Trillion Dollar Trainwreck: How the F-35 Hollowed out the US Air Force by Bill Sweetman

[F119Doctor]

At OC-ALC only.

I’m not sure of the current F135 depot footprint. Besides OC-ALC at Tinker AFB, there was supposed to be another depot at NAS Jacksonville (which probably would have the same 50-50 work split) and I think one in Europe (Belgium ?). I believe that there is also some engine / module depot repair work being done at P&W facilities in West Palm Beach FL and at Edwards AFB to offload some backlogged work from OC-ALC due to the early turbine degradation and the pace of standing up the OC-ALC depot capabilities.

 

[edwest4]

For the United States, current thinking is called "low-intensity conflict." As in the case of relatively small-scale conflicts like Bosnia and Herzegovina. You can talk about engines and everything else all day. The point is having enough to take out the other guy, whoever that might be. You can make some improvements but again, if you have enough now and up to 5 years out based on projections, then that's enough.

 

[LowObservable]

The law on depot-level maintenance is that each Department (eg Dept. of the Air Force) has to perform 50% of all depot-level maintenance using federal govt. personnel. Because F-35 is high maintenance and a growing fleet, and because the process of shifting to organic Mx is going as well as everything else, it's causing a problem, particularly as older aircraft leaving the fleet are almost entirely government-maintained, because it gets hard to maintain the service-wide 50:50.

Catalog of horrors: https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-105341.pdf

 

[GTX]

I’m not sure of the current F135 depot footprint. Besides OC-ALC at Tinker AFB, there was supposed to be another depot at NAS Jacksonville (which probably would have the same 50-50 work split) and I think one in Europe (Belgium ?). I believe that there is also some engine / module depot repair work being done at P&W facilities in West Palm Beach FL and at Edwards AFB to offload some backlogged work from OC-ALC due to the early turbine degradation and the pace of standing up the OC-ALC depot capabilities.

JAX is working up - I was there only recently. There are also OCONUS depots in Norway, Netherlands, Australia and Japan + talk of one in Canada.

 

[icyplanetnhc (Steve)]

The USAF and Marines (and other partners) would have (and should have) had what they wanted several years ago if not for Lockheed's (mis)management of the program. Which has been an issue all along, as it's one of the reasons for Kelly Johnson setting up Skunk Works 80+ years ago.

To make JSF compatible with CATOBAR operation Lockheed had to switch from the layout used by their current CALF design to a more-conventional wing and tail configuration. Normally that wouldn't be an issue, but to my understanding because the overall length of the JSF was limited by the dimensions of an LHA/LHD elevator there was some negative performance impact with that change.

Indeed, I would even argue that it was the Navy being forced to join the Air Force and Marine Corps for JAST/JSF after the cancelation of A/F-X that caused many of the eventual developmental problems with the air vehicle. I think it’s fair to argue that the F-35 program suffered from quite a few preventable mistakes, but if we were to delve into the programmatic “what-if”, I think the big one for me is if A/F-X wasn’t canceled in the 1993 BUR, as some have alluded to. Then we would have had a separate CALF for the Air Force and Marine Corps and A/F-X for the Navy.

Just observing how the F-35 air vehicle design evolved, I think if it was just ASTOVL/CALF without the Navy requirements, then we may have ended up with a lighter and more aerodynamic airplane. CALF was originally a canard-delta design, and it was slow speed characteristics that caused the change to the conventional wing-tail; the former configuration could have allowed for a longer fuselage for the same overall length. Furthermore, CALF would have had smaller weapons bays sized for 1,000 lbs air-to-surface ordnance which was what the Air Force and Marine Corps required, while the Navy required 2,000 lb munitions. Lighter aircraft also means that the engine can be a bit smaller, perhaps something closer to the F119, which has a further cascading effect on weight.

I don’t think it was STOVL itself that caused much of the developmental issues, but it’s that combined with CV requirements. If it was either-or, i.e. either an Air Force/Marine Corps program or an Air Force/Navy program, things could have gone more smoothly.

