Value of STOVL jets, Harrier and F-35B questioned. Again.

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

hb_pencil

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 761
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 21:50

Unread post04 Feb 2012, 00:00

arkadyrenko wrote:As for the JSF STOVL. Look at the F-35A,B,C. Apart from the wings, the body appears to be by and large identical among the three variants. That is intentional, the program was supposed to create common aircraft.

Now thing about this, how many other fighters have airframes that look like a STOVL aircraft? Not many. Furthermore, most other fighters don't have the luxury of relying on one of the most powerful engines ever attacked to a fighter's airframe to overcome aerodynamic drag. Therefore, those fighters need better aerodynamic optimization, or to put it in other words, they can't afford to loose as much aerodynamic performance.

Put those facts together and it becomes clear: the STOVL variant has affected the other two variants of the JSF, and that affect has probably been for the worse.


Frankly, you've done here is precisely what my earlier comment was pointing out as being incrorrect. You have no concrete evidence to back up any of this except your "intuition." Are you an aerospace designer or designer participating in the F-35 program, or even spoken to someone involved? It doesn't sound like it. I think there are other, just as compelling explanations for the F-35's size and shape: carrying 2X 2000 lbs bombs/JSOW internally + fuel + engines was probably the most significant. Clearance for an 2000 lbs bomb internally adds quite a bit of space. This seems to be common trait for Lockheed stealth aircraft: The F-22 is considered a "bulky" aircraft compared to the YF-23, as was the F-117. F-22s on the other hand had to carry AMRAAMs and at most SDBs.
Offline

bjr1028

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 511
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2009, 03:34
  • Location: Dubuque, IA

Unread post05 Feb 2012, 14:23

spazsinbad wrote:'maus92' you can fixate on the FOB issues but the USMC are planning otherwise as has often been pointed out on this forum. Why are the USMC changing strategy? Which is being tested somewhat in Bold Alligator 2012 which will include a CVN.

Long term I see the SRVL or just VLs being used on CVNs when such exercises are held. But as always early days etc. In this way the CVN will support the F-35B hopping from LHA to FOB to CVN and any combination of these three landing/refuelling/re-arming sites. How good is that? :twisted: :D


F-35Bs will see an Nimitz deck about as much as the harriers do. The reason the Marines bought some F-35Cs is that the operating profile proved to be too disruptive to carrier operations. CATOBAR operations have to grind to a halt for a F-35B to take off or SRVL.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 11281
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post05 Feb 2012, 17:45

bjr1028, I notice you have not mentioned VL (Vertical Landing) - what a pity. What a disruption a VL will be to ordinary CVN ops. Really disruptive as we saw demonstrated on USS Wasp. And let us not forget the really disruptive demonstratoin of Harrier ops all those years ago on an old US Aircraft Carrier 1976-7 USS F.D.R. Yeah what a disruption. And how disruptive is an F-35B takeoff down the angle - geez everyone will have to scatter eh. And of course the 'very long thread' has done this to death. Whatever:

http://174.132.114.222/~larryb44/cv42.com/?page_id=46

“...Another first was racked up by Franklin D. Roosevelt when, on 4 October 1976, the first overseas operational commitment on a carrier for the AV-8A Harrier began when VMA-231 embarked aboard for a Sixth Fleet deployment. On 13 January 1977, two other Harriers made bow-on approaches and landing aboard the carrier, marking the first time a fixed wing aircraft had made a bow-on, downwind landing aboard a carrier at sea....”
&
http://174.132.114.222/~larryb44/cv42.c ... cruise.jpg

"AV-8A Harriers of Marine Attack Squadron (VMA) 231 pictured on the deck of the carrier with other Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 19 aircraft during the final deployment of USS Franklin D. Roosevelt during 1976–1977."
___________________

For sure the USMC have blinked to obtain some F-35Cs but what the heck. Soon enough there will be a trial on the 'empty' decks of a CVN just to see what is possible.

