F35b limitations according to RN pilot.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Of course it was. It was only the vertical takeoff capacity that is in question.

a reply to: intrptr

They still won't be operating from grass fields taking off vertically. They'll operate from roads, as they practice, taking off conventionally.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

If there were a Falklands redux (or even replaying the original scenario on a board) wouldn't the FOB and operation from container ships be completely unnecessary if the RN and FAA had older CATOBAR aircraft carriers like the Ark Royal still in operation and available with F-4's -- or even the Hermes before refit carrying F-8's or A-4's (as had been proposed at one point)? Would the creation of the San Carlos FOB to accommodate Harriers be an unnecessary expenditure of resources in that event? Could those Royal Engineer squadrons have been better employed else where establishing the beachhead? Would the recapture of the Falklands and South Georgia have been faster with a CATOBAR fleet?

heres a video of a extreme harrier landing video .
why was it not possible to make the f35 a true vtol

a reply to: stuthealien

Both the Harrier and F-35B are STOVL, not true VTOLs, even though they can take off vertically.

a reply to: _Del_

sure - but they didn't, and for good reasons (money!), so that's about as useful a point as suggesting that Hitler would have won WW2 if only he'd have invented the nuclear bomb first - coulda', wouldna', shoulda'.

C-130 landing on a carrier no tailhook
www.military.com...
British should have built their new carriers with ski-ramps. Then there would be no need for catapults. Arrestor cables are not that expensive.
JSF-B? Vaporware. Show me the money.
IF (?) there is a problem found in development, it will be fixed? I say not, but time will tell.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I don't think conventional carriers are going to cost much more than the current plan. And not having them cost more money than if they had kept them if you factor in the shipping losses because there were no interceptors more capable than the Shars operating at the extreme limit of their range.

a reply to: Matt1951

So far the other major problems have been fixed, and the fixes have worked well. So why would this be any different.

a reply to: stuthealien

You know that Harrier was installed there and not landed there, right?

from reading this link i can not see a problem ,,as from this press release it appears as if its next generation harrier with stealth abilities,,so if this plane can land " hands off " then this sounds awesome...

RN are just being nice, RAAF not so, they leaked that shooting down F35's was akin to clubbing baby seal's. It all kinda reminds me of the film the Pentagon Wars but instead of tanks its about jets. If you want all the extra's you have pay for them but that doesn't mean it can or will perform in combat, its all about sales. At 156M a peace, I'd personally go shopping elsewhere, I'd skip VTOL and just get 3x Sukhoi Su-35 for the price of one F35.

a reply to: glend

I love how they already know it will be "clubbed like a baby seal" when the reality is that they're not even close to ACM combat. They have no idea how its going to do when it comes to ACM.

As for buying Sukhoi, they have their own major problems with production, not to mention getting parts and pieces for them, etc.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Performance was entered into computers that simulated flight characteristics. From memory the simulation was against a SU27. F35 wasn't in the hunting at all, got burnt badly. Hasn't stopped Australia from buying 72x F35A but its a controversy still.

a reply to: glend

Computers are not the be all end all of engineering. I've seen a number of things engineers said, or computer models said, that were flat out wrong. Until we actually get to the ACM portion of testing with the F-35 no one will know what is going to happen or how it's going to do. Relying solely on computers to determine if something is going to be effective is insane. Yes computer modeling has gotten good, but the human element makes a huge difference, as well as changes that are being made as development moves along.

a reply to: intrptr

The F-35 is only a couple of crashes away from being as popular as an albatross...er, I mean, as an Ospray.
Looks good on all of the contracts and the money is good.

a reply to: Aliensun

The Osprey is rather popular and has one of the highest safety ratings with the Marine Corp.

www.lexingtoninstitute.org...

It logged over 100k fight hours in Afganistan by 2011.

defensetech.org...

a reply to: Sammamishman

Of course they cheated on the Class A mishap rate.

originally posted by: glend
Performance was entered into computers that simulated flight characteristics. From memory the simulation was against a SU27. F35 wasn't in the hunting at all, got burnt badly. Hasn't stopped Australia from buying 72x F35A but its a controversy still.

I've read the RAND report in question, and it did not simulate flight characteristics. It was a question of basing requirements and logistical requirements inherent in a air battle with China. This keeps being brought up as some sort of super simulation proving the F-35 is a dog, but it is never mentioned that even the F-22 losses were 100% in the same scenario. It modeled the total missile load of all available aircraft in the scenario, and judged the losses based on ideal missile firing. The Americans in multiple scenarios with multiple kinds of aircraft mixes quickly ran out of missiles and lost their tankers and support aircraft, which meant total loss of the force when they were unable to recover in Guam.

The F-35 should be kinematically equal to most fourth gen fighters with equivalent weapon loadouts. Which means it is at least as good as the Hornet or Viper close in. Is it amazing in that regard? No. It has poor acceleration for one thing, which in a knife fight is sort of a big deal. But the Hornet has the same issue, and that is the most frequently cited alternative buy.

There are tons of things wrong with the way this program has been handled. I could spend all day criticizing the JSF program, but the planes are rolling off the assembly line. Unit cost continues to drop as LRIP continues. The price will drop significantly once testing is done and modifications stop being performed on the line. Countries involved are getting various technology and industrial offsets, and at the end of the day customers will get the best (only) stealth strike fighter available on the market within a 5 year time frame.

If you had asked me ten years ago what I thought, I would have canned the whole program. We're way past the point where that would make any sense. Could it have been done better with a better end product? Yes. But this is what we've got. As the program matures, we will see a very impressive aircraft in service.

a reply to: Sammamishman

The problems with both craft are the same. They are inherently more expensive, more dangerous and more complex than typical a/c. 'Sorta like the shutttle was. I have yet failed to see the benefit of the F-35 over the old Harrier to the degree all of that money that was and is being poured into it.