VSTOL JSF vs. Conventional JSF

[Saladmander]

Why don't the two of you worry about your English comp II, or Colege Algebra, or whatever the sh!t is your learning and don't start sh!t with the guys who fly the damn things.

Maybe you should have paid more attention in your "colege" classes.

There are no guys "that fly the damn things" on here when we're talking about the JSF.

And I'm still curious if FARPs have short runways.

AND I'm still curious if a Hornet's range on internal fuel is 700nm, because I've found a lot of conflicting stuff about it.

It seems like some people talk a lot of smack and not a lot of knowledge.

 

[mmx1]

Alright, the Harrier has four points of propulsion, all of which can be angled, but with the JSF, the lift fan does not angle, it only blows straight down. So how does this work out exactly with short to's and landings compared to the Harrier?

Jet exhaust can be vectored up to 90degrees.

 

[mmx1]

Maybe you should have paid more attention in your "colege" classes.

There are no guys "that fly the damn things" on here when we're talking about the JSF.

And I'm still curious if FARPs have short runways.

AND I'm still curious if a Hornet's range on internal fuel is 700nm, because I've found a lot of conflicting stuff about it.

It seems like some people talk a lot of smack and not a lot of knowledge.

Dude, it's not like a FARP is a prefab unit we drop and unpack. You need a short runway, you make one. Get a dozer, find a road; anything. Short runway easier than long runway.

 

[Saladmander]

Alright, the Harrier has four points of propulsion, all of which can be angled, but with the JSF, the lift fan does not angle, it only blows straight down. So how does this work out exactly with short to's and landings compared to the Harrier?

The main engine angles down, you can see how all that stuff works in this video off the jsf.mil site. http://jsf.mil/video/x35/x35b_high.wmv

Thanks mmx1. From the book I'm reading it seemed like they were only for helicopters, so I was a little lost.

 

[ArkhamAsylum]

I can't believe this argument went on this long. We need a bigger war to fight.

 

[pilot_man]

Talking way too much sh!t for a ass wipe in college.

Dear saladtosser, don’t you worry about my typing skills. I’m pretty sure when BRD started this thread, he wasn’t looking for all of the college juniors in the crowd to voice their opinions on the matter. Go do something fun; you’re in freaking college for Christ sake. Go find a hot freshman (your choice) and stop worrying about FARPs.
:icon_zbee

 

[brd2881]

I can't believe this argument went on this long. We need a bigger war to fight.

If you are referring to the conventional vs VSTOL JSF, I think its a pretty worthwhile fight since our aircraft are declining like they are, reference Jarhead's post above. If you are referring to "saladtosser" and the like arguing about thrust vectoring...well...then....anyway.

How about this for food for thought....I heard that there are like 1000 subcontractors that are building parts for an aircraft like the JSF. Imagine the nightmare of procurement with such moving parts....amazing we ever get aircraft off of the ground. Not like it used to be I guess. Wonder what the future holds past the JSF....if and when it becomes operational..

 

[zippy]

Lots of subcontactors= lots of jobs in different districts= lots of support from politicians.

 

[Flash]

You go to war with the planes you have, not the planes you'd like to have. The idea is that you may not have 2 CVN's hanging around in an all-out shooting war, e.g. with China. In a pinch, an LHA can be used as an escort carrier with STOL aircraft, which I think they recently demonstrated with the Bonhomme Richard in the Persian Gulf.

It's sort of taking a lesson from the Brits with the cargo vessels they converted into Harrier carriers during the Falklands war, augmenting what was their one CV at the time. With CTOL you limit yourself to our 11 big-deck carriers and a select few airfields. STOL gives you an additional 7-8 "escort carriers" and a lot more improvised fields.

To poke a few holes in your arguments.....

An LHA/LHD would probably not do well with against a well-equipped open ocean threat. While 25-30 AV-8B's might put more iron on target (a little with the ange limitations), they do not have the same supporting aircraft that make up a full Carrier Air Wing. The whole advantage of being closer ot the battle is negated. Also, Harriers are not equipped or could not carry some of the weapons like Harpoon and HARM that would be useful in a sea battle (at the very least, they don't train with them). The Harriers main job is CAS and from what I have seen and heard they are pretty good at it. But an open ocean conflict would stretch the aircraft ot its limits and maybe beyond.

Plus, wouldn't the Marines rather use the LHD/LHA's for amphib operations to push back any enemy threats than play Navy?

You are not completely right about the Brits converting cargo ships into Harrier carriers during the Falklands. They used one container ship, the Atlantic Conveyer, to transport helicopters and several Harriers down to the two carriers off the Falklands, the HMS Invincible and HMS Hermes. The only time the Harriers flew off the Atlantic Conveyer was to fly to the two carriers. On top of that, the Atlantic Conveyer was sunk by an Exocet with several of the helos that it brought down still on board. The Brits only had one of the 4 Chinooks after that, the rest were on the bottom of the South Atlantic with the Atlantic Conveyer. Not a real successful experiment in the end......

 

[mmx1]

To poke a few holes in your arguments.....

An LHA/LHD would probably not do well with against a well-equipped open ocean threat. While 25-30 AV-8B's might put more iron on target (a little with the ange limitations), they do not have the same supporting aircraft that make up a full Carrier Air Wing. The whole advantage of being closer ot the battle is negated. Also, Harriers are not equipped or could not carry some of the weapons like Harpoon and HARM that would be useful in a sea battle (at the very least, they don't train with them). The Harriers main job is CAS and from what I have seen and heard they are pretty good at it. But an open ocean conflict would stretch the aircraft ot its limits and maybe beyond.