US Marines eye UK JSF shipborne technique 15/May/07 Flight International

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... nique.html

“A shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) technique being developed by the UK for the Lockheed Martin F-35B is being eyed by the US Marine Corps as a way to facilitate operation of short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) Joint Strike Fighters from US Navy aircraft carriers.

The F-35B is scheduled to replace USMC Boeing F/A-18s and concerns have arisen that integration of the STOVL JSF with conventional US Navy fighters will disrupt carrier landing operations....

...An SRVL approach exploits the ability of the STOVL JSF to use vectored thrust to slow the aircraft while retaining the benefit of wingborne lift....

...For the USMC, the technique would allow a conventional approach to a short land-ing on the carrier and could ease integration of the F-35B with US Navy F/A-18E/Fs.“We continue to work with the navy on this,” Castellaw says, pointing out the STOVL Harrier has been operated successfully alongside US Navy fighters as part of an air wing the carrier USS Roosevelt.
___________________

The STOVL Joint Strike Fighter—From a Harrier Skeptic 2002 Captain A.R. Behnke USMC

http://dodreports.com/pdf/ada520417.pdf

“...Carrier: On a carrier the operations of STOVL recovery and respot are greatly simplified. In addition, vertical landing pads on the port side of the carrier take up less area than the landing area required for normal carrier aircraft. This facilitates the simultaneous operations of launch, recovery, and respot. Therefore the flight deck is never fouled for any single operation, thus reducing the impact on sortie generation. For STOVL, the limiting factor of sortie generation then becomes aircraft servicing rate. Today’s CTOL carrier airwing has reached a near optimum level of mission perform-ance. That is, no increase in airwing size or availability will result in increased maximum sorties attainable....”
______________________

Marine Corps demonstrates F-35B at sea By Dave Majumdar - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Oct 18, 2011

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/20 ... ea-101811/

"...Cordell said that one piece of good news is that the “outflow” from the jet’s exhaust while hovering is less intense than expected. “It’s counterintuitive, but the jet has a less harsh environment hovering at 40 feet than it does at 100 feet,” he said. Engineering models had predicted the outcome, but skeptics — Cordell included — had doubted those conclusions.

The hazard zone around the jet therefore has shrunk to about the same size as that of a Harrier, he said.

Similarly, the “outwash” on take-off is far less harsh than anticipated, Cordell said.

A second set of sea trials will be done early next year, Cordell said. Those trials will put the F-35B’s mission systems and weaponry to the test. The team will also test night operations at sea, he said.

Later, the F-35B will return to the sea for a third time to conduct operational testing in around the August of 2013, Cordell added.

This initial set of sea trials for the F-35B is as much about the ship as it is about the aircraft...."
___________________

Vertical landings hit the mark in F-35B’s tests By Kate Wiltrout The Virginian-Pilot © Oct 20, 2011

http://hamptonroads.com/2011/10/vertica ... 35bs-tests

“...Engineers initially thought the jet would create far more turbulence on the flight deck because it's much more powerful than the Harrier. Cordell said for the first few flights off the Wasp, the shooter – the flight deck crewmember who taps the flight deck, signaling final permission for pilots to takeoff – was told to tuck his head down, run to the ship's island (superstructure) & hold on for the actual launch. After a num-ber of takeoffs, Cordell said, the shooter said that precaution seemed unnecessary. Couldn't he just hold onto one of the metal rings set into the flight deck, like he did when Harriers launched? The engineers assented.

Engineers were also concerned about the forward-most flight deck crewmember – the bow-waver, who signals to the shooter that there's no interference before takeoff. "He is right at the point where the wing is demanding the most lift possible, where you'd expect outwash and potential problems. He stands there as if he has very few cares in the world," Cordell said. Adm. Kevin Scott, the commander of Expeditionary Strike Group Two, seconded that point. "I didn't believe it at first. So I walked up there and stood next to him. It was really impressive," Scott told reporters...."
______________

US Marines to split F-35 purchase between STOVL, carrier variants

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... rrier.html

"...“When we set the requirement in for STOVL aircraft our hope was we would be able to, some day, fly some of those aircraft off [large-deck] aircraft carriers,” Amos said, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on 8 March. "That's yet to be seen whether that would be possible so in the meantime it would seem prudent that we should buy some number of C variants even early on so we can begin to transition our force there.”..."
_______________

And just for luck - because the F.D.R. is immediately below:

AV-8A Harrier Tests [onboard USS F.D.R. 1977]

http://ussfranklindroosevelt.com/?page_id=2264

“Her final cruise, which concluded on 21 April 1977, included the embarkation of AV-8A Harriers of Marine Attack Squadron (VMA) 231, the historic “Ace of Spades” squadron, marking the first deployment of Vertical Short Take Off and Landing aircraft on board a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier.”...
&
“From June 1976 to April 1977, VMA-231 deployed with 14 AV-8As aboard the USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (CV-42). This deployment demonstrated that the Harrier could be completely integrated into normal CV air operations. Almost every conceivable takeoff and recovery option was flown: upwind, downwind, crosswind, and before, during, and after re-spots. The Harrier demonstrated not only that VSTOL operations could be conducted within the rigid framework of cyclic operations, but that because of VSTOL’s inherent flexibility, a carrier can launch and recover at any time and steam wherever desired while achieving a combat capability that does not exist when using only conventional aircraft. A STOVL jet is unrestrained by launch/recovery times and mission permitting, could fill in gaps created by the CV cycle. On 13 January 1977, two other Harriers made bow-on approaches and landing aboard the carrier, marking the first time a fixed wing aircraft had made a bow-on, downwind landing aboard a carrier at sea.”...
_____________________

Last Photo: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... t_1976.jpg

"A Hawker Siddley AV-8A Harrier of Marine attack squadron VMA-231 Ace of Spades landing on the aircraft carrier USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (CV-42) in 1976/77. VMA-231 was assigned to Carrier Air Wing 19 (CVW-19) aboard the FDR for a deployment to the Mediterranean Sea from 4 October 1976 to 21 April 1977."
___________

The Corps Goes Vertical with The Harrier – August 26, 2011 By Ben Kristy[/b]
http://navalaviationnews.navylive.dodli ... e-harrier/
And...

http://navalaviationnews.navylive.dodli ... USSFDR.png

"In the winter of 1976-1977, 14 VMA-231 AV-8As deployed aboard USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (CV 42) to test the ability of a V/STOL aircraft to operate as part of a full carrier air wing. The tests showed the Harrier was fully capable of operating alongside non-V/STOL aircraft. (Photo from National Marine Corps Museum)"
__________

http://www.scribd.com/Charlie_November/ ... 58-Harrier
Attachments
fdrfinalcruise.jpg
AV-8A_landing_USS_Roosevelt_1976.jpg
Feature_Harrier_USSFDR.png
VMA-231 Aboard USS F.D.R. 1976-7.gif
Last edited by spazsinbad on 06 Feb 2012, 10:00, edited 5 times in total.
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline

archeman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 407
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2011, 05:37
  • Location: CA

Unread post05 Feb 2012, 18:50

lamoey wrote:As is often the case, economy is very likely to influence any decision made to attack or defend any given territory. While China’s internal consumption is growing fast, its economy would most likely be hurt badly by any unilateral action on their part towards the US or any ally of the US.

Image
http://www.starmass.com/china_review/imports_exports/china_top_export_market.htm

Looking at the Chinas export by country from 2007, most of the top 10 would evaporate overnight. Even Hong Kong would probably close to vanish as that is most likely unfinished goods re-exported by Hong Kong.

My guess is that over time China and Taiwan will find it economically advantages to evolve closer ties which would reduce the threat of war between the two. That may in turn lead to a shift in the balance in the area that I won’t speculate about right now.


