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

[Vrenn]

Name a single nation that is even considering buying the F-35C.

Still waiting on a reference that an F-35C can take off from a ski ramp carrier.

let's take a look at the cost of buying each model right now.

F-35A 77.9 mil
F-35B 101.3 Mil
F-35C 94.4 mil

The B and A are both ironed out. The C is still having crashes and teething problems.

Here is the allocated Lightning IIs for lot 12s. And England isn't on that list. Saying you want it doesn't mean you are going to get it. You have to put up the money up front in order to get approved by Congress. Britain hasn't ponied up the bucks. for block 12

• 48 F-35As for the U.S. Air Force
• 20 F-35Bs for the U.S. Marine Corps
• Nine F-35Cs for the U.S. Navy
• 12 F-35As for Norway
• 15 F-35As for Australia
• Eight F-35As and two F-35Bs for Italy

But Britain has come up with the bucks for Block 14 for 2025 where they are buying, like most NATO countries, mostly F-35A models with a few opting for the B models if they have carriers like Britain. But with the F-35C should completing trials next year, some may opt for the cheaper C model for the Carriers.

MOST fighters today don't really need the cat for takeoff like the normal carrier fighters do. The Jump would be the way to go. What the cat would do is allow them to carrier a heavier load. But the normal carrier fighter like the F-18, Mig-29K, SU-33 and others are too heavy so they need the cats. The F-35C is different in that it has over a 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio as long as it's not in Beast Mode. It doesn't even need the jump ramp although the ramp does make the day a bit more cheery.

BTW, USAF uses a cable arrestor method as well for some of their aircraft like the F-15 and F-16 with tail hooks. The BK-12 cable arrestor looks like and operates exactly like a carriers cable arrestor system. So the F-15 and 16 could land on a carrier a few times before stress would set in. Instead of the tailhook, like USAF, the Navy would string the Arrestor Net which is much easier on the jet just much slower to untangle. I was at one forward base that we operated AC-130As and F-4Es and a lot of F-4s were brought to a stop due to brake problems using the arrestor webbing. Getting off, the Phantom II had to use AB all the way. I can't remember how long your runway was but it wasn't much longer than a carrier. To give you an idea, we could land C-130s, C-133s and C-5s (I saw one land and take off) but the C-141 had to go to another base.

BTW, you left out the carrier landing (one time) of the U-2 and F-117. When you are out of gas, you take whatever real estate you can find.

 

[Mushroom]

BTW, USAF uses a cable arrestor method as well for some of their aircraft like the F-15 and F-16 with tail hooks.

Which once again says nothing about their taking off. You have yet to show any kind of reference at all that an F-35C can be operated from a ski ramp carrier.

Which makes all the information about cost and landing systems pointless.

 

[Vrenn]

Which once again says nothing about their taking off. You have yet to show any kind of reference at all that an F-35C can be operated from a ski ramp carrier.

Which makes all the information about cost and landing systems pointless.

Let's see. Let's do the math using the Mig-29K using a Russian Carrier with a Ski Jump system.
Mikoyan MiG-29K - Wikipedia
Mig-29
Thust to Weight Ratio .95 to one. and that is with just 4 missiles.

A Super Bog F-18E carrying 4 missiles externally has a .93 to one thrust to weight ratio and it's used by a few nation on small carriers with ski jumps.

F-35A and C 1.06 thrust to weight ratio carrying 4 missiles internal. There is no reason that both the A and the C could not take off using the ski jumps but the A would only be able to make a few landings before they just shoved it off into the ocean as a junk heap.

Physics don't change because you lost the debate, chump change. There is no reason that a F-35C can't take off on a ski jump carrier just like every other carrier based bird and even do it better since it has the ability to take off with a heavier load due to it's higher thrust to weight ratio.

 

[Mushroom]

Let's see. Let's do the math using the Mig-29K using a Russian Carrier with a Ski Jump system.

Once again, show me where it has ever been tested or done.

It has not.

Gee, why have no countries with a ski ramp carrier used anything but aircraft specifically designed to operate from them?

You can go on however you want. It does nothing to prove that it can be done. Otherwise, why in the hell does the US spend so damned much on catapults? According to you, we do not even need them.

 

[Vrenn]

Once again, show me where it has ever been tested or done.

It has not.

Gee, why have no countries with a ski ramp carrier used anything but aircraft specifically designed to operate from them?

You can go on however you want. It does nothing to prove that it can be done. Otherwise, why in the hell does the US spend so damned much on catapults? According to you, we do not even need them.

