The role and suitability of STOVL aircraft in the modern battlefield

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
3 June 2011
Messages
17,908
Reaction score
11,012
AeroFranz said:
It could be worse. You could try to add a VTOL version on top of it. Oh wait...

Since you have all the answers, maybe you could explain how we could buy seperate CTOL, STOVL, and CV stealth aircraft designs for less money than the route taken. Take as much time as you need.
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

sferrin said:
AeroFranz said:
It could be worse. You could try to add a VTOL version on top of it. Oh wait...

Since you have all the answers, maybe you could explain how we could buy seperate CTOL, STOVL, and CV stealth aircraft designs for less money than the route taken. Take as much time as you need.

First, you get rid of the STOVL requirement, since it isn't actually needed. You have the Navy and Marines use the same aircraft. Now you don't have tail hook issues due to STOVL requirements, you don't have the same weight/structure problems due to STOVL requirements and you could probably go with a twin engine design which would be much better using the EPE F-414, which would have been much less costly to develop than the F135.

You let the Air Force have it's own aircraft using the F-119 engine and you just use the avionics originally being developed for the F-22 anyway. We could have saved a hell of a lot of money just finishing/fixing that avionics system before trying to develop a new one that still doesn't work and probably won't for another ten to twenty years anyway.

Oh, and you build some more A-10's. Just to keep me from LMAO every time I hear the JSF is going to replace the A-10.
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

Sferrin, my comment is mostly a result of frustration - I certainly do not have a magic answer and hindsight is 20/20. Back in 2000 I thought JSF was the smartest thing since the invention of the PBJ sandwich.
That being said, I am aligned along the lines of what Sundog said. There is little doubt that the Bee model drove the design in a certain 'non-optimal' direction for the other two. As clever as Lockmart people are, there is only so much you can do within a set of constraints and technology readiness level.
The current situation is: all armed forces get (eventually) a sub-optimal solution.
It's not outlandish to think that you could have given the air force and navy (and a lot of foreign partners) a better aircraft (unconstrained by the VSTOL requirements) sooner, and if that means the Marines don't get what they want, well, that might still be a better overall deal.
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

Sundog said:
First, you get rid of the STOVL requirement, since it isn't actually needed.

ROFL! Obviously, it IS needed or it wouldn't be a requirement. I love it how most arm-chair generals who think they have a better solution than the F-35 start of with "we don't need to STOVL version". Just save yourself the trouble and say, "I haven't got a clue." ::)
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

AeroFranz said:
Sferrin, my comment is mostly a result of frustration - I certainly do not have a magic answer and hindsight is 20/20. Back in 2000 I thought JSF was the smartest thing since the invention of the PBJ sandwich.
That being said, I am aligned along the lines of what Sundog said. There is little doubt that the Bee model drove the design in a certain 'non-optimal' direction for the other two. As clever as Lockmart people are, there is only so much you can do within a set of constraints and technology readiness level.
The current situation is: all armed forces get (eventually) a sub-optimal solution.
It's not outlandish to think that you could have given the air force and navy (and a lot of foreign partners) a better aircraft (unconstrained by the VSTOL requirements) sooner, and if that means the Marines don't get what they want, well, that might still be a better overall deal.

I'm not sure how eliminating 11 carriers capable of operating fighters equates to a "better overall deal".
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

Even as a non-Marine one can still readily understand their fear of not having there own VTOLs. If we wish to maintain an amphibious force there will need to VTOLs. The F-32 VTOL mechanism seemed superior the F-35 heavy drive solution but the 'Cow' lost. Know the Cow made a bad showing at first demo, but maybe because it was ugly and the pilot mafia didn't want it. .
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

jsport said:
Even as a non-Marine one can still readily understand their fear of not having there own VTOLs. If we wish to maintain an amphibious force there will need to VTOLs. The F-32 VTOL mechanism seemed superior the F-35 heavy drive solution but the 'Cow' lost. Know the Cow made a bad showing at first demo, but maybe because it was ugly and the pilot mafia didn't want it. .

They're actually more interested in STOVL than VTOL. Aside form being pig ugly (and still would have been after the proposed redesign), the problem with the Boeing vectored thrust solution was that it was desperately dependent on engine thrust and although simpler, didin't have the flexibility and reserve of the DARPA-inspired fan. If you look back you can see that to hover and VL the Boeing craft had to leave a number of parts on the ground, including the movable part of the intake. Lockheed, on the other hand, demonstrated "Mission X": Aa STO (ground roll 200 ft.), followed by a climb to 25,000 ft. accelerate to supersonic speed and then return for a VL. This was not an actual required part of the program, but the fact that they were able to demonstrate it was very telling.

