Will the USMC be able to fully use the F-35

>>33842793

did you know heavily laden helos don't take off vertically either? they do this sort of running start that allows them to take off with a heavier fuel fraction, yet overall a much shorter takeoff roll than a standard fixed wing.

same sort of thing's gonna happen with the short takeoff F-35B. the nozzles are gonna flip down and the jet will move forward.

>>33842793
>Will the Marines be able to use a plane designed specifically for them and their Assault Ships?

Something like 80% fuel iirc, somewhere similar to the harrier.

Pretty sure they land VTOL though

>>33842970
>pretty sure they land Vertical Take-Off and Landings
anon...

>>33843019
I'm inspired you took time out of your day to correct the grammar on an anonymous imageboard

>>33842793
>if they're conventionally taking off
They're not, a jump-jet short takeoff is not exactly conventional.
>will they be able to carry full payload and fuel?
I'm not sure but I think so. The whole reason they aimed for STOVL instead of VTOL was so they could increase takeoff weight. And even at max gross weight, the LiftSystem should reduce required aerodynamic lift and takeoff roll by more than half and liftoff airspeed by more than 40% vs. a conventional takeoff. Then again it appears they don't use reheat at all for STOVL operations, which is somewhat limiting with regard to acceleration.
>>33842807
>did you know heavily laden helos don't take off vertically either?
Yes, they usually do. For most helicopters, vertical takeoff is standard procedure even at gross weight, and running takeoffs are a special procedure for high-altitude operations only. You won't find any videos of Super Stallions doing running takeoffs from an LHD deck, that's for sure.
>t. helicopter pilot

>>33842793

They're the most cucked form of aircraft. Go CATOBAR or go home. Something with the F-35b range and payload is useless.

>>33843232

eh, that's fair given that falling off a deck at 50 MSL is probably a bigger problem than taking a 100' roll to get a Pave Hawk airborne at Kandahar.

i'm a fixed wing bubba with just enough appreciation for the rotary wing dudes to never want to fly rotary. i like my altitude in angels, not cherubs.

>>33843266

>Claims F-35B range and payload is useless
>F-35B range & payload is comparable to the F/A-18E, and superior to the F/A-18C.
>Has literally called the entirety of the present USN fixed wing combat aviation useless.

File: 1493075265734.jpg (102KB, 967x1080px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 967x1080px

No, the F-35B can't lift off with FULL fuel and payload off the deck of a Wasp or America class.

If the ship was equipped with a ramp and the deck length for a rolling vertical landing, then maybe.

>>33843742
Brit detected

>>33843858
you can detect brits because what they say is true?

File: 1472180395581.jpg (194KB, 637x424px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 637x424px

>>3384395
I can smell rampfuckers a mile away

>>33843998
>r-rampf-fags

Why do people to this? You don't have to be anythingfag to understand that not everyone has the same requirements and there's not a single approach to carrier operations.

>>33843742
>>33843858
>>33843950
>>33843998

Indeed
>>33844225
I'm fairly sure most Brits would admit that the main reason for only buying ramp-carriers is because their country spends more money each year paying the interest on their debt than it does on its military.

I'm also fairly sure most Americans would admit that the cost effectiveness of these carriers in delivering & sustaining effective 5th gen aircraft in a deployment compared to what their own military is spending is impressive.

Both countries are allies, and this shouldn't be a big deal. I look forward to the two navies operating alongside each other, and the flexibility of USMC, RN, and RAF (and maybe some Italians!) pilots all able to operate the same capable aircraft from each other's ships.

>>33842793
Yes the same way harriers have been doing it for decades

>>33842793

The 2016 SAR has listed the goal performance of the F-35B from US LHA decks, and the current performance.

https://fas.org/man/eprint/F35-sar-2016.pdf#page=16

It isn't quite meeting the requirements yet when operating from a short flat deck in STO, but it's still pretty good.

>>33844225
Why do people deny that ramps are inferior and only used because they are a cost savings measure?

