The F-35 Just Showed the World That Russia’s Su-75 Is a Joke

[Mushroom]

It failed in it's initial intended role as a carrier borne strike aircraft e.g. also due to the engines you pointed out. But it was conceptualized/designed from the very beginning as
a carrier based aircraft.

No, it was not. It was designed for the US and UK Air Forces as both a low level penetration bomber, and a deep penetration interdiction fighter. That is why the project was created, as an Air Force project. The Navy had their own similar project, the XF-10 Jaguar. However, with the cancellation of that project the research gained was then transferred to the F-111. The Navy still wanted a smaller and lighter aircraft, but SecDef McNamara insisted that instead they combine with the Air Force in the F-111 project.

Something the Navy never wanted to do, because it was known at the outset it could never be effectively converted into a carrier based aircraft.

So no, it was not "designed from the very beginning" as a carrier based aircraft. It was designed as a land based one, the carrier mission was added later.

Unlike the Rafael or the J-11, etc. that were conceptualized as tarmac based aircraft.

Which Rafael? The Dassault Rafale was intended from the very start to be a land based aircraft and a naval one. Hence, the two different models, the D and M. Just like the F-35 A and C. The C is not a "ground based fighter modified" for Naval use, it was always intended to be a naval aircraft. Same as the Rafale M. Co-designed, not modified after the fact.

And this was done because when it was being designed, they knew the Navy needed to retire the aging Super Etendard. That followed decades of French designs, where as they were developing a new fighter, at the same time they would specifically engineer a variant for carriers. Not "modified", but designed both a land based and naval version at the same time.

And if one looks at every single one of those, with only a single exception (Iraq wo borrowed 5 Super Etandards), the only purchasers were nations that had carriers. Like Argentina. Everybody else always bought the land versions only.

And once again, the PLAN does not use the J-11, that is a Chinese copy of the Su-27 made for the PLAAF. What the Navy uses is the J-15, a Chinese copy of the Su-33. They are not the same airplane at all, even though all can trace their lineage back to the Su-27. But neither the Su-33 nor the J-15 is an Su-27.

Because not every country on this planet can afford the luxury and national state debt of the USA - due to e.g. building specific aircraft for NAVY, and the Air-force.
France e.g had build the Etendard and then the Super-Etendard for it's fleet air-arm, shit expensive and aside from e.g. Argentina no buyers.

How many nations out there have carriers that mandate the need for a naval aircraft?

The answer is obvious, not damned many. At this time it is the US, China, France, India, Italy, Russia, Spain, Thailand, and the UK. Many other nations have helicopter carriers that can perform many of the same missions, if they were to decide to buy VTOL or STOVL (V/STOL) aircraft.

Which means they would have to buy the F-35B, or see if they can find some old Harriers or Yak-38s laying around somewhere. Because those were the only 3 V/STOL fighters to ever actually make it past the prototype stage and go into production.

And France like the US is really the only nation left that maintains only CATOBAR carriers. And as they also have a policy that almost every aircraft they use has to be French designed and built, when the Navy decides it needs a new fighter it pairs up with the Air Force to design both variants at the same time. But as the Navy does this less often, that ends up being around once every 3-4 land based models.

Oh, and the Super Etendard was not from the Etendard. It was an upgrade to the Etendard IV, an aircraft designed and built for the Navy. Which ironically was part of a program to build a fighter for the Navy and Air Force called the Etendard II. The Air Force bailed out, leaving only the Navy. Then later the Air Force tried again with the Etendard VI, which was ultimately also rejected. SO once again, it was never intended for anybody but the Navy. And Argentina only went with the SE because they had no choice. They were using the A-4, until the US Arms Embargo during the "Dirty War" meant an end to their replacement parts. They then wanted to go to the Harrier, but their conflict with the UK left only France as a source of naval aircraft.

One thing that France had been doing since the Jet Age started, was having their Air Force and Navy work together for new aircraft acquisition. Unlike in the US, where that was never done until the F-35. All the other attempts were in adapting a land based aircraft, which ultimately failed. In France, a Naval variant was a consideration at the start. For the US, it was always something added after the initial design was made and they tried to then adapt it and it never worked.

And the Soviets like the French operated the same way. Not an "adaptation", but two different aircraft intended from the very start.

And an interesting side note, the Soviets once even planned on building a carrier that conventional fighters could operate from. Project 1160 was intended to operate with conventional VSR fighters like the MiG-23 and Su-24, as the variable wings gave them a much shorter takeoff distance without the need for a catapult launch. But when that carrier project was killed by the collapse of the Soviet Union, they had to return to the drawing board and update the Su-27K into the Su-33.

