What is the minimum take-off distance for an F-35B? Assume full combat load.
>>29188394
'Bout tree-fiddy
>>29188394
45ft
I don't even think they can take off vertically.
>>29188394
>>29188504
so the answer is TBD
>>29188394
Full internal load is about 400, 450ft, full internal + external load is unknown.
>>29188607
Nvm, see >>29188504
>>29188504
For the UK measurements does that mean the ski-ramp shortens the launch distance by 200ft?
>>29188635
No, because 600 minus 450 is 150, not 200. But the shorter distance is because of the ski-ramp, yes.
>>29188607
So less than 200 meters?
>>29188440
They can, but only with about 10 minutes of fuel aboard.
>>29188440
They can, but it's not good for it and it's not effective for combat loads from what I understand. Also, only talking about the B model here
>>29188710
Depends on the weapons load. With a T:W of 1.05 and no weapons they can take off with nearly 50% fuel, which is at least an hour's flight.
>>29188723
That is the B.
>>29188394
Trick question, they can't do it and then fly anywhere.
> I got this one guys
> inb4 b8.
>>29188394
Maybe I should specify: for the context of this thread, "full combat load" means:
>Fuel tank filled to at least 90%
>two AMRAAM + two 2000 lb bomb in the weapons bay
I don't care about VTOL, only STOVL
>>29188691
this
>>29188504
implies 600ft is the goal and hasn't been reached yet. So at the moment likely >600ft
>>29188440
What a dumb concept.
>>29188949
>two 2000 lb bomb in the weapons bay
A F-35B can't carry a 2000lber in its weapon bays so the distance is zero.
>>29188440
It can just fine, but just like the Harrier doing vertical instead of short takeoff is fucking stupid.
>>29189251
wrong its the f22 that cant fit 2000lbers
>>29189310
Nope, A and C do 2ks, B only supports 1ks internally.
>>29189310
>>29189251
Both can't fit 2000lbers; only the F-35A and C models can. Originally only the C was going to carry 2000lb bombs, but then someone decided that for commonality and to exceed requirements, they'd make all 3 variants capable of carrying 2000lb bombs.
Then, when the F-35B gained too much weight (because things like the roll-post nozzle piping had to curve around the bays, etc) they redesigned the internal structure of the B, including shortening the weapons bay to only meet the original 1000lb bombs requirement. That allowed the F-35B to lose something like 700lb just through that modification alone.
>>29189310
>wrong
Fucking hilarious.
>>29189365
>Originally only the C was going to carry 2000lb bomb
What the fuck is this bullshit? Jesus Christ, go compare 2000lber expenditures of the USAF vs USN (hint: the USAF love them, the USN doesn't). The F-35A was always going to carry 2000lbers, the idea that the USAF would not demand that capability given how much they loved dropping them from F-117s is absurd.
>>29189399
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ5gmZ74YBY
![bTO4iCM[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/Wvn5DGb.png "bTO4iCM[1].png")
>>29189461
>>29189399
Also:
>>29189483
>>29189491
Welp, that was pointless of me.
>>29189483
>Only required 4 external stations
>LM delivers 6
>>29189951
>requirements never change
fuck outta here
>>29190443
I'm saying it's cool they overdelivered.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC2aE_F5yfw
>>29189951
2 of those stations are flimsy Sidewinder-only stations, so meh.
>>29191944
>Jets are excellent! They fly around really fast blowing things up going ZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMM
t. my brain in the shower
>>29191944
I'm glad that anti-west propaganda had to be added in the end. As if Australians weren't already insufferable enough
