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

I suppose a land base could use this technique too, a short landing to go with their short takeoff. Considering the plane can take off vertically too as well as land that way there is total symmetry in the exit/return phase options making this plane as flexible as you can get in basing/payload trade-offs.

There is no 'suppose' needed. However to save engine wear and tear (apart from practicing a land short landing in STOVL Mode 4) the F-35B will land in the same way a conventional aircraft lands (for example the other variants F-35A & F-35C).

Austere ops use SRVL-types of landings. They have been doing that since the Harriers.

Perhaps it has not been explained enough. The F-35B can land conventionally (which it will do most of the time on suitable land runways). Then for 'austere' ops it can land in STOVL MODE FOUR from a relatively fast airspeed (because it has lots of extra weight onboard / fuel/ weapons) to a very slow forward airspeed then down to a vertical landing when if the wind direction / speed is an issue such as when onboard, the aircraft can fly BACKWARDS at 30 KIAS (when in effect it may be in a hover with the wind down the tail pipe). Of course these are extremes however as noted show the versatility.

IIRC the maximum ground speed for tyres is 175 knots. Add on wind from the front during a land landing in STOVL Mode 4 or even a conventional landing to get the KIAS maximum when extra heavy whilst remaining under whatever the maximum weight for landing limit (I have no idea what that is). However in conventional mode a FLARE could cushion such things.

HMS Queen Elizabeth, first SRVL, comparisons https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Au-Jh-Fayvg

IF that is a GoPro or similar camera in the WILSON photo ZOOM, we may get to see some video of the first approach?

“The first ever Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) has been carried out with an F-35B Lightning II joint strike fighter jet conducting trials onboard the new British aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth. The U.K. is the only nation currently planning to use the maneuver, which will allow jets to land onboard with heavier loads, meaning they won't need to jettison expensive fuel and weapons before landing. The landing, conducted by Peter Wilson, a BAE Systems UK test pilot with the F-35 Pax River Integrated Test Force, took place at exactly 10:30 a.m. Oct. 13, 2018, off the east coast of the U.S. Landing 755 feet [YARDS amended to FEET] back from the end of the carrier's ski jump, the jet came to a complete standstill at the 580 foot mark. Royal Navy photo” http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploads/ ... 99-002.jpg & http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploads/ ... 99-006.jpg

SRVL is good news. Add engine improvements e.g. growth option 1A which would increase vertical thrust (and hence bringback) by another 2k lbs + future growth option 2A, could the 2x2800lb external fuel tank carriage become a technical reality for the B in terms of carrier ops?

A few IFS in that conjecture. Why does the BEE need EFTs if the extra engine power/less fuel used is utilized? How that will affect extra range is unknown (unless you know) and how the extra external fuel will be useful for range (perhaps useful for buddy tanking but deemed unnecessary for the UK F-35B ops at moment - perhaps the USMC will find them useful in some new scenario?). Too many known unknowns methinks. F135 engine upgrades for BEE & others will be nice.

Assuming the 2x 426 gal EFTs. ~5500 lbs of fuel could add at least 150 nm to combat radius. It will mean 19k lbs of fuel (A carries 18k lbs, C - 19.6k lbs).

There has been discussion for using EFTs/CFTs a few times with lots of vague advantages mentioned but nothing from an official source (except perhaps long ago now) with a consensus YMMV (YM seems to vary) that nothing much by way of miles is gained by the added drag/weight of such EFTs especially. That seems to be the reason development of such extra tankage has been ignored (except perhaps by Israel however we have heard nothing for a long long time). Remember that the extra weight of tanks/fuel probably needs to be offset by fewer weapons carried (depending on circumstances of the launch). USMC has an LHA MTOW limit of which we are not aware. We know CVFs can launch an F-35B at MTOW with a known number/weight of weapons from longest mark on the deck. I reckon just guessing is a waste of time otherwise.

I have read comments that because the F-35B does not require the same amount of bingo fuel as the F-35C for example that without that 'extra baggage' & using the fuel it has the Bee can have a similar range to the Cee (just a guess though).

200 pages (reprinted PRN so no live URL links) of SRVL goodness as up to date & relevant as can be - for the time being.

F-35B SRVL INFO 18 Oct 2018 PRN pp 200.PDF (9.7Mb) attached below.

Why no SRVL for USMC on LHA/Ds? Space available (lateral...on LHA/Ds, between the scuppers and the foul line) and deck motion. QE much larger and much more stable vessel than large Gators.

Will be interesting to see if they even test such a thing on the US ships. USN made quite a conniption about it for CVN.

If they are intended as aviation-centric boats, with an eye towards use as Lightning carriers with updwards of 20-25 F-35B, IMO adding ramps to LHA-6 and LHA-7 increases the strike power of those vessels. Maybe this makes more sense if the USMC / USN adopt the SRVL recovery technique.

If they are intended as aviation-centric boats, with an eye towards use as Lightning carriers with updwards of 20-25 F-35B, IMO adding ramps to LHA-6 and LHA-7 increases the strike power of those vessels.

They still remain multi-purpose ships; the principle enablers of those purposes are aviation centric and are mostly tilt-rotor/RW. The cost/benefit of such mods have never made the cut priority-wise. They can probably pull such trades off-the-shelf from previous go-rounds on the topic.

Maybe this makes more sense if the USMC / USN adopt the SRVL recovery technique.

Ramps do not obviate the principle challenge (as I mentioned above) which is the width of the available landing area. When combined with limits on deck motion (principally roll), the operating envelope would be very small.

Copy all, QS. Thank you for the informative reply. I think I finally "gittit."