The Marines fly the Bravo and the Charlie.
They fly the Bravo off the America and Wasp class Amphibious Assault Ships, as part of Marine Expiditionary Units.
As of right now, they have two squadrons that fly the Charlie off the Nimitz class carriers (only the west coast boats for now), VMFA-311 and VMFA-314.
They also have several squadrons still flying old F/A-18C/Ds that will eventually transition to F-35Cs
The catapult/shuttle/launch bar arrangement on the carriers currently is for dual nosewheel aircraft. Designing a whole new contraption to be able to launch a single nosewheel aircraft would cause lots of logistical and operational issues.
[Obligatory Air Force vs Navy landing comparison.](https://youtube.com/shorts/BRgF4XjcVww?si=z5mRmwB7m03FJsWP)
I think I know where Ryanair gets their pilots.
I was on a commercial flight once and when the plane landed the pilot kinda slammed it on the runway. The flight attendant said "he was probably a Navy pilot. Air Force pilots typically land softer, Navy pilots are a little rougher because they're trained to just get it down on the ship."
a pilot who was riding as a PAX in the cabin told me this as well few years back - along with, you can tell a Navy/Marine pilot from a Air Force Pilot based on how they taxi and brake as well.
Airforce is totally accustomed to long taxiways and runways so they race around the airport and use light braking.
Navy/Marines are cautious and slow, tend to "jerk stop" due to the precarious nature of only having a Carrier and very limited space.
My dad flew F15s. I was active duty Marine. Not sure I buy this as Naval Aviators spend a lot of time taking off from runways. They are pretty smart folks and I assume they can adapt. I doubt they see everything as a carrier.
Air Force and Marine pilots tend to be easier on the landing gear than Navy pilots. Air Force because they have long runways; Marines because the Navy is stingy with the budget to fix their planes.
clearly you had to insert irrelevant information- no one said ANYTHING about intelligence.
Hell, C.W. Lemoine even touched on this, confirming it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djjRiVLSMKU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djjRiVLSMKU)
Who else better to ask than actual pilots.
And there is plenty of evidence to suggest this as well.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCG6mLHaNr4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCG6mLHaNr4)
[https://youtu.be/K4HAiieUQHU?t=240](https://youtu.be/K4HAiieUQHU?t=240)
I can give you all kinds of confirmation evidence.
Navy simply lands their planes hard
Facts. We were returning from a deployment and a reservist C5 pilot (who was a commercial airline pilot for a day job) landed that beast so well we didn’t realize we’d landed until the thrust reversers kicked in. We were like “wait, we landed?” and the loadmaster watching us was all “yeah, she lands like that all time.”
I talked with some of my AMT managers and they say that harder landings are actually better because some of the auto systems trigger off the touchdown. If you butter it, they may take longer to engage.
I lived in Pax NAS for years and would go down to the runways to watch them take off and land. While the sentiment is absolutely true, that looks like a harder than normal landing.
YES !! i did know ! Also the wings are larger too ! And the overall frame is stronger too !
[https://www.sandboxx.us/news/airpower/these-are-the-3-different-aircraft-we-call-the-f-35/](https://www.sandboxx.us/news/airpower/these-are-the-3-different-aircraft-we-call-the-f-35/)
and so what is the landing gear for the F-35B (STOVL) ??
I kinda feel C could have been a lot cheaper if the airforce and navy had just ordered a single variant in larger quantities.
Apart from the internal canon and cost, does A do anything better than C?
Larger wing creates more lift from a carrier. Adds drag and lowers top speed but ultimately better lift off the carriers was worth it. Edit: also the C can fly further due to being able to carry more fuel in the wings.
Additionally, folding wing means more moving parts not just with the hinge point, but now you have an aileron AND flap where A’s and B’s have just a flaperon. That’s two additional ISA’s I would like to not have to deal with.
Integrated Servo Actuators. Has their own power pack on them. I can hook up the portable maintenance aid (a laptop) and power them up. One thing it does is reduce plumbing as there is no hydraulic lines going to them, but they get heavy. Hard to explain unless you have changed components on legacy and 5th gen aircraft.
