UK Ready To Ditch STOVL F-35?

[[email protected]]

"London's Daily Telegraph reports this morning
that the UK is preparing to switch from the short
take-off, vertical landing (STOVL) version of the
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to the F-35C carrier (CV)
model, because it costs less and has a greater
weapon load and range."

See:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a525d9133-05eb-4040-beb5-3993b83569ca

If the UK ditches the F-35B model, will the USMC have
to switch to the F-35C too?

[hcobb]

On Aug 6, 9:01 am, wrote:
> "London's Daily Telegraph reports this morning
> that the UK is preparing to switch from the short
> take-off, vertical landing (STOVL) version of the
> F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to the F-35C carrier (CV)
> model, because it costs less and has a greater
> weapon load and range."
>
> See:
>
> http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController...
>
> If the UK ditches the F-35B model, will the USMC have
> to switch to the F-35C too?

No, they've got the world's best PR. How else could you explain the
EVF?

Doe this mean the Brits will ditch the Frog Carrier for a real one
from the USA?

"The gas-turbine/electric ships would be fitted with separate steam
generators to power the cats."

EMALS being far too complex for them to master I take it?

-HJC

[[email protected]]

In article
>,
(hcobb) wrote:

> Doe this mean the Brits will ditch the Frog Carrier for a real one
> from the USA?

No, because the gas-turbine carrier is something we can build fairly
readily. And we're still proud - sometimes too proud - about that stuff.

> "The gas-turbine/electric ships would be fitted with separate steam
> generators to power the cats."
>
> EMALS being far too complex for them to master I take it?

Too wacky for the Daily Telegraph to give credibility to. Other news
sources are definitely discussing it.

Interpreting the biases of the UK press is not exactly simple. The first
thing you have to grasp is that our newspapers don't have any kind of
legal duty to be unbiased, and mostly see their own biases as being a
sensible, middle-of-the-road viewpoint, which the British people would
embrace en masse were they not being misled by rival papers. Some of the
more delusional ones, such as the Daily Express, really do appear to
believe that everyone agrees with them.

The Telegraph is essentially based on the idea that the 1950s were the
last time of earthly paradise, but that there was a kind of Silver Age
in the eighties under Thatcher, at least in the aspects of the time that
weren't forward-looking.

--
John Dallman, , HTML mail is treated as probable spam.

[Peter Stickney[_2_]]

wrote:

> "London's Daily Telegraph reports this morning
> that the UK is preparing to switch from the short
> take-off, vertical landing (STOVL) version of the
> F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to the F-35C carrier (CV)
> model, because it costs less and has a greater
> weapon load and range."
>
> See:
>
>
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a525d9133-05eb-4040-beb5-3993b83569ca
>
> If the UK ditches the F-35B model, will the USMC have
> to switch to the F-35C too?

I don't see why, The UK buy is a minor part of the F-35B program.
(Just as it was with the production of the original Harrier)
The USMC buy is somewhere between 270-400 aircraft, depending on which
projections you look at. The RAF is looking for 90, and the RN is looking
for 60.


--
Pete Stickney
The better the Four Wheel Drive, the further out you get stuck.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 7, 2:01*am, wrote:
> "London's Daily Telegraph reports this morning
> that the UK is preparing to switch from the short
> take-off, vertical landing (STOVL) version of the
> F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to the F-35C carrier (CV)
> model, because it costs less and has a greater
> weapon load and range."
>

In my view the STOVL F-35 version is in most situations the best air
superiority and air defense weapon in the world.
This is because the most vulnerable part of a fighters is its landing
and takeoff field. Apart from 'death star' super powers such as the
USA with a big reserve of aircraft safe in the continental USA many
airforces were defeated on the ground. Consider the problem of
defending nations bordering the ex USSR (eg Sweden, Norway, Finland,
Germany). The STOVL version could potentially be dispersed in
forrests, sand embankments such that the STOVL fighters can quickly
climb up and ambush the enemy using advanced Meteor or AMRAAM style
missiles.


This apect of its capabilities seems to be neglected despite this
being a dream of the Luftwaffe in the 1950s and 60s. (who had an
extensive and interesting STOVL program).

