F-35C vs F-35B minimum turn radius comparison from Iwakuni FD credit to @nantaku_p_photo in twitter
Posted by no_life_redditor@reddit | aviation | View on Reddit | 140 comments
Credit to original poster https://x.com/nantaku_p_photo/status/2052726094630191524?s=20
superbadj@reddit
You realize that these maneuvers aren’t really at max performance right? There may be a difference but not that much.
TbonerT@reddit
Why wouldn’t they be max performance turns? What evidence do you have that they aren’t being truthful?
viperabyss@reddit
2, Maximum maneuvering reduces airframe lifetime , which is incredibly stupid to do in an $110M aircraft in non-combat situation.
Pristine_Barber976@reddit
Surely they do it at least once to test the limits
viperabyss@reddit
On the prototype, yes.
They wouldn't do it to a production airframe.
Neither-Way-4889@reddit
They do it all the time in production airframes, how do you think fighter pilots train? They max-perform the aircraft all the time so they comfortable with using the entire flight envelope.
Major_Nutt@reddit
Because you wouldn't risk the pilot and airframe pushing the plane to the absolute max just for a demonstration.
Only way we'll ever see it's 102% performance is if there's declassified/leaked video from another plane in vicinity.
peterpanic32@reddit
Because it's an air show, not combat.
superbadj@reddit
The reason is to not have examples of edge-of-performance displays where others can benchmark our jets. It’s just a basic, simple, fairly well known fact. I’m not saying I’m sharing some huge insight.
Warbirds (especially WWII) fly 20-30% below max throttle and g-load for a different reason: preservation of the airframe. So those fast passes of a Corsair or Mustang at true max performance would be even faster and turns would be even tighter. Again a known aspect of flying vintage aircraft.
But for modern jets it’s about never showing max capability while still wowing the crowd.
TbonerT@reddit
You must be one of those “everything the government does is actually a lie” people.
Chef-mcKech@reddit
What?
TbonerT@reddit
What part are you not understanding? The part where the person I replied to doesn’t believe the claim that these are max performance turns or the part where I called them out on a baseless claim?
Chef-mcKech@reddit
Im not understanding how you make such a weird response barely related to his comment
Sarpool@reddit
Which aircraft goes with its respect service?
ventus1b@reddit
-A "Air Force" -B "Beach" (USMC) -C "Carrier" (Navy)
Sarpool@reddit
Oh man that’s a good way to remember that.
Does this only apply to the F-35 tho?
Isn’t there a F-16C and F-15C only flown by the USAF?
And the F-14 seems to be only a Navy aircraft and that has a B and D variant
ventus1b@reddit
That only works for the F-35 AFAIK. And isn't official anyway.
Carrier_Hosho@reddit
F-35B is the Marines and has the VTOL mode for STOVL operations.
F-35C is for the Navy and has a larger wingspan for carrier landings.
Sarpool@reddit
Thanks man! And I guess the larger wing span has something to do with its turn radius or is there more to it?
auqanova@reddit
The wing span is there for lift, allowing slower flight without falling out of the sky. Very important when you have to take off and land on a carrier.
The f35b should generally perform worse primarily because it has a lift fan inside; which adds a bunch of extra weight at no benefit outside of takeoff and landing.
The f35c in addition to its bigger wings also has bigger control surfaces, which is much more relevant to its turning speed.
TopIndication5504@reddit
Easier to take off from Aircraft carriers with short runway
Adjutant_Reflex_@reddit
Just to note the Marines do have a small contingent of Charlies.
no_life_redditor@reddit (OP)
F-35C goes to the navy while F-35B is with the marine care iirc
Aroused_Axlotl@reddit
Mostly but Marines are getting some C’s as well.
MGreymanN@reddit
The C is the carrier variant with 45% larger wings.
CounterSimple3771@reddit
The -C has bigger wings and more control surface area.
comthing@reddit
and more thrust.
Personal-Carob-1073@reddit
"We want you, we want you, we want you as a new recruit."
angrydeuce@reddit
And a different letter in its name
CounterSimple3771@reddit
That's what she ....
yznalslm@reddit
...wished for
Common-Shine9940@reddit
She definitely wished for more thrust and control surface
I-LOVE-TURTLES666@reddit
Can’t wait for the F35DD
the_Q_spice@reddit
The -B also has the massive dead weight that is the lift fan and nozzle vectoring assembly.
TBH though, the USMC air wing has always been more about supporting amphibious operations than dogfighting.
Navy does the CAP, USMC does the CAS (at least in theory).
3minence@reddit
And lighter
merlin_34@reddit
What? The C model weighs almost 6000lb more than the B model when empty. The turn performance difference is likely due to the C model having lower wing loading and a higher G limit than the B model.
stormdraggy@reddit
It's almost entirely G limit. ~7g vs ~9g is massive.
-BigDeckEnergy-@reddit
The C does not weigh 6000 lb more than the B. It's about 2000-3000 lb more.
F1T_13@reddit
Hmm, then why does the A exist? I thought the point of the A was to be the smaller more faster and nimble and capable jet. But I imagine that even the C has more range and speed too.
