F35b limitations according to RN pilot.

A really good read by Sharky Ward. In it he explains the disadvantages of the B version and the new CVF of the Royal Navy and how the MOD listened to the RAF and not the navy regarding Aircraft for the Carriers.

terencestrong.co.uk...

So it's ok for the Harrier to not be able to land vertically in hot weather, but that immediately disqualifies the F-35 as a viable replacement?

It's amazing that when people find out that the newest airplane is not the millennium falcon, it must be a complete piece of crap. Every piece of military equipment has limitations.

Dollar for dollar, an angry human with a hefty club is the most formidable weapon.
Take everyone on death row or serving a life sentence, give them a Louisville slugger, and parachute them into a war zone.
Every scalp is a year off your sentence.

a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71
Well i would take his advice and recommendations over any one on here sorry.

I fully agree that the ships should of been cat and traps, i think the F35 a and c will be superb aircraft not sure about the b version but all we can do is wait till 2020 ans see who is right.

The complaints are valid. Still in development, underpowered and increasingly so with age, rough weather, limited visibility and a pitching deck at night in storms or hot weather, returning with unused stores and fuel, in some or all of these conditions the margins for safely landing aboard ship are reduced.

He explains it well enough for anyone who reads it to understand.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
So it's ok for the Harrier to not be able to land vertically in hot weather, but that immediately disqualifies the F-35 as a viable replacement?

Thats why according to sharky they was with drawn from service.

I don't know if they are a viable replacement i haven't seen a fully loaded one with fuel and bombs land yet on a carrier.

Aren't pilots that have actually flow the F-35B rave about it and say how better it is verses the Harrier? The Marines are doing F-35B testing off the Wasp currently and I haven't heard them talking about any operational hazards or limitation that the Harrier didn't have.

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.

sigh.... f35=never ending story...the ultimate money-pit

a reply to: KROandSOTV

The 787 is a brand new aircraft, and is state of the art, and it has the same issues taking off in hot weather that they had 50 years ago. There are some things that are inherent issues with aerodynamics. Hot air is one of those.

a reply to: Zaphod58

There are some things that are inherent issues with aerodynamics. Hot air is one of those.

So is the shape of the aircraft. He states that increases the landing speed aboard ship (its not a true hover), there is forward motion to compensate for shape of the airframe and underpowered engines. His concern is that speed is too high resulting in more braking time from center deck to the end of the ship. Less effective braking due to lighter brake systems (to save weight) and thinner wheels, slippery deck conditions all add to the overall problems associated with safe landing.

Going over the end or ejecting, resulting in loss of aircraft overboard or crashing into aircraft parked on deck could result.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
So it's ok for the Harrier to not be able to land vertically in hot weather, but that immediately disqualifies the F-35 as a viable replacement?

I think the trouble is unlike you most of us have no information on the clarified goodies in the F-35 that make it a worthwhile craft.

It hard to understand what we dont know. All the layman see is a £100 million + plane with super high maintenance.

It doesn't help that Aerospace company's seem to be bleeding money off the program like crazy and delaying thing and inflating prices.

a reply to: intrptr

And considering that they haven't even come close to that portion of testing, it's far too early to say with certainty that it's going to be a problem.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: intrptr

And considering that they haven't even come close to that portion of testing, it's far too early to say with certainty that it's going to be a problem.

How many crashes you think will consttitute "a problem"?

a reply to: crazyewok

Oh I get that. But even without that, the fact that if they scrap it now, it's going to take ten plus years to get another aircraft even close to this point, is a major point in keeping it going.

a reply to: intrptr

IF it's going to be a problem, it will come out in testing, long before the aircraft go operational.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: KROandSOTV

The 787 is a brand new aircraft, and is state of the art, and it has the same issues taking off in hot weather that they had 50 years ago. There are some things that are inherent issues with aerodynamics. Hot air is one of those.

But we arnt talking about a 787 with thousands of yards of runway.
He is on about a runway with at most 240m and a new form of landing it with heavy ordnance on board,What we must remember is the B version is for the marines as a close support fighter not a strike fighter like what our RN needs and building a carrier of 72000tons is a criminal waste as a stovl.

They wont be able to fly any other aircraft off the carrier no tankers no hawkeye just the f35b with it limted range and performance compared to the a and c versions.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Well then a major refit is required with more powerful engines, stronger brakes and thicker tires, and a general reshape of the stealthy aspects of the airframe to increase lift.

a reply to: KROandSOTV

As opposed to the Harrier, that suffered the same limitations off ship?

With a STOVAL/STOBAR carrier, ANY aircraft flying off the deck is going to suffer these limitations.