Use your brain matter. The F-15C rotate at 42mph. That means it will get it's nose up and accellerate from there. Of course, that is with a test pilot. With an experienced pilot, they can rotate the F-15 just over 50mph. That means, it could be airborne in less than 100 feet. Plenty of room left on almost any carrier.



The problem isn't taking off. It's landing. The F-15 can't handle the abuse of carrier landing like the slower less capable F-18.

 

[Mushroom]

Use your brain matter. The F-15C rotate at 42mph. That means it will get it's nose up and accellerate from there. Of course, that is with a test pilot. With an experienced pilot, they can rotate the F-15 just over 50mph. That means, it could be airborne in less than 100 feet. Plenty of room left on almost any carrier.

Right. Then why did the Navy never use them, and continue to use expensive catapults?

Why even bother building aircraft specific for carriers, if it is as you claim they can just use regular ones?

 

[Vrenn]

Right. Then why did the Navy never use them, and continue to use expensive catapults?

Why even bother building aircraft specific for carriers, if it is as you claim they can just use regular ones?

The reason the Ski Jumps are used is that the carrier can be made smaller (shorter). You use the cat on full sized carriers like Nimitz. Again, the cost on the Aircraft isn't on the launch, it's going to be on the recovery. You are going to need a really decent way of stopping landing birds. That also means that you are going to have to have birds that can take that punishment. Most land based fighters can't take the punishment although they might be able to take off from the carrier itself.

They did build one model of the F-15N but found that it just wasn't worth it. The Thrust to Weight dropped to about .95 to one so it really wasn't any more than a F-18A. Except it would have costs about twice a much. They tested it on land based carrier runways and it did work but The F-14A and F-18A was found to be a better choice.

Saying that a F-15 could not land and take off from a carrier means that it was never tried. It was. But only one version and on land based carrier runways.

Again, they don't use the F-15 and 16 on carriers is because while you can take off even without the cats, you have to land sooner or later. Even a B-25 can take off a carrier.

 

[para bellum]

Use your brain matter. The F-15C rotate at 42mph. That means it will get it's nose up and accellerate from there. Of course, that is with a test pilot. With an experienced pilot, they can rotate the F-15 just over 50mph.

Oh stop it. The F-15C rotates between 120 and 150 kts depending on loadout.

There was a tech demon called the F-15 ACTIVE that had vectored thrust and canards that were made from F-18 stabilators. That frame was used for short take-off tests and did the 42 kt takeoff. It was just a test bed. Normal F-15, no way.

The only plane you have listed that has actually tested ski jump takeoffs is the Super Hornet, and that is a limited loadout takeoff. You won't get a full combat loadout unless you can refuel after takeoff. The F-35C with it's larger wing and lower TO&L speeds could probably do the same thing, it's never been tried.

Cats use less deck space and allow a larger variety of aircraft to be operated from the carrier. They leave more room for parking and maneuvering aircraft, so the ship can carry a bigger and more versatile air wing. They also allow for one plane to be launching while another is coming in for landing, so higher sortie rate.

Aircraft carriers are only as good as their sortie rate, and cats win hands-down.

 

[Vrenn]

Oh stop it. The F-15C rotates between 120 and 150 kts depending on loadout.

There was a tech demon called the F-15 ACTIVE that had vectored thrust and canards that were made from F-18 stabilators. That frame was used for short take-off tests and did the 42 kt takeoff. It was just a test bed. Normal F-15, no way.

The only plane you have listed that has actually tested ski jump takeoffs is the Super Hornet, and that is a limited loadout takeoff. You won't get a full combat loadout unless you can refuel after takeoff. The F-35C with it's larger wing and lower TO&L speeds could probably do the same thing, it's never been tried.

Cats use less deck space and allow a larger variety of aircraft to be operated from the carrier. They leave more room for parking and maneuvering aircraft, so the ship can carry a bigger and more versatile air wing. They also allow for one plane to be launching while another is coming in for landing, so higher sortie rate.

Aircraft carriers are only as good as their sortie rate, and cats win hands-down.

Let's compare the F-18E to the F-15E.

F-18 Wingload is higher. It makes it back by using bleed air on leading edges (most use it to keep ice from forming but like the F-104, the F-18 uses a bunch of it where it also increases lift when used with flaps). The F-18E has been known to fight as slow as 45kts without leaving flight. The only Fighter known to fight a slow fight with the F-18 is the F-15.