 

[Mushroom]

The F-18 was modified from a land based as well.

Actually, the Navy was added to the Air Force LWF program early on, as their VFAX program was cancelled. When the AF rejected the Northrup F-17, a second team that was led by McDonnel Douglas and Northrup was already making major changes to their design to suit the Navy. The F-18 was designed and built at the same time, but by different groups that only had the most basic similarities.

 

[Vrenn]

Actually, the Navy was added to the Air Force LWF program early on, as their VFAX program was cancelled. When the AF rejected the Northrup F-17, a second team that was led by McDonnel Douglas and Northrup was already making major changes to their design to suit the Navy. The F-18 was designed and built at the same time, but by different groups that only had the most basic similarities.

The YF-17 was already flying before it lost out to the YF-16. The DOD had instructed the Navy to look closely at that flyoff. What came out of it was that the F-16 was too small, couldn't pick up the payload and could not operate well at slow speeds. Meanwhile, the YF-17 had all those attributes but cost a lot more. Plus, it had two engines. What it didn't have was was a beefed up airframe and beefed up landing gear. The YF-16 narrowly beat out the YF-18 because it was more a pure fighter and cost less. Both had similar top speeds, about the same range, etc.. But the real deciding factor was that the YF-16 used many of the same parts as the F-15A.

When they took the YF-17 and modded it (basically giving it a new airframe and landing gear) it changed it from a 1.07 to one thrust to weight fighter to a .97 or less thrust to weight fighter. When they presented the one copy of the F-15N to the Navy, the same thing happened and the Navy bought the much more expensive F-14D.

If usually works out better if you start out with a clean slate to build a carrier fighter. Had the F-5E not been so well designed in the first place the F-18 would not have had the success it has today. The F-5/F-18 is the 70/80s Unicorn for the Navy like the F-4 was for the Air Force in the 60s.


They have forced the F-35 to be the next one. But it could have been done better. Had Lockheed not had experience with the Yak-141, I doubt if the F-35B would have been as good as it is. What would have come out would have been a different form of the AV8B. Can you imagine pilots actually flying around in the YF-32 Flying Guppies? It would be like bragging about your performance from your Prius.

 

[Mushroom]

The YF-17 was already flying before it lost out to the YF-16.

Well no duh, it was a competition. Just as the X-32 was flying before the F-35.

Here is how a contract competition works. The department sends out bids, and then they go through several rounds among multiple companies. They will then normally accept the top two proposals, and have them build prototypes so they can be evaluated. For the JSF, initial bids were submitted by McDonnell Douglas, Northrop, Lockheed, and Boeing. And after all the bids were evaluated, Lockheed and Boeing were selected to build their prototypes, Boeing the XF-32, Lockheed the XF-35.

This is actually typical for such projects for aircraft. The original "Have Blue" project had proposals then scale models submitted by Lockheed, McDonnell Douglas, and Northrop. After the scale model test, only Lockheed was selected to continue to prototype. And not that the other proposals were bad, they were actually superior to the RCS of other aircraft at the time. But the Lockheed RCS was so small they saw no reason to go with any of the other proposals at all.

But the fact that the YF-16 and YF-17 were already flying is absolutely irrelevant. That is the norm for such fighter projects, after an initial "paper round", they then passed on to a prototype round. But the project was intended to produce a single aircraft series, like the F-35. But in the end, the Air Force went with one, the Navy went with the other. That was actually something Boeing remembered when their XF-32 was turned down, and asked if they could shop it around to other branches or countries. However, as it was a DoD project and they funded it, that was denied. That is why the XF-32A prototype sits at the Air Force Museum in Ohio, the XF-35B sits at the Naval Air Museum in Maryland.

Because in many ways, the XF-32B was superior to the XF-35B. However, the DoD did not want a repeat of the LWF-VFAX programs and differing branches selecting a different fighter. So the XF-32 was put into museums and not allowed to be shopped to anybody else.

So why you are bringing that up, I have absolutely no idea. However, the decision for the Air Force and Navy to select two different fighters is exactly why it was decided at the onset with the JSF that would not be a consideration for the losing company. All branches had to agree on a single design, the losing one was mothballed and no others would ever be built.

And once again, you delve into nonsense and mental masturbation over numbers. Show me a single reference of a nation that uses a ground based fighter off of their carriers. Not heavy modification (to the point it is a different aircraft), the actual ground based model. You keep insisting they do, yet can not provide a single reference. You can not even keep the development programs intact, or much else.

From now, I am just going to demand you provide an actual reference, which I find amazing that for all your insistence you have never been able to do. Your nonsense about thrust to weight and all the rest is completely irrelevant to the facts.

