It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


STOVL function

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 12:45 AM
The STOVL was made in order so the airlplane could landing anywhere.

but what is it for? i mean, landing anywhere? what's the big deal?

just to reload missiles and make some emergency landing? why should develop a special technology?

why not just make an ESTOL plane? it's quite the same....

i don't really use to about this technology function, ....

please tell me....


posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 01:47 AM
The whole concept was for allowing fighting aircraft to continue operating when the Airfields had been destroyed - this being clearings in forests , short dirt tracks etc.

the short take off is to allow a greater weapons load to be carried than a Vertical take off - with a vertical landing on return from a mission.

deemed ideal in a european war with the USSR (which of course was around when stovl/vtol aircraft were being designed)

posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 10:02 PM
Thx Harlequin!

But why only the marines has the STOVL plane, why not airforce?

What is the different between airforce, naval airforce and marine airforce?

posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 02:57 AM
The Marines are not the only ones, apart from the USMC Harrier variants are in service with the RAF, RN, Italy, Spain, India, and Thailand. The Marines (possibly) envisage the Harrier as being useful in an island hopping campaign such as was fought in the Pacific theatre in WW2, the RAF use it for the reasons that Harlequin mentioned and the RN, Italy Spain and Thailand because it allows for smaller cheaper aircraft carriers as you do not need a huge ship with a long deck.

The USAF would not find itself needing to accomodate any of these situations and so does not see a requirement for STOVL. The use of which does restrict the payload and range of the fighter, even with the F-35, and so it is a case of each force deciding which criteria is most important to them, for instance with the RN it is a choice of having a slower less capable fighter or no fighter at all because Invincible and Ark Royal cannot accomodate the F18 or F-35C.

[edit on 22-9-2007 by waynos]

posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 04:29 AM
reply to post by waynos

But i think the F-35 is to expansive for fighter!

why through the time peoples makeing larger, larger, and larger fighter? why not smaller but much more effective?


posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 02:17 PM
reply to post by Eastpolar Commander

Because with a verticle landing aircraft, you can use smaller ships(you don't need arrestor cables like conventional naval aircraft need), and you can land near the frontlines to rearm as these aircraft are primarily supporting ground troops, and turn around time is important(refueling/rearming).

top topics

log in