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

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 11 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.

count_to_10 · by **count_to_10** » 11 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.

cerberus · by **cerberus** » 12 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.

1st503rdsgt · by **1st503rdsgt** » 12 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.

...and VERY persistent

count_to_10 · by **count_to_10** » 12 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.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 12 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.

cerberus · by **cerberus** » 13 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.

bigjku · by **bigjku** » 13 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.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 13 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.

cerberus · by **cerberus** » 13 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.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 13 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.

1st503rdsgt · by **1st503rdsgt** » 13 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.

count_to_10 · by **count_to_10** » 14 Nov 2012, 00:27

"Unprepared sites" are not nearly as important as "the deck of every ship with a helipad".

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 14 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.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 14 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.