The other question is whether the Navy was in any shape to properly manage the A/F-X in the 1990s had it not been canceled. NAVAIR got burned badly with the collapse of the A-12 and the Tailhook Scandal further took out a good chunk of the leadership. Always be mindful of Kelly Johnson’s 15th rule…

 

[LowObservable]

USAF/USN minus the Marines: KF-21 or J-35

USAF/USMC/RN minus the Navy: canard-delta CALF with an LPLC option

Ideal world: USAF gets F-117X and F-16 delta, USN evolves Super Bug and revives A-6F, USMC/RN get Harrier III with new wing, more power and FBW based on Bedford work, the latter vastly improving safety. R&D continues into post-2000 designs.

 

[sferrin]

Ideal world: USAF gets F-117X and F-16 delta, USN evolves Super Bug and revives A-6F, USMC/RN get Harrier III with new wing, more power and FBW based on Bedford work, the latter vastly improving safety. R&D continues into post-2000 designs.

And they'd all be obsolete by now. Strange use of "Ideal". I know I wouldn't want to put a Harrier or A-6 against a J-20. I wonder if they could have designed the F-35 with a plug in the middle for the A/Cs.

 

[Desertfox]

USAF/USN minus the Marines: KF-21 or J-35

USAF/USMC/RN minus the Navy: canard-delta CALF with an LPLC option

Ideal world: USAF gets F-117X and F-16 delta, USN evolves Super Bug and revives A-6F, USMC/RN get Harrier III with new wing, more power and FBW based on Bedford work, the latter vastly improving safety. R&D continues into post-2000 designs.

In an ideal world, F-16XL beats out F-15E, F-14+ beats out F/A-18E/F, and YF-23 beats out F-22. Neither the USAF or Navy need a JSF anymore so the USAF spends their money on FB-23 (to replace the non-existent F-15E) and the Navy on F-23N (to replace the F-14). Marines draw the short straw and get a Harrier II+. Eventually, the Marines and the USAF team up on CALF and the Navy teams up with South Korea. Costs for these would be cheaper as technology would be more mature due to the later timeline.

NGAD and F/A-XX would not exists as the F-23 and F-23N would fit the bill and still in production.

 

[red admiral]

USAF/USN minus the Marines: KF-21 or J-35

But those are significantly smaller aircraft which don't do the same thing. The same payload, avionics, and air vehicle performance requirements lead to a bigger aircraft that needs bigger engines than F414 class. No STOVL doesn't change that. I think you're more likely to end up with a longer (bays in front of engine) F-35C with F119 derivative (e.g. axisymmetric nozzle, more electrical power)

Ideal world: US defence industrial base still needs at least one new build combat aircraft programme in this time frame. Continuing to warm over the 60s/70s designs leads to a lot of skills fade

 

[Trident]

I know I wouldn't want to put a Harrier or A-6 against a J-20.

Considering Ukraine's performance with comparatively measly Harpoons and Neptuns against the Russian Black Sea Fleet, would you want to put your carrier group within F-35B range of an opponent armed with stuff like Yakhont, Tsirkon, YJ-12, YJ-18, DF-100 and DF-21D?

Nevermind the aircraft's survivability, such a peer opponent simply is not a valid use case for a STOVL carrier. If you don't put up EMALS/AAG and fixed wing AEW, stealthy fighters become nothing more than a costly pretense liable to lure you into even costlier misadventures. Either you can afford a proper carrier cabability or... you can't.

But those are significantly smaller aircraft which don't do the same thing.

Smaller than the F-35? 2x F414 is at least the same thrust as 1xF135, probably more if you go for one of the proposed growth variants (which you could, since it'd be substituting a growth variant of the F119...).

 

[red admiral]

Smaller than the F-35? 2x F414 is at least the same thrust as 1xF135, probably more if you go for one of the proposed growth variants (which you could, since it'd be substituting a growth variant of the F119...).

By smaller I mean lighter as mass is really the sizing output for aircraft

When you look at F414 in KF-21 then it should be noted that its significantly lower internal payload and range. More thrust is necessary. Sure could do a "variant" of F414 much like F135 is a variant of F119...

 

[sferrin]

Considering Ukraine's performance with comparatively measly Harpoons and Neptuns against the Russian Black Sea Fleet, would you want to put your carrier group within F-35B range of an opponent armed with stuff like Yakhont, Tsirkon, YJ-12, YJ-18, DF-100 and DF-21D?

