F-35B very much acts like any other fixed wing jet fighter kinematically.Because VTOL airplanes are not actually airplanes. They should be counted in the helicopter class, in aspect kinematically.
Latest Thread
F-35B very much acts like any other fixed wing jet fighter kinematically.Because VTOL airplanes are not actually airplanes. They should be counted in the helicopter class, in aspect kinematically.
The B model was VTOL (or STOVL) right, thanks for that kind correction. Model B behaves like fixed-wing aircraft only when flying straight. And partly it does. F-35B can never be as robust as the A model. The story is different in landing and take-offs.F-35B very much acts like any other fixed wing jet fighter kinematically.
Kinematic characteristics hardly matter during take offs and landings for a fighter jet's role.The B model was VTOL (or STOVL) right, thanks for that kind correction. Model B behaves like fixed-wing aircraft only when flying straight. And partly it does. F-35B can never be as robust as the A model. The story is different in landing and take-offs.
In the beginning, there was only the A model(for the Air force) and the B model(for both Navy AND the Marines.). They designed and flown them both, with high commonality between parts and subsystems.I think adding the "B" model was the "kiss of death" for the F-35 program. I can see the only solution: Upgrade with added swarm drone management capability and manage spare parts and maintenance properly. BTW, I would immediately cancel the "B" model.
After this stage, the only issue that concerns us in the F-35 project will be getting back the money we paid.
P.S. Correction, B model.
I don't think that's the right lesson at all. It might be more like if you need a different plane make a different plane, deriving vtol and ctol from same plane isn't less costly due to all that nonsense. That and don't trust corporate marketing empty promisesIn the beginning, there was only the A model(for the Air force) and the B model(for both Navy AND the Marines.). They designed and flown them both, with high commonality between parts and subsystems.
However, that resulted in the B variant performing in an underwhelming manner. They had to redesign the B model to meet the needs. Which meant they had to redesign the A model as well, to keep the interchangeability aspect. That's where the meme-worthy project costs come, BTW.
They basically had to redo both models mid-way.
Also around the same time, US Navy started to throw a hissy-fit about the redesigned B model's gimped specs. They had to placate them by hastily coming up with a C variant. (They still haven't wholeheartedly adopted the F-35C, they got a load of Super Hornets just before the assembly lines closed and they're working on the F/A-XX as we speak. They might never put F-35C into full service.)
And that's how we got the F-35 we know. Lesson?
Start with the naval/VTOL fighter and turn that into an air force fighter. Not the other way around.
(If you have any doubts with this, look at the F-4 and the F-18.)
Oh yeah, definitely LOL.I don't think that's the right lesson at all. It might be more like if you need a different plane make a different plane, deriving vtol and ctol from same plane isn't less costly due to all that nonsense. That and don't trust corporate marketing empty promises
I agree with you. A navalized joint fuselage and interchangeable wings were sufficient. They should never have included the B model in the F-35 development program. A separate development program for a modern interpretation of the Harrier would be much cheaper to implement if the VTOL aircraft were needed.And that's how we got the F-35 we know. Lesson?
If you must do Joint fighters, start with the naval/VTOL fighter and turn that into an air force fighter. Not the other way around.
(If you have any doubts with this, look at the F-4 and the F-18.)
Agreed.They should never have included the B model in the F-35 development program. A separate development program for a modern interpretation of the Harrier would be much cheaper to implement if the VTOL aircraft were needed.
The whole idea of F35B was revolving around the notion of producing a supersonic replacement of Harriers. UK planes were very difficult to fly. If you listen to F35B pilots now, you will hear nothing but praise about the way these new planes handle themselves especially when they are compared to the Harriers.I agree with you. A navalized joint fuselage and interchangeable wings were sufficient. They should never have included the B model in the F-35 development program. A separate development program for a modern interpretation of the Harrier would be much cheaper to implement if the VTOL aircraft were needed.
Bigger mistake was giving all fighter projects to LM. Lack of competition reducing quality and terrible project management is sure to make them suffer for years. I mean Northrop at least has bombers, but if Boeing does't get F/A-XX they may end up having to buy F15s for years to come to keep GE and Boeing interested in defense. Well, it's their problem, anyways.
Germany's need in F-35's are due to the fact that they are a part of the NATO nuclear sharing program and the US requires Luftwaffe to use American aircraft to yeet those nukes.Although the next government after the Biden administration wants to sell the F35 to Türkiye, usa will not find a buyer in Türkiye.
They'll have to come up with a solid excuse for that f35 selling. There are rumors that the Germans had to buy the f35 just for common ammunition. Maybe usa offer common ammunition to Anatolia?
I wonder what we can do with F35B, attack;F-35B's to compliment TCG Anadolu would be nice
Iran, which some americans (neocons) plan to attack using vassals, like us if we would bend the knee.I wonder what we can do with F35B, attack;
F35B is a losing deal even if we get it for free.
- Russia which gives us; gas, oil, nuclear power, tourists, access to Turkic world
- Greece which is a vassal of the US
- South Cyprus which is a vassal of the US
- Israel which is the boss of the US
- Egypt which we gain nothing from