>VTOL
>Fighter
Why
I don't understand why the Muhrines feel the need to have the most useless form of a fighter jet
>>30034239
What's useless about it?
>>30034256
At least it's good at sparking edgy faggots to make attention whoring posts
>>30034256
It can do something muh F-22 can't. Ergo, it's shit.
Because the Marines and the Brits want to be able to launch them from helicopter carriers.
>>30034325
>Brits want to be able to launch them from helicopter carriers.
You mean our supercarriers?
>>30034239
Because Falklands and expeditionary warfare.
Falklands are perfect example of what having a fighter that can take off in shit conditions can achieve. Argies had planed on being able to use the Islands Facilities to launch air power after occupying the land but found the runways were un-usable for their planes. Harriers on the other hand gave no fucks and while arguably less effective fighters than Mirage III/Daggers they were able to operate with impunity while Mirage III could barely reach the islands and the Daggers only have 10 minutes of overhead time after flying the shortest route.
>>30034410
>Falklands are perfect example of what having a fighter that can take off in shit conditions can achieve
But why would America need that when they already have all-weather carrier fighters?
>>30034239
Nobody acknowledging its not vtol. Stovl takes that 11 carriers number and adds to it every little landing ship that can handle helicopters and now multirole fighters.
>>30034501
Because we can't predict everything. In theory with Aerial refueling range is no longer an issue, but it relies on having those tankers constantly in the loop as a necessity. This raises overall operation cost, manpower requirements, crew fatigue and aircraft fatigue amongst a plethora of smaller requirements that all play into the bigger picture. While this works well in a shorter war/engagement it significantly gets harder to maintain as time goes on.
Carriers solve the problem by bringing the mobile airfield closer to the battle, shortening the requirement. Now what about operations well away from water? Say (in theory) we get involved in a war in central Africa and during the opening campaign the airfields are cratered to hell and back? This facilitates the need to send in crews to repair the infrastructure until they can be used as full forward bases. The Harrier/F-35B now come into play and can still operate out of said locations and give full operational support without the larger logistics requirement of other assets to achieve the same.
It all comes back to having the option to do something in case the very realistic need arrives.
>>30034239
I just think they should have made the Marines keep STOVL as a separate program instead of combining it with the F-35 project. Imagine how much faster and smoother the whole project would have been without the STOVL requirement.
>>30034239
>I don't understand why the Muhrines feel the need to have the most useless form of a fighter jet
Because the Navy and Air Force generally handle Air Superiority. Muhreens just need something that drops bombs but got into the habit of throwing a fit about always getting old kit.
>>30035172
Smoother.
But then you would have had a whole other aircraft project, which would have been more expensive and problematic when combined with the JSF than having a single project.
Because the marines/navy are too dumb just to buy catobar amphib super carriers
But maybe politically it would be impossible for them to do so since they are worried about congress going "Well they managed to buy their conventional carrier for cheaper, why isn't the Ford cheap too??"
>>30036160
>Because the marines/navy are too dumb just to buy catobar amphib super carriers
The fuck does that even mean
>>30036181
No reason why the America class can't have EMALS and be >100,000 tons
>>30034667
can't wait until the UCLASS is used as a carrier borne tanker. That'll increase the lethality of CSG by a large margin.
>>30036197
Many, many reasons.
But I imagine most of them may be a little over your head
>>30034239
Harriers were REALLY FUCKING USEFUL in Desert Storm. Take a look at this. Now imagine a far more capable plan (the F-35B) in the same mission.
