So, you are asking us to imagine an F35B that can do the things that an F35B can do?
Isn't that simply an F35B?
Yes, but without the VTOL requirement, thus reducing how powerful the liftfan had to be, maybe not having it at all, thus saving weight, increasing range. If there wasn't a need for the liftfan at all, then there might not have been a need for a B variant at all, thus reducing costs enormously. That is what I am saying.
I think the premis you have here is valid, but is likely to be employed in a UCAV for the USMC and by extension the RN.
A useful STOL combat UCAV that can carry a good load over a decent distance would likely be a lot cheaper than a major redesign of the QE class....
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Posted: 29 Aug 2023, 18:05
by mr.fred
new guy wrote: ↑29 Aug 2023, 17:26
Yes, but without the VTOL requirement, thus reducing how powerful the liftfan had to be, maybe not having it at all, thus saving weight, increasing range. If there wasn't a need for the liftfan at all, then there might not have been a need for a B variant at all, thus reducing costs enormously. That is what I am saying.
Oh, so the second option I gave, rather than the first.
I don't know if you'd be able to do that without the lift fan.
If the A or C version can't do it, why would B-without-a-lift-fan?
The VTOL capability has only ever been possible with a lightly loaded aircraft, so short take off has always been necessary for a useful combat load. It has always been the aim to operate the B version as short take off and rolling landing, once the rolling landing had been sorted out.
new guy wrote: ↑29 Aug 2023, 17:26
Yes, but without the VTOL requirement, thus reducing how powerful the liftfan had to be, maybe not having it at all, thus saving weight, increasing range. If there wasn't a need for the liftfan at all, then there might not have been a need for a B variant at all, thus reducing costs enormously. That is what I am saying.
Oh, so the second option I gave, rather than the first.
I don't know if you'd be able to do that without the lift fan.
If the A or C version can't do it, why would B-without-a-lift-fan?
The VTOL capability has only ever been possible with a lightly loaded aircraft, so short take off has always been necessary for a useful combat load. It has always been the aim to operate the B version as short take off and rolling landing, once the rolling landing had been sorted out.
I understand. But hey the harrier could do VTOL, let alone STOL, without a separate liftfan.
What is said is if a rather useless VTOL capability is of detriment to the price, range and maintenance of the F-35, should it have been designed to have it?
In fairness, some people probably already thought of this and thus the VTOL may only be a bye-product of full load STOL.
So, you are asking us to imagine an F35B that can do the things that an F35B can do?
Isn't that simply an F35B?
Yes, but without the VTOL requirement, thus reducing how powerful the liftfan had to be, maybe not having it at all, thus saving weight, increasing range. If there wasn't a need for the liftfan at all, then there might not have been a need for a B variant at all, thus reducing costs enormously. That is what I am saying.
I've wondered the same myself!
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Posted: 29 Aug 2023, 19:44
by serge750
Maybe instead of a lift fan they could of done - like the harriers - vectored rotating front nozzles that would of given it a little bit of lift ( not as much as the lift fan ) so giving it a shorter take off run & vectored front so it acted like a reverse thrust giving it a shorter landing distance ? if that worked maybe eliminating the lift fan you could have had nearly the range & the same weopons bay of the A model, still think it would of needed a lot of runway & landing distance though - more than the length of a QEC .....
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Posted: 29 Aug 2023, 19:54
by mr.fred
new guy wrote: ↑29 Aug 2023, 18:17
I understand. But hey the harrier could do VTOL, let alone STOL, without a separate liftfan.
But couldn't go supersonic or carry as much due to the limitations of the Pegasus arrangement.
new guy wrote: ↑29 Aug 2023, 18:17
What is said is if a rather useless VTOL capability is of detriment to the price, range and maintenance of the F-35, should it have been designed to have it?
Is the STO or RL you desire possible without it though? Your "if" is doing quite a lot of heavy lifting.
Rolling landing still isn't entirely worked out now so it might have been considered to be a bit too much of a risk when we know that vertical landing, when you've used most of the fuel and expended the weapons, works. From the point of view at the start of the programme.
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Posted: 29 Aug 2023, 21:11
by SW1
What you are theorising around is the X-32B propulsion configuration.
new guy wrote: ↑29 Aug 2023, 17:26
Yes, but without the VTOL requirement, thus reducing how powerful the liftfan had to be, maybe not having it at all, thus saving weight, increasing range. If there wasn't a need for the liftfan at all, then there might not have been a need for a B variant at all, thus reducing costs enormously. That is what I am saying.