 

[Vrenn]

Well no duh, it was a competition. Just as the X-32 was flying before the F-35.

Duh, but not before the YF-35. You meant to say the YF-32. As the
X-32, the bird was a mess and didn't meet any criteria. In fact, on the day of the flyoff, the YF-32 couldn't even take off vertically but the YF-35 did just fine. Lockheed spent most of it's time on the SVTOL. I guess they figured that the regular fighter version would take care of itself and they were right..

Here is how a contract competition works. The department sends out bids, and then they go through several rounds among multiple companies. They will then normally accept the top two proposals, and have them build prototypes so they can be evaluated. For the JSF, initial bids were submitted by McDonnell Douglas, Northrop, Lockheed, and Boeing. And after all the bids were evaluated, Lockheed and Boeing were selected to build their prototypes, Boeing the XF-32, Lockheed the XF-35.

I got a few years sitting in on the AF chairs, kid. You don't.

This is actually typical for such projects for aircraft. The original "Have Blue" project had proposals then scale models submitted by Lockheed, McDonnell Douglas, and Northrop. After the scale model test, only Lockheed was selected to continue to prototype. And not that the other proposals were bad, they were actually superior to the RCS of other aircraft at the time. But the Lockheed RCS was so small they saw no reason to go with any of the other proposals at all.

Have Blue had zero to do with the program. The Have Blue RCS operated using a completely different method than the F-35. While it worked, it was soon to become obsolete to ground radar.

But the fact that the YF-16 and YF-17 were already flying is absolutely irrelevant. That is the norm for such fighter projects, after an initial "paper round", they then passed on to a prototype round. But the project was intended to produce a single aircraft series, like the F-35. But in the end, the Air Force went with one, the Navy went with the other. That was actually something Boeing remembered when their XF-32 was turned down, and asked if they could shop it around to other branches or countries. However, as it was a DoD project and they funded it, that was denied. That is why the XF-32A prototype sits at the Air Force Museum in Ohio, the XF-35B sits at the Naval Air Museum in Maryland.

No one went with the YF-32. It lost because it didn't work. And neither the Navy nor the AF wanted it because it was never finished. It was a rerigged AV8A which had run it's course already.

The original X-35 (or better named the YF-35) is parked in a few places. There were more than one made. In reality, the first model was a converted A to a B and resides in one of the Smithsonian Displays in Virgina. Not in Maryland. If there is one on display at a Navy Base, it's one that was junked and taken out of service early.

It was the X-35C that found it's way into the Navy Museum. Not the B.

Aircraft on display[edit]​

The X-35B on display at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center.
The X-35A was converted into the X-35B for the STOVL part of the competition. It now resides at the National Air and Space Museum Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center, near Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia.[28]

Following the end of the competition, the X-35C was transferred to the Patuxent River Naval Air Museum in St. Mary's County, Maryland.[29]

Because in many ways, the XF-32B was superior to the XF-35B. However, the DoD did not want a repeat of the LWF-VFAX programs and differing branches selecting a different fighter. So the XF-32 was put into museums and not allowed to be shopped to anybody else.

During the flyoff, the 32 could not go over Mach 1. The 35 could hit Mach 1.6. The 32 could not do a vertical take off and landing but the 35B could all day long. The problem the 32 had was that it would rebreath it's exhaust and start losing power. And if it kept it up, flameout. They used the same wings and fuselage for both the A and the carrier version., Meaning, the 35 Carrier version, with it's enlarged wings and slightly lengthened fuselage was found superior. The problem wasn't the designs of the 32, it was the poor planning and presentation by Boeing. Given a month or so to get ready, who knows what the outcome would have been. But reality is speaks for itself.

So why you are bringing that up, I have absolutely no idea. However, the decision for the Air Force and Navy to select two different fighters is exactly why it was decided at the onset with the JSF that would not be a consideration for the losing company. All branches had to agree on a single design, the losing one was mothballed and no others would ever be built.

The 32 was mothballed because it didn't work or enough to bounce the 35 off the top of the hill.

And once again, you delve into nonsense and mental masturbation over numbers. Show me a single reference of a nation that uses a ground based fighter off of their carriers. Not heavy modification (to the point it is a different aircraft), the actual ground based model. You keep insisting they do, yet can not provide a single reference. You can not even keep the development programs intact, or much else.

