F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 20886
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post11 Nov 2012, 01:19

'cerberus' - you are a troll with that repsonse. Go AWAY. This thread is not about the efficacy of the F-35B it is about SRVL / STOVL matters for the F-35B which is NOT a VTOL aircraft designed nor built. F off.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3237
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post11 Nov 2012, 01:28

Not that an effective VTOL F-35 wouldn't have interesting possible uses, but, like spaz said, their is clear demand for the STOVL Bee.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline

cerberus

Banned

  • Posts: 89
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2012, 21:38
  • Location: York

Unread post12 Nov 2012, 16:43

spazsinbad wrote:'cerberus' - you are a troll with that repsonse. Go AWAY. This thread is not about the efficacy of the F-35B it is about SRVL / STOVL matters for the F-35B which is NOT a VTOL aircraft designed nor built. F off.

I perhaps phrased my response badly.

A STOVL is useful but not as useful as VTOL and I think what I was trying to ask was, "is it really worth shrinking the weapons bay and limiting range just for STOVL?" If you're buying all 3 planes then it doesn't matter but if you had to choose just one carrier variant I'd probably go for the F-35C.
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post12 Nov 2012, 17:13

cerberus wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:'cerberus' - you are a troll with that repsonse. Go AWAY. This thread is not about the efficacy of the F-35B it is about SRVL / STOVL matters for the F-35B which is NOT a VTOL aircraft designed nor built. F off.

I perhaps phrased my response badly.

A STOVL is useful but not as useful as VTOL and I think what I was trying to ask was, "is it really worth shrinking the weapons bay and limiting range just for STOVL?" If you're buying all 3 planes then it doesn't matter but if you had to choose just one carrier variant I'd probably go for the F-35C.

Ah, I see Spaz has met our little friend. Well, someone's gotta do it.
Image
...and VERY persistent
The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3237
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post12 Nov 2012, 18:45

cerberus wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:'cerberus' - you are a troll with that repsonse. Go AWAY. This thread is not about the efficacy of the F-35B it is about SRVL / STOVL matters for the F-35B which is NOT a VTOL aircraft designed nor built. F off.

I perhaps phrased my response badly.

A STOVL is useful but not as useful as VTOL and I think what I was trying to ask was, "is it really worth shrinking the weapons bay and limiting range just for STOVL?" If you're buying all 3 planes then it doesn't matter but if you had to choose just one carrier variant I'd probably go for the F-35C.

At this point, a true VTOL fighter would require a lot of performance trade-offs, and the infrastructure already exists to support STOVL Harriers. You can wish for a VTOL fighter, and future developments may increase the F-35B's VTOL load to something operationally useful, but chances are it will be overtaken developmentally by VTOL drones.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 20886
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post12 Nov 2012, 19:25

Insisting on using the term VTOL incorrectly does those people no favours. The F-35B is not VTOL so no point mentioning that term on this thread thank you. Wish for a VTOL fighter on a thread dedicated to that purpose. However that thread would not be on this forum because why? The F-35B is not VTOL.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

cerberus

Banned

  • Posts: 89
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2012, 21:38
  • Location: York

Unread post13 Nov 2012, 21:47

spazsinbad wrote:Insisting on using the term VTOL incorrectly does those people no favours. The F-35B is not VTOL so no point mentioning that term on this thread thank you. Wish for a VTOL fighter on a thread dedicated to that purpose. However that thread would not be on this forum because why? The F-35B is not VTOL.

With an improvement in engine thrust in future developments, it may become VTOL. Looking at the new engine thread, a new core giving 10% more thrust on an F-35B would more or less give it VTOL ability with 12,000lbs of fuel and an air-to-air load. :)
Offline

bigjku

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 679
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2012, 21:00

Unread post13 Nov 2012, 21:48

Yes but I don't think anyone that matters really cares if it is VTOL or not. They want a STOVL aircraft because it is just much simpler to use and building the strip is really no harder than building a place for the thing to take off vertically from anyway.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 20886
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post13 Nov 2012, 21:56

Perhaps we need a VTOLtrollIFFmodeFW?

Aircraft Identification Enters New Era

http://www.asdnews.com/news-46139/Aircr ... ew_Era.htm

"A new era in aircraft recognition is on the horizon with the projected first flight of the Mode 5 Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system aboard an F/A-18E/F Super Hornet expected this winter.

The Naval Air Traffic Management Systems (PMA-213) program office here leads the Mode 5 effort to upgrade the IFF system in use by the United States and its allies for more than 45 years...."

More proper info at the jump if interested.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

cerberus

Banned

  • Posts: 89
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2012, 21:38
  • Location: York

Unread post13 Nov 2012, 22:02

bigjku wrote:Yes but I don't think anyone that matters really cares if it is VTOL or not. They want a STOVL aircraft because it is just much simpler to use and building the strip is really no harder than building a place for the thing to take off vertically from anyway.

Surely it gives the ability to take off from unprepared sites though. That could be useful.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 20886
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post13 Nov 2012, 22:07

Surely my IFF (mode FW) has identified 'cerberus' as a CLOWNtroll from this statement: "Surely it gives the ability to take off from unprepared sites though. That could be useful."

Never mind the FOD damage eh - very useful indeed.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post13 Nov 2012, 22:48

spazsinbad wrote:Surely my IFF (mode FW) has identified 'cerberus' as a CLOWNtroll from this statement: "Surely it gives the ability to take off from unprepared sites though. That could be useful."

Never mind the FOD damage eh - very useful indeed.
:lmao:
The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3237
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post14 Nov 2012, 00:27

"Unprepared sites" are not nearly as important as "the deck of every ship with a helipad".
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 20886
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post14 Nov 2012, 00:39

This thread is about F-35B SRVL info. What anything about 'non-required Vertical Takeoff for F-35B' has to do with SRVL please enlighten us all. BTW every ship with a helipad [which is able to take the weight/heat etc] is not going to take anything like what is suggested [VTO? or just VL?]. Perhaps an emergency vertical landing but that is it. What happens after that is up to the gods.

And yes as mentioned now a few times on various threads the F-35B will be tested in VTO mode but emphasise 'tested'. A lot of things will be tested because that is the nature of testing. However the F-35B is not operationally designed nor required to Takeoff Vertically. But trolls will say shite just because they can - until they cannot.

[Addition] Not forgetting that any emergency helipad landing on a suitable helipad will require otherwise good weather conditions for such an unlikely event. Small ships bob about more than large flat decks.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 20886
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post14 Nov 2012, 12:46

And again - this thread is NOT about the Harrier or Vertical Takeoff but hopefully you will f off soon enough. A helipad (where ever it may be) is just that - a helipad - DUH.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests