An F-35 took off from a ski-jump with a full external load (

>>34865912
A

>>34865912

A FUCKING RAMP!
ONLY THE WEAK ASS NAVY LIKE THE RUSSKIE OR THE BRITBONG USED RAMP!

>>34865912
That's the F35-B with STVOL

>>34865959
Yeah I know, I figured no one's gonna think an A or C is taking off a ramp so I didn't mention it.

you telling me that failure needs to use the lift fan and thrust vectoring to take off from a ramp?

>>34865984
Always wanna maximize your payload.

>>34865912
Are they simulated payloads?
Why are the munition painted in hi-visibility tracking colors?
Also for safety in a test flight it's probably a simulated payload.
Which begs the question are the dummy loads full weight?
Is the weapons bay empty?
Is it flying on vapors to lighten overall weight?

>>34866172
According to the 207 squadron twitter, it had an additional 2 Paveways and 2 AMRAAMs in the internal bay. So a total of 6 Paveways, 2 AMRAAMs, and 2 ASRAAMs.

https://twitter.com/OC207Sqn/status/896076001188364289

And it's supposed to be a flight test, they're hardly going to do that with lightweight munitions.

That reminds me of my crazy uncle who had a dirt ramp at the end of about a 50 foot "runway" he used to land his J3 cub on. He'd hold the brakes on and give it full throttle then let the brake off and prey it would take off.

File: 0091-1024x927.jpg (204KB, 1024x927px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 1024x927px

>Ski Jump
>Ramp

>>34866321

my brother lives in a windy enough area where he can take off at like 20 mph. It's fucking scary but it's also the only way I ever see him since he's able to fly into a local airport

>>34865912
Doesn't that panel behind the cockpit act as a huge source of drag?

>>34866616
Woosh

File: 1492406718964.jpg (75KB, 497x576px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 497x576px

>>34866662
They should have made it open in a fashion that left the panel parallel to length of the fuselage. It would have caused far less drag.

>>34866616
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=28

>>34865984
He's telling you that the F-35 can take off from a ramp without suffering from the main drawback of using one, decreased payloads.

>>34866921
How about fuel ?

>>34866990
Fuel is payload. It's all just weight.

>B-b-B-but ramps reduce ordnance takeoff weight!
Ameritards blown the fuck out

>>34865974
Most people don't even realize there are 3 different variants.

>>34866695
I'm sure you know a lot more than the folks at Lockheed Martin, you should shoot them an email and let them know of their mistake.

>>34867482

They do, it's when you combine a ramp with the STOVL capabilities of the F-35 (or any STOVL jet with sufficient thrust) that you can work around the limitations of using one.

>>34865984

The F-35B can take off full payload STO with a ramp and only a couple of hundred feet of runway, then bring back this payload if needed in a RVL also with minimal runway. A conventional takeoff jet would need thousands of feet of runway to do those two things at all. Let alone at sea.

File: tumblr_inline_niwr3rGZYk1t90ue7[1].jpg (32KB, 500x329px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x329px

>>34866695
The fan in front of that panel creates a low pressure zone, so there isn't actually that much air hitting the panel (as drag).

The X-35 originally had a pair of doors that opened sideways but they found that the lift fan wasn't getting enough air, and that the air it was getting was turbulent, reducing performance and increasing vibration / wear on the fan.

>>34867578
Depends what you consider a full payload; as seen in OP's vid it can take off with a few thousand pounds of weapons and a full internal fuel tank, but it's not at MTOW and a take-off like that does require something like 600ft of a run-up.

Still, compared to something like a MiG-29K or Su-33 it can take off with quite a bit more payload.

Also for vertical landings it can only bring back something like 4000lb of fuel and weaponry, meaning that it likely couldn't perform a vertical landing with the payload in the video (hence why the UK is planning to perform SRVLs on their carriers).

>>34866695

When the lift fan is in operation it needs a high air flow,it is likely that the extra air deflected down by that panel helps it give more lift to take off quicker, even if it does increase drag.

>>34866990

The F-35B carries less fuel than the F-35A due to the lift fan taking up internal volume that would otherwise carry fuel, not because it doesn't have the power.

>>34865912
still A FUCKING RAMP, but nice.

>>34867609
I wonder if it can dump fuel to get it's weight down low enough.

>>34867609

While the target takeoff distance with a fairly heavy payload from a flat deck is 600 ft, it is 450 ft for a ramped one according to the SAR.

>>34867642
All 3 variants of the F-35 have a fuel dump port on the bottom of their (IIRC) left wing; an F-35B could VL with that payload, but pilots are meant to always have a reserve fuel load for a recovery profile and <10% fuel is a dangerous place to be when you need your engine to land.

>>34867655
True although the 600 / 450ft figures are estimates; so far they've demonstrated a (flat deck) STO of 549ft, with 2x 1000lb JDAMs and 2x AMRAAMs internal + fuel to fly a 450nmi combat radius. The bombs in OP's pic are 500lb Paveway IVs, so it'd weigh maybe 1500lb more and have some extra drag, but yeah it probably could do that in 450ft with a ramp.

File: 34375.jpg (60KB, 384x300px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 384x300px

>>34865912
>full external load (4 Paveways IVs and 2 ASRAAMs)
How'd we get conned into such a nerfed plane?

>>34867703
Including the internal load out, it's carrying more than an F-16 can

>>34867703
Full external payload is 18,000lb+ for the A and C variants, 15,000lb for the B. Right now they're only flight testing configurations like this, but there's nothing physically stopping them from flight testing / certifying a load of 6x SDB quadracks (24 bombs) + 4 AAMs.

Theoretically it should be able to carry 2x GBU-28s and 4x GBU-31s (and 4x AAMs) as well.

Or 12x (14x with internal adapters) AMRAAMs + 2x Sidewinders.

>>34865912
Not a full load. It could have lifted more if launched from a catapult.

>>34867765
>Launching the F-35B from a catapult

Nigga u high?

>>34866616
Yes.

>>34867769
>this F-35 can take off from a ramp with full payload because we've redefined full payload for this variant of the F-35 to be much less than the actual full payload of the big boy's F-35

Propaganda, in other words.

>>34867775
Naturally you can carry less when you have a lift fan installed.

Also, I guess that means that you belive that all airfcraft should be able to carry as much as the heaviest variant.

>>34867793
OP is written to give the false impression that the F-35 lifted as much off the ramp as an F-35 could lift off a proper runway or from a catapult. It didn't say that explicitly, but it's plainly meant to give that impression. It's propaganda with plausible deniability.

A better OP would be
>F-35-B accomplishes what it was designed to do.

>>34867799
Wasnt it rather obvious that it was about the F-35B if a ramp is involved?

>>34866921
Deck space is the main drawback. If your jets go full-length to make full-payload takeoffs, it seriously cuts into the space you have for spotting other jets in the same cycle.

>>34867853
Propaganda like this aims to deceive the less informed by leaving out details. British media is full of this sort of propaganda, designed to make the British public believe their government gets them the best in the world.

>>34867916
Hmm, well I guess they are as full of bullshit as everyone elses tho.

I still think they got the best they could, as the option with a catapult would have been much more expensive, and resulted in only one instead of two.

The F-35B still outclasses everything the Russians can throw at them.

>>34867853
It was obvious and the OP is fine. I don't know why

>>34867799
>>34867916

is so butthurt.

>>34867927
>I still think they got the best they could
Sure, by no means is it bad. But "it's pretty good" isn't good enough for the government narrative. The government needs the message to be "it's the best".

So they say things like "Our F-35 can carry the maximum payload!", while leaving out the "[for values of "maximum payload defined specifically for the F35-B, less than other F-35s]" The general public doesn't know that nuance, so the impression they walk away with is the F-35B can carry as much as the F-35s launched off American carriers.

In this way the media can deceive people without actually lying.

>>34867953

I kind of hope that the UK buy isn't 138 F-35B for this reason. Considering that only one carrier will be active at a time, they should be able to get ~100 F-35B and ~40 F-35A.

>>34867953
It's the best they could do with the budget they had

STOVL F-35s carry more than CATOBAR hornets btw

>>34868005
Logistically it makes more sense to only go for Bs anyway.

>>34868078
>STOVL F-35s carry more than CATOBAR hornets btw

Don't come here posting your facts

>>34866695
It's a vane which guides air into the fan. Trust the MIC to know their business.

>>34868152

Not necessarily, Europe wide the only other F-35Bs ordered so far are a couple of dozen by Italy, with a possibility of another few in a decade in Spain. There will be plenty of support for the A variant in Europe, and when operating jointly with another nation, using the same type can help reduce costs. Much of the training and parts are the same, with the lower procurement & operational costs of the A variant offsetting some of the cost of an extra type.

>>34867482
>euro education

>>34868273
Italians ordered B's ?
Do they even have carriers, or the need for a VTOL/STLO aircraft ?

>>34868005
>>34868152

>I kind of hope that the UK buy isn't 138 F-35B for this reason

This is wrong for reasons i can't be bothered to type.

ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot(dot co dot uk)/2017/06/f-35-split-buy-idea-is-nonsense(dot)html

>>34868298
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_aircraft_carrier_Cavour

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_aircraft_carrier_Giuseppe_Garibaldi

>>34867482
>Ameritards blown out
By their own design? The AMERICAN MADE F35? That's apparently good enough to take off a ski jump ship fully loaded?
I bet you also say that the f35 is a meme plane.

>>34867799
"Gives a false impression" fuck off. You're just looking for something to be upset about

>>34868914
No they're right in this thread.
If the maximum payload is reduced that is. I can tell you that I lift maximum weight, there's simply nothing more.
But if I leave out that my maximum weight is much lower than yours... It's quite different.

>>34867775
>>34867799
>>34867916
>>34867953
>>34868987

Oh fuck off you disingenuous shill. There's no possessive language used in the post.

If OP had posted: "The UK's F-35 took off from a ski-jump with a full external load (4 Paveways IVs and 2 ASRAAMs) for the first time a couple days ago. Pretty cool stuff."

Then you could argue propaganda, the only link you can establish with the UK imminently is the weapons, but knowing that would be too obscure. Comical that you'd get nickpicky over a post like this given the number of threads that are quite literally PLA propaganda spam.

>>34868005

>Considering that only one carrier will be active at a time

Incorrect. It's been set for a long time now that they will both be on cycles that lead them to both be operating at once for 40% of the year, and one of them the remaining 60%.

File: 1499978714993.png (48KB, 657x527px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 657x527px

>BAE Systems
God I didn't want these feels. I did not need these feels today of all days.

>>34867799
Lol, OP here, I'm American buddy, but thanks for the conspiracy theories.

>>34868298
Italians have an assembly line for F-35s.

>>34868298
>>34869769
They built their first B earlier this year.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/05/05/italy-rolls-out-first-f-35b-assembled-outside-us

Spain might also buy them, it's still up in the air but what other Harrier replacement are they going to buy exactly?

>>34869071
its not disingenuous to k autists but to the public it's misleading.

>>34867482
Let's see it compared to a C model on a catapult then.

>>34866321
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNCT9bnlBK4

>>34868298
Do you live under a rock?