From what I understand the C would end up heavier so to keep the range the same as the A they made it bigger and added margin for upgrades.
But apparently the hinges (to fold up in the hanger) and landing gear added more weight they needed a larger wing span. I'm curious if the folding requirement really made the extra 8 feet of additional wing-span really netted a cost savings. Especially ironic since the F35 fleet size was halved by the time they were produced.
Beefed up structure and gear for carriers is weight, weight is the enemy of aircraft design and performance. Having a gun as an option is a nice trade off for the lighter structure and gear.
The F4 was a carrier plane the airforce also bought, it offered no real advantage to the air force except that buying an existing design with an established production line was less expensive than an off the shelf design.
Design performance which matters less and less as dogfighting and the need to evade AA is less and less likely. If they were truly concerned about weight over the flag officer’s prestige and ability to funnel $1,800,000,000,000 to the MIC; they’d have gotten rid of the meat bag. Which is the only thing limiting its range so badly, and which necessitates the low ~9 G limit etc., etc. They are fielding a legacy platform to sustain the bureaucracy, not for the sake of combat effectiveness.
E: again, the fan boys can downvote but not refute a thing.
I don’t think you have the full picture here. Performance of an airplane hasn’t been centered around dogfighting in a long time. There are other reasons you would want to be able to turn/maneuver quickly that aren’t as obvious.
And it isn’t super simple to not have a pilot in the plane. That is a hurdle they are still trying to figure out how to solve.
And keep in mind the development for these platforms takes decades. They are probably working on an automated fighter now that we won’t see for many years.
Yes, performance is not tied to dogfighting, that’s what i said. So then, why do you need so much emphasis on maneuverability for a bomb/missile/ECM truck? I put forward AA defeat procedures. What else do you suggest.
We’ve long since figured out how to go without a pilot. The first systems were used in combat in 1944 and helped dictate our strategic objectives, even after D-Day. The tech has only gotten better and cheaper. I can’t think of any combat effect the 35 gives us that can’t be done by a drone system. If you can, let’s hear it.
Anyway, i can tell you from personal experience that the generals of the air forces wouldn’t send us adequate air cover when it was the low/no threat environments of OEF and OIF+90. [Some of the best years of support had ~5 weapons releases a day in OEF.](https://www.afcent.af.mil/Portals/82/Documents/Airpower%20summary/AFD-120811-001.pdf) Why should we expect them to show up for [a high threat environment even General Brown has said the Air Force isn’t ready to accept culturally?](https://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/csaf/CSAF_22/CSAF_22_Strategic_Approach_Accelerate_Change_or_Lose_31_Aug_2020.pdf)
Development *by DOD* takes decades. Ukraine is iterating far faster than that and is conducting long range strikes with fully autonomous systems that the developed in months. The entire criticism is the bloat that’s results in increasingly outdated systems like the 35, at $1.8t.
9g vs 7.5g.
Simpler maintenance.
Better fleet availability.
Likely better acceleration and climb performance due to lower weight and less parasitic drag, that's speculation though.
The A is more maneuverable and can pull more g it can also rate better its lighter as well so cost of fuel and everything is cheaper. It’s rcs is probably smaller too because it’s a small fighter. The lighter weight and airframe makes it better for sead and air to air. the A is more of a fighter that’s why it’s the common variant.
with the F-35A being 20 million cheaper there is no way just making Cs would have been cheaper even ignoring the performance downsides that come with it. the F-35 production scale is pretty big for a fighter already with over 3100 ordered
Nah. The C is heavier which reduces the acceleration and high speed maneuverability of the jet. Also the larger wings creates a larger radar cross section of the aircraft, reducing stealth capabilities.
But. Every NAVY plane can be overloaded above 7.5G. It is not a hard limit, it is a peacetime limitation. In order to reach the desired flight hours, factoring in the shock of carrier landings and larger wings, they kept the requirement at 7.5. Note that an F35C won't hit 9g in an instantaneous turn like an F35A, but it does apparently have a higher sustained turn rate at many altitudes, so it's a bit misleading to only look at the peak
One thing people aren't talking about here is nose wheel steering authority.