>>33843449
Does LM man this board 24/7?
Fuck....

>>33844645
Fuck off, Airbus

>>33844631

1. Point me to a single thread in the last six months that someone says this
2. Because there's more to it than cost savings - check the article below, particularly the 'The Benefits of Change' section

>>33844631
>>33844684
Hurrrr forgot the link

http://www.military.com/Content/MoreContent1?file=NI_SeaBase_0903

>>33844645

>Oh shit, he has completely won the argument, better call him a shill and abandon thread.

>>33844387
The RN isnt even Russia or China tier. They may as fucking well be nothing more than a minor subfleet of the USN

>>33845354
The funniest part being that China, known for their slavish imitation of everything Russian are themselves completely moving away from ramps for their next few carriers

>>33844698

Ultimately, that link is talking about the cost savings of STOVL carriers. It makes the point that a STOVL jet which is nearly as good as a CATOBAR jet makes the navy more flexible in its deployment of sea-power, because you can put aircraft on more (and cheaper) vessels than super-carriers.

One thing I will say about the F-35B is that I cannot understand when anyone calls it unnecessary. The fact that the JSF program has managed to produce a STOVL aircraft with nearly all the capabilities of a CTOL aircraft is a massive achievement. It means that with less than 600 feet of flat surface or flight deck, you can operate a 5th gen aircraft that is capable of going up against any enemy in the air, or air defense system on the ground. For an enemy to try and shut down the airpower of the USA or its allies by going after runways & carriers, the F-35B is an absolute nightmare.

>>33845418
You could operate an F-35C anywhere you operate an F-35B

>>33845458
100% false, you cannot operate a F-35C off a wasp

>>33845418

Not really. It states the case very clearly that's there's tactical/logistical gains for STOVL over CTOL.

Calling it cost-savings is misrepresentation with a negative spin.

>>33844649
Scarebus? No, thanks.

>>33845103
I'm not arguing anything, just pointing out that any post on /k/ that doesn't repeat press releases gets jumped on and denied IMMEDIATELY.

>>33845471
says who

>>33845527
>just pointing out that any post on /k/ that doesn't repeat press releases gets jumped on and denied IMMEDIATELY.
>Facts
>Automatically press release copying
You're an idiot.

>>33845556
Who ways that "You could operate an F-35C anywhere you operate an F-35B"?

>>33845556
Me, motherfucker. And Lockheed.

>>33842807
Why don't they launch helos with catapults?

>>33845659
Awww, did the nice lady let you on the internet today?

>>33845764
Rude.

>>33845812
Don't say stupid things then.

>>33845991
Why so mean? It's a perfectly reasonable question.

File: 77374810001_1674749480001_ari-origin06-arc-133-1338914584406[1].jpg (17KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x360px

>>33846003
An aircraft intentionally designed to need little or no runway, land on and take off from rooftops and Destroyer back decks, and you're seriously asking why they aren't cat launched?

>>33846003
If you are 10, yes. But then you shouldn't be here

>>33846240
They do rolling takeoffs when heavily loaded to safe fuel. So why not give them a little catapult assist?

>>33846288
Because they don't need it.

Cats are used to get a conventional jet up to the minimum speed to be able to fly in a truncated launch distance. Helos don't need that.

>>33845812
4chan is an 18+ website

>>33846335
Helos are more efficient when they're moving forward.

>>33846354
And? They don't need to get up to 300 knots to take off.

>>33846401
So don't crank the catapult up that high. Use it to fling them at something reasonable like 50 knots or so.

>>33846444
And back to complete stupid. They can get up to that on their own with a rolling takeoff, so why bother with the excessive amount of weight and reinforcement needed to survive a cat launch?

>>33846459
Excessive weight and reinforcement is unnecessary because you wouldn't be launching them at 300 knots. Attach a hook to the helo and give it a modest tug, it'll work great.

