Bash the F-35 thred.

[Belesarius]

[LoooSeR]

^ With 25mm gun pod.

[Belesarius]

^ With 25mm gun pod.

Yeah, I thought it gave a nice view of the pod.

[LoooSeR]

Nippon's F-35

 

Dutch F-35

[LoooSeR]

[LoooSeR]

[Collimatrix]

From the IAF's flickr:

 

[Scolopax]

Really like the look of the F-16I there.

[Ramlaen]

Dragon029 put up a new busting myths episode.

 

 

Episodes 1-4 if you haven't seen them yet.

[Belesarius]

[Collimatrix]

Dragon029 put up a new busting myths episode.

 

 

Episodes 1-4 if you haven't seen them yet.

 

Thanks for posting that.  That was indeed very good.

[Belesarius]

USMC F-35B squadron has deployed to Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni on Honshu Island. First operational overseas deployment.

 

 

http://www.defencetalk.com/us-marines-send-f-35-stealth-fighter-squadron-to-japan-68788/

[Sturgeon]

The madman is already making waves in defense, and he's not even president: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN14X25E

[LoooSeR]

   January 18, 2017 on the Japanese air base Iwakuni arrived for a permanent deployment a squadron VMFA-121 from the 3rd of the Wing Marine Corps of the United States. The squadron was transferred "on its own power" from the US air base Yuma (Arizona), flying to Japan via Alaska.

   This is the first permanent deployment of F-35 outside the United States. The squadron VMFA-121 was the first combat squadron USMC, rearmed to the F-35B fighter (12 aircrafts) and has reached the status of initial operational capability (IOC) on July 31, 2015.

 

 

 

 

[Sturgeon]

ANY DAY NOW!

[Collimatrix]

Ever wonder why the F-35B is referred to as the STOVL variant, despite clearly being capable of vertical takeoff?

 

 

Turns out that in VTO mode its performance would not be very impressive.

[LostCosmonaut]

Ouch. That's not Yak-38 levels of bad, but 65 miles range with full load is still pretty bad. Isn't this a problem with all "VTOL" aircraft though? I imagine the Harrier was even worse.

[Sturgeon]

VTOL with jet propulsion is a losing proposition. STOVL is the way to go, because when you come back you're super light and it doesn't take too much fuel to get you down vertically.

Now, the F-35B does have VTOL capability, and there have been some proposed uses for it. For example, flying an F-35B off the back of a cruiser or destroyer, immediately in-flight refueling it from a V-22 Osprey (yes, really), and then having it perform strike missions in close concern with Marines on the ground.

[LostCosmonaut]

VTOL with jet propulsion is a losing proposition. STOVL is the way to go, because when you come back you're super light and it doesn't take too much fuel to get you down vertically.

Now, the F-35B does have VTOL capability, and there have been some proposed uses for it. For example, flying an F-35B off the back of a cruiser or destroyer, immediately in-flight refueling it from a V-22 Osprey (yes, really), and then having it perform strike missions in close concern with Marines on the ground.

 

So, this.

 

 

I personally agree that VTOL on a jet is an almost entirely useless proposition. The concept of Harriers operating out of forest clearings because the Soviets bombed all the runways seems great, until you realize that your load is going to be shit taking off vertically, and more importantly, how the shit are you going to support a modern jet operating out of a forest more than once? Especially one that might be shot up after flying over a brigade's worth of Shilkas.

[Sturgeon]

I believe that is why they performed those tests, yes.

 

My pops was in the program management office around the time JSF was really coming together, and when Lockheed was selected. STOVL was always the idea, nobody was talking about VTOL seriously. It just takes way too much fuel to do that, and why do it when you can operate from a slightly larger paved clearing way more efficiently?

Oh. Right, people should know. You CAN'T VTOL an F-35 out in the boonies without prep. It FODs itself to death if you do. In fact, there was serious concern that F-35s wouldn't be able to operate from standard cruiser and destroyer decks because the jet blast would just rip the deck to shreds. IIRC, this was one of the factors in Lockheed's selection, because the front lift fan creates a cooler column of air than the Harrier or X-32 did.

 

I believe that F-35 still can't operate from cruisers or destroyers without reinforcement, although I am not sure.

[Collimatrix]

Very small ships also pitch and roll much more than any sane VTOL jet jock would like.  Often they move around more than helo pilots like.  I doubt that the F-35 will use its VTO capability much.  I don't think the harrier did much of that.  Hell, even the YAK-38 didn't, and it wasn't even designed for STO!

 

Hilariously, in the 1950s there were some people saying that the design demands of supersonic flight (tiny swept wings) and good takeoff and landing performance (large straight wings) were so irreconcilable that it would just be easier to make supersonic aircraft VTOL.  Yuks all around.

[Ramlaen]

So, this.

 

 

I personally agree that VTOL on a jet is an almost entirely useless proposition. The concept of Harriers operating out of forest clearings because the Soviets bombed all the runways seems great, until you realize that your load is going to be shit taking off vertically, and more importantly, how the shit are you going to support a modern jet operating out of a forest more than once? Especially one that might be shot up after flying over a brigade's worth of Shilkas.

 

That is a photoshop, but it has the right idea.

 

[Sturgeon]

That is a photoshop, but it has the right idea.

 

 

Didn't know the picture was a fake, but that makes sense. Tests of this kind were conducted, though.

[Belesarius]

I believe that is why they performed those tests, yes.

 

My pops was in the program management office around the time JSF was really coming together, and when Lockheed was selected. STOVL was always the idea, nobody was talking about VTOL seriously. It just takes way too much fuel to do that, and why do it when you can operate from a slightly larger paved clearing way more efficiently?

Oh. Right, people should know. You CAN'T VTOL an F-35 out in the boonies without prep. It FODs itself to death if you do. In fact, there was serious concern that F-35s wouldn't be able to operate from standard cruiser and destroyer decks because the jet blast would just rip the deck to shreds. IIRC, this was one of the factors in Lockheed's selection, because the front lift fan creates a cooler column of air than the Harrier or X-32 did.

 

I believe that F-35 still can't operate from cruisers or destroyers without reinforcement, although I am not sure.

Well considering they had to reinforce the deck of your newest carrier to be able to operate F-35s.  (Back when FA was decent and Tyler was still writing for them)

 

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/navy-builds-ship-for-f-35-ship-needs-months-of-upgrade-1697523492

[Toxn]

My understanding is that VTOL basically removes your ability to loft any payload heavier than an AIM-9 and ruins your range; so it was the sort of thing that only made sense in a point defence interceptor role.

 

Is there any reason why the marines decided not to go for ski ramps on their carriers?