So the bottom line came down to, in order for Boeing to win, the Lockheed design would have to fail miserably. It didn't.
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

sferrin said:
Sundog said:
First, you get rid of the STOVL requirement, since it isn't actually needed.

ROFL! Obviously, it IS needed or it wouldn't be a requirement. I love it how most arm-chair generals who think they have a better solution than the F-35 start of with "we don't need to STOVL version". Just save yourself the trouble and say, "I haven't got a clue." ::)

Besides sferrin asked specifically, "how would it be cheaper to design three individual airframes" you can't start by saying, "well if we don't built one of them" The debate about necessity and requirements is a separate argument.
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

We are alwalys learning so thank you. ..understood the STOVL requirement before this conversation but, in the end it is still a VTOL capable craft. Would like to hear more justifing that large heavy LM drive train. It will always reduce performance as will having to depend on a single use fan which doesn't contribute to forward flight can't be good. Never heard anyone speak positivly of that drive train till now. Not sure any design that is not "desperately dependent on engine thrust". Boeing argued and I beleive the behind schedule test craft "had to leave a number of parts on the ground, including the movable part of the intake" but the final design would not have. Are we absolutely sure that given more time (which arguably should have beeen given for a supersonic VTOL) that the Boeing would have outperformed. Non-Biased formally trained government folk have informed as much. .
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

sferrin said:
Sundog said:
First, you get rid of the STOVL requirement, since it isn't actually needed.

ROFL! Obviously, it IS needed or it wouldn't be a requirement. I love it how most arm-chair generals who think they have a better solution than the F-35 start of with "we don't need to STOVL version". Just save yourself the trouble and say, "I haven't got a clue." ::)

Show me the justification for it? In forty years of operating the Harrier they've actually never required it (STOVL). Being an Aero Engineer, I think I'm a little bit more clued in than you. Spurious requirements are just that. In fact, the only Justification I've ever been able to actually find why the Marines want STOVL is simply to separate themselves from the Navy. It isn't worth the cost, both in terms of the program and the performance.
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

bobbymike said:
Besides sferrin asked specifically, "how would it be cheaper to design three individual airframes" you can't start by saying, "well if we don't built one of them" The debate about necessity and requirements is a separate argument.

Actually, necessity and requirements go hand in hand and get to the center of my argument. Demanding the STOVL version, from my perspective today, reminds me of the 60's when everyone wanted swing wings. Now, I would say that the F-14 actually had a reason to be a swing wing aircraft based on the requirements and actual operational use. I can't really say that for the rest of the swing wing designs. We still haven't learned the lesson between "can" and "should."
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

Sundog said:
sferrin said:
AeroFranz said:
It could be worse. You could try to add a VTOL version on top of it. Oh wait...

Since you have all the answers, maybe you could explain how we could buy seperate CTOL, STOVL, and CV stealth aircraft designs for less money than the route taken. Take as much time as you need.

First, you get rid of the STOVL requirement, since it isn't actually needed. You have the Navy and Marines use the same aircraft. Now you don't have tail hook issues due to STOVL requirements, you don't have the same weight/structure problems due to STOVL requirements and you could probably go with a twin engine design which would be much better using the EPE F-414, which would have been much less costly to develop than the F135.

You let the Air Force have it's own aircraft using the F-119 engine and you just use the avionics originally being developed for the F-22 anyway. We could have saved a hell of a lot of money just finishing/fixing that avionics system before trying to develop a new one that still doesn't work and probably won't for another ten to twenty years anyway.

Oh, and you build some more A-10's. Just to keep me from LMAO every time I hear the JSF is going to replace the A-10.

Very interesting view Sundog, to which I have to agree to most of it - especially the "build some more A-10's"!!

Regards
Pioneer
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

Rhinocrates said:
U.S industry and the USN/USAF all play serious ball on these projects


After TFX (F-111) as well as F-35, and considering that the costs associated with navalising a fighter arise from toughening up the structure, shortening the nose adding VTOL or variable geometry and tailhook and so on, maybe it would make sense to make it a Navy-led programme, with the USAF version being a "decontented" model? Good luck with the politics of that!