The F-15 does have bleed air on the leading edge but not to the degree as the F-18. What the F-15 has is the lowest wing loading of ALL the modern fighters today. Thrust Vectoring doesn't keep you flying at 42mph. Wing Loading and control surfaces do. And the F-15 has HUGE Rudders and Elevators. And HUGE unloaded wings with oodles of power.


The reason cats win is that the normal super carrier has numerous ones while the baby carrier will have one jump ramp. But if I loaded a whole squadron of F-15EXs at port by crane with the intent of launching them at sea, the baby carrier would win the launch rate. Of course, the F-15EX would have to find another home. Even a B-25 can launch off a carrier without either a cat or a jump ramp.

 

[para bellum]

Let's compare the F-18E to the F-15E.

No, let's not.

It's not about Biggles vs. the Red Baron. Your "X v. Y" comparisons are meaningless.

 

[Vrenn]

No, let's not.

It's not about Biggles vs. the Red Baron. Your "X v. Y" comparisons are meaningless.

I am just comparing a Carrier Qualified Fighter to a Land Based Fighter which both are still in production. I am also bring up the B-25 as a carrier bird as well for those that think that you need a cat to launch a bird from a carrier. The B-25 had less than 300 feet to get off the deck and all of them made it.

 

[dudmuck]

The C model can easily use the ski jump method fully loaded. Anything the Mig-29K can do, the F-35C can do.

the F35 is better a fighting from afar.
But close in the russian jets might have an advantage.
But the F35 would attack long before then.

 

[Vrenn]

the F35 is better a fighting from afar.
But close in the russian jets might have an advantage.
But the F35 would attack long before then.

Both Fighters use the L or M band to find targets. The problem there is, the L and M bands have a delay of up to 3 seconds and cannot be used to lock on or track. The L and M bands can't transmit enough information to do anything other than to say, "Hey, look over there". Both Aircraft will know that both are in the area.

Then you have the higher bands that are used for tracking and locking on. The actual initial lockon and track will be done by the fighter that does the launch but right after that, the AWACS takes over. the AWACs has a lot more power and distance. Both the US and Russia operate that way. Even though the AWACs is much stronger, it only means that both Fighters will be noticed and tracked much closer. The F-35 will still have the advantage. In a 5 v 5 the SU-35 loses all while the F-35 loses 2. And both AWACS buy the farm. That is the best case scenario for the Russians.

 

[Mushroom]

The reason the Ski Jumps are used is that the carrier can be made smaller (shorter).

That there shows you really are just making stabs in the dark, and do not know.

No, the main reason is that such an aircraft can be significantly heavier.

The F-35B can carry 14.7kg of fuel, the C model 34.5kg. Max takeoff weight of the F-35B is 27.2kg, for the F-35C it is 31.8kg.

Sorry, I have to laugh as you have yet to provide any kid of reference or evidence that conventional aircraft can take off from a carrier. Especially as the runway needed for takeoff of a conventional fighter is much longer than the deck of a carrier. You claim that ski jumps (which can be used with the B model) allow them to be smaller, yet once again refuse to discuss the obvious major differenced between the B and C models (including weight and fuel capacity).

Now please, give us some kind of actual evidence instead of just rambling off about some almost nonsensical data and claims.

You claim an F-15 can operate just find off of a carrier, and apparently all it needs is a ski ramp takeoff. Completely silly I know, how about actually proving it?

 

[Mushroom]

the F35 is better a fighting from afar.

The main advantage of any stealth aircraft is that it can launch its weapons before that of the adversary. Or in a ground attack mission, it can penetrate enemy defenses before it can be readily detected.

But depending on how it is going to attack, that is another matter altogether.

When it comes to the weapons of the F-35 or F-22, one thing has to be remembered is the weapons themselves.

Now ideally, it would use the AIM-9 Sidewinder missile. That is an IR guided missile, therefore perfect for a "stealth kill", as nothing is radiated from the attacking aircraft to give itself away. However, the range of this missile is under 25 miles.

Now of longer range, you have the AIM-120 AMRAAM. Now those have ranges of just under 100 miles, but use RADAR guiding. And the moment one is activated prior to firing, every aircraft in the area is going to know there are enemies out there. Stealth does not matter worth a damn if your missiles are alerting everybody with their own acquisition and tracking RADAR. Hence, why the F-117 (which should have been the A-117) never had any air to air capability.

This is part of the catch-22 of fighting aircraft. The superior of the two missiles is not at all stealthy, and alerts the enemy it is being attacked. The less powerful does not alert the enemy, but one must be much closer to fire it.