What happens if the F-18E/Fs and F-35Cs get hit hard near China. Do you just hold up your hand and call a hold on things until you can refill your losses? Like the Chinese Generals are going to buy that. You can get F-15C and Es out of Guam faster than F-35B/Cs and F-18E/F and Gs. That same Tanker out of "Guam can also air drop a BAK-21 Arresting system that would allow the F-15s to temporarily operate from Nimitz and Ford class Carriers. The AF practices it a bit but doesn't have to deploy it. If you can bring a stricken fighter to a stop in 200 feet or less then you can do the same for a healthy fighter on a carrier. Your reason that a F-15C/D/E or EX can't take off from a carrier is proven wrong on a daily basis. And it doesn't take a carrier to prove it. Here is some F-15Cs (the weak sister F-15) practicing Carrier Takeoff and landings.



An Air to Air loaded F-15C can easily take off in 300 meters.
That leaves a margin of 33 meters on a Ford Class Carrier. The -229 engined E and EX can do even much better than that. One pilot claimed he got his E with the 229 off in just over 100 meters. Remember, the F-15E and QA has a manuever named the Viking where, right after takoff, it's goes 90 degrees up until at least 40,000 feet and he hits mach 2 in the process.
There is only one other fighter that "Might" be able to do that and that would be the F-22 although it's never been claimed.

From now, I am just going to demand you provide an actual reference, which I find amazing that for all your insistence you have never been able to do. Your nonsense about thrust to weight and all the rest is completely irrelevant to the facts.

Well, bukie, I just gave you the reference where USAF actually practices it. And "We don' need no stinkink carriers".

 

[Mushroom]

You meant to say the YF-32.

No, I meant the F-35 and I said the F-35.

And once again, you show theoreticals and can not actually answer the question. That nobody uses land based fighters on carriers.

 

[Mushroom]

The Have Blue RCS operated using a completely different method than the F-35.

And I brought up that program as an example of how such procurement programs operate. Not as to how the aircraft operate.

 

[Vrenn]

No, I meant the F-35 and I said the F-35.

And once again, you show theoreticals and can not actually answer the question. That nobody uses land based fighters on carriers.

Actually, many do. The F-35B and AV8A/B are land based fighters. If you compare the F-35B landing gear to the F-35C landing gear you will notice differences like the Bs front landing gear has a single wheel while the C has a 2 wheel setup to take the punishment. You would NEVER land a B model with an arresting hook EVER. The B has the advantage that it can use the Ski Jumps but the C needs the cats. In fact, the B was never designed to use the cat. The B is lighter built than the A is but it uses the lift fan to assist the ski jump to get off the ground. I seriously doubt that an A could use the ski jump anymore than the B can. Hence the Brits are buying the more expensive B models instead the C model for carriers.

And I didn't show the theoretical. The USAF practice carrier takeoffs and landings all the time. But you don't need a carrier to practice it anymore than the Navy teaches beginning carrier landings on a carrier either. If you watched the vid you would see a bunch of F-15C models doing it over and over again even without an arresting hook. The F-15 has a unique ability to slow it's landing speed down to less than 50 mph by a continuous flare. It's practiced all the time. Not only because it is practical but it looks so damned sexy.

YOu lose on this one big time. Now, change the subject so I can rip you another one all over again.

 

[Vrenn]

And I brought up that program as an example of how such procurement programs operate. Not as to how the aircraft operate.

You brought it up to throw shit onto a wall just to see what would stick.

 

[Mushroom]

Actually, many do. The F-35B and AV8A/B are land based fighters.

Holy hell, no they are not. The F-35B was created specifically for Naval Aviation.

As is the Harrier. Notice, the only ones to use either of those are Marine or Navy aviation units. The only exception was the RAF who had 2 squadrons for CAS use. But every other nation that had them got them for their naval aviation units.

You keep making this utterly stupid claims that are completely contradictory to facts, and at this point I can only assume you are acting trollishly.

 

[Vrenn]

Holy hell, no they are not. The F-35B was created specifically for Naval Aviation.

Not specifically. It was created to replace the Harrier which is a hide in the weeds fighter/attack bird. A Harrier cannot use the arresting hook of the carrier nor can it use the catapult. Both would tear it apart. The Harrier was designed to be positioned as close to the front line as possible and to not require an entire landing field support. Have you ever seen a front lined Marine Harrier Movement before? It's carrier is a 10 ton truck tanker and a power truck. And don't forget the plush living arrangements inside the bus. THAT was what it was originally designed for whether it can get it from the beach or from a small carrier right off the beach.

As is the Harrier. Notice, the only ones to use either of those are Marine or Navy aviation units. The only exception was the RAF who had 2 squadrons for CAS use. But every other nation that had them got them for their naval aviation units.

This going to be fun. And exactly what is the difference between a land based and a sea based Harrier?

