Anatomy Of F-35 Development Challenges And Solutions

[ricnunes]

Falklands was one example, but I don't think the best.

The best IMO was Desert Storm.

Well, here I beg to differ.

Many (most?) experts seem to agree that if it wasn't the Harrier/Sea Harrier the Brits would most likely have lost the war - at least the conventional Aeronaval and ground war, or resuming if the Brits didn't go Nuclear they would have lost the war without the Harrier/Sea Harrier.
The reasons for this were:
1- The Harrier/Sea Harrier did change the course of war by giving air superiority over the Islands which without it ground troops could never landed successfully let alone continuing to be resupplied from the sea (which was the only way they could be resupplied).
2- They (Harrier/Sea Harrier) provided critical Close Air Support to ground troops.
3- If it wasn't for the Harrier or a STOVL aircraft for that matter then the British could never have an aircraft to provide the critical roles mentioned in previous points 1- and 2- because only a STOVL aircraft could have performed such roles giving the British Naval assets of that time.

Regarding Desert Storm, if the Harriers weren't present then there would be dozens of other aircraft models that could have stepped up and taken the place of the Harrier. Of course we could argue if another model of aircraft could have been as effective as the Harrier during Desert Storm but IMO the fact is that even if less effective the job would still be done, this as opposed to the Falklands.

Moreover, while during Desert Storm the Harriers were very important during Close Air Support missions, during the Falklands the Harrier was pretty much critical in everything or in almost every kind of mission ranging from Close Air Support to Air Superiority and everything in between.

[spazsinbad]

MORE On the THOUGHTMAN USAF Bees thingo - an entire thread even: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=54474&hilit=Trautman

Whilst earth was cooling in 2004: viewtopic.php?f=61&t=637&p=7959&hilit=STOVL#p7959 [only source now for below]

Air Force to buy F-35s capable of flying from short, rough runways
13 Feb 2004 Bruce Rolfsen

"The Air Force will buy some of the Marine Corps variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters that are able to take off and land on short and rough airfields, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John Jumper announced Thursday at the Air Force Association's Air Warfare Symposium at Lake Buena Vista, Fla. Jumper said the decision to buy the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing variant of the JSF was made as a result of the continued need to provide close-air support to the Army....

...Jumper said it is yet to be decided how many the STOVL F-35s Air Force will buy and that the Air Force will continue to buy the conventional takeoff and landing JSF. Development of training and tactics for the STOVL version of the JSF will be in conjunction with the Marine Corps, Jumper said."

Source: http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story.p ... 640736.php

'ricnunes' Good summary of the FALKLANDS however 'reminder' needed for the Harrier FLEET DEFENCE role was vital - ships & landing craft were damaged / sunk - without the FLEET DEFENCE the losses could have been far worse most likely.

[ricnunes]

...however 'reminder' needed for the Harrier FLEET DEFENCE role was vital - ships & landing craft were damaged / sunk - without the FLEET DEFENCE the losses could have been far worse most likely.

Yes indeed!
Hence why I agree with those who say that if it wasn't for the Harrier/Sea Harrier then the Brits would have lost the Falklands war.