Why are you so hostile to this idea? Is your blood sugar low? Have a snickers my dude.

>>33846496
I'm not hostile to it, it's just completely stupid, kid.

>knots
stupidest unit of distance ever devised

you should be doing it in the proper g/$K/s^-2

>>33846596
nautical miles are really easy to do math with in your brain as you're flying since time and angles are based around 60.

>>33846585
It's a good idea. You're just in a poor mood so you're insulting me.

>>33846635
Such a good idea that nobody does it or plans to do it

>>33846727
So all good ideas have already been had? The future holds nothing in store for us? What a sad outlook on life.

>>33846737
No, it's just a stupid idea. Sometimes things aren't done because there's no good reason to.

>>33845386

They supposedly are. Russia has always had a similar intention but never got there either due to political bullshit or (more recently) the ukranian civil war.

>>33845588
>>33845595
The ships steaming at 30 knots
800 feet of runway is ample for the F-35A or C to take off

>>33843051
>Sweet glock bro
>...This is a Smith and Wesson Model 19
DURR GRAMMAR NAZI

>>33842793
I guess it's a good thing the F35B is a SHORT TAKE-OFF vertical landing aircraft, isn't it?

File: 1458527972506.jpg (19KB, 210x240px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 210x240px

>>33842793

...What?

>>33847649
Well firstly relying on wind is gigaretarded.

But you don't want to be relying on basically the entire length of the deck for takeoff operations. Cuts into sortie rate like a bitch and is generally bad for everything. Landing on 800m of potentially wet deck is not a safe distance, either.

So fuck no, in short.

>>33845354
>The RN isnt even Russia or China tier

DELET

File: Bo-105s practicing NoE flight.jpg (71KB, 800x604px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 800x604px

>>33843327
>i like my altitude in angels, not cherubs.
The brevity code you're looking for is "weeds."

>>33848269

yeah that's how often i report my altitude in AGL.

>>33843327
*shrubs ?

>>33847649

Well, ignoring the requirement for arrested recovery....

The 2016 SAR on the F-35 program lists the following capability for the F-35B with 10 knots WOD.

> Execute 558ft. STO with 2JDAM(internal), 2 AIM-120 (internal), fuel to fly 467nm

Which is short of the desired objective specification:

>With four 1000# JDAMs and two internal AIM-120s, full expendables, execute a 600 foot (450 UK STOVL) STO from LHA, LHD, and aircraft carriers (sea level, tropical day, 10 kts operational WOD) and with a combat radius of 550 nm (STOVL profile). Also must perform STOVL vertical landing with two 1000# JDAMs and two internal AIM-120s, full expendables, and fuel to fly the STOVL Recovery profile.

Considering that nearly 600 ft of deck is required on the version of the aircraft which has both the lift fan system and the thrust vectored nozzle for STO, I'm going to sincerely doubt the other variants can do it with a useful payload, even with 30 knots WOD.

>>33847649
>800 feet of runway is ample for the F-35A or C to take off
Maybe with nine and a half teaspoons of fuel aboard. Certainly not at gross.

>>33842793

LHD's and LHA's are amphibious assault ships. The F-35s on board are there to support its landing craft and helicopters. It will have a much longer range and payload than the harrier its replacing, but no, it won't be able to use its full potential.

Here is some porn by the way, an LHA fully equipped with F-35s/V-22s and the newest cobras. The future is sexy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdaqIPnit9s

>>33847649
Alright try running along with a paper plane in your hand and dropping it.
>It's the same as throwing it.

One thing I'd like to mention is that the Marines are planning on making tanker versions of the V-22, so they can refuel their F-35Bs after takeoff.

>>33847649
Listen man, I really like the F-35, but it does not take off in a similar distance to a Cessna 172.

File: pure sex.jpg (863KB, 2880x1920px) Image search: [Google]

863KB, 2880x1920px

>>33850789
>full weapons load and range from an LHD
Now my underwear are gonna stick to the head of my dick.