F-35C for the UK

[cpasley]

I just read that Britain has changed its order for the F-35 from the STOVL F-35B to the carrier oriented F-35C and will build carriers capable to handle it ,I think its a smart move on their part and was wondering what you guys think.............

[Paul Dumm]

Sounds like a lot of money. But let hope it keeps the ship yards in Liverpool open.

[Joe Copalman]

I think the Marines should do the same thing.  More gas and less weight means they can support Marines further inland with more ordnance and longer station time.  Let the LHAs and LHDs carry the helos, and let the MEU be supported by carrier-based aircraft.  If a crisis warrants sending Marines, it certainly rates a carrier to support them. 

[cpasley]

I agree I just honestly dont see a huge need for STOVL aircraft anymore ,granted in cold war times the fear of runways being wiped out was warranted but now days its very unlikely

[Dave S.]

I guess I'm a dissenting vote.  Even though I'm not the biggest fan of the lift-fan concept (yes, pun intended), I do think there's an argument for a STOVL aircraft.  MEU's are not typically supported by a carrier, more so in 'low-intensity' operations.  I participated in one 'large' operation, plus a few smaller exercises that warranted sending in 'the Few', but carrier support was no where in sight.  I think of it sort of like a V-6, it's a compromise at best, but it fills a niche that would otherwise go unfilled.  With lives on the line, filling this niche is more than just a luxury.

[josephea6]

I couldn't agree with you more Dave.  I can think of several operations that revolved around ONLY the MEU "One LHD".  Having  fixed wing or ( STOVL ) CAS available allowed the mission to be completed without having to wait or rely on any component outside of the MEU. 

[Joe Copalman]

I would agree with you guys if the Corps was ordering a mix of F-35Bs and F-35Cs, but they're not.  They're moving forward with an all-STOVL force, so even in big-boy conflicts, the Marines on the ground will be relying on an aircraft with shorter legs, less playtime, and less ordnance.  The Corps has long prided itself on being able to handle most air missions in-house (1st MAW/7th AF in Vietnam, anyone?), and they're sacrificing some of that autonomy by placing ALL their eggs in the STOVL basket.  I love the Harrier and I think it does fill an important niche, but so do the Hornets in the VMFAs and AW squadrons, and those are niches the Marines seem keen on letting the Navy and the Air Force fill moving forward.     

[Dave S.]

I've not looked at the numbers, but is the single variant order driven by budget constraints, where it was an all or nothing option?  Otherwise, I would agree that a mixed bag of 'B' and 'C' would be an ideal option.

Loadout wise, on the 'B' model, if they know they will be operating from a standard runway on a particular mission, do they have the option of an increased operating weight (fuel and/or ordnance), foregoing any STOVL restricted lower weight limits?

[Joe Copalman]

I honestly don't know WHY the Corps is only ordering the STOVL variant, though my suspicion has been that it's to create enough build volume to make the per-unit cost more acceptable to the Brits and any other potential short-deck naval operators.  Just speculation, as I haven't found much info on why the decision was made, just tons of info on the fact that it was.

As far as performance, the lift fan is the major limiting factor.  The added weight means it will always suffer from degraded performance vice the F-35C.  I'm not sure what the space taken up by the lift fan is used for in the A and C models, but there's a 6,300-lb. difference in the amount of fuel they can carry, so I'd imagine that fuel storage takes up some of it. 

[jslugman]

Speaking of carriers, HMS Invincible up for sale:

http://tinyurl.com/24xwpxk

[cpasley]

Looks like their selling for scrap