-BigDeckEnergy-@reddit
The A is cheaper to buy/maintain, and because the jet ended up way overweight. Look up some early docs on the program - the A ended up 3-4k more than originally intended, and this is after the program had an all-stop in the 2000s to address the weight because it made the B non viable
The A does accelerate better than the other variants, but its small wings really do impact lift and ability to maintain turns unlike the C.
Inceptor57@reddit
The F-35A also meet the USAF requirement that it can do 9 g turns too right?
-BigDeckEnergy-@reddit
Yes, the requirement was for it to be rated up to 9g's
SugarBeefs@reddit
I assume the C has the bigger wings for all the low speed stuff around the boat, right?
-BigDeckEnergy-@reddit
Yep. Necessary to reduce approach speeds to land safely at the boat
merlin_34@reddit
Not sure why I'd trust a Navy Test Pilot over Wikipedia
/s
CounterSimple3771@reddit
🤣
Rubber_Knee@reddit
This is pretty useless. One is going faster than the other. of course that's going to effect the turn radius.
This comparison tells you absolutely nothing about either aircraft.
NewUser769283@reddit
The speed should not affect the time it takes to make a tu......
Hmm, I have to rethink that one a little.
Blue_Etalon@reddit
Larger wings on the C. Less weight
-BigDeckEnergy-@reddit
The C weighs more than the B. And carries a lot more gas, which means it can weigh a lot more than the B. But the big wings make a huge difference, even compared to the A.
LordofSpheres@reddit
Surely there's a few regimes where the higher G load for the A makes it theoretically better-performing? I know it would basically be limited to high-speed initial maneuvers, but there must be a circumstance where the A model can outperform the C, however temporarily, right?
-BigDeckEnergy-@reddit
Being rated for 9g's and touching 9'gs are different things. As a hypothetical, if touching 9g's requires you to be 30 degrees nose low that's not a very great place to be, right? And if you pull G's, you bleed energy unless you have enough thrust to counter the massively increased induced drag from generating lift. So instantaneous versus sustainable G's and turn rates are also different things.
There's a reason we will all happily admit that the F-35 is known to not be the greatest at BFM.
LordofSpheres@reddit
All of that is fair, but, I mean... in the hypothetical where for whatever reason an A and a C are in a BFM fight, as long as they're going fast enough that the A can touch 9G and sustain it for at least a half-turn, the A should get around the circle faster, right?
I get that the A won't be able to sustain its 9G performance forever and that the C will win a sustained turn fight, which would theoretically be anything where the A slows down enough that it can only touch 7.5Gs. But shouldn't that higher instantaneous rate initially give it an advantage after the merge?
Also, from my discussions with others, I've heard the F-35A described as like flying an F-16 with two tanks - burns energy fast, but otherwise pretty capable (obviously ignoring the G limit of flying with tanks). Would you feel that is accurate? Is the C kind of like a heavy Super Hornet?
Thanks for the answer, by the way. I'm sure you have more fun things to be doing, so I appreciate your time.
-BigDeckEnergy-@reddit
That would be so if your assumptions are correct. I'm not going to get into specifics, but I've seen fighter aircraft rated to bleed over 100 knots per second in a max performance turn.
Also, remember, it takes two to BFM - what's the other side bleed rate and instantaneous rates? If you max perform, is the other guy also max performing? And if so, how much of a turn advantage do you lose with a lower bleed rate at lower instantaneous turn rates, i.e., what if you can hold the lower max performance rate but for longer than the other side can hold the higher rate before they bleed down below you? It's quite a bit more complicated than a comparison of theoretical max instantaneous turn rates - not to mention turn radii is another variable. Turn radii is affected by airspeed - fighters that can sustain a higher g/lift at lower airspeeds will have a tighter turn radius.
Maybe flying qualities like an F-16 with two tanks, but I've seen F-16s with two tanks pull away from a clean F-35A giving it all she's got. Remember flying alike does not necessarily imply similar performance - performance and flying qualities are two different things, so it really depends on what people are talking about.
FWIW, I'd say F-35A flies very similar to a Hornet or Super Hornet - and funny enough, a lot of F-35 guys who get opportunities to fly the Super Hornet (e.g., transition pilots, exchanges, test guys) have said the same.
As far as the A and C goes, the A has better acceleration in a straight line and will have no issues outclimbing the C up to certain altitudes. Above it, the C will climb better. I'd say it's not wrong to say the C flies like a heavier Super Hornet, but where it really separates itself from the others is at higher altitudes. The bigger wings (and horizontal stabs) really make a difference where the A with its smaller wings has to rely on airspeed or AOA to generate the lift required at high altitude. Remember, high altitude means less air density so less lift, so you compensate with airspeed or AOA... but more airspeed means more parasitic drag, while more AOA means more induced drag. This affects everything in aircraft design, as bank angle affects lift which then affects how much you can bank before you don't have enough lift to sustain level flight or have to increase throttles to maintain airspeed to turn at altitude, which then affects range, endurance, and so on.
LordofSpheres@reddit
Very interesting, thank you for the response. I certainly see your point about burning too much energy too fast or faster than the opponent. As I understand that was a major problem for the MiG-21 and other early delta wings, so it makes a lot of sense that it would still be a problem for present fighters. I guess I'm surprised that there would be such a notable difference in the performance across variants of the F-35, but I probably shouldn't be.
