There is no good reason why F-35Bs cannot be on CVNs

Salute!

Well, the Brits didn't restrict their Harriers to super duper carriers in the Falklands.

I would imagine the Bug mafia on the boats would relent if things got nasty. Biggest problem I see is not landing on the same exact square of deck over and over. And we haven't even prefected rolling landings.

So I vote we do some testing and see more than the operational/performance issues but logistics. Except for a protracted scenario, I don't even see a logistics problem except for the fan stuff and maybe the exhaust nozzles.

Gums sends...

Some DECRY the Wide Wizened WIZE Wide Decks of the QE class flat decks mit ski jumpies - go here for the PDF....

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=449969&hilit=recover#p449969

"...DT RW [Rotary Wing] trials also served to clear 12 additional rotary-wing spots on Queen Elizabeth’s flight deck. Blackmore said: ‘We have cleared two ranks of five on the main flight deck [‘Alpha’, ‘Bravo’, ‘Charlie’, ‘Delta’, and ‘Echo’ spots on the port side, and ‘Hotel’, ‘Juliet’, ‘Kilo’, ‘Lima’ and ‘Mike’ up the starboard side of the main runway] for both Merlin and Chinook. And where ‘6 spot’ is, on the starboard quarter, we have cleared two landing spots designated ‘November’ and ‘Papa’.

‘That’s really important because it means we can launch and recover helicopters from the starboard side while still operating jets off the main runway.’...

Somewhere I recall posting info about a special helo TEST landing spot on a particular CVN so that helos could land and not interrupt flight ops otherwise. I don't know if the test ever took on for CVN helo ops afterwards.

So a V-22 doesn't crash the party but an F-35B does?
Meh Navy logic at its finest.

You're talking about the difference in "STOVL" of 50 feet for that fuel laden osprey's running takeoff, vs 500 foot minimum length take off for a combat loaded F-35B




to use an F-35B on a CVN you need either half the flight deck to takeoff off dead ahead, or using the angled landing area instead...

It looks like on the Ford class (just eyeballing here) the F-35B would be starting its take off in the angled landing area... Thus the F-35B effectively stopping traffic both ways...

Salute!

Actchally, I would use the angled deck for takeoff, as seems longer. Use forward cat systems for the Cee models.

Recovery could be a goat rope with arrests and the Bee vertical landings. Maybe land the Bees on the elevator, but if that thing was damaged ops would be cramped.

I do not know who is complaining about range, as the Bee will go further than the Bugs. Look at the gas. The Bug burns gas about like the F-15 or F-4. Their pilots gave me the numbers and I was shocked. The single engine Bee will burn less per minute/hour than the Bug, likely 2/3 or even one half.

Oh well, I feel in the heat of battle we would see Bees using the big carriers when required.

BTW, lottsa planning and such, including construction ongoing in the far east. My old squad is there in new, shiny Stubbies to escape the cold at Fairbanks, heh heh. Clever Demons.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... e-airfield

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... se-on-guam

Gums sends...