The USN version, the F-35B, is interesting due to its enlarged wing
area making it potentially highly manouverable. It appears it isn't
stressed to be a dog fighter. I suspect that might be changed.

[Jeb in Richmond]

On Aug 10, 4:35*pm, wrote:
> On Aug 7, 2:01*am, wrote:
>
> > "London's Daily Telegraph reports this morning
> > that the UK is preparing to switch from the short
> > take-off, vertical landing (STOVL) version of the
> > F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to the F-35C carrier (CV)
> > model, because it costs less and has a greater
> > weapon load and range."
>
> In my view the STOVL F-35 version is in most situations the best air
> superiority and air defense weapon in the world.
> This is because the most vulnerable part of a fighters is its landing
> and takeoff field. *Apart from 'death star' super powers such as the
> USA with a big reserve of aircraft safe in the continental USA many
> airforces were defeated on the ground. Consider the problem of
> defending nations bordering the ex USSR (eg Sweden, Norway, Finland,
> Germany). * The STOVL version could potentially be dispersed in
> forrests, sand embankments such that the STOVL fighters can quickly
> climb up and ambush the enemy using advanced Meteor or AMRAAM style
> missiles.
>
> This apect of its capabilities seems to be neglected despite this
> being a dream of the Luftwaffe in the 1950s and 60s. *(who had an
> extensive and interesting STOVL program).
>
> The USN version, the F-35B, is interesting due to its enlarged wing
> area making it potentially highly manouverable. *It appears it isn't
> stressed to be a dog fighter. *I suspect that might be changed.

The STOVL F-35 is not going to be capable of true vertical takeoff
with any kind of payload and probably its vertical landing performance
is going to be more marginal than the Harrier's. It's certainly going
to be more destructive; the V-22s are already tearing up the same
decks that the Marines want to operate F-35s off of, so it's almost
guaranteed that at some point, the Marines will have to stop using the
STOVL birds off the same helo decks in order to preserve them for
actual helicopters. If you're wanting to use roadways and other
civilian structures for flight ops, buy the carrier version and rely
on its tougher structure.

[William Black[_1_]]

wrote:
> On Aug 7, 2:01 am, wrote:
>> "London's Daily Telegraph reports this morning
>> that the UK is preparing to switch from the short
>> take-off, vertical landing (STOVL) version of the
>> F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to the F-35C carrier (CV)
>> model, because it costs less and has a greater
>> weapon load and range."
>>
>
> In my view the STOVL F-35 version is in most situations the best air
> superiority and air defense weapon in the world.
> This is because the most vulnerable part of a fighters is its landing
> and takeoff field. Apart from 'death star' super powers such as the
> USA with a big reserve of aircraft safe in the continental USA many
> airforces were defeated on the ground. Consider the problem of
> defending nations bordering the ex USSR (eg Sweden, Norway, Finland,
> Germany). The STOVL version could potentially be dispersed in
> forrests, sand embankments such that the STOVL fighters can quickly
> climb up and ambush the enemy using advanced Meteor or AMRAAM style
> missiles.
>
>
> This apect of its capabilities seems to be neglected despite this
> being a dream of the Luftwaffe in the 1950s and 60s. (who had an
> extensive and interesting STOVL program).

That's because there's no credible threat in the medium term.

--
William Black

The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing.
If you can fake that, you've got it made.

[David E. Powell]

On Aug 6, 12:01*pm, wrote:
> "London's Daily Telegraph reports this morning
> that the UK is preparing to switch from the short
> take-off, vertical landing (STOVL) version of the
> F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to the F-35C carrier (CV)
> model, because it costs less and has a greater
> weapon load and range."
>
> See:
>
> http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController...

Not a bad idea if they have the deck length and/or catapault tech to
do it. Simpler and as they say better range. Maybe the payload is
better too, even with the STOVL ability to vent to help on a heavy
takeoff. That is an interesting question though.

> If the UK ditches the F-35B model, will the USMC have
> to switch to the F-35C too?

Not if the R&D is mostly done and budgeted.

