RE: F-35 on board USS Wasp

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: F-35 on board USS Wasp

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> RE: F-35 on board USS Wasp

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: F-35 on board USS Wasp - 7/19/2015 3:12:22 PM

Rhygin00

Posts: 55
Joined: 11/4/2014
Status: offline

Detractors and bloggers often omit the that it is still in development. Problems are blown out of proportion and presented sensationally.

The F35 is one part of a whole system designed to defeat integrated air defense systems. But they treat it like it's supposed to be the P-38 Lightning and it's 1938.

Anyway, in that moment the F35 takes off to fight Russian or Chinese forces we are going to have other problems than worry about dogfighting capabilities of aircraft. Like nuclear armageddon.

(in reply to tacmaps)

Post #: 31

RE: F-35 on board USS Wasp - 7/21/2015 9:35:53 PM

Brent119

Posts: 9
Joined: 7/21/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckfinite

If anything, the CATOBAR requirement was actually the nasty one, too. This was the LM CALF (JSF predecessor, STOVL and conventional takeoff) proposal:
. . .
The F-35C's CATOBAR requirement was harder to fill than the STOVL's, driving a more conventional design. I think that this was because the F-35C is so much more radically different than either of the other two.

This is caused by a lot of things, including a much stronger fuselage, a larger wing, the totally different undercarriage, and the tailhook.

An interesting point that I had not heard made before. So you're suggesting that LM gave up their earlier canard-delta design largely due to the CV requirements? Do you know of a published source that alludes to this? Something I hadn't considered before.

Thanks for the insight.

< Message edited by Brent119 -- 7/21/2015 10:37:04 PM >

(in reply to ckfinite)

Post #: 32

RE: F-35 on board USS Wasp - 7/22/2015 2:25:48 PM

ckfinite

Posts: 377
Joined: 7/20/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brent119
An interesting point that I had not heard made before. So you're suggesting that LM gave up their earlier canard-delta design largely due to the CV requirements? Do you know of a published source that alludes to this? Something I hadn't considered before.

Thanks for the insight.

This has a lot of very very interesting PDFs linked from it. Of particular note is

quote:

The addition of four new ground-attack missions from the MRF
program changed the design emphasis from a fighter with some strike
capability to a strike aircraft with some air-to-air defensive capability.
The development of stealth and long-range air-to-air missiles had
changed the nature of air combat, and so the emphasis was on
achieving a first-look, first-kill capability and reducing the need to
dogfight at close range. For these reasons, the two AIM 9 missiles
were removed and the aircraft was designed to carry two 2000 lb
bombs in the internal weapons bays, in addition to the two AIM 120
missiles. This increased the aircraft�s frontal area and wave drag. The
Air Force variant was derived, as before, by removing the lift fan and
thrust-vectoring nozzles and substituting a fuel tank and conventional
cruise nozzle. These aircraft are shown in Fig. 15.