I assume the F-16 outrunning the F-35 was at a lower speed where the added drag from the tanks was less important than the significant TWR edge? On second thought, I could be misreading you and you just mean overall performance and not straight line acceleration. Either way, interesting to hear.
Thank you for the comparison to the Hornet and between the variants. Interesting to hear about the advantages at altitude. I was of the understanding that the F-35 had spent a lot of effort fighting that with lifting body design, but I forgot that big wings would always help that.
One last question: I read an account from a Norwegian pilot who said that the F-35's control laws were close to the Hornet and would let you pull as much alpha as you wanted whenever you asked for it, where the F-16 they came from was G-based and would always fly the plane to the right alpha for your max performance turn (at your input, anyways). Is that accurate? Do you think that helps or hurts performance?
-BigDeckEnergy-@reddit
TBF, it's less notable in raw turn performance as do keep in mind the A has better T/W than the other variants, which makes up for a lot, but the wings compensate for the added weight/worse T/W on the C significantly. The B unfortunately has the worst of both worlds there
Again not getting into specifics on here, but keep in mind that every aircraft has different areas they are optimized for. Where an aircraft has its best specific excess power differs between types of aircraft - some aircraft have better specific excess power at 0.8-1.0 Mach versus others that might do better at 0.65 to 0.75 Mach, or whatever the designers optimized the plane for.
Not to mention, installed thrust and whether the engine is optimized at low altitude or not affects things. As an example, despite an F/A-18E/F having a slightly worse T/W ratio than the EPE'd legacy F/A-18, the F/A-18E/F has a significantly shorter takeoff distance and better low altitude thrust/acceleration with its big intakes than the legacy.
There's really no contest in T/W and energy sustainment with a Viper - especially one with the big inlets and big motors (GE 129s and PW 229s or newer) - and any other fighter not named the Raptor. I'll leave it at that.
Basically every fighter built since the 70s has a lifting body design, so having a fuselage contirbute as a lifting body is not anything particularly novel or groundbreaking here. We've had Eagles and Hornets lose large parts of their wings in mid-air collisions and recover safely. What percentage of overall lift is generated by the lifting body is the bigger question. Even if the lifting body of the fuselage was 40% of the lift of any F-35, a 35% larger wing area on the C (ignoring the C also has larger stabilators which also generate lift and are designed to) would still be 21% more overall lift despite being 18% heavier empty, and the jets definitely do not get 40% of its lift from the fuselage. Think less than half of that.
The F-16 FLCS is G-command based (the more stick you pull, the more g it commands) but the F-16 is AOA limited to prevent departures.
The F/A-18 FCS uses G, blended G and AOA, or AOA command based on flight regime/airspeed. https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/120262main_fs-002-dfrc.pdf
Every US fighter built since the F/A-18 has more in common with the F/A-18 than the F-16, and for good reason. It's become the de facto standard of what one should expect from a fantastic handling, responsive, and intuitive flight control system/control laws
I wouldn't say it hurts performance because the F-16 was designed to be a high T/W AOA-limited G monster, whereas the F/A-18 and F-35s control laws and systems were designed to optimize human performance where its airframes were best supposed to fly at. And as I wrote above, many an F-35 pilot have said the flying qualities are a lot like the F/A-18, as it should be given that they share a lot of similarities in how the pilot interfaces with the flight control systems
LordofSpheres@reddit
This is why I always appreciate the chance to talk to real experts - I, as a person who is technically an engineer, still quite frequently forget that everything I don't know about is just as complex as everything I do know about. Your points about installed thrust and optimizing acceleration for specific speed regimes in particular - I forget, of course, that engine thrust is not just a static number, and that it varies quite significantly with airspeed. So, again, thank you for your time and knowledge.
I'll have to read that paper about the HARV at some point when I get the chance. I had a professor who did some work on the X-53 AAW program and also spent time at Skunkworks designing the F-35 (I think she was working on a fuselage panel on the belly, allegedly) so it will be interesting. Thanks for linking it.
My last thing to say is that it's intriguing how strongly you prefer the F-18 style of control laws. I personally don't know (obviously) the difference, but I would anticipate having an easier time flying a fight by pulling harder to pull harder G. Having the opportunity to point the nose better and bleed more airspeed by commanding AoA is the most obvious advantage I can see to the F-18's style of system (and I seem to recall hearing about that being useful for them fighting F-16s in training/red flags?) but I wouldn't have the skill or coordination to make best use of it. As above, one of those things where I forget how complex the rest of the world is.
Thank you again for the fascinating and detailed discussion.
-BigDeckEnergy-@reddit
You'd be surprised how quickly muscle memory takes over and you know exactly where to put the stick to command the AOA you want
Keep in mind too that every aircraft has an AOA that provides the best lift. The amount of G you command can vary by airspeed - slower means less G is available (as you generate less n_z = L/W). Moreover, more G may mean more induced drag which means more airspeed bleed, so you can end up bleeding yourself down to even less G available. Plus, below corner airspeed, max G is no longer commandable for an aircraft
Whereas AOA is AOA - there is a number that will provide your best lift. So there is a lot to be had by being able to command the AOA you want in different regimes of a fight
120SR@reddit
Since this is an airshow they are almost certainly not taking off and flying at max gross or carrying any real payload or fuel, just enough for a performance plus 30-60 minutes worth of
-BigDeckEnergy-@reddit
That is correct! I'm talking about operational usage, where the C outperforms the B whether at similar fuel weights or percentages of fuel capacity in the areas people care about
Blue_Etalon@reddit
You would be correct. I erroneously remembered the engine and lift fan equipment in the B driving the weight higher than the c.