Rhinocrates, Im no fan of over governance by Governments, but in my view, the U.S Government of the day (yes including the McNamara!) should have both learned much and enforced more. I still believe in the USAF and USN being able to work smartly and effectively together to maximise commonality in engines, avionics, weapon systems etc...... But the hard fact of the matter is that nether service is willing to look past its selfishness, ego and want of the military budget, that both is able and willing to not just waist millions ........ no correction billions of $$$$, in a game as important as defence and prestige. Hence this is why, I think it has really come to the point where the U.S Government needs to reaffirm the fact that the U.S military answers to the U.S Government and that if the Pentagon can not get its act together then it will in fact not be given the opportunity to be trusted to develop 'Y' to replace 'Z'. But then lays the problem of corporate America and the ingrained and deeply embedded military complex, which is just as much to blame as that of the Pentagon! Again another area in which the U.S Government needs to take back control!
Like it or lump it, I can not but help to have been somewhat impressed by the former Soviet Unions Government/dictatorship and its military (be it Army, Air or Navy) ability to work together in a form of standardisation - be it in a given theme of aerodynamics, engines, armoured chassis etc, which must have saved them massive amounts of time, resources and money (not that it helped them in the big picture :-\ ). But again these are just my views...........................

Regards
Pioneer
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

Guess there are folks even less USMC than me (also folks that have not enough opertional historic perspective to even speak on this subject). Since USN adandonments of the USMC on the beach in WWII . The USMC have insisted (and as long as they have congressional influence the USMC successfully argue for) on the ability to provide CAS w/o a conventional airfield and w/o the USN. Harrier has never been a prize but the requirment stands. Pioneer has it right that VTOL could be fixed but w/o corporate shortfalls/incompetence etc. Likewise, swingwing should have remained standard for obvious reasons. Would argue that current technology could allow swingwing to add extremely little weight.
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

Sundog said:
Show me the justification for it? In forty years of operating the Harrier they've actually never required it (STOVL).

You really are out of the loop aren't you? The USMC has been operating Harriers off amphibious assault ships for decades. And guess what, every recovery has been a vertical landing. There was this other navy (the Royal Navy, you may have heard of them, or not) who used the Harrier almost exclusively in the STOVL role. And Spain.

Sundog said:
Being an Aero Engineer, I think I'm a little bit more clued in than you.

ROFL!! You just keep digging that hole don't you? I've worked with many "Aero Engineers" and while most of them can work CFD software, and perform various calculations they were generally clueless to military aviation history. As you're demonstrating. So no, having a diploma doesn't automatically grace you with all military aviation information.[/quote]
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

Sundog said:
bobbymike said:
Besides sferrin asked specifically, "how would it be cheaper to design three individual airframes" you can't start by saying, "well if we don't built one of them" The debate about necessity and requirements is a separate argument.

Actually, necessity and requirements go hand in hand and get to the center of my argument. Demanding the STOVL version, from my perspective today, reminds me of the 60's when everyone wanted swing wings. Now, I would say that the F-14 actually had a reason to be a swing wing aircraft based on the requirements and actual operational use. I can't really say that for the rest of the swing wing designs. We still haven't learned the lesson between "can" and "should."

Explain how you're going to operate a fixed wing fighter off a gator without STOVL.
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

It's always touchy to discuss the role and need of the USMC because over the decades they have acquired an aura of holiness due to their (undeniably) brave military feats. Fine. You will excuse me, but i try to look at this from a pure, cynical, military/economical perspective.
The Corps needs it's own fixed-wing component because the Navy stiffed them fifty years ago. Instead of handling this at the inter-service level and getting them to play nice, this arguably very specialized branch of the armed forces gets its own boats and planes. Don't make sense to me, but sure.
Whereas at first the corps operated the same equipment as the Navy (cat and trap planes), they eventually get VSTOL birds, to operate off of LHAs, and ostensibly for forward deploying (not sure how often the latter actually happened).
In a perfect world, (or at least in a world of unlimited military budgets), this specialization is acceptable; during lean years it's unsustainable, especially if it results in dedicated equipment not shared across the branches.
Case in point (open can of worms here): V-22, F-35, EFV.
I don't think everyone appreciates just how much burden the B-model put on JSF. Most people see a very similar outer mold line and are happy with that. Commonality's gone to hell, way below project goals. I get to hear ex-Northrop structures people bitch about it every day at lunch. Bulkheads that crack need strengthening. Guess what: it's now a new part not common across the fleet. The history of naval aviation has taught us some lessons about cross-service aircraft. I believe it possible to design a naval/land aircraft with minimum penalties that can be offset by affordability in numbers. F-4 comes to mind. F-18L could have probably been a good land fighter. But to throw in there a VSTOL requirement is to invite disaster. VSTOL paints you in a small corner of the design space. The way out? less commonality, more cost. I would argue, that in an extreme case you get to the point where it is cheaper to design and build two separate aircraft more closely tailored to the mission and unburdened by extraneous requirements. I can't say we have reached that point. I can however tell you that we are nowhere near the compromise that initially sold the program.
Going back to the need of the USMC to have its own STOVL force, it's a capability that's very expensive. A lot of people think it's indispensable, regardless of cost. I look at the issue as a systems of systems problem, where all that matters is that you allocate finite resources ($$$) to obtain the greatest effectiveness across the board. If it turns out that the VSTOL capability adds little to the effectiveness for its cost, and also detracts funds for an alternative more effective solution, then maybe we shouldn't do VSTOL. I'd be willing to discuss the place of VSTOL on the battlefield, and whether it brings enough to the table to justify its cost.