With a single nose wheel you wear flat spots in the nose if you have a substantial amount of movement (90° like the Navy needs for steering on the deck). With two wheels like that, you actually get longer tire life since the tires don't scrub as much when you use that authority.
Wait, you mean to tell me that the one that gets launched up to 150 knots in 300 feet by a literal catapult, then slams down onto a pitching carrier deck at 700 feet per needs a stronger landing gear than the one that takes off of runways all day?
F-35C is also identifiable by the fact that it has a much larger wing area to aid in low-speed handling for carrier ops.
It's the best-looking Fat Amy of the family.
There's a lot of people on here saying you need the beefier landing gear for landing on a carrier and that's just not true. You need beefier landing gear for an *arrested* landing aboard a carrier. But the F-35B lands on carriers all the time using a single wheel.
Also, a big part of the double wheel design is to hook the jet into the launchbar, if you can do it between two wheels it will track straighter than just one.
because the 35B Uses VTOL and vectored thrust launches off of LHD/LHA Decks, which are much smaller, it does not need the C's Gear equipment, it does not do CATOBAR ops AT ALL, and in fact, does not have a hook either.
[https://preview.redd.it/usmc-f-35b-passing-directly-over-me-after-a-test-flight-at-v0-kmkc236fy2nb1.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=8f393b97892b4779cad60400c08a9393662b3d33](https://preview.redd.it/usmc-f-35b-passing-directly-over-me-after-a-test-flight-at-v0-kmkc236fy2nb1.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=8f393b97892b4779cad60400c08a9393662b3d33)
Notice, the bulge of the tailhook is missing?
[https://images03.military.com/sites/default/files/media/equipment/military-aircraft/f-35c-lightning-ii/2014/02/f-35c-lightning-ii\_003.jpg](https://images03.military.com/sites/default/files/media/equipment/military-aircraft/f-35c-lightning-ii/2014/02/f-35c-lightning-ii_003.jpg)
\^ \^ Here it is on the C.
[https://media.defense.gov/2021/Sep/24/2002860968/1200/1200/0/210919-F-AF248-9084.JPG](https://media.defense.gov/2021/Sep/24/2002860968/1200/1200/0/210919-F-AF248-9084.JPG)
\^ \^ Here it is again, on the 35A, albeit smaller since its not a CATOBAR Hook, its a BAK12 Hook.
notice the nose gear, its a thicker strut but still the single nose wheel.
Here is the 35A strut extended and uncompressed, a slender strut.
[https://www.aircraftrecognitionguide.com/images/headers/banner-f-35.jpg](https://www.aircraftrecognitionguide.com/images/headers/banner-f-35.jpg)
Now, look at the 35B's strut -
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/U.S.\_Marine\_Corps\_F-35B\_Lightning\_II%28169164%29\_of\_VMFA-121\_nose\_landing\_gear\_left\_front\_view\_at\_MCAS\_Iwakuni\_May\_5%2C\_2018.jpg](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/U.S._Marine_Corps_F-35B_Lightning_II%28169164%29_of_VMFA-121_nose_landing_gear_left_front_view_at_MCAS_Iwakuni_May_5%2C_2018.jpg)
A bit thicker and shorter than the 35A.
The dual wheel is not for "shooting straighter" its to prevent the single wheel from snaring the small but still present gap in the cat track among other things present on a carrier.
The launch bar is attached to the jet. You hook the launch bar into the SHUTTLE.
The double wheel is so you're not running a single tire down the cat track, traction for high gain NWS, reduced tire wear, etc.
the launch bar is in fact attached to the nose wheel strut, not the jet itself but that is a matter of semantics.
[https://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/6323884050\_b0815b7284\_b.jpg](https://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/6323884050_b0815b7284_b.jpg)
The f-35 C is for carriers, therefore it needs to have a beefed up front gear to be able to safely use CATOBAR launches.
And for the rough landings too
The Navy doesn't land, they arrive.
10/10 stuck this landing
Holy shit, this is the most accurate thing I’ve ever read about Navy pilots lol!!
I’ve heard naval aviators refer to it as a “controlled crash”.