Vitamin_Queue@reddit
This video is a nothingburger. There is nothing correlating the turn entry airspeed, throttle settings/thrust used, or angle of attack used by the pilots between the two videos. Without ensuring the planes are under equivalent aerodynamic conditions, the turn rate can't be accurately compared.
ElectricalYak7236@reddit
F-2A Viper syndrome, as that is the best F-16 thanks to the wing
BooksandBiceps@reddit
I wonder what we’d have ended up with if compromises weren’t made for the B. I get why they did it, but, what could have been.
Sufficient_Meet6836@reddit
Do you know some of the biggest compromises that had to be made for the B?
-BigDeckEnergy-@reddit
Probably the most notable is the size - the F-35 is 51 feet long, which is 5 feet shorter than the legacy Hornet, and 9 feet shorter than the Raptor, Eagle, and Super Hornet.
Its wingspan at 35 feet (for the A and B) are also small relative to aircraft in its weight class (42-44 feet for the Super Hornet and Eagle, of note the Raptor is also 44 feet)
All of this was driven entirely by the fact that the B model had to fit in the parking spots and on the elevators of a LHA/LHD class ship. These physical constraints and need for commonality between the three variants meant the A and C will forever have to deal with the challenges of size, weight, and power/cooling constraints of fitting in a footprint of a much smaller jet than would have been desirable for what they wanted out of the jet. That impacts upgradeability and ease of accessing some components for maintenance (thankfully most of those things buried deep don't break often, but if they do, it's a pain to get to).
There are some very weir design choices they had to make on everything from how the INS/GPS and air data interacts with the flight control system to how they route hydraulic lines in the jet that are suboptimal for how you would design a modern air vehicle - but they had to do it to make the B happen
Lonely_Accountant524@reddit
Why didn't the A model get the larger wings if they aided the performance of the jet? I know that they have different requirements, but was it just a weight issue, or something else?
-BigDeckEnergy-@reddit
Cost, commonality requirements, and incorrect performance models that met engineering reality/mistakes. Remember too, the Air Force requirements weren't to maximize performance - there was a "good enough" metric that had to be balanced with those other considerations.
Here is a 2002 report by the Joint Program Office on what drove the F-35B to have a 35 foot wingspan and max of 51 foot length (fitting on a LHA/LHD and its elevators): https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA399988.pdf
So with that footprint requirement in mind, the A model - which the Air Force was very cost sensitive about - wanted to maximize commonality with the B, so it accepted the form factor.
The issue was that the original projected performance numbers were based on data that ended up being wildly off. Note page 4 of the PDF - the original projected empty weight of the A model was 26,717 lbs. The actual empty weight of the A model today is just a hair shy of 30k.
The miss was even worse for the B and C, where the B is about 4k heavier than projected, and the C is almost 6k heavier than projected. And this is all after an intense campaign to reduce weight across all variants because the B model was so overweight it was no longer viable to do vertical landings.
(This ultimately didn't affect the C as much because it had 34% more wing area than the A/B, along with larger horizontal stabilators, despite weighing just 18% more than the A)
So yeah, if the A was 3k+ lighter than it ended up being, it would have better high altitude performance, turn performance, etc. than what it ended up being.
hawkeye18@reddit
Fun fact: The E-2 (all variants) Hawkeye has those four short rudders (technically three rudders and one imposter) because of a design requirement from the 50s - that the Hawkeye be able to fit in the hangar bay of an Essex-class carrier. It originally had two short rudders, which did not give enough rudder authority. They then went to four, which gave way too much rudder authority. So, instead of redesigning the empennage (again), they baleeted a rudder and called it a day.
This is also why the E-2 and E-2A had rotodomes that could raise and lower hydraulically - to fit in the Essex hangars.
The Hawkeye never served aboard an Essex-class carrier.
The Chinese KJ-600 also has four short rudders, but no real idea why.
Sufficient_Meet6836@reddit
Appreciate the detailed answer!
-BigDeckEnergy-@reddit
You're going to get downvoted, but it's 100% true the A and C were compromised because of the B, and will be for the rest of their service lives. You'll rarely find Air Force or Navy F-35 pilots, and even Marine F-35 pilots, who will have great things to say about the B and what it has done to the program.
ZeePM@reddit
Once the B model is out of production that's it right? There's no talk of a STOVL variant for any of the sixth gen. Be interesting to see what the Marines have in mind for a replacement when the B reaches end of life.
-BigDeckEnergy-@reddit
Correct - nothing is in the works right now. Don't worry - the Marines have enough clout to get money from Congress to do anything they want. As much as the Marines get stereotyped as getting hand-me downs, they have an almost entirely new fleet of aircraft now (and will once Harrier and Hornet retire) that is also largely unique/distinct from other branches
HortenWho229@reddit
I’m Curious about the specifics on this
Kardinal@reddit
The biggedf question is how do we know this is a minimum radius turn?
