It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by NWguy83
The Brits are sure that their getting American EM catapult technology?
Originally posted by Silentvulcan
I have seen an artist's impression of the new british carriers with both ski-jump and caterpult fitted!.
Would the F 35C be able to use the ski-jump methord of take-off assist or would the lack of vectored thrust prevent this?
The battle between the two services will always continue as the RN were not happy about losing the Sea Harrier and having the crabfats on their carriers!!!!!!
Originally posted by clashrock
well..i think even without the VTOL.
It's good to have a backup to the eurofighter, for ground attack purposes.
The problem is that the Eurofighter /cannot/ 'escort' the F-35 (as FOAS or FJCA) anywhere 'deep' because it lacks the legs as much as signature and, in the case of an emergency naval-only deployment would likely be even further from the flashpoint.
Which leaves the F-35C as a kind of 'A-12 with afterburner' but STILL _only two missiles_, internally. BVRAAM may redress this, somewhat, as a sniper rifle standoff aid. But without decent ARM you will not penetrate a contemporary IADS on stealth alone.
Though the tornado in my opinion is something which will be very hard to replace in this role!
The Fin is a piece of crap. It's does not have the internal fuel to go deep which means it pirates wing pylons for tanks instead of the standoff PGM which should be there to give it a X4 instead of 'both pylons today I tell'ya!' (F-16 marching song) X2 carriage option as a true interdictor.
Of those tanks, the 'useful one' has severe G limits and a massive drag index. While the other is subsonic restricted. With the tanks in place, loading weapons on a Tornado then becomes a function of inching them under the belly on a low-loader and praying you've got clearance and don't nick the MLG doors or struts. Which slows your combat turns to a veritable crawl.
Aerodynamically, the Tornado has severe boattail problems which adds yet more drag penalty (the ADV fixed the fineness ratios a bit). And, as with all VG aircraft, it trades wing area for Mach point which means by the time you are up high where guys with wrist rockets cannot ding you, you are also fighting for energy maneuver margins as a function of a /huge/ wing loading deficit, often well over 200lbs per square foot. This takes the big-SAM ducking game from more or less simplicity to a real nail biting experience.
A situation not helped by the design of the RB.199 which yields as much as 20-25% of it's installed compression factors by the time you cross 20,000ft.
The Tornado was yet another 'fashion trend' attempt to jump on the VG bandwagon pioneered by the F-111 and MiG-23 without really understanding what the coming changes in LDSD and ever more potent VSHORADS would butterfly-pinned-to-board mean to the TFR penetration profile itself. Without that variable aspect ratio (ride) advantage, most of the Tornado's design justfication is equal to or less than the Phantom on the efficiency scale.
Though saying that.. is VTOL all that important these days? I mean I thought the original harrier jump jets were designed so they could be hid in forests, for example in places like russia, if war had ever broken out.
For all the good it did them. Don't think that the Russians didn't know /exactly/ where all the 'alternate hides' were for RAF-G harriers.
And don't be misled into thinking that you can just hoist a pack on your shoulder and go off into the wilds of dispersal. Because even the Harriers take anywhere from 5-8,000lbs of internal fuel and another 3-5,000lbs of munitions /per sortie/ which effectively means you are going to be trailing a fleet of semi trailers on roads 'patrolled' by enemy SOF and stuffed with fleeing civillians. /Hardly/ apt to be a 'discrete' operation with threat surveillance radar also seeing every launch from whatever roadway you finally settle on.
RAF Regiment aside, you also LOSE your entire options for hard sheltering which means that not only are you vulnerable to an infantry-portable mortar shell or ATGW treebursting from 2-5 klicks or more out. But when the lines are shattered and the Soviet OMG spearheads break out, nukes will fly and you will actually have /less/ of a chance against the overpressure and rads than if you were in a TAB-V (little as that is, in Germany proper).
STOVL exists to give cheap navies and airforces a way to be a nuissance to the real thing. As such, they proliferate war rather than solve any particular problem that a first-tier nation would otherwise find insurmountable.
I can see the advantages though for carrier landings and take offs. I mean after a while dosen't the stress on the air frames damage the aircraft?
As I recall, the Brits lost 3-4 Sea Harriers in 1982, 2 to a midair in a fog on climbout, 1 to a SAM or 35mm and I forget the other. In the following decade of _peacetime ops_ they lost 10-15, almost half the available force. All due to 'operational' accidents involving trying to settle on a torrent of thrust (imagine a fire hydrant getting knocked off it's mount and then reverse the perspective). Now it's only fair to say that the AV-8B was better than the GR.1/.3 and SHAR and it's likely that the F-35B will be a /lot/ better than the Harrier overall in this area.
But the fact remains that STOVL operations are a killer on par with the Me-109 'landing kills' in WWII. You are either on the top of your game. Or you are dead. And there is a serious reflection of this in both type-selection (only experienced pilots) and number of hours spent in basic around-the-boat and roadway STOVL training exercises (compared to 'real', tactical, training).
About the only option for STOVL these days is the Taiwanese or Korean scenario wherein you have a serious water barrier and/or superb defensive terrain advantagement, and yet the enemy is slinging DF-15/30 and SCUD/No Dong left, right and center.
In such a 'blindfire saturation' mode, it's likely that every airbase will be so massively over targeted that even sheltering systems will not be sufficient and so long as you maintain firm control of the social and logistical situation, you -may- be able to get jets up from a clearing to take on the simultaneous (short range, light AAM/PGM) threats of an Air Supremacy effort and any counter-beachhead attack.
My problem with this is that if, particularly the PRC, have AEW&C, you will still be tracked back to the roadbase. And if they are _serious_ about winning, they will have so many jets overhead that you will simply not be able to disengage and withdraw to a sanctuary airspace. At which point, it is better to be able to come from Okinawa or the PI and _stay_, until you've depleted your munitions. Before RTB'ing and back to a secure logistics point, even if it's nothing more than an emergency APOD type airhead on Manilla International.
Thats just my opinion though, it would still be cooler to have VTOL though definitley, you never know when we may need it!
STOVL means hot plumbing. Plumbing means volumetric and weight penalties ducting everything around the jet. It also means that if ONE thing fails (an RCS thruster for instance) you can kiss your sorry butt goodbye if you are dependent on short-strips. Until we get AGrav, it's unlikely that STOVL is worth the effort (compared to radius and super/hypersonic reach thereto, expanding the 'search area') on a fast-jet level.
At best, it's a useful throwaway option on cheap 'battlefield' assets like drones and medium/heavy lift where you are either operating out of the back of a deuce and a half in terms of fuel and munitions/C2 shelter commitment. Or when you need to resupply/shift/casevac airlanded forces without going above a 1,000ft horizon line on intelligent (hunting) Turbo-SAM or DEW threats (and need more speed than a helo to stay fluid).