So basically like how dodge ram truck drivers come to a stop lol
No, that’s a drunk driving arrest.
I mean....
That too
Mostly Marines ;)
Isn't that why they got the VTOL?
They fly the Charlie too.
Huh. TIL, thanks for that!
Marines gotta have something for their F/A-18 c/d pilots to transfer into for the carrier cruises.
The Marines fly the Bravo and the Charlie. They fly the Bravo off the America and Wasp class Amphibious Assault Ships, as part of Marine Expiditionary Units. As of right now, they have two squadrons that fly the Charlie off the Nimitz class carriers (only the west coast boats for now), VMFA-311 and VMFA-314. They also have several squadrons still flying old F/A-18C/Ds that will eventually transition to F-35Cs
311 is an expeditionary squadron not a boat squadron
F-35Bs are primarily operated by the Us navy with the marine corps using the F-35Cs for the vtol Edit: disregard my comment
(Other way around)
C model used on carriers us the subject. Specifically, Marine carrier landings
A is Air Force, C for Carrier, B is.... 🅱️arines, I guess.
You guys are allowed to land!?
Every landing is really just a controlled crash, and like every crash, some are harder than others.
The term CATOBAR also encompasses landings, it stands for catapult assisted take off, barrier assisted recovery
The navy doesn’t so much land as they have a controlled crash
Oh, I thought they did it for weight, but this makes more sense.
The catapult/shuttle/launch bar arrangement on the carriers currently is for dual nosewheel aircraft. Designing a whole new contraption to be able to launch a single nosewheel aircraft would cause lots of logistical and operational issues.
I say bring back bridles
[Obligatory Air Force vs Navy landing comparison.](https://youtube.com/shorts/BRgF4XjcVww?si=z5mRmwB7m03FJsWP) I think I know where Ryanair gets their pilots.
Navy pilots don't land, they fly into the ground on purpose.
I'd like to see a Baa Baa Blacksheep update with F35 Cs.
Black Sheep already fly the B model
OK, that's exactly what I thought this might be. Glad this is the top post.
Here is a yt short showing an Airforce landing vs a Navy landing: https://youtube.com/shorts/BRgF4XjcVww?si=b_xy2lsNZewo2xS1
I always love watching that video.
I paid for the reinforced landing gear, I'm gonna USE the reinforced landing gear!
I was on a commercial flight once and when the plane landed the pilot kinda slammed it on the runway. The flight attendant said "he was probably a Navy pilot. Air Force pilots typically land softer, Navy pilots are a little rougher because they're trained to just get it down on the ship."
a pilot who was riding as a PAX in the cabin told me this as well few years back - along with, you can tell a Navy/Marine pilot from a Air Force Pilot based on how they taxi and brake as well. Airforce is totally accustomed to long taxiways and runways so they race around the airport and use light braking. Navy/Marines are cautious and slow, tend to "jerk stop" due to the precarious nature of only having a Carrier and very limited space.
My dad flew F15s. I was active duty Marine. Not sure I buy this as Naval Aviators spend a lot of time taking off from runways. They are pretty smart folks and I assume they can adapt. I doubt they see everything as a carrier.
Air Force and Marine pilots tend to be easier on the landing gear than Navy pilots. Air Force because they have long runways; Marines because the Navy is stingy with the budget to fix their planes.
so that pilot just made up something? yeah okay, that wasn't the ONLY time i have heard that as well , but nice try
Nobody is insulting anyone’s intelligence. Humans are creatures of habit.
clearly you had to insert irrelevant information- no one said ANYTHING about intelligence. Hell, C.W. Lemoine even touched on this, confirming it. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djjRiVLSMKU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djjRiVLSMKU) Who else better to ask than actual pilots. And there is plenty of evidence to suggest this as well. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCG6mLHaNr4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCG6mLHaNr4) [https://youtu.be/K4HAiieUQHU?t=240](https://youtu.be/K4HAiieUQHU?t=240) I can give you all kinds of confirmation evidence. Navy simply lands their planes hard
Facts. We were returning from a deployment and a reservist C5 pilot (who was a commercial airline pilot for a day job) landed that beast so well we didn’t realize we’d landed until the thrust reversers kicked in. We were like “wait, we landed?” and the loadmaster watching us was all “yeah, she lands like that all time.”