The most important bit of information is to know that this maneuver is not that important in modern air combat.
oioioifuckingoi@reddit
Exactly. Which one locks on to its target from 250m away before being seen.
Answer: both.
kneegrowpengwin@reddit
Unless they sneakily crept up behind, ain’t nobody getting within 250 meters without being seen
AggressorBLUE@reddit
Or you’re working under restrictive ROE (eg. No firing till fired upon).
And the ability to quickly change direction is helpful if defending against SAMs as well.
While I agree that BVR is generally going to be “Plan A” for air combat, its short sighted to think there couldn’t be plenty of “plan b” scenarios out there too.
a432@reddit
Ya this guy gets it. Remember when we thought dog fighting was obsolete? We got the f-4 phantom...
LordofSpheres@reddit
The Navy flew Phantoms without cannons for the entirety of Vietnam and ended it with a far better record than the USAF's Phantoms, cannon-armed or not. The problem with F-4s in Vietnam wasn't not having a gun - it was pilots not having the training for dogfighting or proper employment of their weapons in that scenario.
Kardinal@reddit
Eh, that's brought out a little too often. We remember when we thought that something was obsolete and it wasn't. We don't remember all the times we thought something was obsolete and it was.
greentanker1@reddit
Agreed, the phantom story was relevant back then, less now. Missiles and radars got a lot more reliable and have way higher ranges, that combined with better intel (and maybe different protocol than needing visual id back then) makes a gun less and less needed.
Still a good option to have something to fall back on for sure, but something 50+ years ago is just not applicable for something today
Kardinal@reddit
I think it's a good cautionary tale to be sure we are right about something being obsolete before we stop using it. And go ensure that its replacement works before we depend on it. Part of the problem was that Sparrow was an awful missile. (As well as the ROE issue.)
But cautionary tales are not laws. They're just reminders to be cautious.
No-Marsupial-1753@reddit
Even under restrictive ROE, going defensive to avoid becoming expensive chaff is probably permitted if it’s not in service of lining up your own shot.
oioioifuckingoi@reddit
If I’m paying $2T for a fighter, SAMs shouldn’t be able to see me.
LordofSpheres@reddit
If you're paying that $2 trillion over the course of three quarters of a century, for two thousand aircraft, their development, their fueling, their upgrades, their arming, the training of their pilots, and the production of that aircraft, you might also be in a position to understand that SAMs will always be able to see you eventually. But making it take longer is the whole point.
Kardinal@reddit
SAM evasion is an important point.
chalk_in_boots@reddit
Dude, I can hardly get within 250m of someone without being seen when on foot. Let alone in a big fucking jet going "NYOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM"
SNIP3RG@reddit
250 miles
comthing@reddit
Miles is usually denoted as "mi".
TopMarzipan2108@reddit
You’re technically right but it wasn’t hard to figure out the intent with the context was it?
comthing@reddit
Yeah, but equally it isn't difficult to double check a short sentence.
NeitherEntry6125@reddit
Brother, I watched Maverick THREE TIMES. I think I know that this is the single most important move.
Mendeth@reddit
Surely that’s hitting the brakes so they’ll flight right by?
theoxfordtailor@reddit
It was so cool seeing Maverick invent the Cobra Maneuver in an F-14A.
Bigdave141@reddit
Major Emmett Tullia II evaded six surface-to-air missiles in his F-16 using maneuvering alone after his aircraft’s countermeasure system malfunctioned.
The F-35 is mostly used for SEAD missions since it's stealth allows it to get over SAM sites, it could be in the same situation as Tullia.
blackstangt@reddit
The F-35B should not exist. Its design was compromised for parts compatibility that never happened. This made it too heavy to land on existing carrier decks vertically, take off vertically with a meaningful payload, have an internal gun, or maneuver like a 5th gen fighter. The Harrier was already hard to justify, having never been used in combat as a front line CAS aircraft. Every F-35B order in place of an F-35C is a mistake. The Navy should buy more naval aerial refueling capability instead and use carriers.
comthing@reddit
Are you trolling lol? The B was the original design.
It was never too heavy, rather its rear thrust in a hover was too hot. Existing carrier decks to my knowldge have been upgraded.
Vertical takeoff was never a requirement. It is and always has been a STOVL aircraft.
An internal gun was never a requirement, and was replaced with another fuel tank in the lighter C model even though the C airframe is based on the A airframe.
Maneuverability isn't a big concern for a strike platform.
The Harrier being obsolete due to lack of capability was the premise for the F-35 to exist in the first place, and despite being deemed obsolete since 1982, has seen plenty of use in the CAS role.
C models can't operate from assault ships. Not having the B means losing capability and versatility at the strategic level of planning.
blackstangt@reddit
All 3 variants were sold to congress at the same time. A modified F-22 for the Navy would have been a much better choice than the F-35C.
Less weight means less thrust required, which means less heat. Having to upgrade carrier decks is a problem it created.
A better VTOL aircraft would be able to take off with a useful payload vertically - my point.
A gun became a requirement, requiring an external gun pod, another compromise. Not having a gun for CAS is idiotic.
It's a multi-role fighter, if it was a strike platform alone it wouldn't need to be low observable.
