Combat radius of 469NM for the F-35B is in sleek config with air-air mission so
with 2 AIMs and 2 Sidewinders. Considering gas guzzling ( fuel fraction ), one can wonder
what the yet undisclosed combat radius in full load the F35-Bs will get ( at cost of stealth ).
Due to "fifth gêne" design, the drop in efficiency compared to legacy fighters should impress.
This said, I darn well hope that an invincible perfect mega next generation machine can outperform
its predecessors on combat related metrics, it flocking better or what are the billions for??? We
are talking about planes from 1969 and 1983, respectively 46 & 32 years ago … think about cars
and computers progress since? Apply to fighters ...
Still the comparison is not from generation to Gen. but as a tool in a toolbox. The F-35B will serve
the exact same function as the Harriers did relative to the F-18s.
[ About which the absence of evolution to SuperH was a mistake IMHoO in part due to Navy oppo-
sition and in part because of budget decisions within the USMC. ]
This means that the B will not replace the Hornet. In fact, time of introduction for this variant ( first of
the JSF models IOC
ed although most complex to put in operation ) was dictated by early retirement
of the Harriers+.
The F-18 have until
2030 to go which will require a main frame central barrel replacement.
U.S. Marines to Retire Harrier Fleet Earlier Than Planned, Extend Life of Hornets - USNI News
But once they are gone, the new deal will be that only the Navy will have the best air assets at sea.
At which point the USMC will be joint ops dependent … just check it in a lll your documents …
I am opposed to that, I sincerely believe the Marines need to be as autonomous as possible unless
you consider them a simple Army carried on Navy force which I refuse and refute as their history does.
Your very first image contains a CSG smack in the middle as would be now for the Hornets, doesn't it?
Here then is my beef with present concept implementation : STOVL was made central to the JSF program
in the hopes of producing a fighter able to fully replace both the Harriers and Hornets at huge costs in
design and development schedule as well as money. It now seems that it will not do the job so clearly and
that it will not allow either of the USMC historical requirements of operating from expeditionary air pads easily
and of doing without the USN.
But it still requires bigger ships ( with tougher decks and/or problems ) to operate? That is what I meant!
I am not one of those who think the JSF is a total failure at least not in the sense that the fighter itself will
never work. I know America to well ( lived there have family, brother was USN ) to believe it can't be fixed
especially since at worst they'll go : -"… in doubt, throw it out!" and start anew. I do believe it is flawed in
its scope and further sullied by the attitude of the maker corp ( again not solely US case although MIC … ).
About which, even if he had flown on flying saucers ( at Area 51, one supposes ) the initial opinion of a major
Lock-Mart employee is not welcomed by me at all. They should just shut up and make it work already!
Good day, Tay.
JK.