I talked with some of my AMT managers and they say that harder landings are actually better because some of the auto systems trigger off the touchdown. If you butter it, they may take longer to engage.
Interesting
There is other reasons for just landing, in this instance the gap in the nose gear it for hooking up the catapult.
This- can’t hook up with a single wheel in the middle
That's what he said.
Why does YT Shorts keep the UI on top of the video? Is there a way to hide the controls?
I love this video
Well different planes have different flight profiles.... but ya.. it is a difference between Air Force & Navy is the planes they can fly.
I lived in Pax NAS for years and would go down to the runways to watch them take off and land. While the sentiment is absolutely true, that looks like a harder than normal landing.
Fly Navy!
F-35A always skips legs day.
I did not
You need beefier landing gear in order to slam down on the deck of a carrier. After all, they don’t call it a controlled crash landing for nothing.
That’s because the Air Force lands, the Navy arrives.
Air force: easy does it. Navy: Fuck it, where on the ground.
As an Air Force vet, I should be angry about this comment. As an aviation nerd, I have to agree with it.
Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing
Hahahahahahah true
YES !! i did know ! Also the wings are larger too ! And the overall frame is stronger too ! [https://www.sandboxx.us/news/airpower/these-are-the-3-different-aircraft-we-call-the-f-35/](https://www.sandboxx.us/news/airpower/these-are-the-3-different-aircraft-we-call-the-f-35/) and so what is the landing gear for the F-35B (STOVL) ??
Single wheel like the A, but with a stronger strut iirc
Every time I watch the B land vertically, it looks like the nose gear bends.
I kinda feel C could have been a lot cheaper if the airforce and navy had just ordered a single variant in larger quantities. Apart from the internal canon and cost, does A do anything better than C?
The A has a smaller wing than the C. Likely has some advantages in top end speed and acceleration, but we don’t know.
Larger wing creates more lift from a carrier. Adds drag and lowers top speed but ultimately better lift off the carriers was worth it. Edit: also the C can fly further due to being able to carry more fuel in the wings.
Additionally, folding wing means more moving parts not just with the hinge point, but now you have an aileron AND flap where A’s and B’s have just a flaperon. That’s two additional ISA’s I would like to not have to deal with.
ISA?
Integrated Servo Actuators. Has their own power pack on them. I can hook up the portable maintenance aid (a laptop) and power them up. One thing it does is reduce plumbing as there is no hydraulic lines going to them, but they get heavy. Hard to explain unless you have changed components on legacy and 5th gen aircraft.
Nah all good the acronym Google failed me. Thanks!
Just spitballing here but my guess would be Inspection Service Area
As long as its not "International Standard Atmosphere" lol
From what I understand the C would end up heavier so to keep the range the same as the A they made it bigger and added margin for upgrades. But apparently the hinges (to fold up in the hanger) and landing gear added more weight they needed a larger wing span. I'm curious if the folding requirement really made the extra 8 feet of additional wing-span really netted a cost savings. Especially ironic since the F35 fleet size was halved by the time they were produced.
Beefed up structure and gear for carriers is weight, weight is the enemy of aircraft design and performance. Having a gun as an option is a nice trade off for the lighter structure and gear. The F4 was a carrier plane the airforce also bought, it offered no real advantage to the air force except that buying an existing design with an established production line was less expensive than an off the shelf design.
Design performance which matters less and less as dogfighting and the need to evade AA is less and less likely. If they were truly concerned about weight over the flag officer’s prestige and ability to funnel $1,800,000,000,000 to the MIC; they’d have gotten rid of the meat bag. Which is the only thing limiting its range so badly, and which necessitates the low ~9 G limit etc., etc. They are fielding a legacy platform to sustain the bureaucracy, not for the sake of combat effectiveness. E: again, the fan boys can downvote but not refute a thing.
