the white elephant can fly

[britfrog 180]

nothing really noteworthy except 4 of these cost more than our aircraft carrier which is meant to carry them

 

give me a harrier/AV8 anyday

 

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ki86x1WKPmE

 

[Captain Coffee 2,030]

Badass looking plane. The Face looks very falconesque...the "feathers ruffling" around it's nape on Vtol just reinforces the imagery.

Worth the money? Outside my pay grade, even though my paygrade's taxes are paying for them.

[mutley 4,497]

Nice link BF, some great clear footage I have never seen it that close up before 

[dodgy-alan 1,587]

Great footage of a lesser spotted F35. That thing may be good in the air but it has none of the grace of the Harrier when it's landing and taking off. All flaps and doors etc, None of the simplicity of the Harriers vectored thrust. I bet that door over the lift engine makes a bloody good airbrake! (therefore increasing fuel burn at take off as the aircraft needs to get enough speed up inspite of being held back by the door!) I can't help feeling that by the time they've ironed out all the problems it will be obsolete!

[J G 927]

I have been looking at the F35B closely lately and despite initial misgivings I am impressed. Its hover time is limited but it is much longer than any version of the Harrier. Unlike the Harrier, the F35B dosent need water injection to hover, a masive issue with the weight of a Harrier.

Both aircraft come into their own in STOL mode, however the F35s computer control vastly cuts down on the pilot work load, and it is supersonic, so timr to target is vastly reduced.

Hovering the Harrier relies on throttle control for height, the stick control for lateral and forward and backward movement is controlled by the nozzel leaver. Not an easy task.

The F35 pilot only needs the stick. Lateral movement is achieved by left right stick movement and up down movement by fore and aft stick movement. The hover is maintained automaticaly once the aircraft has moved from STOL to VTOL mode.

Alan, the hatch is a kind of air brake useful when transitioning from normal flight to STOL mode. When taking off it doesn't stay open long.

[allardjd 1,853]

...give me a harrier/AV8 anyday.

 

 

Obsolete and far, far less capable than the F-35B, which is the least capable of the three F-35 versions, due to the compromises required to do the VSTOL trick.  F-35A and C have higher payload, longer range, higher g-limits than the B.  Expensive?  Yes, it sure is.  What isn't?  It costs a lot to be a world power these days but that's what it takes to keep Putin from kicking sand in your face on the beach.  

 

For VSTOL, as JG points out, the F-35B is safer, easier to fly and more capable than the Harrier/AV-8B.  For one thing, it can reasonably be expected to hold its own or better in ACM with a modern 4th or 5th generation fighter.  The Harrier would be pretty much a target in that environment.  

 

The Harrier was a ground-breaker and a fantastic airplane in its day, but that day has come and gone.  It's sole useful purpose these days is close air support from unimproved airfields close to the front (or from mini-carriers) in an uncontested air environment.  USMC still has them for that purpose, which is pretty much all they are good for now.  

 

Frankly, I think the UK erred by selecting the F-35B - the F-35C would be a much better choice for them.

 

John

[J G 927]

 

Frankly, I think the UK erred by selecting the F-35B - the F-35C would be a much better choice for them.

 

John

 

 

I think you are probably correct here John, but the F35B has some advantages over the C.

 

There was talk of switching to the F35C some while back, but this would mean a major re-work to the carriers being built for the aircraft. It was deemed too expensive to do that work and so the F35B option was kept.

 

The Harrier was a truly fantastic aircraft in its day. The Falklands War proved that, with the aircraft sometimes operating from the decks of container merchant ships and mixing it with faster attacking aircraft. No Harrier was shot down in air to air combat in that war, plenty of Argentine aircraft were.

 

However that was in the 80's and things have moved on.

 

One thing that did happen in the Falklands War that people tend not to remember was that many RAF Harriers were shipped to the combat zone in requisitioned container ships. The Invincible and the Ark Royal had their full complement of Navy Sea Harriers on board.  

 

Once in the combat zone the RAF aircraft could be flown directly off their transport ship to sit on the deck of an aircraft carrier (it is not practical to transport half way around the world with them all on deck) and be ready for action in very short time.  This also mitigated the risk of having all the aircraft on just two platforms. This is one thing the F35C cant do, whereas the B model can.  A good thing if your navy has few aircraft carriers.