Figures compiled by and commentary by Arthur Hu,
1194 Fargate Circle San Jose CA 95131
(Most figures provided by Marine Corp Information Office, DC)
Number of aircraft in theater - 86 (more than any other USMC fixwing)
including 26 operated from helo carrier
Sorties - 3,567 (most of any USMC type)
Combat loss: 5
Accident: 2
(I heard from one USMC witness of Harrier crashing on practice
run, another crashing in moving from carrier to shore base)
Tons of bombs delivered: 6,000
Loss rate per 1000 sorties: 1.4 (Highest of any strike aircraft
in any service, compare to F-16=0.37, A-10=0.69, F-15E=0.91)
Average sorties per day/aircraft 1 (total sorties/aircraft/40 days)
Loss rate per fleet: 5.81%
Average bomb load per sortie: 3,364 (heavier than F-18 = 2000, = to A-6)
Harriers were placed in forward bases or on helicopter carriers, so
average sortie was only 1 hr, required no refueling, and carried as
heavy a bomb load as the A-6, and could sortie as much as 3 per day,
as opposed to only 1 for other types.
One unit lost 2 of 20 pilots, a 10% loss rate.
2 killed, 3 POW
Average aircraft/pilot logged 40-55 combat sorties
VMA-331 flew 72 sorties per day with 20 planes, 20 min to target.
Surge rate was 3.5 sorties per day.
Typical payload: 1 or no sidewinder, 6 rockeye cluster bomb or
6 mk82/500 or 4 mk83/100, plus ALQ-164 ECM pod, plus 25mm gatling gun.
>>30036538
Nothing stops you from launching other fighters from forward bases
You don't need STOVL
>>30036560
Well, the F-16 requires a 800m runway.
I can't imagine the F-35 being much better.
>>30036560
>Nothing stops you from launching other fighters from forward bases
Other than the fact that STOVL fighters can work of much shorter, much less prepared areas, up to and including a pretty short stretch of road? This means they can keep very close behind the troops, which keeps sortie time down, thus increasing usable payload (you don't need droptanks and heavier munitions aren't an issue (they cause increased fuel usage, obviously). Further, as can be seen in the above, you can run more sorties in a day.
>>30036602
The RAF requires a minimum 2400 meter runway for any air base which is meant to house F-35. However, this is more because of noise reduction than anything else.
>>30036602
LHA-6 is all of 257 meters long, and the F-35B certainly doesn't take the entire length to launch. If I had to guess off this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxT78JsLJBY it would probably be half that distance. I'd guess at the longest a 150m runway.
>>30036627
Yet they are operating off carriers.
>>30036682
>>30036693
Do you know where the carrier fighters will be during a war?
>Hint, it involves aircraft carriers
>>30036693
Hence why I said:
>However, this is more because of noise reduction than anything else.
The procurement of the F-35B variant originates from the early 1980s. When it became apparent that in global war the need for stealth aircraft in more roles would arise.(you can look at the old photos and design goals on the internet)
The need for stealth jump jet to not only operate out of small airfields and small carriers seemed to be the highest priority for them after the bombers and air dominance platforms had been approved
>>30036699
The F-35B isn't exactly a carrier fighter. I highly doubt they'd only be on amphibs. Look at the Gulf War.
Think how much more capable the F35 would be if they didn't gimp it by letting the marines play.
Marines should be disbanded, no useful purpose, redundant with the other services.
Fucking up everything since the birth of our nation.
>>30034239
> what is an expeditionary force
>>30036623
STOL and STOVL are two different things
All you are talking about is STOL
>>30034410
Well maybe you could build a fighter that doesn't need 46 kilometres to take off, then you wouldn't need a STOVL version
>>30037217
STOVL is useful even in those conditions, and generally speaking allows for shorter runways, and higher sortie rate, as a landing aircraft doesn't need to take up a full runway. Take the MiG-29, an aircraft which was designed as STOL, to take off of austere airbases. In fact, that was a MASSIVE design consideration for the aircraft, arguably the most important factor. The numbers I can find point to a 250 meter takeoff distance. The F-35B, needs to takeoff in about half that distance, and has.
>>30037296
In this video an F-35B (without any of its vertical lift systems open or operating) takes off in about 1600ft / 500m: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqbZ7jLnFZY