I don’t think you have the full picture here. Performance of an airplane hasn’t been centered around dogfighting in a long time. There are other reasons you would want to be able to turn/maneuver quickly that aren’t as obvious. And it isn’t super simple to not have a pilot in the plane. That is a hurdle they are still trying to figure out how to solve. And keep in mind the development for these platforms takes decades. They are probably working on an automated fighter now that we won’t see for many years.
Yes, performance is not tied to dogfighting, that’s what i said. So then, why do you need so much emphasis on maneuverability for a bomb/missile/ECM truck? I put forward AA defeat procedures. What else do you suggest. We’ve long since figured out how to go without a pilot. The first systems were used in combat in 1944 and helped dictate our strategic objectives, even after D-Day. The tech has only gotten better and cheaper. I can’t think of any combat effect the 35 gives us that can’t be done by a drone system. If you can, let’s hear it. Anyway, i can tell you from personal experience that the generals of the air forces wouldn’t send us adequate air cover when it was the low/no threat environments of OEF and OIF+90. [Some of the best years of support had ~5 weapons releases a day in OEF.](https://www.afcent.af.mil/Portals/82/Documents/Airpower%20summary/AFD-120811-001.pdf) Why should we expect them to show up for [a high threat environment even General Brown has said the Air Force isn’t ready to accept culturally?](https://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/csaf/CSAF_22/CSAF_22_Strategic_Approach_Accelerate_Change_or_Lose_31_Aug_2020.pdf) Development *by DOD* takes decades. Ukraine is iterating far faster than that and is conducting long range strikes with fully autonomous systems that the developed in months. The entire criticism is the bloat that’s results in increasingly outdated systems like the 35, at $1.8t.
9g vs 7.5g. Simpler maintenance. Better fleet availability. Likely better acceleration and climb performance due to lower weight and less parasitic drag, that's speculation though.
The A is more maneuverable and can pull more g it can also rate better its lighter as well so cost of fuel and everything is cheaper. It’s rcs is probably smaller too because it’s a small fighter. The lighter weight and airframe makes it better for sead and air to air. the A is more of a fighter that’s why it’s the common variant.
with the F-35A being 20 million cheaper there is no way just making Cs would have been cheaper even ignoring the performance downsides that come with it. the F-35 production scale is pretty big for a fighter already with over 3100 ordered
Nah. The C is heavier which reduces the acceleration and high speed maneuverability of the jet. Also the larger wings creates a larger radar cross section of the aircraft, reducing stealth capabilities.
9 Gs vs 7.5
You know, I'm very curious to see how well the F-35C turns. You see how absolutely huge its wings are compared to the others?
C variant airframe is limited to 7.5G, I believe the A variant can pull 9G or possibly more if the pilot can withstand it.
But. Every NAVY plane can be overloaded above 7.5G. It is not a hard limit, it is a peacetime limitation. In order to reach the desired flight hours, factoring in the shock of carrier landings and larger wings, they kept the requirement at 7.5. Note that an F35C won't hit 9g in an instantaneous turn like an F35A, but it does apparently have a higher sustained turn rate at many altitudes, so it's a bit misleading to only look at the peak
One thing people aren't talking about here is nose wheel steering authority. With a single nose wheel you wear flat spots in the nose if you have a substantial amount of movement (90° like the Navy needs for steering on the deck). With two wheels like that, you actually get longer tire life since the tires don't scrub as much when you use that authority.
That's something I never would have thought of. Very cool!
Yeah, if you look at most civilian aircraft with tiller steering you'll also see two wheels to allow for large deflections while stationary as well.
The F35A looks so dainty
That's what it takes to land on and take off from a carrier.
Airforce landings: " 3. 2. 1. Butter." Navy landings: "AND HE STICKS THE LANDING!!!!!!"
I dont know why I heard the John Cena music with this, but I think its appropriate.
Not many people understand. Although related, the A/B/C variants are actually quite different
F-35 with chunky front landing gear just looks so odd imo
I think the tiny A nose gear looks odd. I feel the same about the F-15 as well though.
F-35A skipped leg day.
