Lockheed Martin unveils F-35C for Navy

I wonder why more buyers are not looking at the C model for thier requrements. I realize it will cost more but the greater range and wing area would come in quite handy IMHO.

---

---

I'm somewhat interested in how the C model's larger wings will affect maneuverability.

I suspect it will lose a bit in top speed, but gain in the maneuvering department.

As a something of a Naval Air fanboi, I'm looking forward to seeing this bird get into the air.

reply to post by RyanLA123

---

That's a Movie Prop....



[edit on 3-8-2009 by SLAYER69]

PLease delete me. i didn't notice this guys post was removed.

[edit on 8/3/2009 by ugie1028]

This is the F-35C Lightning II being rolled out.

But I have certain concerns of using a single engined Lightning II over vast bodies of water, because one thing's for sure, if the GE/RR F136 turbofan shuts down, the pilot loses the plane.

Better to have a navalized Raptor instead, because its PW F119 turbofans provide not only supercruise and fuel efficiency, but a built-in insurance policy.

double post

[edit on 12/8/2009 by C0bzz]

Engine reliability has gone up significantly from the single engined Dassault series of aircraft - for example, look at the 1960's Mirage III in RAAF service. We had about 100 of them, and lost >16 aircraft due to engine failures. With the 1990's F-16 however, a very small number of block 50 / 52 aircraft have crashed as a result of engine problems, despite the hundreds built. Even if it had two engines, it wouldn't of always made much of a difference - if one engine exploded, for example, the plane is toast - for example, most RCAF F/A-18's have crashed when a single engine failure occurred. It's not that newer engine technology completely precludes failures, but it significantly lowers the rate at which they occur, especially because the F135 is a over 10 years newer than the best F-16 engines.

As much as I would like more F-22's, it is not exactly needed; furthermore we already have dominance with impunity almost anywhere we so choose, nor is the F-22 designed for the JSF requirements. The F-35C is a multi-role strike fighter, and the F-35B is a STOVL multi-role strike fighter, the F-22 doesn't come close in these regards, neither in range, avionics, price, maintenance, sensors, interoperability, or payload. Nor can F-22 destroy ships efficiently - half the fleet has one avionics architecture, the other half has another. Who is going to pay for the inverse SAR mapping for practically TWO aircraft? The bays cannot carry anti-ship missiles, nor are they integrated with the either avionics - that leaves what? SDB, JSOW & JDAM? Far from ideal. How does that compare to 2 - 3 F-35's carrying 2 JSM each, launching at over twice the range?

The airframe would have to be substantially modified - tail-hook, and strengthening of the airframe for example. Even the F-35C which was designed from the outset for carrier service, is 6000lb heavier than the conventional variant, with no gun, of course. If the same fraction increase (very conservative) occurs on the F-22, then the F-22N would be a 52,000lb+ aircraft. Add fuel and bring back capability, and then that equals a massive amount of weight and thus kinetic energy - can the arresting wires take 60,000lb at 145knots? The F-22 in USAF service has corrosion problems which would be exemplified by a salty environment.

Lastly, the aircraft is too expensive for the USAF, let alone the USN. You pay by the pound, so they say, the heavier F-22N would be drastically more expensive and that doesn't include other one off costs associated with navalising the F-22. Only way this could of worked out is if the USN followed through with the NATF program at the cancellation of the F-35B/C & Super Hornet. Then we have very few fighters and no Forward Operating Bases, and a waste of time plane that can only do one thing - Air Dominance which we already have.

[edit on 12/8/2009 by C0bzz]