You keep making this utterly stupid claims that are completely contradictory to facts, and at this point I can only assume you are acting trollishly.

You got crushed on your F-35 nonsense so you move on to something else. But hey, as long as you are going to spread disinformation, I'm game.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Not specifically. It was created to replace the Harrier which is a hide in the weeds fighter/attack bird. A Harrier cannot use the arresting hook of the carrier nor can it use the catapult. Both would tear it apart. The Harrier was designed to be positioned as close to the front line as possible and to not require an entire landing field support. Have you ever seen a front lined Marine Harrier Movement before? It's carrier is a 10 ton truck tanker and a power truck. And don't forget the plush living arrangements inside the bus. THAT was what it was originally designed for whether it can get it from the beach or from a small carrier right off the beach.



This going to be fun. And exactly what is the difference between a land based and a sea based Harrier?




You got crushed on your F-35 nonsense so you move on to something else. But hey, as long as you are going to spread disinformation, I'm game.

There aren’t any with US birds. The British Harriers were quite different. The RAF Harrier GR3s were optimized for ground attack and the FAA Sea Harriers were optimized for air to air with Blue Fox or Blue Vixen radars and AIM 9 Sidewinders,

 

[Mushroom]

There aren’t any with US birds. The British Harriers were quite different. The RAF Harrier GR3s were optimized for ground attack and the FAA Sea Harriers were optimized for air to air with Blue Fox or Blue Vixen radars and AIM 9 Sidewinders,

And they were designed from the outset as Naval aircraft. And in all the decades since they were first developed, the only nation that used them otherwise was the UK as a CAS platform (the Brits also do not have a dedicated CAS platform). The exact same way the US Marines used them. The Marine Corps flew the Harrier for over 50 years, and the very "Tri-Service Designation" that it was given by the DoD reflects it's purpose. AV8B. A, not F, for Attack. And it was never used by the Navy, it is a naval Attack platform intended to be used as a ground attack aircraft.

And he seems to have a problem recognizing that just because an aircraft shares a name, they are not all the same. The Sea Harrier is a Harrier, but it is not the same as the ones the RAF flew. And they were always piss-poor as an air to air bird. The Brits lost 12 of them while retaking the Falklands. Of course, they had no choice as they had already stopped using CATOBAR carriers, and the Harrier was literally the only aircraft they could fly from their carriers.

That is why many shake their heads at the fact that they still have not learned that lesson, and still operate with non-CATOBAR carriers. And it takes a hell of a lot more than just having an aircraft on a carrier to make it a "Naval Aircraft".

 

[Vrenn]

That is why many shake their heads at the fact that they still have not learned that lesson, and still operate with non-CATOBAR carriers. And it takes a hell of a lot more than just having an aircraft on a carrier to make it a "Naval Aircraft".

That is the first sane thing you have said to date. Most countries don't have the13.3 billion bucks to build a Ford Class carrier.
But they can pony up a couple of 7.6 billion pounds for two for the light carrier for their Harriers and F-35Bs.

 

[Vrenn]

Actually, that is incorrect. That is always done with the B model.

That is why every single F-35 the Royal Navy has bought has been the B model, and not the C model.

But I am willing to read any reference you can provide that states that the C model can be launched from a ski ramp carrier.



If you notice the large "hatch" open behind the cockpit, that is the cover for the down facing engine, that is a B model.



And the same is true with Italy, which is buying the B model for their Navy, and not the C. As well as Japan and South Korea. In fact, the only nations that can use the C model other than the US is France. They are the only navies that still use CATOBAR, the others have all gone to ski jump because of cost (less complex machinery, smaller carriers). France has no interest in the F-35, they have their own aircraft industry to support. Brazil was a possibility, but they scuttled the Sao Paulo 2 years ago. And ironically, statements from Brazil almost echo those of India. Their Air Force generals have been making loud statements that they have no interest in the F-35(A). Yet, their Navy is remarkably silent on if they want the F-35B. And with no CATOBAR carrier anymore, they would have no interest in the C.

And I actually did look for any information of the F-35C using a ski ramp, but every single reference in fact was talking about the B model, not the C. And then you have the most important question... if the C can use a ski ramp, what use is the B model? No need for VTOL, STOSL would be all that was needed for that variant.

Before the C was listed as operational, they bought the B models. Plus, none of those countries hold the longer range of the C not as important as the US. Also, if an F-18 can do it, the F-35C can do it. That means that the C can indeed takeoff loaded from a jump ramp. But the B cannot be fully loaded for the same takeoff.

The adva
ntage of the B over the C is that the B can launch off what was once known as the HeloCarrier which is what most countries have in their own inventory.

 

[Ringo]