Like comparing a champion MMA fighter to a crack head in an alley. Not at all comparable.

Nevermind the aircraft's survivability, such a peer opponent simply is not a valid use case for a STOVL carrier. If you don't put up EMALS/AAG and fixed wing AEW, stealthy fighters become nothing more than a costly pretense liable to lure you into even costlier misadventures. Either you can afford a proper carrier cabability or... you can't.

You should inform Japan, South Korea, the UK, and USMC. They don't have access to your expertise.

 

[Trident]

By smaller I mean lighter as mass is really the sizing output for aircraft

When you look at F414 in KF-21 then it should be noted that its significantly lower internal payload and range. More thrust is necessary. Sure could do a "variant" of F414 much like F135 is a variant of F119...

I think you are taking LO's point too literally there. KF-21 might indeed be lighter (how you figure J-35 also is I'm already unable to follow though), but that doesn't mean a notional aircraft powered by 2x F414 necessarily has to be. No comment about the likelihood of the USN buying Chinese?

 

[Bruno Anthony]

USN evolves Super Bug

Lime green station wagon with wood paneling. Embarrassing that it became the backbone for US naval aviation.
A GWOT type aircraft.

 

[Jackonicko]

Considering Ukraine's performance with comparatively measly Harpoons and Neptuns against the Russian Black Sea Fleet, would you want to put your carrier group within F-35B range of an opponent armed with stuff like Yakhont, Tsirkon, YJ-12, YJ-18, DF-100 and DF-21D?

Nevermind the aircraft's survivability, such a peer opponent simply is not a valid use case for a STOVL carrier. If you don't put up EMALS/AAG and fixed wing AEW, stealthy fighters become nothing more than a costly pretense liable to lure you into even costlier misadventures. Either you can afford a proper carrier cabability or... you can't.

You wouldn't want to put a carrier within F-35C range of such an opponent, either. EMALS doesn't give your air wing enough of a boost in range to render a carrier survivable.

 

[Jackonicko]

NGAD and F/A-XX would not exists as the F-23 and F-23N would fit the bill and still in production.

F-23 would be teetering on the edge of irrelevance/obsolescence, just the same as F-35 and F-22 are. NGAD would be just as necessary in the coming epoch.

 

[sferrin]

You wouldn't want to put a carrier within F-35C range of such an opponent, either. EMALS doesn't give your air wing enough of a boost in range to render a carrier survivable.

Name a time in history when the USN (or any navy for that matter) never operated under threat of attack. During the Cold War, the USN planned on sailing into the North Atlantic under threat of regiments of Kh-22 armed Backfires, P-700 armed Oscars, and more. The whole, "oh my God naval warfare is obsolete because *GASP* they might come under attack" is so much nonsense.

 

[sferrin]

F-23 would be teetering on the edge of irrelevance/obsolescence, just the same as F-35 and F-22 are. NGAD would be just as necessary in the coming epoch.

The FB-23, on the other hand, would be just what we're looking for.

 

[Desertfox]

F-23 would be teetering on the edge of irrelevance/obsolescence, just the same as F-35 and F-22 are. NGAD would be just as necessary in the coming epoch.

In that scenario the F-23 and its derivatives remain in production unlike the F-22 and get upgraded, so much more capable than the OG ones, and the F-23 had better range, speed, and RCS than the F-22, so it would already be closer to NGAD specs. Yes you still need a follow on, but less priority as you would be currently building F-23C/Ds vs F-15EX.

Also the F-22/35 are not obsolescent, they are still top of the line in Europe. Only their range is an issue in the Pacific, but just about everyone has range issues in the Pacific.

 

[icyplanetnhc (Steve)]

USAF/USMC/RN minus the Navy: canard-delta CALF with an LPLC option

I'm not sure if LPLC would be the superior STOVL option as compared to SDLF, but regardless, without the Navy, the resulting CALF would be a lighter aircraft such that even in an "ideal world", I think an F-16 replacement (MRF) and a Harrier replacement (ASTOVL) can be reasonably developed using a common airframe family.