Not hating on the Harrier. The US did not use its VTOL capability however.
In what conflict has an assault ship been used where both the US Navy did not have the ability to operate a carrier and where the US Air Force did not have a base close enough to operate as effectively as an assault ship would allow? There is no conflict where an assault ship could more safely operate than conventional fighters backed by aerial refueling. The concept looks good on paper, but in practice, it has never and will never happen for the F-35B.
comthing@reddit
No they weren't. The STOVL design was developed for the CALF program. If Lockheed hadn't produced studies on the STOVL design showing that it could be streamlined to meet USAF requirements for the JAST program, we would still likely have the STOVL design as CALF wouldn't have been merged with JAST to create the JSF program.
And would barely fill the role of a strike fighter due to it's limitations, not to mention much higher costs.
And it's a silly point, easily pushed aside by the fact that regardless of whether you can takeoff vertically, there is no practical reason to do so. Even Harriers only used that capability once in real operations, and were quickly deemed ineffective due to payload and fuel restrictions.
No, it was simply not required to be internal. Afterall the Harrier never had an internal gun and was still capable of CAS, and the F-35B was always more of a strike fighter that could also do CAS.
Yes it is, well done on recognising that fact. But you fail to understand that multi-role fighters still have mission and design focuses, the F-35 being focused on strike.
It's also dumb to think that low observable characteristics don't heavily benefit strike platforms.
Irrelevant. You don't build a military based on everything working as expected.
The only relevance that has is if you want to save money. In every other respect the F-35B provides an increase in capability for assault ships, and a fixed wing option for USMC forces if the supporting Navy air wing is unavailable, which is certainly a possibility due to attrition, or even just being occupied due to the number of enemy forces in the region.
blackstangt@reddit
Congress didn't purchase the initial production of combat aircraft until it was the JSF, at which point they were lied to about parts compatability.
A single engine carrier aircraft is a terrible choice due to corrosion that has caused engine failure rates to be much higher. A *modified* F-22 that had more internal weapons storage would inherently be a better design for this reason.
If the VTOL capability of a harrier was not historically useful, how is the STOVL capability projected to be useful over CTOL? In what scenario? Having never proved useful for the US in STOVL configuration over CTOL either, the Harrier does not make a case for the F-35B.
Being capable of CAS and good at CAS are different. The B-52 can do CAS, it's a comparatively bad platform for it. The A-10 can do CAS, it's a great platform for it. The F-16 can do CAS as well as an F-35, it's an ok platform for it but uses way less fuel because it's not as bloated, making it a better platform in most situations. It also has an internal gun, so no extra drag to make fuel burn even worse, just to provide a basic CAS capability.
The US does not have the aircraft necessary to oppose China over Taiwan, but we're supposed to invest in a niche aircraft that burns all of our tanker capacity, can't do VTOL effectively from forward bases around the South China Sea, and is less capable against radar than a plane from 1990 (F-22), allowing even Iran to hit it?
We need lightweight missile trucks, not Fat Amy.
comthing@reddit
More excuses huh? Your attempts to stay on top of your narrative are becoming very obvious.
I repeat: If JSF didn't come to be, we would still have the F-35B under CALF, and maybe a different designation.
A single engine fighter is not a bad thing for naval operations due to how reliable engines are these days, and because they spend less time in maintenance. A navalised F-22 would be the most expensive fighter ever built, and was rejected by the Navy themselves.
You want a navalised F-22 due to the increased capability, but don't want the F-35B despite it offering increased capability? Hypocrite.
Why does the VTOL capability not being useful matter if the STOVL capability has been proven useful? Not having STOVL capability means having fewer available aircraft in-theatre because there are fewer places they can operate from. And examples of Harriers being useful specifically because they were available exist in all wars the USMC have participated in.
Being good at CAS depends on the type of CAS. It's a very broad role with multiple sub-roles. And when you already have AH-1Zs available for sustained CAS, you really only need jets to be good for quick reaction CAS.
F-16 vs F-35 fuel efficiency depends on distance from the AO. F-35s are more efficient in transit due to internal payloads, and have significantly longer combat range. This means the F-16 is only better at loitering at short ranges.
The US definitely have the aircraft necessary to challenge China over Taiwan. What they don't have is the required number of bases from which aircraft can operate from. It's an availability issue, not an inventory issue. And if you need aircraft availability, you need more carriers, or for assault ships to be able to operate fixed wing assets. Hence STOVL fighters exist to plug the gap considering they're a heck of a lot cheaper than buying more super carriers.
On what basis do you claim that the F-35B will burn all tanker capacity when it is more fuel efficient than typical 4th gen fighters due to reduced drag while loaded for combat?
Why are you still blabbering on about VTOL?
And why are you claiming an F-22 is better because an F-35 might have been hit by an IR SAM? It would be the same result if the F-22 was in that position.
LOL. Yet you advocate for a navalised F-22? Not only is the land based F-22 significantly heavier than the F-35C, it is the heaviest fighter in the world and cannot carry any more AIM-120s than the F-35C can.
LordofSpheres@reddit
It's real hard to beat having more carriers, and the B model allows much smaller ships to operate much larger and more effective air wings.