 

The loss of the container ship Atlantic Conveyor saved HMS Invincible from a missile targeted at it*, but It contained many of the RAF Chinooks that were going to be used to ferry troops across the islands.  These were to be operated from the decks in a similar was as the RAF Harriers and their distruction was the cause of the now famous "yomp" to Port Stanley.  Fortunately a few Chinooks had been flown off the ship (directly) just prior to its sinking, but most were lost.

 

*My best friend was on the Invincible during the conflict. At the time of the sinking of the Atlantic Conveyor, the Invisible's ships tannoy announced "Brace for Impact" as the Exocet headed directly towards them. Its target recognition system then saw the conveyor and veered away to hit it.

[allardjd 1,853]

 No Harrier was shot down in air to air combat in that war, plenty of Argentine aircraft were.

 

 

That's certainly true, but deceptive.  The Argentinians were flying attack missions at extreme range and had little or no capability for air-to-air combat over the Falklands, nor did they seek it.  There was no close escort of the attacking aircraft and no fighter sweeps, as such, attempting to engage the Harriers. The Argies were near bingo fuel after dropping their anti-ship stores and had neither the equipment nor the inclination to mix it up with the Harriers hundreds of miles from their mainland bases.

 

Their objective was the ships and they focused on that.  What little air refueling capability they had (a very few C-130s with hose and drogue systems operating pretty close to the mainland, as I recall) was used to enable the attack aircraft to reach the Falklands and return.  It was not really a contested air-to-air environment so the Harriers had nothing much to worry about except the WX, which was bad enough and finding the incoming attack aircraft.  Their adversaries were for the most part, targets in a shooting gallery and nobody was shooting back at them, except perhaps ground fire when they engaged land targets in the occupied parts of the main island.

 

I submit that was a pretty special case where there was no ACM threat against them, allowing them to operate without any serious opposition in the interceptor role against incoming targets who had little capability to defend themselves from an air-to-air threat.  It says nothing about the Harrier's ability to exist in a contested air-to-air environment.

 

John

[allardjd 1,853]

There was talk of switching to the F35C some while back, but this would mean a major re-work to the carriers being built for the aircraft. It was deemed too expensive to do that work and so the F35B option was kept.

 

 

If the carriers are built without catapults and arresting gear, you will be stuck with only VSTOL type aircraft and helicopters for the life of the ships.  With catapults and arresting gear, any naval aircraft, either your own or those of allies, current or future, can use them.  The F-35B is inferior at birth to the F-35A and C, and to the F-22.  It pays a heavy price for that one trick the others can't do.  Over time, there will emerge more new aircraft types that can beat it, but you'll be stuck with it.

 

Cost is certainly an issue and governments are beginning to realize that they have to cut back their deficit spending on all manner of things.  I can't judge on a broad basis what Britain ought or ought not do, but the fact is, VSTOL carriers impose serious limitations over the long term. Looking at that issue in isolation, catapults, arresting gear and F-35Cs are a much better option, but of course your government does not have the luxury of being able to look at it in isolation.  There's plenty of competition for budget money.

 

John

[Captain Coffee 2,030]

it seems that a plane like this could open up a new class of Navy ship. Something like a destroyer / light carrier with mainly Destroyer type equipment... But a small rear VSTOL deck, and elevator to a lower hangar deck for birds like this. it might allow smaller faster tactical fleets that carry its own advanced air support without having the necessity of a huge carrier group.

[J G 927]

it seems that a plane like this could open up a new class of Navy ship. Something like a destroyer / light carrier with mainly Destroyer type equipment... But a small rear VSTOL deck, and elevator to a lower hangar deck for birds like this. it might allow smaller faster tactical fleets that carry its own advanced air support without having the necessity of a huge carrier group.

 

This is not going to happen as it just isn't viable. Where as the F35 can take off vertically, it can only do so with vastly reduced fuel on board. If an F35 were to be launched from a helicopter like pad on a destroyer, once airborne it would only have a few minutes flying time. Not nearly enough to perform CAP or intercept roles and certainly not enough to enter into combat. There would be enough fuel to, say, transfer to an aircraft carrier to take on a full load of fuel.

 

Landing is a different thing as fuel capacity is not so much of an issue and it can be dumped to bring the aircraft down to the required weight limit.

 

So VTOL is a bit of a misnomer, STOVL would be a better acronym: (Short Take Off Vertical Landing).

 

I still think it is a fantastic aircraft, but the Royal Navy should have perhaps gone for a fixed wing aircraft from the word go, although the F-35B has the advantage that I mentioned in my previous post of being stored on a smaller vessel  and ferried across to a sea or land based fighting platform.