In that scenario the F-23 and its derivatives remain in production unlike the F-22 and get upgraded, so much more capable than the OG ones, and the F-23 had better range, speed, and RCS than the F-22, so it would already be closer to NGAD specs. Yes you still need a follow on, but less priority as you would be currently building F-23C/Ds vs F-15EX.

The production F-22 and F-23 likely wouldn't have differed all that much in performance. Certainly the YF-23 had a notable speed advantage over the YF-22, partly due to the latter's complete redesign of the basic configuration a mere 8 months before the lines were frozen, making it not quite refined (quite visibly so). A lot of evolution and refinement occurred by the time the FSD/EMD proposals were submitted such that they were technically quite competitive with each other. That said, I doubt that whatever range advantage the F-23 had would be enough for what USAF is requiring for INDOPACOM.

On the other hand, the FB-22 or FB-23 would probably be more suitable at least in terms of range as they were designed to be regional bombers. That said, the FB-23 would have had a substantially different fuselage than the F-23 that's longer, fuller, and beefier, which would have driven development costs. It's for this reason that the FB-22 design schemes migrated away from initial proposals involving a fuselage stretch and widening (FB-22-1 and FB-22-2), to using the stock fuselage while enlarging the wings only (FB-22-3 and FB-22-4).

But the F-23 would have faced the exact same political pressures that the F-22 did in the late 2000s that ended its production, when the DoD leadership was so focused on counterinsurgency.

 

[quellish]

Lime green station wagon with wood paneling. Embarrassing that it became the backbone for US naval aviation.
A GWOT type aircraft.

Maybe, but there is a valid argument that the F-35 is the 21st century wagon Queen Family Truckster

 

[MrTopaz]

Maybe, but there is a valid argument that the F-35 is the 21st century wagon Queen Family Truckster

"TR3's delayed. The Moose out front should have told you."

 

[Bruno Anthony]

the F-35

f-35. Kind of a F fighter. Yes, it’s the newer model station wagon.

 

[sferrin]

Maybe, but there is a valid argument that the F-35 is the 21st century wagon Queen Family Truckster

View attachment 730354

That would mean the Eurocanards are Model Ts.

 

[Shoes31]

You should inform Japan, South Korea, the UK, and USMC. They don't have access to your expertise.

And China with the LHD-076 - they're adding a single EMALS to launch drones looks like.

Make a few of those drones be an AEW lite and a few be airborne refuelers like the MQ-25. And if you can use EMALS to launch an STOVL aircraft like the F-35B you can greatly increase takeoff weight - you wouldn't need a long landing deck due to the vertical landing. That'd be a very useful little carrier for a lot of navies.

Back to the F-35 - While I think the goal of one common aircraft across all services is great it end up hampering the industrial base too much by having only one prime with successful 5th gen fighter design experience. If it was split into two programs like a USAF/USMC and a separate for USN I bet we'd have both programs in their block 4 configuration already. Force both programs to use the same engine and radar for commonality there. Cost per plane may be higher but I wonder if those two programs would have lower recuring annual operating costs by now as was promised.

 

[LowObservable]

USAF/USN minus the Marines: KF-21 or J-35

USAF/USMC/RN minus the Navy: canard-delta CALF with an LPLC option

Ideal world: USAF gets F-117X and F-16 delta, USN evolves Super Bug and revives A-6F, USMC/RN get Harrier III with new wing, more power and FBW based on Bedford work, the latter vastly improving safety. R&D continues into post-2000 designs.

I think a lot of people missed the last sentence. From 2000 onwards there is a metric ****ton of cash not being spent on F-35. The adaptive engine gets funded. Maybe the DARPA QSP project reaches the demonstrator stage. A next-gen bomber doesn't have to struggle until 2010 to get support. A-6F and Harrier III turn out to be just what's needed in the Middle East.

PS1 - An MMA champion can get taken out by a crackhead in an alley.

PS2 - Referencing the expertise of the organization that gave us V-22, EFV and the "upgrade" CH-53K. Suure.

