F-35B Fighter Lands Vertically for the First Time

[Flag Guy]

Hey, Flag Guy, beyond standard RADAR, is there anything special on this plane to counteract the huge blindspot created by the STOVL "hood" directly behind the cockpit? It seems this could be a huge problem in engagement with another hover capable aircraft (including helicopters) as well as incoming munitions.

Perhaps I am overestimating the importance of range of pilot's vision in today's aircraft.

Just curious, I am not well versed on today's aircraft systems.

Let me preface by reminding people I do not actually work on the F-35 program, I'm just close to it so it's of interest to me

I don't think this plane is designed to hover and engage helicopters :wink:

I could be wrong about that but... the STOVL stuff is really only for taking off/landing. That hood (and other assorted panels that open up when it's in STOVL mode) close when it's in conventional flight, so any Radar issues with those would be the same as any issues with the doors for landing gears or weapons bays or arresting hooks.

Maybe someone will deveolop a mission where they would want to hover with this aircraft, but I really highly doubt it. I am sure there is a weight limit as to what it can hover/land with, just like there are limits on current aircraft

The F-35B is designed to be a stealthier and more capable replacement for the AV-8B Harrier, and will also take the role of some other aircraft for the Marines, since it is faster/more manuverable. It flies like a normal aircraft during the mission, it's speciality is to take off/land in areas other planes cannot.


Keep in mind also that as previously mentioned, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is really 3 different planes - there is a conventional model, the F-35A for the Air Force (can only land/take off like normal plane), the F-35B STOVL (Short Take Off/Vertical Landing) model for the Marines/foreign navies and the F-35C CTOL (Carrier Take Off/Landings) for the Navy, which is capable of launching from catapults/using arresting cables.

 

[Flag Guy]

And really more of a seperate topic but for those wanting to see more UAV's employed, which could minimize ship size and all that good stuff...

there is another program right now exploring that possiblity. There is a decent chance the F-35 will be the last or one of the last manned platforms. The Navy's current long term plan calls for the next plane to replace the current Super Hornets (F-18E/F/G) to be an unmanned platform.

That platform is still a little ways out but some demonstration platforms are being deveoloped to test UAV opperations in a manned carrier environment (it's rather complex), particuarly one that employs stealth capabilities as this one is being designed to do. As you phase out manned platforms, you can start opperating off smaller platforms.

This is still all pretty long range. The various componets of technology are almost there, but you still need to integrate that technology into a working platform, and integrate that platform's opperations with the opperations of other platform opperations, which is not as easy as it sounds.

There is also the cost factor - yeah you may save money opperating a smaller carrier, but if you went out to build it today to replace your current carriers, that would be a waste of money (You've already paid for the old carriers, but haven't gotten your planned service life out of them) and very expensive to buy new ones with unproven/tested/understood technology.

We've already paid for a varriety of platforms (Carriers, F-18E/F's, F-35's), they have a planned service life (20-30 years?), it's not prudent to replace them just yet with imature technology. However that technology is being matured so that when it IS time to phase out the platforms that have been used, it can be replaced with UAV's.

I should note (since someone will question this) that currently some of the F-18's are planned for phase out in 10-20 years I think (I would have to go back and look), since they've been in service for a good 10 or 12 years or so... and been used in wars for most of that period of time


Thats a whole other topic though (resetting forces and equipment after a war)

 

[VeloClone]

Thanks for the info. I wasn't too concerned about RADAR signature, just visibility (especially at 6 o'clock) but you are right they probably don't have plans for much engagement in hover mode. I just thought the Marines may want to use it for rescue type deep extractions. It could get on site fast and stay on site for air cover until the slower assets could get on site for the actual extraction. I guess with smart weapons there is little need to hover to provide continuous air cover to a stationary ground site.

I hope you are enjoying your involvement, however tangential it may be. My brother was involved in the USAF testing of the C-17 and he loved it.

 

[Ace000087]

I figured I would chime in on this. Let me start off by saying that I think the F-35 is an amazing aircraft, and I guess I am one of the few on this board that think this plane is a good idea (I am biased, lol.)