[hcobb]

On Aug 10, 1:35 pm, wrote:
> In my view the STOVL F-35 version is in most situations the best air
> superiority and air defense weapon in the world.
> This is because the most vulnerable part of a fighters is its landing
> and takeoff field. Apart from 'death star' super powers such as the
> USA with a big reserve of aircraft safe in the continental USA many
> airforces were defeated on the ground. Consider the problem of
> defending nations bordering the ex USSR (eg Sweden, Norway, Finland,
> Germany). The STOVL version could potentially be dispersed in
> forrests, sand embankments such that the STOVL fighters can quickly
> climb up and ambush the enemy using advanced Meteor or AMRAAM style
> missiles.

If only the Eurofighter had a ghost of a chance of matching its
original landing distance spec.

-HJC

[[email protected]]

On Aug 11, 7:01*am, Jeb in Richmond > wrote:
> On Aug 10, 4:35*pm, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 7, 2:01*am, wrote:
>
> > > "London's Daily Telegraph reports this morning
> > > that the UK is preparing to switch from the short
> > > take-off, vertical landing (STOVL) version of the
> > > F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to the F-35C carrier (CV)
> > > model, because it costs less and has a greater
> > > weapon load and range."
>
> > In my view the STOVL F-35 version is in most situations the best air
> > superiority and air defense weapon in the world.
> > This is because the most vulnerable part of a fighters is its landing
> > and takeoff field. *Apart from 'death star' super powers such as the
> > USA with a big reserve of aircraft safe in the continental USA many
> > airforces were defeated on the ground. Consider the problem of
> > defending nations bordering the ex USSR (eg Sweden, Norway, Finland,
> > Germany). * The STOVL version could potentially be dispersed in
> > forrests, sand embankments such that the STOVL fighters can quickly
> > climb up and ambush the enemy using advanced Meteor or AMRAAM style
> > missiles.
>
> > This apect of its capabilities seems to be neglected despite this
> > being a dream of the Luftwaffe in the 1950s and 60s. *(who had an
> > extensive and interesting STOVL program).
>
> > The USN version, the F-35B, is interesting due to its enlarged wing
> > area making it potentially highly manouverable. *It appears it isn't
> > stressed to be a dog fighter. *I suspect that might be changed.
>
> The STOVL F-35 is not going to be capable of true vertical takeoff
> with any kind of payload

I pair of AMRAAMs is all it needs to be a threat and I believe it can
actually carry an additonal pair of smaller AAMs in the interior
weapons bays.


and probably its vertical landing performance
> is going to be more marginal than the Harrier's. It's certainly going
> to be more destructive; the V-22s are already tearing up the same
> decks that the Marines want to operate F-35s off of, so it's almost
> guaranteed that at some point, the Marines will have to stop using the
> STOVL birds off the same helo decks in order to preserve them for
> actual helicopters.

I don't suppose anyone though of putting aside some money for
improvements to the decks so that they can handle the exhaust eflux
of a F-35 and X-22?

Similary mobile platforms can be developed to protect the 'civilan
structures' and there are also alternatives to concrete that can
handle much higher heats and stresses.

Perhaps the X-22 needs a reverse flow combustion chamber so that the
exhaust is just behined the prop and therefore somewhat diliuted by
air.

If you're wanting to use roadways and other
> civilian structures for flight ops, buy the carrier version and rely
> on its tougher structure.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Jeb in Richmond]

On Aug 10, 6:56*pm, wrote:
> On Aug 11, 7:01*am, Jeb in Richmond > wrote:

> > The STOVL F-35 is not going to be capable of true vertical takeoff
> > with any kind of payload
>
> I pair of AMRAAMs is all it needs to be a threat and I believe it can
> actually carry an additonal pair of smaller AAMs in the interior
> weapons bays.

They were having a hard enough time with getting the empty weight
where it needed to be to achieve hover. It's not as bad as X-32 was,
but still. If you're planning on flying air-to-air with two missiles
and a partial fuel load, then maybe it's acceptable, but there's a
reason they're not calling this a VTOL airframe.

I wonder how a short takeoff run will look in the F-35? Will they even
swivel the exhaust or just rely on the lift fan to augment the wing
lift?