On Aug 11, 7:01*am, Jeb in Richmond wrote:
On Aug 10, 4:35*pm, wrote:





On Aug 7, 2:01*am, wrote:

"London's Daily Telegraph reports this morning
that the UK is preparing to switch from the short
take-off, vertical landing (STOVL) version of the
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to the F-35C carrier (CV)
model, because it costs less and has a greater
weapon load and range."

In my view the STOVL F-35 version is in most situations the best air
superiority and air defense weapon in the world.
This is because the most vulnerable part of a fighters is its landing
and takeoff field. *Apart from 'death star' super powers such as the
USA with a big reserve of aircraft safe in the continental USA many
airforces were defeated on the ground. Consider the problem of
defending nations bordering the ex USSR (eg Sweden, Norway, Finland,
Germany). * The STOVL version could potentially be dispersed in
forrests, sand embankments such that the STOVL fighters can quickly
climb up and ambush the enemy using advanced Meteor or AMRAAM style
missiles.

This apect of its capabilities seems to be neglected despite this
being a dream of the Luftwaffe in the 1950s and 60s. *(who had an
extensive and interesting STOVL program).

The USN version, the F-35B, is interesting due to its enlarged wing
area making it potentially highly manouverable. *It appears it isn't
stressed to be a dog fighter. *I suspect that might be changed.

The STOVL F-35 is not going to be capable of true vertical takeoff
with any kind of payload

I pair of AMRAAMs is all it needs to be a threat and I believe it can
actually carry an additonal pair of smaller AAMs in the interior
weapons bays.


and probably its vertical landing performance
is going to be more marginal than the Harrier's. It's certainly going
to be more destructive; the V-22s are already tearing up the same
decks that the Marines want to operate F-35s off of, so it's almost
guaranteed that at some point, the Marines will have to stop using the
STOVL birds off the same helo decks in order to preserve them for
actual helicopters.

I don't suppose anyone though of putting aside some money for
improvements to the decks so that they can handle the exhaust eflux
of a F-35 and X-22?

Similary mobile platforms can be developed to protect the 'civilan
structures' and there are also alternatives to concrete that can
handle much higher heats and stresses.

Perhaps the X-22 needs a reverse flow combustion chamber so that the
exhaust is just behined the prop and therefore somewhat diliuted by
air.

If you're wanting to use roadways and other
civilian structures for flight ops, buy the carrier version and rely
on its tougher structure.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -