When I read this article & watched this video the 1st time, I was astounded at the numbers. The 2nd time I focused on what it can do. The 3rd time, I was staring in disbelief at the crewmen/women who were on the flight deck.......especially the ones who were within spittin distance when the F35 was practicing what I think are called "stop & go" landings.
https://news.yahoo.com/us-air-forces...204343928.html
"We are the domestic pets of a human zoo we call civilization."
Laurence Gonzales - "Deep Survival."
FYI, you posted an article about the F-15EX with no videos or content related to the F-35.Originally Posted by 11B10
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
I'm getting a video at the top about the F-35, but the article is definitely about the F-15EX.
My bad guys - it's the video I watched/listened to - didn't even read the text.
IOW....play the video.
"We are the domestic pets of a human zoo we call civilization."
Laurence Gonzales - "Deep Survival."
It was an interesting video, thanks for the link.
I've always wondered about the value/usefulness/return on investment of the vertical take off/land capability of the USMC version. I agree it is a neat feature, and theoretically could be significant, but has it ever played out that way? Have we had a fighter aircraft need that could only be accomplished by this type of fighter?
The USAF version certainly makes sense, the follow-on to the F-16. The USN version makes sense, giving the USN some shipborne capability it doesn't have. I realize the AV-8 Harrier's are old and probably beat to heck, but is replacing this capability a need?
Not developing an F-35 variant with the VSTOL probably would have kept the aircraft program closer to cost and timeline.
Everyday.
Conventional carrier-borne aircraft require catapult assistance for takeoff but arrested landing (CATOBAR).
They are unable to operate from the amphibious assault ships that USMC MEU's cruise around in....which the Harrier and F-35B are purposed for....which are too small to function as ski-jump carriers and do not have the room to fit the CATOBAR systems as they need that room to fit the MEU (it's an amphibious assault ship, after all).
Expensive? Yes. But having 4 or so jet fighters to back up a MEU is a tremendous boost in force projection in what a MEU can accomplish, especially now that they're a gen 5 fighter that is a complete overmatch for 99% of what it could see in the air.
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
I understand the carrier size/etc. point, what I'm wondering is if this has ever been a significant need/use.
Have we gone somewhere that a regular carrier wasn't there already, or operated out of a field that couldn't handle an F-16/F-18, in an actual operation.
I suppose these things could be such low level operations that they don't make the news, but it seems with regular carriers, air refueling, and runways in many places, there doesn't seem to be much actual need for the VSTOL capability.
Yes.
Think of it from a strategic perspective. The ability to put -and hide- a 5th gen air superiority fighter on basically anything big enough to land a helicopter is a massive threat vector and one of the few we have in that game that really has no match. This is a hell of an asset both for allowing flexibility in our normal operations, and also in keeping adversaries on their toes.
I'm no fan of how the F35's budget went crazy, but the VSTOL capability on the Navy/USMC models was one of the biggest ROI's of the program, at least in this turbo-fobbit's opinion.
Frequently. Helicopters are great, but there are limitations in speed, range, and payload that rotary wings can't provide over a fixed wing.
I can't help but wonder if relatively cheap drones aren't going to turn these things into expensive flying coffins within 10 years?
Reply With Quote