"Who needs a runway?" Topic

We'll just go straight up.

link

Yeah, maybe not tactically all that useful, but it's a darn cool capability!

Indeed, and one we've enjoyed for decades :)

Not with a supersonic plane we haven't

Interesting to see the modifications made to the dorsal door cover. Did not see these before. Is it just me or does the B look better than the A?

It will also be interesting to see what modifications are necessary for bring-back weight issues and what, if any, modifications are necessary to get to work in hot/humid environments.

What a moronic statement this is:

You can be sure, however, that the Marines will note this as yet another good argument for the F-35B as they look across the Pacific at small states like Singapore and the scattered islands of Japan and neighbors such as the Philippines.

Doug

"Not with a supersonic plane we haven't"

Yak-141 :)

Mirage IIIV :D

Yet another thing it can't do in combat it was designed to do-stick a fork in this pig already.

Never mind your Yak-141, Healey should never have cancelled P-1154.

All the best,

John.

Some versions of the Harier, although not quite supersonic, were not that far short of it:
link

What a moronic statement this is:

You can be sure, however, that the Marines will note this as yet another good argument for the F-35B as they look across the Pacific at small states like Singapore and the scattered islands of Japan and neighbors such as the Philippines.
Doug

Totally agree on absolutely moronic statement.

I wonder how the Japanese and Singaporeans get their F-2/-4/-5/-15/-16 airborne as none of them are VTOL?

Heck the Singaporeans even practice highway operations (just like the Swedes used to).

So many stupid imbeciles on the net that probably shouldn't be allowed near a computer.

But then nearly any news release that comes out about the F-35 is pathetic spin.

Bleeping waste of money…

I think F-35B is good for using off the "Gator" LHD fleet which are essentially small aircraft carriers designed to support USMC amphibious operations.

There's not enough runway space to operate CTOL aircraft and in any case, these ships don't have catapults.

This is the role of current AV-8B Harrier II fleet.

I think for F/A-18 replacement, the F-35C is far more suitable.

But the Marines are trying to usurp Navy carrier role down to the point where the last couple of Gators don't have docking facilities for amphibious vehicles and are thus pure light carriers.

It does look like a very clumsy and complex solution to what the Harrier has been doing for years.

The Harrier was capable of approx 650mph – how useful is 1200mph tactically in the current environment?

The Harrier has a 300-400 mile range, the STOVL (or here VTOL) F-35 has approx 900 miles, but I suspect that will be significantly reduced by afterburner acceleration to supersonic. I suppose you have the advantage of trade-off (i.e. the Harrier was 600mph/400 miles, whereas the F-35B is 1200mph, presumably with sufficent range for at least for 300 miles, or at subsonic speeds a up to a 900 mile range = longer loiter time)

…but it does just look very Heath Robinson about the way it goes about VTOL.

Yak-141 :)
Mirage IIIV :D

Prototypes and non production don't count for anything.

"Prototypes and non production don't count for anything."

Not in your mind perhaps :)

The Harrier was capable of approx 650mph – how useful is 1200mph tactically in the current environment?

How useful is stealth against insurgents whose main AA is the 12.7mm DShK and main aircraft detection systems is Mk 1 Eyeball?

The F-35 is designed for fighting wars ala Iraq 1991. Only problem is Iraq 1991 was the last of that kind of war.

The rest of the world is seriously degraded in terms of military capability.

Look at operations since 1991:

- Somalia – no AD network
- Bosnia – functional but antiquaited AD network. No real attempt at suppression – 3 losses.
- Kosovo/Serbia – antiquainted AD network that was effectively suppressed (only 2 losses including an F-117 stealth jet).
- Sierra Leone (UK) – no AD network.
- Iraq – heavily degraded AD network. Only 1 loss to enemy fire (A-10 to a Roland).
- Afghanistan – no AD network
- Libya – non-functioning AD network
- Mali – no AD network

Basically there has not been any great need for stealth aircraft and the current generation F-15/-16/18/A-10 are sufficient.

Syria and Iran also both lack adequate AD networks (Syrian ambush kill of an unsuspecting Turkish RF-4E doesn't count).

Israel turns off Syrian AD network at will, as witnessed by Israeli operations since 2009.

In terms of A2A combat, last one of those was in 1999 against a handful of ageing Serbian MiG-29s.

Against China, F-35 is inadequate due to relatively short range – China and Pacific are huge and most US bases in Asia can be hit by Chinese missiles and US is no longer confident about viability of carriers in such a scenario.

Actually, the point of the F35 is to be able to suppress air defenses to let the (real) Marines in.

In terms of A2A combat, last one of those was in 1999 against a handful of ageing Serbian MiG-29s."

Not quite……

link

(Predator vs. Mg 25!)

That's now common A2A combat is – in 14 years since 1999, there has been a grand total of a couple of engagements between UAVs and fighters (Israel shot down some recently).

No combat between manned aircraft. No real combat en masses between UCAVs either.

And that's in an era of several wars, including borderline conventional fighting in Syria and Libya, Russian invasion of Georgia, Afghanistan, Iraq and numerous African Wars.

Most countries today cannot afford any level of air power. A lot of countries that do maintain airpower utilise old junk that was obsolete in 1980s – MiG-21, F-5E/F and occassionaly MiG-23.

Most potential hostile countries (Syria, North Korea and Iran) have not had any major upgrades to air forces or air defence since 1980s or even 1970s.

As stated F-15/16/18 is good enough here.

Against China a long range jet is required (something more similar to a long range F-22).

"So many stupid imbeciles on the net that probably shouldn't be allowed near a computer."

Maybe we should start in this thread.

Let's see – an air force full of cheap, non-stealthy, slow, short-range, low-flying, non-all-weather, planes wouldn't even need expensive missiles or smart bombs. They could just ram their targets. In fact we could replace the pilots with pigeons pecking at a display.

Number6,
You might want to read what I was saying before being a smart arse.

I specifically said a long range aircraft is necessary for Chinese scenario. Stealth is obviously essential here.

Against anyone else, current generation is completely adequate – in fact they're so adequate that F-22 wasn't even deployed for ops in Libya and combat sorties were undertaken by existing aircraft.

You use the right tool for the job and in most scenarios F-35 or F-22 is not the right tool.

Hence even the USA has invested in drones with Cessna-level performance and are looking at buying light turboprop attack aircraft which are basically a modern version of an armed T-6 Harvaard.

And in any Pacific contect, carriers and land bases are highly vulnerable to saturation ballistic/cruise missile attack.

Studies have also shown support aircraft ala KC-135 tankers and E-3 AWACS to be vulnerable to Chinese long range jets (i.e. Flanker series and in future stealth J-20).

Hence F-35 would be better if it was size of a Su-27 with that level of fuel capacity.

So what do you say to that smart arse?

I say that we'd be better off with a mixture of ~300-400 F-22s, 300-400 Strike Eagles upgraded to SG standard with some SE features, and a core of ~800 F-16Vs. CAS would be handled by a mixture of A-10Cs and turboprop light attack aircraft.

In effect, two air forces- one for long-range heavy strike, one for low-intensity CAS/COIN, and a bunch of F-16s to fill in the gaps and provide dispersed air defense.

Projects like the LCS, RAH-66, and almost every Army modernization attempt ever tend to detract from such plans, however.