It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

F35b limitations according to RN pilot.

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Well, I leave it to the service record to judge this conundrum.....
Its obvious what we are getting,..... so from there arguing over dinner .......wont change the menu will it?
Superior training may also show the aircraft to be quite manageable as well as extremely versatile,,,,(that's what we are betting our pilots lives on....as well as perhaps a major battle or two....).....and up to now we do have that advantage......




posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


Vertical takeoff is useless. You can't take off with any useful payload of weapons or fuel.

Not in its original concept. VTOL was designed to work in close support of marines and be based nearby anyewhere they went. Sans runway and carries the vtol is perfect in that dedicated role.

That original concept, flown by Marines, in close support of Marines, based near Marines has gone fuzzy. Now we got what we got; Mutl hundred million "Wunde Waffe" (wonder weapons).



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

No, even the Harrier couldn't perform a vertical takeoff with a useful weapons payload on board. They could use the thrust vectoring to shorten the takeoff roll, but they can't generate enough thrust to takeoff with a useful fuel and weapons mix.

The AV-8B was capable of a vertical take off with a 4,000 lb payload. That's compared to a payload of over 13,000 lbs in short take off mode.
edit on 9/28/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: stuthealien
im not impressed at all with the f35 and the only thing i can see that is any good is the stealth abilities ,i know its old but the harrier was awesome even for urban combat zones with the ability to land in a small carpark ,so groundbreaking america gave us harrier 2,,so where for the love of jah is generation 6 harrier of death with cloaking,,why have we gone backwards,,vertical take off is a must have option in any fighter jet and im deeply saddened we have taken this over priced piece of american crap

The actual F35 is a sound aircraft its just that when a pilot that has served on strike carriers and stovl carriers voices a concern you listen to him its not piece of american crap, it will be a most capable fighter/bomber but not in the B version.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


No, even the Harrier couldn't perform a vertical takeoff with a useful weapons payload on board.

Useful? Depends on what you call useful. Being quick to rescue pinned down marines even with only a couple bombs or gun ammo, rockets, whatever… that quick response time for a couple of Jump jets based a mile behind their pos is a godsend.

I know that from the days of Vietnam and even wwii. Thats where the idea was born. The biggest factor besides being nearby is that they were to be under command of the marines and not other branches that might be further away and "busy" with their own tasks.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

And they don't operate from fields that close to the front. They operate from fields that are prepared airfields for a reason.

They're going to be sitting either unloaded, or loaded for bear. If you're in enough crap to need a vertical takeoff for support, you're almost certainly going to need more than they're carrying in that configuration.

The Marines have never operated the Harrier in vertical takeoff mode, except for airshows, and extremely rare exercises.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: stuthealien the harrier was awesome even for urban combat zones with the ability to land in a small carpark


Can you cite any example of a operational use of Harriers in a urban combat zone involving deployment from carparks?



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


And they don't operate from fields that close to the front. They operate from fields that are prepared airfields for a reason.

That was my point. There are no air fields 'In the field' if you get my drift. Any hi-way, parking lot, beach or golf green will do.


The Harrier's VTOL abilities allowed it to be deployed from very small prepared clearings or helipads as well as normal airfields.[N 5] It was believed that, in a high-intensity conflict, air bases would be vulnerable and likely to be quickly knocked out.[N 6] The capability to scatter Harrier squadrons to dozens of small "alert pads" on the front lines was highly prized by military strategists and the USMC procured the aircraft because of this ability.[47][N 7] Hawker Siddeley noted that STOL operation provided additional benefits over VTOL operation, saving fuel and allowing the aircraft to carry more ordnance…

wiki


This was back in the 60's when they first appeared.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Yes, that was the reason behind it. Name once when it was actually used in combat.

They will never operate them that close to the front, because they are in too much danger from artillery fire. They are going to be far enough back to not be easily hit, and if you're that far back, why not be at a prepared field.

It was thought that roads and small fields could be used, but other large issues, such as FOD come into play. If you're trying to operate out of a grass field, you're GOING to FOD an engine out. And with the Harrier, that's an insanely complex evolution to deal with, made ten times harder by being out in a field. There's a good chance that once the engine is gone, you're looking at a bird to be used for parts and pieces, out in a field.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


Name once when it was actually used in combat.


That scenario hasn't arisen. But might, the farther NATO pushes into Central Europe and the Middle East.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

And if they're using roads, which is what NATO practices, then it will be for the short takeoff role, not the vertical takeoff role.

Vertical takeoff is next to useless for combat missions, and will continue to be. It will work well to move the aircraft around, but there's to much risk of FOD, and other problems, besides such a limited payload.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

It would be a logistical nightmare, and no opponent in central europe or the middle east (excepting Russia) currently has the ability to threaten airfields to a degree that dispersal would be a prudent alternative.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: KROandSOTV
When you consider that the harrier is a 45yrs old platform,And the f35b is a state of the art fighting machine then yes i would be concerned that it has the same landing problems on a stovl carrier.


You shouldn't be - Physics doesn't change over 45 years.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Zaphod58


Name once when it was actually used in combat.


That scenario hasn't arisen. But might, the farther NATO pushes into Central Europe and the Middle East.



Your scenario is basically filled by helicopters. Thats why the scenario has never arisen in 30 years.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: _Del_

originally posted by: stuthealien the harrier was awesome even for urban combat zones with the ability to land in a small carpark


Can you cite any example of a operational use of Harriers in a urban combat zone involving deployment from carparks?


A silly strawman - the Falklands conflict showed the usefulness of a SVTOL a/c in some circumstances - the Harriers were able to operate from a 260 meter hurriedly prepared forward operating base, and also to land on ships that were not designed for them (see also the FOB link) and even a couple of container ships
edit on 28-9-2014 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

But they weren't flying combat missions using a vertical takeoff capability. They only used the short takeoff capability to launch.
edit on 9/28/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: _Del_


(excepting Russia)


Like I said, if we keep pushing, we're going to find out.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   
While Sharkey's concerns are realistic, the concerns are known and will be mitigated.

From what he has said he is not privy to some of the in progress changes.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Indeed - it is always preferable to use STOL because you get to carry much more load - and ski ramps help too - which is why I noted that Physics doesn't change in 45 years in another post.

None-the-less the VTOL ability WAS important in a combat context.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71


Your scenario is basically filled by helicopters. Thats why the scenario has never arisen in 30 years.

Granted. Helicopters are sitting ducks compared to fast movers.

Let me know how the VTOL becomes more important after all the runways in Europe are cratered by Russian version of Paveways.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join