Lockheed Martin's corporate goal for this aircraft is that it will be the next F-16 as far as its sales and success goes. The F-16 Fighting Falcon was arguably the best multirole fighter aircraft ever produced by GD/LMCO up in Ft. Worth.

I believe the F-16 line is still running. The Block 60 is a very capable aircraft. The F-15 line is still running too, I believe (export jets). And they are building F-18 E/F/Gs as we speak which is a VERY capable aircraft, in both A/A and A/G (which are roles that the F-35 is supposed to fill).

True, currently the F-16 line is still operational, and still sells aircraft for foreign sales. Lockheed has built over 4,000 F-16s to date. The Block 60 is currently being sold to United Arab Emirates, and marks the first time that the latest model of a US built fighter isn't owned by the USAF. This is mostly because of the expected F-16 replacement by the F-35A.

The F-35 and F-22 are simply amazing platforms, but the Air Force simply isn't buying enough of them to replace the physical numbers and deployed locations of existing fighters, which are essential to defending the country, and executing the current military strategy. And believe it or not, homeland defense is not the Air Force's #1 priority. There are things about the F-22 and F-35 that make them less than ideal for that mission anyway.

While I somewhat agree with you, the "numbers game" does bother me a bit, just talking USAF...but would you rather have:

614 F-15C/D/E's and 1,262 F-16 C/D's

vs

187 F-22A's and 1765 (projected, probably will be less) F-35A's?

Keep in mind the big gamble here is STEALTH. The F-22 has a RCS of a marble, and the F-35 has an RCS of a golf ball. The F-15's is the size of a greyhound bus. I have heard stories first hand of F-22's taking out multiple F-15's with ease even at a 6-1 ratio against them up at Red Flag.

That said, all these aircraft really are, is just a means of delivering ordinance, and keeping a strategic advantage over your enemy. I love the F-15 and F-16, but there are other newer foreign built fighters that are challenging USAF air dominance. Most notably the EADS EF-2000, Dassault Rafale, Chengdu J-10, Mikoyan MiG-35, Sukhoi Su-35, Saab JAS Gripen. Weather the USAF/USMC/USN wants to keep their advantage that by quality or quantity I think that has been answered.

The "numbers game" will be solved by filling the skies with the F-35 variants, and UAV drones. When the need arises, they will call in the F-22's to clean house.

 

[Ace000087]

There is a decent chance the F-35 will be the last or one of the last manned platforms. The Navy's current long term plan calls for the next plane to replace the current Super Hornets (F-18E/F/G) to be an unmanned platform.

I hope not, but Boeing/Lockheed Martin/General Atomics are researching/producing UAV's. It will be hard to replace that situational awareness that a human pilot brings to the battle field.

The USAF/USN have always had that "high/low" mix of fighter planes, (USAF: F-15/F-16..now F-22/F-35, USN: F-14/F/A-18 legacy hornets) and it will be interesting to see how the USN uses the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets and the F-35C's.

 

[Ace000087]

I'm not sure if it can take off Vertically at all or not... if it can it wouldn't be with much of anything on it. No idea what the limit on that is, but it certainly cannot take off vertically with a mission payload.

With what mission payload? It's all about the thrust/weight ratio. The F-35 can take of vertically, your just going to use a lot more fuel. Also, for safety reasons they don't take of vertically. The aircraft its much more efficient and safer (risk of compressor stalls) in STOVL mode on take off. Even the AV-8B pilots don't take off vertically that often.

 

[Ace000087]

AV-8B:

STOVL Maximum useful load: 7,710 KGs
VTOL Maximum useful load: 3,062 KGs.

So the VTOL mode it has to carry less, which makes sense. Your not using the aircraft's wings for lift, just the engines thrust.

Now for the F-35, its still classified, but we can at least use the AV-8B for comparison reasons for useful load between VTOL/STOVL.

Federation of American Scientists :: AV-8B Harrier

 

[Ace000087]

The thing to keep in mind here is they aren't helicopters.

 

[Tank]

I figured I would chime in on this.

So, what is your job in relation to the F-22 / F-35? Just wondering considering you have the F-22 pic/patch on your boards.

 

[jumbopackage]

I would say building B2s and F22s is more wasteful than an all purpose VTOL that can service almost every aspect of fighter/bomber missions.