 

[Archibald]

How about Lockheed AF/X ?
-okay, gold-plated like the NATF before it (a VG naval F-22.. yay !)
-Except it replaces a crapload of types across USN and Air Force: Tomcat, A-6, F-111, F-15E eventually.
-Because it brings A-12 and NATF missions into a single airframe
-Much better that Superbug.
-Funded by Superbug money and obviously a large slice of the F-35 trillions and trillions of dollars (spoofing Carl Sagan here).

Of course the AV-8B, Hornets and F-16s still need a successor: a LWF type. To VSTOL or not VSTOL ? that's the question. I'll note however that, 30 years after 1994 the F-16, F-15 and Super Hornet are still in production (or close) and kicking...

OTL Superbug and F-35 replaced many types but: from the bottom of the performance scale. Raw performance was lost, compare to A-6 and Tomcat.
How about starting from above, that is just below NATF & A-12 ? Combining their missions into AF/X, built out of F-22 technology. F-22 remains the ultimate heavy interceptor, AF/X takes all the high-performance missions besides it (USAF heavy attack, Navy large interceptor, Navy heavy attack).

 

[Trident]

You should inform Japan, South Korea, the UK, and USMC. They don't have access to your expertise.

You forgot Italy, South Korea on the other hand might yet go CATOBAR (and then use a KF-21 variant...). The thing is, if these operators (excepting the UK, which had the choice of going CATOBAR) are to maintain/acquire any carrier aviation capability at all, the F-35B was the only game in town. For lack of any viable alternative, their choice of the JSF can hardly count for an unreserved endorsement of the concept of VLO STOVL.

I also get the impression that within these organisations, there is a definite awareness that their fixed wing capability is not a first-day/peer-adversary strike option. Not sure that wisdom extends up to the government level (let alone the armchair community), but the fact remains that for asymmetric warfare something less gold-plated and therefore cheaper (like a Harrier III) would have sufficed.

Japan is a bit of an exception here, since as far as I understand their intention is to use the capability more for blue water operations (protection of SLOCs etc.). This removes a lot of the land-based missile threat and enemy aircraft, though potentially larger and longer-ranged, will be encountering the F-35s while operating at the outer edge of their own range envelope. I could see that working reasonably well, actually, but it's a tiny niche.

You wouldn't want to put a carrier within F-35C range of such an opponent, either. EMALS doesn't give your air wing enough of a boost in range to render a carrier survivable.

Preferably not, to be frank. But 33% of additional stand-off and a big, powerful radar operating 24/7 at 8000m combine to give the kind of massive improvement in advance warning time and engagement window duration against the air breathing threats which makes the whole idea more tenable. MUCH more tenable - on that point I agree with sferrin (with the caveat that the kind of scenario which the USN carrier fleet was designed to operate in thankfully never occurred, so remains unproven).

And China with the LHD-076 - they're adding a single EMALS to launch drones looks like.

Make a few of those drones be an AEW lite and a few be airborne refuelers like the MQ-25. And if you can use EMALS to launch an STOVL aircraft like the F-35B you can greatly increase takeoff weight - you wouldn't need a long landing deck due to the vertical landing. That'd be a very useful little carrier for a lot of navies.

A qualitatively different concept that doesn't at all support the idea of VLO STOVL - note how China is NOT using a manned, STOVL combat aircraft! By using catapult-launched UCAVs for strike, ALL of the drawbacks disappear: range is dramatically improved, AEW can be based on a fixed-wing platform and the risk of losing valuable air crew is completely absent. Your suggestion of adding EMALS launch capability to the F-35B (quite apart from the fact that it's a non-starter due to airframe stress issues) speaks volumes: to make VLO STOVL viable, basically turn it into VLO CATOBAR... yeah, very sensible.

 

[LowObservable]

The thing is, if these operators (excepting the UK, which had the choice of going CATOBAR) are to maintain/acquire any carrier aviation capability at all, the F-35B was the only game in town.

I know someone who will sell you a modern CATOBAR multi-role fighter with a long and well-funded future, no bigger than the jets that the RN operated from a 27000 ton Light Fleet Carrier. (You may or may not not know that the Rafale M OEW is no heavier than a Sea Vixen.) Now give me a NeoGannet, preferably unmanned...