So, is the F-35 really better for "fighting from afar"? Well, that all depends on a great many things actually. However, I will let people ponder this, which is what many exercises would show what could be effective in taking down even a well defended Russian position.

First using aircraft or ships that can volley fire cruise missiles. And having follow in behind them more conventional aircraft with missiles like the AGM-88 HARM (90 mile range). That then becomes an almost double-edged sword for the defenders. If they use their ADA to take out the cruise missiles, the AGM-88 gets clear locations of each of their RADAR systems and can then home in on them. Follow those up with something like the AGM-158 "stand-off missile", and now the defenders are having to make some real choices what exactly to engage.

And after all of that as other fighters come in and doing "Wild Weasel" movements at the edges of their range, the F-22 and F-35 comes in and tries to pick off what is left from closer ranges. It must be remembered, that stealth does not mean "invisible", but after all of that any watching the scopes will be both overwhelmed by the prior waves of missile attacks, and concentrating on the aircraft appearing and disappearing at the edges of their range that it is hopes that any detections would largely be ignored until it is to late.

Now is the F-35 better in fighting from afar? Maybe. But one must also remember that it is also primarily a penetration platform. And intended to also penetrate deeper into air defense areas before launching than conventional aircraft can. That was a main reason for the development of the B-1. A penetration bomber, with a lower RADAR signature and flight characteristics that let it fly at a lower altitude. In the hopes it could penetrate deeper into enemy airspace before it was detected, and increasing its ability to launch its weapons.

 

[Mushroom]

I am also bring up the B-25 as a carrier bird as well for those that think that you need a cat to launch a bird from a carrier.

It could take off, with an absolutely clear deck (barely). But it could not land there, it was strictly a one way trip.

A fully loaded to the max B-25 weighed in at 35k pounds (and can lift off at around 130 mph). An F-15? 68k pounds (and 150 mph). Yes, jets are better. But at pushing almost twice the weight 20 mph faster in the same distance? And remember, no catapult means a clear deck. So aircraft will be launching even slower as in a combat condition carriers will have the next 2-4 waves on deck and waiting to launch as soon as the catapult is clear. Without that, they can not even bring up more fighters until the first ones take off.

That is why the Doolittle Raid on Japan was so haphazard. They had so little fuel to form up that each largely left after their target as soon as they were in the air.

Now the max weight of an F-18 is actually 52k pounds. However, they never take off from a carrier except in an absolute emergency at that weight (as in a replacement CAP is needed immediately and there is no practical way to top them off). They actually take off at around 47k pounds. Then they will tank up with a nearby tanker to their full weight before leaving on their mission. As a rule, fixed wing aircraft leave a carrier with only enough fuel to take up station, then tank up before actually conducting their mission. Because the heavier it is when it takes off, the harder it is to get airborne and the harder the catapult has to launch it (which is harder on both the airframe and pilot).

 

[Vrenn]

That there shows you really are just making stabs in the dark, and do not know.

No, the main reason is that such an aircraft can be significantly heavier.

The F-35B can carry 14.7kg of fuel, the C model 34.5kg. Max takeoff weight of the F-35B is 27.2kg, for the F-35C it is 31.8kg.

Sorry, I have to laugh as you have yet to provide any kid of reference or evidence that conventional aircraft can take off from a carrier. Especially as the runway needed for takeoff of a conventional fighter is much longer than the deck of a carrier. You claim that ski jumps (which can be used with the B model) allow them to be smaller, yet once again refuse to discuss the obvious major differenced between the B and C models (including weight and fuel capacity).

Now please, give us some kind of actual evidence instead of just rambling off about some almost nonsensical data and claims.

You claim an F-15 can operate just find off of a carrier, and apparently all it needs is a ski ramp takeoff. Completely silly I know, how about actually proving it?

 

[Vrenn]

It could take off, with an absolutely clear deck (barely). But it could not land there, it was strictly a one way trip.

Well, may one before the crash.

A fully loaded to the max B-25 weighed in at 35k pounds (and can lift off at around 130 mph). An F-15? 68k pounds (and 150 mph). Yes, jets are better. But at pushing almost twice the weight 20 mph faster in the same distance? And remember, no catapult means a clear deck. So aircraft will be launching even slower as in a combat condition carriers will have the next 2-4 waves on deck and waiting to launch as soon as the catapult is clear. Without that, they can not even bring up more fighters until the first ones take off.

