siegecrossbow
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 12 March 2012
- Messages
- 539
- Reaction score
- 1,402
No surprise really since the F-35A dominated F-15SG during air combat exercise.
They started of with 4x F-35B, then take up the option for another 8x F-35B, and now another 8x F-35A .....The Singaporean F-35B order also started off as a purchase of 8, so I'd imagine there's likely an option in that contract for another four.
Ah, the old NBMR3 that lead to Harrier...I think Singapore's concern is that it has one military airfield and one civilian airport (admittedly quite large) inside its borders. So STOVL has advantages from a land basing point of view for them.
I don't believe that they'd have voids without any access.Reminds me of the legends of riveted ships with an apprentice or two accidentally sealed away.
There are more than one military air bases and more than one civilian airports ..... besides the Singaporeans do demonstrate taking off and landing on its highway every few years ..... Check out Ex Torrent .....
Fact Sheet: RSAF Exercise Torrent 2016
The Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) will be conducting Exercise Torrent, also known as the Alternate Runway Exercise, from 10 to 14 November 2016. This is the seventh Exercise Torrent. The first exercise was conducted on 17 Apr 1986 with the participation of the A-4 and F-5 fighter...www.mindef.gov.sg
RSAF Exercise Torrent 2016
Editor’s note: The MAphotoSG group would like to thank the RSAF’s New Media and Public Relations Branch, especially Malcolm Koh, for the invitation and arrangements to cover the preparation and conducting of Exercise Torrent VII. Over the period of 10-13 November 2016, the Republic of Singapore...www.maphotosg.com
I'm kinda surprised that Singapore didn't order F35Cs instead of the -As, the extra wing area to take off and land in less distance...I will be surprised if Singapore does not order more F--35Bs over the F-35As since the B as you say DWG can be operated without the use of runways.
Solely off land? No, I think it's just the USN and USMC with -Cs right now, but they do fly them from land at least half the time.Has anyone bought Cs with the intent to use them off land?
No, there's no space for it in the -Bs, and the -A and -C would lose half the fuselage fuel tank along with space earmarked for a laser turret.On another F-35 issue I wonder if a two-seat variant will be developed?
No, there's no space for it in the -Bs, and the -A and -C would lose half the fuselage fuel tank along with space earmarked for a laser turret.
It could be done I suppose by either developing a longer nose section or developed from the -B by having a second seat in place of the lift-fan.
To use Cs capabilities they will have to train yet another set of pilots from scratch, though.The Cs have a much shorter runway requirement but they also are the heaviest version and the slowest acceleration.
To use Cs capabilities they will have to train yet another set of pilots from scratch, though.
Not really, they're not operating them on carriers, or using catapults/arresting gear on land.To use Cs capabilities they will have to train yet another set of pilots from scratch, though.
I meant this:Not really, they're not operating them on carriers, or using catapults/arresting gear on land.
Just a bigger wing and new NLG, I think.
The extra wing fold area on the F-35C does not contain any fuel (correct me if I am wrong) so range wise it is exactly the same as the F-35A as you rightly say Ainen. I would rather Singapore buy more F-35A and B models rather than the C for obvious reasons.
So there is very little in the difference between the A and C models range wise, I am surprised at the extra drag but I suppose that is the consequence of the extra enginering required to handle the stress of carrier take off's and landings.
Drag come from bigger control surfaces. There is also extra weight from the reinforced structure, even more than the lift fan from what I recall.So there is very little in the difference between the A and C models range wise, I am surprised at the extra drag but I suppose that is the consequence of the extra enginering required to handle the stress of carrier take off's and landings.
The range is not similar. The C has a substantially higher range than the A when flying the same profile. It can fly at higher altitudes and lower speeds thanks to its big wing. The published range figures are for the C flying a carrier profile and the A flying a land based profile, hence why they are similar.Range is similar. C has more fuel but more drag. Shorter takeoffs and landings would be the only advantage, at the expense of acceleration.
It's missing Tengah airbase. Seletar is a regional airport that mainly services small passenger planes/private flights. Paya Lebar is where the F-15s are, Tengah is F-16.(via wiki) Singapore has Changi East, Changi West, and Changi Airport sharing three runways, plus Paya Lebar, Seletar and Sembawang
But they're all squished into a small area, so if one can be brought under fire, likely so can all the others, making the F-35B's ability to be runway independent potentially useful.
I’ll take your word for it; I am just using published figures.The range is not similar. The C has a substantially higher range than the A when flying the same profile. It can fly at higher altitudes and lower speeds thanks to its big wing. The published range figures are for the C flying a carrier profile and the A flying a land based profile, hence why they are similar.
Your figures are off. https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/..._2022_SARS/F-35_SAR_Dec_2022_25_July_2023.pdfF-35A, 2752 km range
F-35B, range of 1980 km, short takeoff and vertical landing - 1352 km
F-35C, range 2,612 km
It is a .mil link, that's probably why. Here is the relevant screenshot. As I said, the C's profile involves loitering for the carrier landing pattern which takes up some range. I will also make note of the comments by several F-35 pilots, most notably Billie Flynn on the Afternburn Podcast, that " the A was really meant to have the C's wings". This indicates that there is a tangible range benefit to the C's wings that outweigh extra drag and weight.Your link is not available to me
I don't know that there's a whole lot of reinforced structure unique to the -C model. Only parts I'm positive are different are the larger wings and catapult bar twin wheel nose landing gear. The mains may well be unique to the -C as well, but I haven't seen anything that says so.I meant this:
View: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/KLAOPg6AxFM
If we want to use STOL qualities of C, it requires different basics. Like, if you overpay for all that reinforced structure - may as well use it...or just buy more A, range difference is negligible.
I don't know that there's a whole lot of reinforced structure unique to the -C model.