 

[Shoes31]

A qualitatively different concept that doesn't at all support the idea of VLO STOVL - note how China is NOT using a manned, STOVL combat aircraft! By using catapult-launched UCAVs for strike, ALL of the drawbacks disappear: range is dramatically improved, AEW can be based on a fixed-wing platform and the risk of losing valuable air crew is completely absent. Your suggestion of adding EMALS launch capability to the F-35B (quite apart from the fact that it's a non-starter due to airframe stress issues) speaks volumes: to make VLO STOVL viable, basically turn it into VLO CATOBAR... yeah, very sensible.

All the drawbacks have not disappeared, unless you really believe drones and AI are ready for primetime actions. Otherwise you still need a man in the loop, preferably in the air with the strike package to help resist any jamming. Also its a little disingenuous when talking about China's capabilities, as they do not have a manned STOVL stealth aircraft available for the role. If they did - they may go down that route.

My suggestion of the EMALs launched F-35B, which may never be feasible, was to be able to increase takeoff weight. The idea being for catapult assisted takeoff, but shipborne rolling vertical landing (not arrested recovery). If you're going to catapult launch UCAVs, might be worth seeing what else you can use the catapult for (especially since with EMALs you can vary the acceleration). However if you have an MQ-25 or similar that is not needed as the F-35B can take off, then refuel mid air to continue on the mission.

 

[sferrin]

I think a lot of people missed the last sentence. From 2000 onwards there is a metric ****ton of cash not being spent on F-35. The adaptive engine gets funded. Maybe the DARPA QSP project reaches the demonstrator stage. A next-gen bomber doesn't have to struggle until 2010 to get support. A-6F and Harrier III turn out to be just what's needed in the Middle East.

PS1 - An MMA champion can get taken out by a crackhead in an alley.*

PS2 - Referencing the expertise of the organization that gave us V-22, EFV and the "upgrade" CH-53K. Suure.

PS1* - But 99% of the time the crackhead gets their a** beat.

If you think an F-35 wouldn't be able to hack it today, imagine how poorly all those non-stealthy aircraft from the 60s would fair.

 

[Desertfox]

I'm not sure if LPLC would be the superior STOVL option as compared to SDLF, but regardless, without the Navy, the resulting CALF would be a lighter aircraft such that even in an "ideal world", I think an F-16 replacement (MRF) and a Harrier replacement (ASTOVL) can be reasonably developed using a common airframe family.


The production F-22 and F-23 likely wouldn't have differed all that much in performance. Certainly the YF-23 had a notable speed advantage over the YF-22, partly due to the latter's complete redesign of the basic configuration a mere 8 months before the lines were frozen, making it not quite refined (quite visibly so). A lot of evolution and refinement occurred by the time the FSD/EMD proposals were submitted such that they were technically quite competitive with each other. That said, I doubt that whatever range advantage the F-23 had would be enough for what USAF is requiring for INDOPACOM.

On the other hand, the FB-22 or FB-23 would probably be more suitable at least in terms of range as they were designed to be regional bombers. That said, the FB-23 would have had a substantially different fuselage than the F-23 that's longer, fuller, and beefier, which would have driven development costs. It's for this reason that the FB-22 design schemes migrated away from initial proposals involving a fuselage stretch and widening (FB-22-1 and FB-22-2), to using the stock fuselage while enlarging the wings only (FB-22-3 and FB-22-4).

But the F-23 would have faced the exact same political pressures that the F-22 did in the late 2000s that ended its production, when the DoD leadership was so focused on counterinsurgency.

The idea would be that with no JSF, Superhornet, or F-15E and with FB-23 and F-23N also in production, the production line of F-23's would last long enough for the focus on COIN to end and a second batch be built instead of F-15EX.

 

[Trident]

I know someone who will sell you a modern CATOBAR multi-role fighter with a long and well-funded future, no bigger than the jets that the RN operated from a 27000 ton Light Fleet Carrier. (You may or may not not know that the Rafale M OEW is no heavier than a Sea Vixen.) Now give me a NeoGannet, preferably unmanned...

Yup, I don't think Dassault gets enough credit for the amazing degree of commonality between the Rafale M & C, without either being in any major way compromised over a bespoke aircraft. And for good measure, they also managed to package Super Hornet payload/range (if operated from a USN 90m catapult) into a Classic Hornet size airframe!