You are giving the advantage to the carrier based fighters who often take off light of fuel only to meet tankers enabling them to take off heavy of weapons. Land Based birds do the same thing whether it be fighters, bombers or recons. The land based are going for range mostly. They could take off fully loaded but it is better for them to refuel before they leave the area so they take off with a partial fuel load. If I found the need to launch F-15s off a Carrier, I would have a few KC-135s or KC-10s handy and take off with partial fuel loads. The F-15 can get his now to rotate (60mph) in less than 300 feet with a partial missile load. (4 Aim120s and 2 Aim9X) Don't go by Wiki on the F-15. It shows the C using the -129 engine at thrust to weight at 1.07 to one and then it shows the E model using the -229 motors at .97 to one. Using the Max loadout for the C model, the C has a 1.06+ to one ratio but the E has a 1.13 to one ratio using the gross max weight of just over 44K. they wouldn't be using max takeoff weight because it would be a tailor loaded bird and not have either a full load of ground ordinanance or missiles. It also won't have the full 13,000 lb internal fuel. Even the external tanks (if it has them at 2 3-- gallon tanks)) will be empty. I don't see the F-15E having any trouble at all launching off a carrier with no assist at 200 foot distance carrying at least 20,000 lbs of ordinance. Compare that to the F-18E using the cat and refueling right after takeoff. The F-18E will be hard pressed to lift off with any more than 15 to 18,0000 lbs of ordinance. I am not taking a thing away from the F-18. It's one hell of a bird and can take care of itself and do one hell of a lot of damage fast. We need it.

That is why the Doolittle Raid on Japan was so haphazard. They had so little fuel to form up that each largely left after their target as soon as they were in the air.

Now the max weight of an F-18 is actually 52k pounds. However, they never take off from a carrier except in an absolute emergency at that weight (as in a replacement CAP is needed immediately and there is no practical way to top them off). They actually take off at around 47k pounds. Then they will tank up with a nearby tanker to their full weight before leaving on their mission. As a rule, fixed wing aircraft leave a carrier with only enough fuel to take up station, then tank up before actually conducting their mission. Because the heavier it is when it takes off, the harder it is to get airborne and the harder the catapult has to launch it (which is harder on both the airframe and pilot).

True but let's do a little barnstorming here. If the US has to tangle heads up with China, the F-18 is going to shoulder the brunt. They are going to be outnumbered drastically. No matter how good our pilots are, the numbers will win out sooner or later. We don't start losing Carriers. We start losing Fighters. Now what? Do we just pick up our football and go home? It's not our football. No, we start figuring out ways to get the land based fighters into action whether it be using tankers and drop tanks to get the F-15s into action or withdraw a depleted Carrier and winch the F-15s and F-16s onto the decks. Just remember, the Eagle and Viper can launch further away to join in the fight as long as there are tankers there after launch. What's going to happen is, the Chinese are going to run out of assets. And yes, some of the land based fighters are going to have to be ditched.

 

[Vrenn]

Once again, show me where it has ever been tested or done.

It has not.

Gee, why have no countries with a ski ramp carrier used anything but aircraft specifically designed to operate from them?

You can go on however you want. It does nothing to prove that it can be done. Otherwise, why in the hell does the US spend so damned much on catapults? According to you, we do not even need them.

Russian INS Vikrant. India also uses a Russin Carrier of the same type with Mig-29Ks.

 

[Kruska]

That there shows you really are just making stabs in the dark, and do not know.

No, the main reason is that such an aircraft can be significantly heavier.

The F-35B can carry 14.7kg of fuel, the C model 34.5kg. Max takeoff weight of the F-35B is 27.2kg, for the F-35C it is 31.8kg.

Sorry, I have to laugh as you have yet to provide any kid of reference or evidence that conventional aircraft can take off from a carrier. Especially as the runway needed for takeoff of a conventional fighter is much longer than the deck of a carrier. You claim that ski jumps (which can be used with the B model) allow them to be smaller, yet once again refuse to discuss the obvious major differenced between the B and C models (including weight and fuel capacity).

Now please, give us some kind of actual evidence instead of just rambling off about some almost nonsensical data and claims.

You claim an F-15 can operate just find off of a carrier, and apparently all it needs is a ski ramp takeoff. Completely silly I know, how about actually proving it?

Question;
if a PLANAF J-15 (which is a conventional aircraft) can take off from a ski jump carrier with an empty weight of 18t and a max. weight of 33t - then why couldn't an F-35 A/B/C take off from a ski jump?