Oh, so the second option I gave, rather than the first.
I don't know if you'd be able to do that without the lift fan.
If the A or C version can't do it, why would B-without-a-lift-fan?
The VTOL capability has only ever been possible with a lightly loaded aircraft, so short take off has always been necessary for a useful combat load. It has always been the aim to operate the B version as short take off and rolling landing, once the rolling landing had been sorted out.
I understand. But hey the harrier could do VTOL, let alone STOL, without a separate liftfan.
What is said is if a rather useless VTOL capability is of detriment to the price, range and maintenance of the F-35, should it have been designed to have it?
In fairness, some people probably already thought of this and thus the VTOL may only be a bye-product of full load STOL.
Again 🡑
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Posted: 29 Aug 2023, 21:15
by new guy
SW1 wrote: ↑29 Aug 2023, 21:11
What you are theorising around is the X-32B propulsion configuration.
That was a tandem fan, was it not?
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Posted: 30 Aug 2023, 08:07
by Little J
X-32 was a Harrier style concept, using 2 mid mounted nozzles (the standard rear exhaust closed for STOVL flight).
SW1 wrote: ↑29 Aug 2023, 21:11
What you are theorising around is the X-32B propulsion configuration.
That was a tandem fan, was it not?
If you are suggesting bleed air to roll/pitch posts and the like from purely a “standard” military turbo jet that is simply not possible with today’s technology, it does not have sufficient bypass air/power to do that and power all the other systems required the margin was wafer thin even on f35 in mode 4 operations.
The harrier engine is more turbo fan in nature and as littlej says x32 was the modern equivalent masking that front fan better. Still issues with cofg and hot gas ingestion not as prevalent in the lift fan design.
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Posted: 30 Aug 2023, 13:49
by mrclark303
Little J wrote: ↑30 Aug 2023, 08:07
X-32 was a Harrier style concept, using 2 mid mounted nozzles (the standard rear exhaust closed for STOVL flight).
I think the general specification of the proposed production F-32 was far less compromised than the F35.
The S/VTOL version would have been more capable and on a rough par with the other versions, the lack of a lift fan would have made a huge difference
new guy wrote: ↑12 Sep 2023, 17:35
How fast is F-35B in SRVL?
In the landing? 70 knots has been mentioned before.
I think that 70 knots is taking into account the ship going full tilt at 25 KTS into the wind on an SRVL approach, so even on the odd mill pond day, the F35 will be coming down the slope at 70 kts, touch down will actually be at 45kts deck speed.
That's a gentle brake to halt for the B model, but on a pitching wet deck, there will be operational limits to this....
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Posted: 18 Sep 2023, 17:43
by Little J
SW1 wrote: ↑18 Sep 2023, 12:39
For anyone in South Carolina the marines are looking for an f35 one careful owner a few dents
What is it with Marines losing stuff at the moment?
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Posted: 19 Sep 2023, 09:13
by Timmymagic
mrclark303 wrote: ↑18 Sep 2023, 16:59
I think that 70 knots is taking into account the ship going full tilt at 25 KTS into the wind on an SRVL approach, so even on the odd mill pond day, the F35 will be coming down the slope at 70 kts, touch down will actually be at 45kts deck speed.
That's a gentle brake to halt for the B model, but on a pitching wet deck, there will be operational limits to this....
Indeed there will. As I've said before until we get some heavier weapons/stores (FCASW or external tanks, and tanks are marginal as you can dump fuel) on our F-35 the need for SRVL is not really there. I don't think we will end up using it that often at all.
mrclark303 wrote: ↑18 Sep 2023, 16:59
I think that 70 knots is taking into account the ship going full tilt at 25 KTS into the wind on an SRVL approach, so even on the odd mill pond day, the F35 will be coming down the slope at 70 kts, touch down will actually be at 45kts deck speed.
That's a gentle brake to halt for the B model, but on a pitching wet deck, there will be operational limits to this....
Indeed there will. As I've said before until we get some heavier weapons/stores (FCASW or external tanks, and tanks are marginal as you can dump fuel) on our F-35 the need for SRVL is not really there. I don't think we will end up using it that often at all.
If we do end up using SRVL on a regular basis and begin routine drone operations, there's a clear safety case for an angled deck flight deck revision, to create a safe landing area for operations.
It would have to be a hybrid layout that also lends itself to alongside and hop over vertical F35 landings.
You can't have F35's coming to a halt on and vertical landing on the angled deck, or it would blow the deck crew into the sea!
