the burn rate must be phenomenal though vs standard takeoff/landing...
Posted on 02/13/2012 10:43:21 AM PST by navysealdad
The F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing variant completed ship suitability testing aboard the USS WASP (LHD-1) off the coast of Virginia in October 2011. Combined, F-35B test aircraft BF-2 and BF-4 accomplished 72 short takeoffs and 72 vertical landings during the three-week testing period. VIDEO
(Excerpt) Read more at angelfire.com ...
A CVW TOE is not composed entirely of strike/fighter aircraft.
STOVL
I doubt seriously, at least within the next fifty years that the large carriers will be rendered obsolete, patricularly as the new Ford Class Carriers come online with their new, 200% more powerful reactors enabling EMALS, Laser CIWS, and even rail gun technology to be employed.
You forget that VTOL is much more limited in payload than a catapult launched aircraft.
I want to echo your response and add just a little. The F35B is going to the Marines ONLY. It’s purpose in life is to go where the ground troops go and provide them with air cover. So they can be deployed off the ship for beach assault or forward deployed as an invasion force moves away from the beach. The other variants can’t do that (obviously). This plane has exactly the same mission as the Harrier did.
It can OBVIOUSLY be used as fleet defense of a Wasp based task force, but the real use is to protect Marines on the ground.
From what I have read, the difference is day and night. The F-35B is as stable as the Harrier is unstable.
the burn rate must be phenomenal though vs standard takeoff/landing...
The design of the Ford Class Carrier appears to have the island well aft. It might be interesting to see an analysis of island placement over time.
They eliminated the aft, starboard elevator and have the Island placed further aft.
As a result there will be three elevators instead of four.
Apparantly, U.S. naval analysis indicated that this would increase the ability and flexability of aircraft movement on the deck and increase sortie rates and efficiency.
They greatly are easier. If you ever saw the documentary for the f-35 competition it is so much easier. Guy took his hands off the controls and it stayed stable hovering. Can’t do that with a Harrier and live.
This is essentially correct.
In V/STOL (or STOVL) mode the F-35 is dependent upon engine and lift-fan power getting it into the air as opposed to CTOL mode for most fixed-wing aircraft where air speed over the control services gets it airborne. In V/STOL mode, the F-35 is “lifting” of the lip of the ship’s deck via the downward force of its combined engine and fan as opposed to “flying” off of it.
“They generally don’t take off vertically for that reason — fuel consumption. You can get airborne with more payload with a rolling take-off. They only land vertically...”
Correct. The RAN 30 years ago perfected ops with the Harrier. They are at best with rolling, un-assisted loaded take-offs and vertical landings. Vertical take-offs are extremely un-efficient in anything other than the lightest of loads.
“For all of the negative press I have read about the F-35B you’d think the plane is an obsolete Turkey.”
Cost overruns, delays, etc. Lockheed is doing a fantastic job of wringing the utmost performance in a single compact airframe that could possibly be expected. The plane is meeting its performance goals and doing so within reason. I don’t have a whole of trouble with the product we’ve seen so far.
“The F35B is going to the Marines ONLY”
No. Just for the Marines it’s 400 airplanes. The -B is also intended for the Spanish, Italians, and Indians now. It was originally intended for the RAN but they’ve since moved to the -C USN STOL carrier version. Future potential customers are the Thai Navy, the Brazilian Navy, and maybe Australia from their helo LPDs.
When taking off from an amphibious assault ship. Rolling takeoffs from land bases sans lift fan can also be executed.
They are at best with rolling, un-assisted loaded take-offs
Unassisted? What are you attempting to say?
Vertical take-offs are extremely un-efficient(sic)
inefficient
It was originally intended for the RAN(sic)
Both the RN and RAF, no such animal as the RAN.
The -B is also intended for the Spanish, Italians, and Indians now.
Incorrect. Neither Spain or India has signed up for any variant of the F-35 let alone the B. A sales pitch to India outside the MMRCA has been made but nothing more.
-C USN STOL(sic) carrier version.
CV
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