As for Sea Vixens and light carriers though, I don't think the accident rate and habitability would pass muster today Realistically, I suspect CdG is probably as small as a carrier with Rafales and Hawkeyes is reasonably going to get. In fact, a non-French conventionally-powered hull would arguably need to be larger in order to maintain adequate aviation fuel bunkerage.

 

[sferrin]

Yup, I don't think Dassault gets enough credit for the amazing degree of commonality between the Rafale M & C, without either being in any major way compromised over a bespoke aircraft. And for good measure, they also managed to package Super Hornet payload/range (if operated from a USN 90m catapult) into a Classic Hornet size airframe!

As for Sea Vixens and light carriers though, I don't think the accident rate and habitability would pass muster today Realistically, I suspect CdG is probably as small as a carrier with Rafales and Hawkeyes is reasonably going to get. In fact, a non-French conventionally-powered hull would arguably need to be larger in order to maintain adequate aviation fuel bunkerage.

Shame it's just an outdated Model T. Useful for bombing tents in a desert but don't ask it to fight against a near peer.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Shame it's just an outdated Model T. Useful for bombing tents in a desert but don't ask it to fight against a near peer.

I’ll take Rafale over the Gripen, Super Hornet, Typhoon & maybe f-35.

 

[sferrin]

I’ll take Rafale over the Gripen, Super Hornet, Typhoon & maybe f-35.

If I had to go against a J-20 (and an F-22 wasn't available) I think I'd prefer the F-35. You can take the Rafale for a spin.

 

[LowObservable]

Yup, I don't think Dassault gets enough credit for the amazing degree of commonality between the Rafale M & C, without either being in any major way compromised over a bespoke aircraft. And for good measure, they also managed to package Super Hornet payload/range (if operated from a USN 90m catapult) into a Classic Hornet size airframe!

As for Sea Vixens and light carriers though, I don't think the accident rate and habitability would pass muster today Realistically, I suspect CdG is probably as small as a carrier with Rafales and Hawkeyes is reasonably going to get. In fact, a non-French conventionally-powered hull would arguably need to be larger in order to maintain adequate aviation fuel bunkerage.

Obtaining commonality was difficult and one reason Dassault invented CATIA.

You may be right about the size of Hermes, but the point remains that you can have a waaay-sub-CVN carrier without STOVL.

 

[sferrin]

Obtaining commonality was difficult and one reason Dassault invented CATIA.

CATIA has been around a whole lot longer than Rafale.

 

[LowObservable]

CATIA has been around a whole lot longer than Rafale.

Not by much at all. Contemporary with first ACX studies, which were aimed at both CTOL and CV from the start.

 

[sferrin]

Not by much at all. Contemporary with first ACX studies, which were aimed at both CTOL and CV from the start.

"CATIA started as an in-house development in 1977 by French aircraft manufacturer Avions Marcel Dassault to provide 3D surface modeling and NC[further explanation needed] functions for the CADAM software they used at that time[4] to develop the Mirage fighter jet. Initially named CATI (conception assistée tridimensionnelle interactive – French for interactive aided three-dimensional design), it was renamed CATIA in 1981 when Dassault created the subsidiary Dassault Systèmes to develop and sell the software, under the management of its first CEO, Francis Bernard. Dassault Systèmes signed a non-exclusive distribution agreement with IBM,[5] that was also selling CADAM for Lockheed since 1978. Version 1 was released in 1982 as an add-on for CADAM."

"At the same time as the multinational talks were occurring, Dassault-Breguet had been busy designing its Avion de Combat Experimental (ACX). During late 1978, prior to France's joining of the ECA, Dassault received contracts for the development of project ACT 92 (Avion de Combat Tactique, meaning "Tactical Combat Airplane"). The following year, the National Office for Aviation Studies and Research began studying the possible configurations of the new fighter under the codename Rapace ("Bird of Prey"). By March 1980, the number of configurations had been narrowed down to four, two of which had a combination of canards, delta wings and a single vertical tail-fin.[11] The ACX project was given political impetus when the French government awarded a contract for two (later reduced to one) technology demonstrator aircraft on 13 April 1983."

Pretty close.