That means that the B model gives you more carriers. Which, according to you, is better.
blackstangt@reddit
Use existing* carriers
LordofSpheres@reddit
The B model makes existing carriers which could previously only launch rotorcraft capable of deploying fixed wing assets. It adds 5th gen assets to ships which could previously only launch 3rd gen harriers or rotorcraft. This brings an obvious and immediate advantage in the number of assets available, their quality, and the ability to spread and direct them more carefully.
blackstangt@reddit
Has that ever been or will it ever be useful, or is it waste? Does the US need that capability or could funding go elsewhere? History says the US does not need that capability.
LordofSpheres@reddit
What history are you talking about? The US hasn't been in a near-peer air combat environment since 1953, history isn't telling you shit about what is or isn't useful to the US in that way. What history will tell you is that the force which can better deploy more capable assets in greater numbers, to longer ranges, with more flexibility, usually comes out on top. The US won the Pacific Theater on the backs of escort carriers flying outdated fighters and bombers, because they could have more air power in the air more frequently.
The US is (or at least has been recently) most worried about a war in the Pacific in the near future. The Pacific is really, really fucking big. Like, too big to be covered exclusively with CVNs. Putting F-35Bs on LHAs and LHDs means that the USN can cover and protect so much more territory, and respond so much more quickly and effectively, than they could only flying helos off them and only flying fixed wings off big carriers.
The US needs added capability to deploy more air power into the Pacific. The F-35B gives them that without requiring more CVNs built or in theater. History says that's a good capability to have.
blackstangt@reddit
Those assault ships are not getting close enough to Taiwan to be effective without taking on risk that would be unacceptable. The F-35B is too heavy, burning up US refueling capability with its excessive fuel burn. Even if STOVL capability is needed in the future, the F-35B isn't it.
LordofSpheres@reddit
Nothing is getting that close without risk. That's the whole reason China has been developing missiles like crazy. They're not stupid.
But when you need to project force 300nmi away from a naval force, and you don't have any CVNs available to task, the LHAs that you can now equip with a wing of F-35Bs give you that opportunity. If you don't do that, you're just flat-out fucked. You can't fly that mission anymore.
It has the same empty weight as a Super Hornet, a better range on an internal fuel mission, and all for less fuel. Saying it's "too heavy" just ignores that things are a tad bit more complicated than that. But beyond that, the whole point of the B model is that it can fly off and refuel on ships that normally couldn't fly a fixed wing fighter at all. So it's not intended to be an added drain on IFR resources - it's supposed to be an added benefit for strikes organic to those smaller fleet assets.
Also, the F-35B is probably the best you can hope for out of a STOVL asset. It's an incredibly difficult mission set to engineer and without forcing it onto the A/C, it wouldn't have happened at all. The F-35B is as good as it's going to get because it exists.
blackstangt@reddit
If it was a war over Taiwan, the Carriers become available. Iran, Venezuela, none of that requires Carriers. Yet the Carriers and Assault ships would be at risk while operating in any reasonable proximity to the S China Sea.
The Philippines, Japan, S Korea, are all close and land-based fighters are more efficient. That brings the F-22 into the equation, better in every regard for the conflict. It also brings drones, no risk to life, efficient and numerous. Cruise missiles, expendable. 4th gen USAF fighters, more efficient with more air-to-air payload. The F-16 burns far less fuel than an F-35 and can shoot down as many 3rd/4th gen Chinese aircraft BVR.
Of course, China isn't stupid. They're taking over Taiwan economically and politically. A shot will never be fired. We will never need the F-35B STOVL capability there or anywhere else.
LordofSpheres@reddit
The carriers don't all become available, because the US still has to project power in the Atlantic. China isn't stupid, so they'd pick a time when at least two are out for overhaul, probably more. That leaves six for the Pacific. Six is great. It's also not enough.
The F-22 cannot fly out of the Philippines because all the airstrips in the Philippines would get bombed to shit the second the war went hot. Also, the airbases there wouldn't be able to service F-22s. Also also, they'd be well within missile range of the mainland, so couldn't get fixed. Also also also, they're not even US bases, just bases the US is allowed to use. The US does not have enough missile interceptors to protect all the airbases they would need to protect from all the threats that would hit them.
So, because China isn't stupid, now the land-based airstrips are out of commission. The ones that still exist also happen to be mostly too far away for meaningful penetration strikes against the mainland or defensive flights over Taiwan, because, you know, that's how they didn't get blasted by missiles. And the US can't fly penetration missions with aerial refueling because that faces the problem of patrol flights catching the tankers, so that limits the range further. You have to keep the tankers safe, so you have to move them far enough back, so you reduce your range. Great.
Therefore we're now in a situation where the only assets in theater capable of launching airframes on a reasonably useful profile are carriers. We have six of those. Great. We need to be able to move them in closer. That means we have to strike launchers. They have more launchers than we have cruise missiles. They have more airbases and factories than we have cruise missiles. Eventually we need to be able to drop shorter range munitions - it's just a reality of warfare on this scale.
So... we need to kill their airframes, so that we can put our tankers in place, so that we can fly missions that take out their launchers to protect our carriers to fly more, better missions. So we need our six carriers.