The B2 is an awesome weapon, but who needs it if we can build cheaper unmanned bombers that can do the exact same job. F22's might be the best fighter jet the world has seen, but outside of selling it for profit to other countries it serves no purpose in current wars.

Wouldn't the future of the Navy be moving away from the large aircraft carriers? They're a huge target, minimizing the risk but shrinking the size without a runway, and having say 3 smaller ships with the capability of one of todays seems like the next step.

One of the problems with the military is they fall in love with their super weapons, when they should be more focused on practicality.

We haven't built B2s in decades. It was just hitting production at the time the USSR fell, and so we built a few of them and stopped because there was simply no need for them.

I figured I would chime in on this. Let me start off by saying that I think the F-35 is an amazing aircraft, and I guess I am one of the few on this board that think this plane is a good idea (I am biased, lol.)

Lockheed Martin's corporate goal for this aircraft is that it will be the next F-16 as far as its sales and success goes. The F-16 Fighting Falcon was arguably the best multirole fighter aircraft ever produced by GD/LMCO up in Ft. Worth.



True, currently the F-16 line is still operational, and still sells aircraft for foreign sales. Lockheed has built over 4,000 F-16s to date. The Block 60 is currently being sold to United Arab Emirates, and marks the first time that the latest model of a US built fighter isn't owned by the USAF. This is mostly because of the expected F-16 replacement by the F-35A.



While I somewhat agree with you, the "numbers game" does bother me a bit, just talking USAF...but would you rather have:

614 F-15C/D/E's and 1,262 F-16 C/D's

vs

187 F-22A's and 1765 (projected, probably will be less) F-35A's?

Keep in mind the big gamble here is STEALTH. The F-22 has a RCS of a marble, and the F-35 has an RCS of a golf ball. The F-15's is the size of a greyhound bus. I have heard stories first hand of F-22's taking out multiple F-15's with ease even at a 6-1 ratio against them up at Red Flag.

That said, all these aircraft really are, is just a means of delivering ordinance, and keeping a strategic advantage over your enemy. I love the F-15 and F-16, but there are other newer foreign built fighters that are challenging USAF air dominance. Most notably the EADS EF-2000, Dassault Rafale, Chengdu J-10, Mikoyan MiG-35, Sukhoi Su-35, Saab JAS Gripen. Weather the USAF/USMC/USN wants to keep their advantage that by quality or quantity I think that has been answered.

The "numbers game" will be solved by filling the skies with the F-35 variants, and UAV drones. When the need arises, they will call in the F-22's to clean house.

I'm sure LM's goal is to sell as many planes as they possibly can. They aren't in it for the taxpayers. They are in it to get as much out of the taxpayers as they possibly can. It's a business, after all.

It's really not fair to lump in the E model F-15s, since they are pretty much a dedicated A/G platform. There's no way that the Air Force is going to build 1765 F-35s. QDR calls for it to be down to 1200 or so, and that will continue to shrink, IMHO, as unit costs keep escalating and it becomes less and less apparent what all the capability really is there for. Especially when you can do most of what the F-35 was designed to do with cheaper platforms just as effectively in the current operating environment (which is precisely what the current administration/SecDef is calling for).

Stealth is all fine and good if you're fighting China or Russia. It's really rather pointless if you're trying to intercept an airliner or make your presence known to people on the ground. Nobody doubts that the F-22 isn't an amazing platform. It's no doubt the finest A/A fighting aircraft ever built. But you don't drive an F1 car to the supermarket, and we, as a military, have been tooling around town running errands for the last 20 years, not kicking down the front door of the Kremlin, which is really the purpose of all the stealthy doodads and widgets.

Also, while stealth is a huge perk, don't forget that a LOT of the capability in the F-22 and F-35 are in the avionics. The European and Chinese/Russian aircraft aren't challenging our dominance in the stealth environment (yet), they are attempting to do it by advancing their avionics packages.

In short, I think that the F-22 and F-35 are awesome capabilities that deserve a well-earned place in our arsenal. IMO, the responsible approach is to invest in small numbers of them and use them much the same way we used the F-117 for years - specialized roles that take the greatest advantage of their capabilities, while leaving the "dirty work" to cheaper, less difficult to support (and already available) platforms.