Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
But then they would probably also have to chage the design of their carriers, no? and it would also mean they could only operate from proper air fields. The VTOL capability can provide some impressive tactical advantages.I really wish the RAF was not so fixated with its 'Harrier legacy' and would instead get the much better F-35A and C instead of the rather crappy B model with its unique combination of 'Less weapons, Less range, Less performance, More Complexity and More cost. Woooo, go RAF!
There was a point behind it - it was in the contract to be able to demostrate that capability.Also there seems to be a general misunderstanding of the F-35B's capability. It is not VTOL, never has been, never will be, unless you count the smaller, lighter and un-equipped X-35B which did demonstrate VTO, if rather pointlessly.
There was a point behind it - it was in the contract to be able to demostrate that capability.
They did it to evaluate each design team's ability to deliver specific contract requirements that involved engineering, performance and the ability to deliver by a specific date. There was also something about technology demonstration. Pointless? I don't think so as it was a challange to show which design (the X-32 or X-35) was superior. in the en the X-35 surpassed the X-32 by leaps and bounds.In the X plane contract yes, but it was never a requirement of either JSF or JCA, which was why Ithink that the X-35 doing it it was a bit pointless.
You just made my point - Boeing couldn't fulfill the contract requirement that would have brought on a larger and more complex programBut the X-32 also demonstrated VTO capability, it was just rubbish everywhere else, which if anything, reiterates the utter pointlessness of that particular request.
Again you're missing the point. The US Government called the shots and wanted to see VTOL in the demonstrator. I could assure you there was a method in their seemed madness.You surprise me, There was no call for VTO in either requirement the F-35 was ultimately intended to fill, as I mentioned, there was no prospect of it ever being carried over to the fully fledged fighter, but you don't feel this was a bit of a pointless excercise? To me, that is the epitomy of one.
Your prerogative to disagree but this is one program I know a little about - my former roommate (who later was my best man at my wedding) designed the electrical system on the X-35. I also knew about half of the design team." Yeah, we did it" - then everyone turns away to get on with the job of making a fighter plane. Hmmm. I disagree with you on this FlyboyJ as I cannot see the benefit.
You just made my point - Boeing couldn't fulfill the contract requirement that would have brought on a larger and more complex program
Again you're missing the point. The US Government called the shots and wanted to see VTOL in the demonstrator. I could assure you there was a method in their seemed madness.
Your prerogative to disagree but this is one program, which were I know a little about - my former roommate (who later was my best man at my wedding) designed the electrical system on the X-35. I also knew about half of the design team.
There were something like 25 points that each demostrator had to meet, VTO was only one of them. From what I remember the X-32 only met half of them.But what if the X-32, freed from the VTO aspect, had turned out to be a better fighter overall and trying to make it do that ruined an otherwise good design? Speculative yes, but what I'm saying is why compromise a design for something that is not wanted? See also Dive bombing on the He 177 and Manchester for other examples of what I am trying to say.
FineI don't think I am missing your point - but I think you missed mine. Before this developed into a discussion of its own we were discussing the F-35. In relation to the F-35 (and the powerplants arrangement is totally specific to this programme and relates to nothing else) the X-35's VTO demo's were pointless, as the F-35 can not only not do this, but is not required to. I think we will have to agree to diagree on this point as I can see us continuing spiralling down into the ground otherwise.
Too heavy? Where are you getting that from?Your sources would seem impeccable, but as for the last sentence, I wouldn't be surprised, I would be absolutely amazed. The aircraft is at the beginning of its lifecycle so future developments offer all sorts of possibilities. However the aircraft is *cuurrently* too heavy to get off the ground in the length of the deck of HMS Queen Elizabeth, which presents s serious problem to the UK until resolved (which I am sure it will be).
Without the benifit of vectrored thrust? Again where are you getting that from? The F-35 will still use a vectoing rear nozzle as well as the lift fan. The thrust from the engine/ lift fan combination puts out more than the aircraft weighs.As you do have good sources however, can you tell me how STO is achieved without the benefit of vectored thrust?
I won't berate your negativity, but I'd invite you to look more into the program.I think this is going to be another 'agree to disagree', as when your thrust is less than your normal loaded weight and about two thirds of your max loaded weight I don't see how VTO is a realistic option? although when the F-35 does operate in VTO mode feel free to back and berate me for my negativity.
There were something like 25 points that each demostrator had to meet, VTO was only one of them. From what I remember the X-32 only met half of them.
Too heavy? Where are you getting that from?
Without the benifit of vectrored thrust? Again where are you getting that from? The F-35 will still use a vectoing rear nozzle as well as the lift fan. The thrust from the engine/ lift fan combination puts out more than the aircraft weighs.
Spoke to my buddy today about this and he confirmed that the F-35 CAN take off vertically and this was part of the original requirement, I'll explain more.Yes, correct. The question I was putting out there though is "what if" allowing for VTO compromised a design that would otherwise have worked superbly? I am not saying that it did, or trying to detract from the X-35 (to which this question might equally apply) I only put it forward to illustrate why I think getting a demonstrator to do something the customer does not want is not a good idea generally.
The weight problem has been ongoing and was even part of the X-35 program. Engineers were given bonuses for weight reduction ideas and I think this is still going on.Programme reports from Lockheed, news updates from Flight International and many other sources since the programme began. Your own link refers to the SWAT team that was tasked with reducing weight. Oddly it gives the impression that this mission is accomplished. In part it is, however the F-35B has not yet been able to demonstrate a take off run that is less than the the deck length of the the new UK carriers (directly from an RAF friend of mine, but also seen reported on the web about a year ago) and both BAE and Lockheed are working on this still. I am sure it will be done, but I think the F-35C would have been a better option is all I'm saying.