The point of econimic realities overruling the dreams of military adventure for Chinese generals is examinied well here....
http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedin ... art-factor

.
Offline

disconnectedradical

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 366
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44

Unread post01 Dec 2012, 12:53

river_otter wrote:
arkadyrenko wrote:Now thing about this, how many other fighters have airframes that look like a STOVL aircraft? Not many. Furthermore, most other fighters don't have the luxury of relying on one of the most powerful engines ever attacked to a fighter's airframe to overcome aerodynamic drag. Therefore, those fighters need better aerodynamic optimization, or to put it in other words, they can't afford to loose as much aerodynamic performance.

Put those facts together and it becomes clear: the STOVL variant has affected the other two variants of the JSF, and that affect has probably been for the worse.


How many other STOVL aircraft look like the F-35B? The closest one is the Yak-144, and that's just an experimental prototype. And importantly, the F-35's overall layout was derived from the Yak-144. The Harrier and the Yak-38 both have very different layouts, single-tail with their engine exhaust coming out of the sides. The F-35 has a seemingly conventional layout; minus the canards (missing from the F-35 because they're incompatible with stealth, not STOVL) it has the basic aerodynamic layout of the J-20, a plane which you apparently consider to be some sort of realistic air combat threat. Yet somehow the F-35 isn't?

Neither the Harrier nor the Yak-38 have substantial area ruling. Although you are amateurishly bothered by the F-35's "chubby" appearance, it's actually an excellent aerodynamic shape, downright wonderful if you understand compressible fluid dynamics. Look on Google for images of planes with vapor cones; that cone is much bigger than the plane. Drag rises as you approach transsonic. At low speed, drag is small. At transsonic, drag becomes enormous -- that's where drag matters. Regardless of anything else, your drag is worst at transsonic speeds. If your engine can push you through transsonic, it has plenty of power to deal with drag at lower speeds. If making the plane "chubby" shrinks or delays that horrible transsonic drag, that matters much more than the increased shape drag of the "chubby" plane at any speed. Find a model of an F-35 and run your hand down the spine. It has excellent area ruling, not quite as good as the YF-23, but nothing is. It's better than most other aircraft. Chubbiness is why the Boeing 747 is faster than other airliners; that second deck for the cockpit which tapers off ahead of the wings delays the onset of transsonic drag. The "chubby" cockpit bulge and flattening over the wing gloves is why the B-1B has a cruise speed farther into the transsonic regime than ....really anything. Except maybe the "chubby" F-35A and B. Look at the nose change from the YF-22 to F-22; they made it "chubbier"! The F-35C is having transsonic acceleration problems not because it's "chubby" but because it's not "chubby" enough: the Navy wanted bigger wings for carrier landing, but they couldn't increase the cross-section of the forward and after body segments to compensate, for stealth and cross-model compatibility reasons; nor cut away the middle of the body between the wings, because the F-35A (NOT F-35B) needed the space for 2,000 lb. bombs (and the Navy wanted the fuel capacity of the plane's existing "chubby" shape anyway; they're not complaining about the fan tunnel, because their version has a big fuel tank in there). Proof positive the F-35A/B are shaped right: they outrun the F-16 on dry thrust. (Interestingly, so does the 747. Air Force One's escorts often have to kick in the afterburner for a bit to catch up.) And they can reach Mach 1.6 (or more) in combat trim -- faster than anything else including the F-15, except the F-22 ever has been.