Plus, wouldn't the Marines rather use the LHD/LHA's for amphib operations to push back any enemy threats than play Navy?

You are not completely right about the Brits converting cargo ships into Harrier carriers during the Falklands. They used one container ship, the Atlantic Conveyer, to transport helicopters and several Harriers down to the two carriers off the Falklands, the HMS Invincible and HMS Hermes. The only time the Harriers flew off the Atlantic Conveyer was to fly to the two carriers. On top of that, the Atlantic Conveyer was sunk by an Exocet with several of the helos that it brought down still on board. The Brits only had one of the 4 Chinooks after that, the rest were on the bottom of the South Atlantic with the Atlantic Conveyer. Not a real successful experiment in the end......

Okay! Back on track here. Note the words "in a pinch" and "augment". I think the idea is not an escort carrier in the WWII sense of blue-water operations, but strictly as a CAS deck. The very fact that CVN's have far more capabilities than just dropping iron on hajis is why you don't want to have two of them tied up providing CAS when an escort carrier could do it just as well. I think the Navy looked at Iraq and realized they had two big decks tied up in the Persian Gulf just to do CAS and probably felt more vulnerable in other trouble spots like the China straits.

The idea is not playing Navy, it's doing more things within the gator navy so you can free up the CVN's to play chicken with the PLAN or something like that. I imagine the idea is that once the Marines are ashore and pushing forward, the utility of the LHA as an amphib deck is reduced and it becomes essentially a helo/harrier carrier anyway.

I didn't know that about the Falklands conflict, so much for popular histories.

 

[Flash]

A thru C models are designed to have 90% parts and 100% tool commonality, essentially making their logistics footprints identical. Also, HQMC leadership is looking towards their vision of future conflicts, which is heavy on LHD-centered task forces vice full-blown ESG's, or CVBG's, or whatever they are called these days.

Marine commanders like the flexibility VSTOL gives them, with respect to CVN/LHD/LPD/FARP compatability.

Basically, the thing uses all the same parts as the A and C, carries the same (internal) loadout as the C, and can land on any flat-top or FARP. I got the chance to speak with Col Tomassetti, the Marine lead TP, a few years back at Pax River, and he was raving about its handling qualities. As a side note, the previous Commodore at NAS Whiting said "the F-35B is the best and most capable aircraft to emerge in all of naval aviation in a very long time." I'm not sure how he would know that, but there you go.

I'm looking forward to it.

This same debate happened in Proceedings about 2 or 3 years ago. I believe Col Tomassetti was the author of an article praising the F-35B, not exactly an unbiased party. A USMC F-18 pilot wrote another article criticizing the same aircraft for being much less capable than the F-35A or C. There was a subsequent series of letters to the magazine in the next few months, several of them Marine pilots, that took both sides of the issue.

If I remember correctly, the combat radius of the F-35B is about 450nm vs about 700nm for the F-35C. The B will also only have the internal carry capability of 2x1000lb bombs while the C will be able to carry 2x2000lb bombs. Again, this is all from memory and it may be a little off, though the I am pretty sure is 2x1000lb bomb quote, this is the only thing I could find on the web after 10 minutes of searching As a result, the F-35B is no longer compatible with JSOW and 2,000-lb JDAM weapons. The largest weapon this F-35 variant can carry internally is the GBU-32 1,000-lb version of JDAM. A list of the weapons that are currently planned for internal carriage on the F-35 is shown below. http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0163.shtml

So, if the Marines are willing to get an airplane without an internal gun, have half the internal bomb load and just a little more than half the range of the AF and Navy versions, more power to them.

If anyone has access to the articles or better information please post it. Please be aware that most of the payload and range data made no distinction
between the different versions, which is not correct.

 

[Gatordev]

To poke a few holes in your arguments.....

An LHA/LHD would probably not do well with against a well-equipped open ocean threat. While 25-30 AV-8B's might put more iron on target (a little with the ange limitations), they do not have the same supporting aircraft that make up a full Carrier Air Wing. The whole advantage of being closer ot the battle is negated. Also, Harriers are not equipped or could not carry some of the weapons like Harpoon and HARM that would be useful in a sea battle (at the very least, they don't train with them).

Flash, what in the world are you talking about? The LHA/LHD would have it's other ESG components which carry the mighty LAMPS birds. Come on, we're ready to fight! Put us in, coach! I know we can do it...I did it in my WST-12 checkride in the RAG...it was LAMPS vs the World!

<smiles in effect>

 

[Coota0]

Also, Harriers are not equipped or could not carry some of the weapons like Harpoon and HARM that would be useful in a sea battle (at the very least, they don't train with them).

But the JSF would be capable of carrying them, beacuase of the commonality thing, right? It would just be a matter of training the pilots to use the weaopns.......right?

 

[Beers]

From the link in his artical

"Maverick and HARM may also be dropped because they do not currently comply with standard 1760 interface requirements. "

 

[skidkid]

threadjack
The last thing we need is for the Amphibs to think they are surface combatants any more than they do. Most of the amphibs I have been on dont seem to realize that 99% of the combat power they bring to the fight is all the guys in green that they see as reinforcemnts for cleaning quarters. The new LPD has an impressive array of weapons and capabilities that I hope doesnt go te their head and make them forget about their primary mission.

I found it interesting that most of the surface combatants I worked with understood and were more willing to support Marine ops than the Amphibs. Keep them in the role they were designed for and maybe they will embrace it some day.