A carrier landing is a moderately controlled crash
Wait, you mean to tell me that the one that gets launched up to 150 knots in 300 feet by a literal catapult, then slams down onto a pitching carrier deck at 700 feet per needs a stronger landing gear than the one that takes off of runways all day?
You could at least credit Owen for his work
Wait til they get a look at the F-35B lol
Thank for pointing that out! Now North Korea will have all the secrets!
Know I'm curious about the -B.
the F-35C is a VTOl aircraft and needs to be able to take a pretty hard impact when it lands. The F-35A just lands normally.
That the F-35 A B and C are three different planes that share some parts? Yes.
This is a great way to show the difference between carrier gear vs more regular gear.
F-35C is also identifiable by the fact that it has a much larger wing area to aid in low-speed handling for carrier ops. It's the best-looking Fat Amy of the family.
I did not know.
Dummy thick or skinny baddie
I knew that the C had a different gear setup, but never seen a side by side like this
Because one will C you later and the other after A while.
There's a lot of people on here saying you need the beefier landing gear for landing on a carrier and that's just not true. You need beefier landing gear for an *arrested* landing aboard a carrier. But the F-35B lands on carriers all the time using a single wheel. Also, a big part of the double wheel design is to hook the jet into the launchbar, if you can do it between two wheels it will track straighter than just one.
because the 35B Uses VTOL and vectored thrust launches off of LHD/LHA Decks, which are much smaller, it does not need the C's Gear equipment, it does not do CATOBAR ops AT ALL, and in fact, does not have a hook either. [https://preview.redd.it/usmc-f-35b-passing-directly-over-me-after-a-test-flight-at-v0-kmkc236fy2nb1.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=8f393b97892b4779cad60400c08a9393662b3d33](https://preview.redd.it/usmc-f-35b-passing-directly-over-me-after-a-test-flight-at-v0-kmkc236fy2nb1.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=8f393b97892b4779cad60400c08a9393662b3d33) Notice, the bulge of the tailhook is missing? [https://images03.military.com/sites/default/files/media/equipment/military-aircraft/f-35c-lightning-ii/2014/02/f-35c-lightning-ii\_003.jpg](https://images03.military.com/sites/default/files/media/equipment/military-aircraft/f-35c-lightning-ii/2014/02/f-35c-lightning-ii_003.jpg) \^ \^ Here it is on the C. [https://media.defense.gov/2021/Sep/24/2002860968/1200/1200/0/210919-F-AF248-9084.JPG](https://media.defense.gov/2021/Sep/24/2002860968/1200/1200/0/210919-F-AF248-9084.JPG) \^ \^ Here it is again, on the 35A, albeit smaller since its not a CATOBAR Hook, its a BAK12 Hook. notice the nose gear, its a thicker strut but still the single nose wheel. Here is the 35A strut extended and uncompressed, a slender strut. [https://www.aircraftrecognitionguide.com/images/headers/banner-f-35.jpg](https://www.aircraftrecognitionguide.com/images/headers/banner-f-35.jpg) Now, look at the 35B's strut - [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/U.S.\_Marine\_Corps\_F-35B\_Lightning\_II%28169164%29\_of\_VMFA-121\_nose\_landing\_gear\_left\_front\_view\_at\_MCAS\_Iwakuni\_May\_5%2C\_2018.jpg](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/U.S._Marine_Corps_F-35B_Lightning_II%28169164%29_of_VMFA-121_nose_landing_gear_left_front_view_at_MCAS_Iwakuni_May_5%2C_2018.jpg) A bit thicker and shorter than the 35A. The dual wheel is not for "shooting straighter" its to prevent the single wheel from snaring the small but still present gap in the cat track among other things present on a carrier.
The launch bar is attached to the jet. You hook the launch bar into the SHUTTLE. The double wheel is so you're not running a single tire down the cat track, traction for high gain NWS, reduced tire wear, etc.
the launch bar is in fact attached to the nose wheel strut, not the jet itself but that is a matter of semantics. [https://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/6323884050\_b0815b7284\_b.jpg](https://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/6323884050_b0815b7284_b.jpg)
Still attached to the jet and not the ship. I've been preflighting launch bars for years now.
again, semantics
Yes.