[Blue Scourge]

I'm a bit skeptical of this...I don't really know enough about the program. But last I heard it hasn't even finished testing....

[FesterUSMC]

I would like to see the airforce buy at least 50 F-22's....

[Tallguy]

I guess if you buy a significant percentage of your F-35 JSF's as STOVL's, you are more likely to get your F-22's? If, on the other hand, you buy your F-35's as CTOL's (as originally planned), Congress just might cut your F-22 funding.

[SJSAMPLE]

AFAIK, the STOVL variant doesn't even have a gun or even decent range (yet). That big fan and its transmission is taking up ammo and storage space and the STOVL requirement means the weight has to be kept down. I don't think the Air Force is willing to trade the performance of the standard JSF for the STOVL vairant.

[GBA]

Ping

[Yo-Yo]

The STOVL variant is to replace the Harrier for the Marines and the Royal Navy. I can't imagine why the Air Force would want to take the huge hit in lost payload and reduced loiter time compared to the CTOL variant.

The Marines and Royal Navy operate from small carriers with no catapult or arresting capability, hence the need for STOVL.

And God help the Air Force if they successfully kill off the A-10. The F-35 cannot duplicate that mission any more than the F-16 could, STOVL or CTOL variants.

[JoeGar]

Jumper and Air Force Secretary James Roche announced in February that the service would like to buy the STOVL variant as well to provide close air support, particularly for Army ground troops ...

The USAF never did care much for close air support. They preferred the fighter and bomber roles. They ditched the A-10 Warthog as soon as they could. (They tried to ditch it before the first Gulf War.) The Army and Marines couldn't count on the Air Force for close air, and that's why they have Apaches and Harriers respectively. Now, we have a war where close air is needed and the Air Force has little that can deliver.

[Calpernia]

USAF to buy 'hundreds' of STOVL JSFs

[Fast1]

That plane is a framacted POS they have a drive-shaft driving the vertical lift fan,aside from the super complex machining on a titanium bulkhead the last I checked it was 2004 not 1974..

[Mr. Jeeves]

Why do have the feeling that Russian or Chinese ground-based pilots using relatively inexpensive robotic drones (maybe even kamikaze-style, anti-aircraft drones) would have little trouble bringing down a whole squadron of JSF's? Or almost any other fighter plane in our arsenal, with the possible exception of the F-22 Raptor?

[Archangelsk]

Dumb decision, if the Air Force wants to be Marines, let them join the Marines.

[Criminal Number 18F]

OK. A few points.

• VSTOL. Why? If you are Marines, the answer is so that we can operate these things from shipboard -- from dinky ships or container ships that the Navy can't fly "real" planes from. The other services have little justification.

• The Naval variant is not VSTOL but is Catapult-TO Arrested-Landing which adds weight and complexity.

• Every aircraft contains: structure, fuel, crew (except UAV), mission equipment (including internal/external stores and weapons), and powerplant. Yes? These are the things that make up 100% of its weight. In any VTOL, VSTOL, STOVL capable aircraft the powerplant fraction goes UP and the structure usually goes up too. At this point you are either adding wing loading or, more likely, deleting something else -- because that 100% is a zero-sum game. Your weight is usually limited by something mundane. Like the ability of the machine to fly.

• What usually gets deleted is fuel, and then mission equipment. This means that a VSTOL aircraft has much less range and capability than a CTOL machine of the same gross weight, and significantly less than a carrier plane of the same weight.

• Initial performance estimates, made when contractors are trying to sell the plane to the services, and the services are trying to sell the plane to Congress, are always wildly, irresponsibly optimistic. Viz. the combat range of the F/A-18 which is not a whole lot farther than the cat can shoot it, without hitting a tanker....

• The Harrier has a mixed record in combat. The British did OK with them against obsolete Skyhawks, Daggers and Mirages operating at extreme range in a lo-lo-lo profile. As a ground attack plane in Afghanistan it was a failure. Due to high/hot conditions, they had to leave too much fuel and armament on the ground. They had, in the hot wx, one dumb bomb, no guns, and no loiter time. One pass and haul ass. The A-10 was a tremendous success and the pilots were willing to go toe-to-toe with 23mm AAA because they knew they could win that fight. The A-10 carries everything but the kitchen sink and can hang around long enough to drop it all effectively.

• The record of the Harrier is relevant because the F-35 offers Harrier equivalent performance, at the price of greater complexity.

• A more complex aircraft is always less available than a simpler one, given equivalent support. The STOVL F-35 will be "up" less than the Harrier, and much less than the CTOL F-35.

• The STOVL variant will be much more expensive that CTOL -- it means the USAF will get fewer planes for the money.

• There's always a runway. If there isn't, or if some inhospitable sonofabitch put holes in in, you would be shocked how quickly Red Horse or the Seabees can build one. Even Army and Marine engineers can do it, they just take longer.

• And finally... VSTOL? Why? I say the case is not made.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F