vertically but has had its range and weapon load compromised to accomodate the lift fan, with less internal fuel and a smaller weapon bay than the other two models. This is my standpoint on the UK purchase, I can well understand the benefits of the F-35B for the USMC with its forward operating methods and for them it makes perfect sense. I am not slagging the F-35B, only Britains purchase of it, which you will see if you go back up the thread.

In my opinion TVC is a far more useful attribute than VTO, the F-35 A and C can easily be retrofitted with this at any point, maybe even before IOC, but the one we are getting cannot. that is my beef.





> Now don't ask me what would be the range with a max ordnance load and a VTO. I don't think anyone will know that at least for the short term.



But is is nice to finish on a point we are 100% in accord with


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 12, 2009)

Waynos, all I'm going to say at this point is a relay of what I was told. 

1. The F-35 can perform VTOL
2. It cannot do it with a full fuel or bomb load
3. In the hover if offers better performance and the Harrier
4. The VTOL requirement was part of the original contract

This is my standpoint from the US purchase. What the RAF does or RN will be a whole different story.

I'm on the run today (at least this morning). I will be speaking to my friend this weekend and he might even be in my area next week or the week after. I'll question him more on this and relay what he could tell me about the program.


----------



## Waynos (Aug 12, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Waynos, all I'm going to say at this point is a relay of what I was told.
> 
> 1. The F-35 can perform VTOL
> 2. It cannot do it with a full fuel or bomb load
> ...



OK, but as a quick summarisation in reply;

1 - Yes, BUT (see above) 
2 - Agreed
3- Agreed (I actually think that operationally the UK no longer needs an aircraft of this type - you may have guessed that)
4 - If you can show the that I would be delighted, thank you. Although in parting, the margin for a safe hover or vertical landing will always mean that some sort of VTO is physically possible, even if you have to jettison your load to do it. its the practical usage and military requirement that I am doubting.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 12, 2009)

Waynos said:


> OK, but as a quick summarisation in reply;
> 
> 1 - Yes, BUT (see above)
> 2 - Agreed
> ...


I cannot find a copy of the original solicitation that was based on the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) Contract requirements. According to my buddy it was a requirement to demonstrate VTO to demonstrate that the lift fan configuration was superior and safer than the Boeing method. The only thing I could find was a requirement for the STOVL portion of the contract to require a takeoff distance less than 500'. I'm assuming that both contractors took to extra step to beat that requirement to have a demonstrator with VTO capability.



Waynos said:


> Although in parting, the margin for a safe hover or vertical landing will always mean that some sort of VTO is physically possible, even if you have to jettison your load to do it. its the practical usage and military requirement that I am doubting.


And Lockheed won the contract based on the "safer" lift fan operation that did not allow hotter exhaust air to re-circulate into the engine. Apparently the X-32 had this problem and was so over weight that ground crews removed landing gear doors to save weight.

As far as the military requirement for VTO - I think the US Marines would still want that capability even it means a diminished effectivness.


----------



## Butters (Aug 12, 2009)

I'm not sure how credible this is, but it is interesting...

MoD to bin F-35B navy jumpjets in favour of tailhook birds? ? The Register

JL


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 12, 2009)

Butters said:


> I'm not sure how credible this is, but it is interesting...
> 
> MoD to bin F-35B navy jumpjets in favour of tailhook birds? ? The Register
> 
> JL



Interesting.

With that said, what will the RN use?


----------



## Butters (Aug 12, 2009)

According to the report, they would modify their planned new carriers with catapults and arresting gear. The overall costs (taking a/c and vessel as a unit) would be significantly reduced and both the carriers and the a/c would be inherently more versatile and effective. 

Of course, that will leave the USMC to bear the total cost of the F-35B program. I have very strong doubts that there will be any other customers for such an outrageously expensive a/c so compromised in combat effectiveness.

JL


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 12, 2009)

Butters said:


> According to the report, they would modify their planned new carriers with catapults and arresting gear. The overall costs (taking a/c and vessel as a unit) would be significantly reduced and both the carriers and the a/c would be inherently more versatile and effective.
> 
> Of course, that will leave the USMC to bear the total cost of the F-35B program. I have very strong doubts that there will be any other customers for such an outrageously expensive a/c so compromised in combat effectiveness.
> 
> JL


The only way the F-35B combat effectivness is compromised is if its operated in a VTO mode as discussed. In the STOVL its a jump ahead of the Harrier.


As far as forigen sales - time will tell, but there seems to be no shortage of buyers for the A model

http://www.flightglobal.com/article...e-f-35-tackles-pricing-issue-for-foreign.html


----------



## Waynos (Aug 12, 2009)

Butters said:


> I'm not sure how credible this is, but it is interesting...
> 
> MoD to bin F-35B navy jumpjets in favour of tailhook birds? ? The Register
> 
> JL



Sadly, from my point of view, the article took an actual event out of context and misrepresents our real situation.

What has happened is that the UK Govt has followed the US lead and pulled funding for the F136 alternative engine. This engine was the product of a joint agreement between GE and Rolls Royce.

Rolls Royce also produces the lift fan and rear nozzle articulation gear for P&W's F135 STOVL engine model too. 

What they appear to have done (the Daily Telegraph that is) is take RR's participation in the F136 and the fact that RR are responsible for the STOVL related items on the F-35B powerplant and mash them together into a single entity. Therefore, to them, the cancellation of funding for the joint RR engine means no STOVL powerplants to be built, ergo no F-35B's in British service.

Of course it doesn't mean that at all (weep!), all it means is that the UK's Lightnings will be powered by the F135 instead, still with RR built STOVL gear. The next page of the piece on the Register does point this out, it was the Telegraph that (as usual) got it all wrong.


----------



## Waynos (Aug 12, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The only way the F-35B combat effectivness is compromised is if its operated in a VTO mode as discussed. In the STOVL its a jump ahead of the Harrier.
> [/url]



Actually the aircrafts combat effectiveness is compromised for the reasons I mentioned earlier, ie it has a smaller weapons bay than the A and C, this means it cannot now accomodate some of the weapons internally that were lined up for it and they will now have to be carried externally, which compromises the aircrafts LO (stealth).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 12, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Actually the aircrafts combat effectiveness is compromised for the reasons I mentioned earlier, ie it has a smaller weapons bay than the A and C, this means it cannot now accomodate some of the weapons internally that were lined up for it and they will now have to be carried externally, which compromises the aircrafts LO (stealth).



Not if the "weapons" are a lot smaller and lighter than made public. 

Air Force's smaller bomb is more versatile | Stars and Stripes


----------



## Waynos (Aug 12, 2009)

Since they are in England maybe we could steal some.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 12, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Since they are in England maybe we could steal some.


I don't think anyone here would mind!


----------