Actually it does and along with the lift fan and other parts of the system not spoken about but does provide the maneuvering capability in hover you speak of. Again, I'll state, the F-35 CAN perform VTOL. Between the lift fan, blow out doors and the "snake" nozzle, this provides better stability than the Harrier, and I'll continue to explain more...I think your sources are letting you down. The F-35B does not possess TVC, this is a result of the engine design in which the nozzle has only two modes, namely, straight back and straight down, so of course the nozzle vectors, but only between two positions, it cannot be vectored to induce STO as the F-22 and Harrier might as this would result in total loss of all forward thrust, not good halfway through a takeoff run. how the system deploys automatically for landings is described in one of the links you provided. How the nozzle vecors for STO or manouvering is not covered anywhere, because it doesn't.
Yes it does - the same set up like the X-35 if you ever seen the clips of that (which I'm sure you have). I found this clip earlier today. I know "Mike" and my friend worked for him. You could see some of the system working on the exterior. Although this is the X-35 it best shows the system, while in its infancy, it is what is being deployed right now (except a lot better)This is why I am asking how STO is achieved. On the other two aircraft a moderate downward deflection at the right speed will propel the bird skywards, F-35B does not have this option.
Now my explanation - Just like the Harrier, something will have to be compromised. "Fuel or bombs" were the exact words.Regarding VTO. Empty weight of the F-35B is 30,000lb, normal take off weight is 45,000lb and maximum 60,000lb. Of course VTO would never be attempted at the planes max weight so we can forget that figure. But for 'normal' ops the projected figure is 45, 000lb. Your 30,000lb fighter will of course require a pilot, fuel and weapons.
Back to my previous post - it won't do it with a full fuel or bomb load, but like the Harrier does have the capability to operate in a VTOL environment "with compromise."The maximum thrust of the combination F135 is 25,000lb for the main engine and another 18,0000lb for the fan, totalling 43,0000lb, almost exactly the loaded weight at which VTO is supposed to be attempted. Sorry, but I don't buy your assertion about VTO. There is however sufficient margin for a safe vertical landing after burning off the fuel and dropping the weapons, which is what the plane is supposed to do, isn't it
Spoke to my buddy today about this and he confirmed that the F-35 CAN take off vertically and this was part of the original requirement,
The weight problem has been ongoing and was even part of the X-35 program. Engineers were given bonuses for weight reduction ideas and I think this is still going on.
Actually it does and along with the lift fan and other parts of the system not spoken about but does provide the maneuvering capability in hover you speak of. Again, I'll state, the F-35 CAN perform VTOL. Between the lift fan, blow out doors and the "snake" nozzle, this provides better stability than the Harrier,
Yes it does - the same set up like the X-35 if you ever seen the clips of that (which I'm sure you have). I found this clip earlier today. I know "Mike" and my friend worked for him. You could see some of the system working on the exterior. Although this is the X-35 it best shows the system, while in its infancy, it is what is being deployed right now (except a lot better)
Lockheed Martin X-35, VTOL Test (Vertical Take Off Landing) • videosift.com
The major difference in the F-35 is some of the system components were designed to be interchangeable and mass produced. Watch some of the doors opening and closing. This was the first VT on the X-35 (I was actually there)
Now my explanation - Just like the Harrier, something will have to be compromised. "Fuel or bombs" were the exact words.
Back to my previous post - it won't do it with a full fuel or bomb load, but like the Harrier does have the capability to operate in a VTOL environment "with compromise."
So with that said - what do you have? A stealth strike aircraft with supersonic capability that could take off vertically with either a minimum fuel load or minimum bomb load, but let's say we go for bombs in lieu of fuel - get in the air and get to a tanker ASAP then continue with the mission.
Now don't ask me what would be the range with a max ordnance load and a VTO. I don't think anyone will know that at least for the short term.
Waynos, all I'm going to say at this point is a relay of what I was told.
1. The F-35 can perform VTOL
2. It cannot do it with a full fuel or bomb load
3. In the hover if offers better performance and the Harrier
4. The VTOL requirement was part of the original contract
This is my standpoint from the US purchase. What the RAF does or RN will be a whole different story.
I'm on the run today (at least this morning). I will be speaking to my friend this weekend and he might even be in my area next week or the week after. I'll question him more on this and relay what he could tell me about the program.
I cannot find a copy of the original solicitation that was based on the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) Contract requirements. According to my buddy it was a requirement to demonstrate VTO to demonstrate that the lift fan configuration was superior and safer than the Boeing method. The only thing I could find was a requirement for the STOVL portion of the contract to require a takeoff distance less than 500'. I'm assuming that both contractors took to extra step to beat that requirement to have a demonstrator with VTO capability.OK, but as a quick summarisation in reply;
1 - Yes, BUT (see above)
2 - Agreed
3- Agreed (I actually think that operationally the UK no longer needs an aircraft of this type - you may have guessed that)
4 - If you can show the that I would be delighted, thank you.
And Lockheed won the contract based on the "safer" lift fan operation that did not allow hotter exhaust air to re-circulate into the engine. Apparently the X-32 had this problem and was so over weight that ground crews removed landing gear doors to save weight.Although in parting, the margin for a safe hover or vertical landing will always mean that some sort of VTO is physically possible, even if you have to jettison your load to do it. its the practical usage and military requirement that I am doubting.