Hidden inside, the forward engine placement and (more visibly) far-aft tail surfaces required by the STOVL configuration give the horizontal tails tremendous leverage relative to the center of mass; it's a better aerodynamic configuration than canards for stealth, but also for drag and for maneuverability. And the weight problems with the F-35B led to weight reduction across all three model. Since when has being made lighter hurt a plane's performance? If anything, the absolute need to be lighter for the STOVL did all three models a favor, giving an excuse for some cost overrun to allow them all to be lighter. Not the F-35B, it's the F-35C that is the relative dog among the three variants. (Similar to deadseal's contention elsewhere that the Marines trumped up an STOVL requirement to justify keeping their own air wings, I suspect it's actually closer to true to say the Navy trumped up a CATOBAR requirement to help give another justification for their supercarriers. While the F-35C is certainly more capable than the F-35B, the F-35B is in all respects a deadlier strike fighter than any other ship-landable plane except the C. But if the Navy's best plane was an STOVL, Congress would get another excuse to try to take away their CATOBAR carriers every time someone whines about the budget. So a CATOBAR F-35C defends the carriers from the actual greatest threat they face.)


Okay, you just perked my interest. I understand that the top hump of a 747 contributes to area ruling and reduces wave drag, but isn't this claim a bit ridiculous? I've heard somewhere else that a 747 can out-accelerate an F-15 on military power, but I didn't take that seriously until you also made this claim.
Offline

count_to_10

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2089
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post01 Dec 2012, 20:29

I doubt a 747 out accelerates an F-15 on dry thrust, but it could have a higher dry top speed.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1107
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post01 Dec 2012, 20:37

discofishing wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
discofishing wrote:

What you stated is probably very well known by the Chinese and I'm sure they are well prepared for this. They speak the same language as in Taiwan, so I think it would be VERY easy for a large amount of clandestine (Chinese Special Forces) teams to sneak into Taiwan and take out many of these BMD systems. Imagine a few thousand Chinese special forces roaming around Taiwan dressed as if they were in the Taiwanese military and speaking the same language in the same dialect. They'd create chaos. This might sound like a good reason to keep STOVL aircraft around, but given the fact Taiwan is so dang small, the forward operating bases would be tracked no matter where they moved by Chinese operatives. Now Japan would be almost an entirely different story.


***PM me if you want debate USMC operational history



A few thousand Chinese special forces sneaking into Taiwan? :shock:

If they were lucky, they might get a few dozen in, undetected.


Who's to say there's not already a few thousand there. I bet they don't even sneak in, they wear suit and board a plane, then land in Taiwan. These people are smart. And Americans are getting dumber EVERY DAY.


Ok, so being a Taiwanese American, I have to clarify a few things about your perceptions of Mainland Chinese just waltzing into Taiwan unnoticed.

First off, in Taiwan, there are are 2 major dialects for the Chinese language in Taiwan
1 is Mandarin which is shared by the Mainland Chinese.
2 is Taiwanese which is it's own dialect unique to those who grew up in Taiwan and is harder to learn than regular Mandarin.

For those of us who live in Taiwan, any mainlander who comes into Taiwan can be easily identified by their Mainland Mandarin accent.
Mainland Mandarin's way of writing / pronounciation versus Taiwanese Mandarin has the same difference as West Coast standard English and British English, it's strikingly different and easily recognizable.

The easy test to figure out if a person is Mainland is to start speaking in Taiwanese, if they don't understand what you are talking about, then it's a dead give away.
Most mainland Chinese people have a hard time dealing with the Taiwanese dialect, much less changing their way of speaking Mandarin / writing Chinese characters since they use a simplified style vs Taiwanese use the Traditional style of Chinese character writing.

To think that 1,000's of Chinese can walk into Taiwan, live a cover life is foolish. They can try to live, but they will stand out like a sore thumb.

Anybody in the Taiwanese military who is a true patriot has a strict inherent distrust of anything Mainland Chinese, especially anybody who wants even remotely deal with the Taiwanese military in anyway.

Everybody who has grown up in Taiwan and is a real patriot and not some Benedict Arnold who sides with whoever looks strongest at the time has a deep seated hatred of Mainland Chinese and generally favors the US by a margin as wide as from the top of Mt. Everest to the bottom of the Marianas Trench.

I don't know why you think American's are getting dumber every day, I just think that the number of Americans that are uninformed, uneducated, or ignorant just keeps outpacing the Americans who are smart, informed, and wise.

