UK's Largest Aircraft Carrier to Be Unveiled Next Month

Refuel trials extend range.

Read more: http://www.aerospacetestinginternational.com/news.php?NewsID=15258

 

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f35/f-35b-stovl-variant.html

MOD EDIT>>>FLAME BAIT<<<

Who do you think a person will believe, the producer, which says it is a STOVL aircraft or a random anonymous from the internet?


Hmmm....a complicated choise, isn' it?


Besides, I haven't said that it is totally incapable of taking of vertically, I said it can take off vertically with only a part of it's load. Even fully loaded F-35 suck balls in terms of range, I don't think there is a proper expression in English to describe how bad it will be without most of it's fuel.....

Cool story, but we are discussing aircraft carriers over here ---> no fancy tankers, using part of airwing is an option, but that will cut pretty shy airpower even more. Ooops.

 

The UK's new carrier is best suited for littoral, joint operations. 12 carriers can't provide 100%coverage of the Mediterranean, Persian Gulf, and western Pacific. Covering all three regions full-time takes 14 or 15 carriers. The U.S. Navy embarked on a buildup of Ticonderoga-class Aegis air defense cruisers and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers to handle airborne threats to a carrier group.

Where I see a legitimate fit for this carrier is in the support of littoral zone suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD). The alternative to the F-35B/C is the EA-18G (Growler). The Navy has started to phase out the EA-6B Prowler with the addition of the EA-18 Growler to take on the suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD) missions.

The Growler carries up to five ALQ-99 jamming pods as well as AIM-120 AMRAAM or AGM-88 HARM missiles to attack air defenses. Of course, these ALQ-99s are 30+ year old technology. What the F-35B offers is all aspect stealth in comparison to the front-aspect signature reduction, chaff and flares of the EA-18 Growler.

Having said all this, carrier capabilities have improved and in terms of force projection, serve a vital job; claims of sustainable carrier firepower and high sortie rates are unproven however.

Critical jobs typically go to land based aircraft.

 

A carrier is just a boat with a long flat deck, maybe a upward sloping ramp in some cases. A barge basically...what makes it an effective weapon of war is in fact the aircraft stationed on it. Therefore any discussion of carriers must include the accompanying combat and support aircraft. Otherwise, yes let's talk about boats with flat decks...with or without catapults and wire arresting gear.

 

LOL, i like the backtrack that you perform by saying that you never that it could not and you throw in special caveats. My original post you state it is not a VTOL aircraft, meaning it can not perform in a VTOL manner, the video clearly shows it can. That is the one point why I posted the video. You simply want to call names because well, who knows?

 

Oh, well, you have miserably failed not only in surpassing the test, but in the reading comprehension as well. Shocking.

Your original claim:

You've made an idiotic claim wich was disproven by me, physics, common sence and the manufacturer itself. Again, are you going to argue with Lockheed Martin? Locheed Martin says it is a STOVL aircraft. So.........you still insist it is VTOL?

Not my fault you are in denial.


My response:

As it can be clearly seen I havn't stated that it is totally incapable of taking off vertically. All I said is that your claim that it can do so under full ordinance is...well..load of bollocks. So....how about not lecturing me on what I originally meant in my own post?

Cariers are needed to operate far away from the homeland. If you can refuel it's airwing using usual tankers from the nearby bases it makes using the aircraft carrier itself useless because *Captain Obvious!* you can use CTOL aircraft directly from the bases you have. So no, normally you won't have any tanker aircraft nearby.

Even if we assume your idea is correct, you'll need an entire fleet of tankers near the war zone, while they are an easy prey for long range missiles.

 

I think you are confusing the F-35 STOVL to the F-35B VTOL.

The F-35B is a very different aircraft which is capable of complete vertical take off with a full ordinance load.

The STOVL is short for Short Take Off and Vertical Landing.

The VTOL stands for Vertical Take Off and Landing.

AboveAlpha

 

You think wrong.
F-35B is STOVL, not VTOL. It is not capable of complete vertical take off with a full ordinance load. Re-read previous page and a link i provided.

 

Here is a link to a video of the F-35B VTOL.

LINK....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW28Mb1YvwY

AboveAlpha

 

Ughhh.....
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f35/f-35b-stovl-variant.html

Are you insisting that manufactirer's staff is bunch of morons?

How exactly you figured out that F-35B on that video is fully loaded?

Because Vertical Takeoff=(Engine Thrust >Aircraft weight). It is only true when F-35B weight<19 tons (not even close to 27 tons of full load).

 

That's pretty much it. Nobody here minds if you ignore him. The base F-35 is a flexible design that can be adapted to several configurations and missions, including VTOL. I'm not a fan of it myself, since I consider expending huge sums on manned fighter aircraft an inexcusable waste of big money, but nobody in Congress or the Pentagon gives a crap about my opinions, lol. Pilots are only necessary in civilian airliners as an added safety factor, an issue that has less application in small combat aircraft, not to mention the weight and room that could be put into added flight times and range, more weapons carried, etc., plus the aircraft could be utilized more efficiently as well; no need to worry about pilots blacking out, for instance.

 

You keep looking at STOVOL specs.

AboveAlpha

 

Sigh...so where are those misterious VTOL specifications? Because none of F-35 are VTOL, as can be clearly seen from Locheed Martin official webside.

 

Well no, the F35B is not limited to only VTOL, but it is capable of VTOL. Which the video clearly shows.

 

Yes, but your claim that it is capable to take off vertically with full load is, well, ridiculous. The purpose of using F-35 as VTOL is unclear to me. Even without weapons attached it's range is going to be like 400 km as VTOL aircraft. It makes F-35 completely useless because it's carrier will be in range of anti-ship missiles.

 

actually, the f35B with internal ordinace combat Radius(Range to target, direct action, then RTB) is more than double that at 870KM.

 

Again, why you are trying to argue if you have no clue? That is combat radius for F-35 as STOVL. You can't use it as VTOL if you took aboard more than 50% fuel. Check:Thrust/Weight ratio.