• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

F-35C Unable to Get Aboard Ship, really?

I've never been a fan of the concept behind the F-35. Every time there is an attempt to design one aircraft that fits multiple services it doesn't seem to pan out.
 
707guy said:
I've never been a fan of the concept behind the F-35. Every time there is an attempt to design one aircraft that fits multiple services it doesn't seem to pan out.
Click to expand...


I don't know all the details, as I don't have much (any) hands on experience with it, but didn't the F-4 fit the bill nicely for the services?
 
707guy said:
I've never been a fan of the concept behind the F-35. Every time there is an attempt to design one aircraft that fits multiple services it doesn't seem to pan out.
Click to expand...

The F-4 seemed to work well for everyone involved.

I don't think it was designed as a tri-service aircraft but it certainly excelled as that.
 
tomcat coulda been tri-service also if it had the motors it was supposed to have earlier.
it certianly made more sense than mcnamara's tri service f-111.

well, maybe the f-14 needed to be more maintainable and have foreign users to help keep hw/sw development costs down.

excuse me. i got a dead horse that needs a beating.

btw, how does f-15 maint manhours per flight hour compare to the hornet?
 
Recovering LSO said:
F-18, H-60, CH-53...?
Click to expand...

Add to that A-7, H-3. Except for the helicopters, the rule, rather than the exception, is that all of these started out as carrier aircraft.

One of the strange things with the F-18 is that none of the foreign buyers opted for the F-18L... not sure why all of them chose the cost and weight of all the A/B options (folding wet wing, carrier landing gear) and why the L (Northrop's "deluxe model") just didn't appeal enough.
 
I was thinking more like the F-111 that was designed from the get go as a multi-service aircraft. The F-4 and A-7 (to name a couple) were picked up by the air farce after they were in production for the Navy.
 
707guy said:
I was thinking more like the F-111 that was designed from the get go as a multi-service aircraft.
Click to expand...

Validating once again, the old adage "Trying to please everyone, ends up pleasing no one!"
BzB
 
707guy said:
I was thinking more like the F-111 that was designed from the get go as a multi-service aircraft. The F-4 and A-7 (to name a couple) were picked up by the air farce after they were in production for the Navy.
Click to expand...
Yeah I was going to say that very fact. Very few were designed as multi-role/multi-service a/c. The F/A-18 was designed to be multi-role, but not multi-service. F4 and A7 were designed for the Navy and then later picked up by the USAF. H-60 was designed for the Army and then evolved into a platform for the other services. A lot of these are good examples of evolutionary engineering vice revolutionary. Take a proven platform and expand or change it's mission vice designing the entire thing from the ground up.
 
helolumpy said:
The F-4 seemed to work well for everyone involved.

I don't think it was designed as a tri-service aircraft but it certainly excelled as that.
Click to expand...

McDonnell-Douglas designed the F-4 for the Navy as a fleet interceptor primarily to shoot-down TU-95s (Bears) coming at the fleet. Not anticipating an ACM requirement over the mid-ocean, it certainly wasn't designed for the dogfight role, either. The F-4 is still serving w/ NATO & front-line air forces in Europe & Asia - 50 years after its introduction to the fleet. Only the B-52 & KC-135 have lasted longer - and they certainly aren't fighters. My only issue it that the US Navy never put a multi-mode radar in the F-4, thus halving its effectiveness at a time when the A-6 was the Navy's only all-weather attack platform. The A-7 would have been highly successful for the AF, too, if they hadn't hated having a 2nd Navy a/c foisted upon them by the DOD. Instead, they sent them to the ANG as fast as they arrived.
 
Testing A-7s also made a good cover story to tell the family when hubby left for weeks to go to the Nevada desert to fly black jets.
 
Pags said:
H-60 was designed for the Army and then evolved into a platform for the other services. A lot of these are good examples of evolutionary engineering vice revolutionary.
Click to expand...

The navalized H-60 trim system is good evidence of that. (For the non rotorheads and non H-60 guys, pitch and roll trim are hydraulic, just like the original Blackhawks... pretty sure the yaw and collective--electric, not hydraulic--trim weren't original.) Also, I give Sikorsky credit for figuring out how to neatly fold the thing up (to fit in ship hangars) without hurting longevity or adding too much weight. (The fussy main rotor blade fold mechanism notwithstanding- that may be a pain but it doesn't make the aircraft fly badly or fall out of the sky.)

Question for anyone who can answer- Blackhawks can fold their tails, right?
 
Pags said:
. The F/A-18 was designed to be multi-role, but not multi-service.
Click to expand...

The Hornet started life as the F-17 which lost the "lightweight fighter" contract to the F-16. When the Navy lost the A-12, we needed another aircraft fast and the F-17 evolved into the F/A-18. So, I guess you could say that it started life as a single service jet, only to find life with a different service.

Plus, I watched the movie "Independence Day" and every service and country (to include Iraqis) all fly Hornets.

I mean, Hollywood is always right.... right???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top