That's the fundamental problem. We need better education and teach our people to think critically, look at the big picture on top of the small picture, and be open minded to different view points when solving issues.


Personally I think the F-35B has a very logical reason to exist.

Not just for the USMC, but for all of our foreign partners who plan on fielding the F-35B on smaller carriers.

When there are more allies patrolling the seas and willing to fight, that takes alot of burden off the US.

This allows us to stay out of conflicts and let them deal with issues alone.

The British have proven the value of STOVL carriers in the Falklands.

Our USMC have proven the use of AV-8B Harriers in the more recent wars such as Desert Storm.

The other factor that the F-35B will bring is flexibility in fielding the aircraft.

Also if the F-35B needs to emergency land, it's options are far wider than any conventional aircraft which allows higher probability of retaining the aircraft / pilot.

Keeping aircraft / pilots in tact is far better than losing the plane over some random area due to not being able to land because there is no good rood way in the nearby area, ergo wasting alot of money.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 11281
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post01 Dec 2012, 20:49

Thanks for your personal perspective on Taiwan 'kamenriderblade'.
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1107
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post01 Dec 2012, 21:01

No prob

But honestly, I like the F-35 in all versions, but my favorite is still the F-35B.

What a beautiful piece of engineering / design.

At first I didn't like the look, but after a while of learning about the plane from all view points and all the technical details, the F-35 has become a favorite of mine, even more so than the F-22.

My only issue with the F-35 is the assymetric lumps on top of the engine intake that is used for cooling / internal gun mount.

If both lumps were identically shaped minus the open hole for cooling, I'd be happier, but that's a very minor gripe in the grand scheme of things.
Offline

XanderCrews

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1836
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post01 Dec 2012, 22:32

Even the AV-8Bs supporting the (much publicized) F-15 crew rescue had to be relieved by F-16s because they had to tank - a fact less emphasized by the USMC publicity machine.


Good thing it wasn't the F-16s that had to tank, or we would have people calling CTOL in to question :roll:

I know this thread is back from the dead, (A lot has changed over the last 10 months as well) but in any other service, in any other subject, would anyone care what some C-130 driver has to say? The Gazette published an article by a major that said the USMC should buy F-22s in Lieu of F-35Bs. They are opinions. You are welcome to those. If some F-18 guy says that the F-35B is the best airplane in the world does that mean that it is all settled for good?

Do you think if a C-130 guy in the USAF said something about his service's marquee fighter, the F-22 that it would even make the news? What if back in 2007 he had the audacity to suggest that maybe the F-22 was more trouble than it was worth and a good alternative would be the F-35? Or even something else completely different? like the USAF should adopt F-35Bs? Would we suddenly be saying things "Oh well he is in the Air Force, and he flies C-130s so he must really have something here!" No of course not. We still have people freaking out about the F-35 not being good enough for a close in dogfight involving its cannon, but the thought that airfields will be destroyed and carriers put in peril, is not worth a second thought.

STOVL has to reprove itself every conflict. and in the meantime the critics tee off on it, then the next was comes and it proves itself again. I thought as a Theory STOVL had been validated in 1982.
Offline

quicksilver

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 915
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post01 Dec 2012, 22:48

XanderCrews wrote:
Even the AV-8Bs supporting the (much publicized) F-15 crew rescue had to be relieved by F-16s because they had to tank - a fact less emphasized by the USMC publicity machine.


Good thing it wasn't the F-16s that had to tank, or we would have people calling CTOL in to question :roll:

I know this thread is back from the dead, (A lot has changed over the last 10 months as well) but in any other service, in any other subject, would anyone care what some C-130 driver has to say? The Gazette published an article by a major that said the USMC should buy F-22s in Lieu of F-35Bs. They are opinions. You are welcome to those. If some F-18 guy says that the F-35B is the best airplane in the world does that mean that it is all settled for good?