With the F-35B, suddenly we have fourteen carriers. And we can move one or two of those LHAs to the Atlantic and free up another carrier. And those F-35Bs can fly strike missions and free up F-35Cs and F-22s and B-2s for more, better SEAD strikes launched from carriers and whatever airfield assets still survive and tankers and all the rest.
If the war isn't over Taiwan, or if Taiwan falls quickly and suddenly the war is over the whole Pacific, then all of the above get way worse, not better.
Oh, and the F-16 burns more fuel for less range. It would also get slotted by a J-20 a lot fucking faster than an F-35B. Because the Chinese aren't stupid.
I promise you, the USMC and USN and USAF have thought about this a lot longer, and a lot harder, with a lot smarter people, than you or I.
r0verandout@reddit
Ever heard of the Falklands war? Might have been a few Harriers used there. Also Afghanistan - UK Harriers were the primary CAS support in the mid-laye 2000s. If you can only manage 100k tonne carrier the C makes sense. If you want to operate off small boats and expeditionary airfieds you need a B.
blackstangt@reddit
The US is not the UK. If the US wanted the Falklands for some reason, it would send a carrier strike group. There would be no need for VTOL. F-16 and A-10 aircraft were used for the same purpose as the Harrier in Afghanistan, again with no need to take off or land vertically. The UK used Harriers because they had them, not because they were the best aircraft for the job, that would be the A-10.
Mendeth@reddit
Where would those A-10s have operated from, Ushuaia?
blackstangt@reddit
Bagram.
PugnansFidicen@reddit
If you want to operate off small boats and expeditionary airfields, what you need is a purpose built airframe. Not a cucked variant of a fighter that was primarily designed for conventional airfields or carrier operations.
The politicians and suits had this idea that the B would share a lot of parts with the A and thus keep costs down. That, predictably to most engineers, ended up not being the case.
It likely would have been more cost effective, and resulted in more capable aircraft across the board, including the A/C models, if the B had been ditched in favor of a separate clean sheet 5th gen vtol design.
Ziegler517@reddit
The aircraft carrier is the single most capable weapons system platform in the world. You can park an airwing anywhere in the world at any time. It’s not going anywhere.
ShittyLanding@reddit
That’s what the C model is for.
Ziegler517@reddit
no shit. my comment is in response to, "The Navy should buy more naval aerial refueling capability instead and use carriers."
2beatenup@reddit
I’ll leave it here
Chinese YJ-20, YJ-17, YJ-19
Russian 3M22 Zircon
Indo-Russian BrahMos-
Indian India: LR-AShM / LRAShM
ShittyLanding@reddit
Hard agree
armspawn@reddit
Wow, this is really cool to know if both aircraft are actually doing a max rate turn! Which is different from a min radius turn. -B pilot could be letting off the G in the middle though it’s hard to know. Let’s see some EM diagrams!
WangDoodleTrifecta@reddit
Pilot capacity aircraft the whole nine. Amazing video. But I want data.
HortenWho229@reddit
Try war thunder forums ^^/s
hawkeye18@reddit
You say ^(/s) but reality has often shown that there is no ^(/s).
rsta223@reddit
That's odd. I'd have thought this was a minimum radius F-35b turn:
https://youtube.com/shorts/lZWYh0SYx3o?si=fCwoFFi1sU3rMPkj
(Apologies for the music, not my video)
Ill-End3169@reddit
lets see the takeoff and landing on an amphibous assault ship comparisons
Texas_Kimchi@reddit
Isn't the B mostly designed to be mulitrole support plane versus the C model being the mainline carrier plane.
grurra@reddit
The min radius is irrelevant for turn rate. It is a flip.
The info in this post does't say that much, except that 20 sec for a full circle at clean max instantaneous rate really sucks :D. 28s is pure garbage.
If it had been sustained turn rate on the otherhand: to make a full circle at level flying completed in 20 sec? then that's basically your average clean f-16 config.
Didnt look sustained to me, the 20s/left plan made a full-pull/max insta pull at the end to bleed off most speed (visible past the test, so... not 100% sure)
/ your average ex sim wannabe-pilot
Dangerflies@reddit
Turn rate*
MrWizard45@reddit
So cool
wastedsanitythefirst@reddit
That is absolutely incredible footage and editing and flying to all synch up like that. Its just disgustingly impressive top to bottom lol
HoboBronson@reddit
Why 2 songs playing at once? sounds terrible. Wtf why?
Casen_@reddit
It's from two different airshows.... Each one has their own music.
Mimshot@reddit
Ahem you’re supposed to take two minutes.
sldfghtrike@reddit
total disregard for the standard rate turn
Proton_Energy_Pill@reddit
I figured the C would be better as it has a larger wing and weighs less.
Realistic_Mix3652@reddit
They both us advanced fly by wire systems, so I'm sure the maneuvers that they are doing here are spicy enough for the pilots to gain and keep experience, but also subdued enough to allow the frame to continue flying for decades. During an actual shooting war I'm sure that there is a "screw the air frame, just get me behind this Chengdu J-20" option...
ajdiddy@reddit
You mean a plane with larger wings and more g available has a better turn radius… wowza who would have thinked it
njsullyalex@reddit
No surprise. Much bigger wings = much lower wing loading further helped by the C likely being lighter than the B due to not having the VSTOL equipment.