Do you think if a C-130 guy in the USAF said something about his service's marquee fighter, the F-22 that it would even make the news? What if back in 2007 he had the audacity to suggest that maybe the F-22 was more trouble than it was worth and a good alternative would be the F-35? Or even something else completely different? like the USAF should adopt F-35Bs? Would we suddenly be saying things "Oh well he is in the Air Force, and he flies C-130s so he must really have something here!" No of course not. We still have people freaking out about the F-35 not being good enough for a close in dogfight involving its cannon, but the thought that airfields will be destroyed and carriers put in peril, is not worth a second thought.

STOVL has to reprove itself every conflict. and in the meantime the critics tee off on it, then the next was comes and it proves itself again. I thought as a Theory STOVL had been validated in 1982.


CTOL and CV jets never have to tank, all those KCs are around just for the Harriers. 8)
Offline

XanderCrews

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1836
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post01 Dec 2012, 23:41

quicksilver wrote:CTOL and CV jets never have to tank, all those KCs are around just for the Harriers. 8)


An F-15 crashes, the much maligned MV-22 performs a text book rescue (the reason it was created) and the Harriers who were on scene and dropped ordnance to protect the down crewman (At their direction) then have to tank and some F-16s seamlessly drop in to support-- conclusion: STOVL is a failure. and the "Marine Publicity machine" doesn't mention that the Harriers tanked after the crewman were rescued? Did they fail to mention that the Harriers had to deploy their undercarriage to land as well? Its a conspiracy alright.

Err ok. If having to tank is a failure, what is it when an F-15 crashes? Can CTOL Aircraft no longer perform in combat? Does the USAF even need aircraft? Is it even needed as a service when the USN and USMC have airwings and have had them longer? How come every service that can, has their own air force? Isn't the USAF just redundant at this point?

Applying the USMC/STOVL critic formula to other aircraft and services sure is fun. :lol:

Whether you think that STOVL is the most brilliant aviation invention since the control stick, or whether you think it was another stupid british side show, the Bee is still the best version of STOVL that has been invented to this point. It will be able to do things that Harriers could only dream. You can compare it to the Harrier all you want, they are not the same aircraft. Even the manner in which they achieve STOVL is different.
Last edited by XanderCrews on 02 Dec 2012, 00:05, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

FlightDreamz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 720
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 17:18
  • Location: Long Island, New York

Unread post01 Dec 2012, 23:49

quicksilver
CTOL and CV jets never have to tank, all those KCs are around just for the Harriers.

Judging by the smiley face on the end of that statement, I'm <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfvTwv5o1Qs">assuming</a> that was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. But I can't help asking, don't the short legged F/A-18C/D's have to take their turn at the KC-135 Stratotankers pattern? :wink:
A fighter without a gun . . . is like an airplane without a wing.— Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.
Offline

XanderCrews

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1836
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post02 Dec 2012, 00:07

FlightDreamz wrote:quicksilver
CTOL and CV jets never have to tank, all those KCs are around just for the Harriers.

Judging by the smiley face on the end of that statement, I'm <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfvTwv5o1Qs">assuming</a> that was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. But I can't help asking, don't the short legged F/A-18C/D's have to take their turn at the KC-135 Stratotankers pattern? :wink:


Oh no!! Now CVN launched aircraft are a failure too!! What a tragic day! :lol:
Offline

neurotech

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1999
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post02 Dec 2012, 03:20

FlightDreamz wrote:quicksilver
CTOL and CV jets never have to tank, all those KCs are around just for the Harriers.

Judging by the smiley face on the end of that statement, I'm <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfvTwv5o1Qs">assuming</a> that was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. But I can't help asking, don't the short legged F/A-18C/D's have to take their turn at the KC-135 Stratotankers pattern? :wink:

No, the F/A-18C/Ds come in behind the F/A-18F and get fuel from the buddy-tanker :D
The KC-135 has trouble landing on the CVNs :D complete failure!

Edit: 500th Post
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 2 guests