We're straying quite a bit from the topic of this thread, maybe we should start a separate thread instead...
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

If the question is "how would you meet that requirement?" the answer "not at all, because it is (a) unnecessary (b) infeasible (c) unaffordable (d) too much of a compromise for the AF/Navy or (e) all of the above" is legitimate.

Indeed, had anyone known how much it would cost at the outset, the launch decisions might have been different.

You can even say "how do you supply expeditionary airpower for littoral operations to supplement the CSGs?" and see how that answer comes out. (It might not be ship-based.)
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

last caller appears from the Air Staff.. ::)

yes maybe this should be taken to a different thread as it is off topic..

PS: As long as there is Congressional support for amphibious forces the VTOL doesn't go away.
The term "Expeditionary" was stolen from USMC and "Littoral" is a vastly elastic term used to by the USN to both assist and detract from the amphibious ops as the Navy sees fit at any particular time to suit it's purpose at that particular time.
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

jsport said:
We are alwalys learning so thank you. ..understood the STOVL requirement before this conversation but, in the end it is still a VTOL capable craft. Would like to hear more justifing that large heavy LM drive train. It will always reduce performance as will having to depend on a single use fan which doesn't contribute to forward flight can't be good. Never heard anyone speak positivly of that drive train till now. Not sure any design that is not "desperately dependent on engine thrust". Boeing argued and I beleive the behind schedule test craft "had to leave a number of parts on the ground, including the movable part of the intake" but the final design would not have. Are we absolutely sure that given more time (which arguably should have beeen given for a supersonic VTOL) that the Boeing would have outperformed. Non-Biased formally trained government folk have informed as much. .


The reason I focused on STOVL instead of VTOL is that VTO is normally reserved for airshows and a very specialized and rare set of circumstances. However, those who oppose these kind of craft regularly trot out the range/payload figures when operating VTO because that looks worse (The reason, BTW is because of weight limitations in VTO, not fuel burn).

Now as to the decision: The advantage to the lift fan was that it wasn't that heavy relative to the fuel tank that would neatly fit into the same space, and it was much more practical than a lift engine, which would be far more complex and even more dead weight. While vectored thrust is simpler, any growth or margin is more dependent on how much thrust you can get out of the engine since you're floating on pure engine thrust alone. In the competition at hand, look at the position of the evaluators. You're asking that given more time, are we absolutely sure that Boeing's proposed major redesign (which obviously did not fly in the competition) might have not resulted in an aircraft that would have out performed Lockheed's. No we're not. But we are also not absolutely sure that it would have, nor are we absolutely sure that given extra time and money Lockheed's design would not have been further refined and improved.

So, you've got to go with what you've got. One plane that isn't demonstrating the production configuration (which also was ugly, just less so from the upper front quarter :) ), had to drastically "overclock" the thrust available from the F119 to perform and still left parts on the ground, couldn't meet the carrier approach requirements (people keep forgetting that) but said, "Don't worry, we'll fix it in the next release (must have had some Microsoft engineers involved)". The other team saying, "Hey! Watch this! See what we can do today"? The decision was pretty straightforward.

In Boeing's defense it's worth remembering that the X-32 was the first (and only) one of their designs they've ever flown designed to light an afterburner or go over M 1. Who know? If the supersonic requirement hadn't been there, things might have come out differently.
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

Understood VTO is often viewed as a parlour trick and a bad thread when in any arguement involving budgets and operational capability.

On the decision
Understand the position of the evaluators (Boeing did itself no favors) at the time so understand but still question the time alloted. ..could have beeen longer as by your own admission vectored thrust is simpler therefore couldn't the gov'n have waited till the rival efficient single propulsors were matured before competing a craft?

Not having access to the person on the program who beleived Boeing superior, guess it appears ...have nothing else to counter.

On lift fans for a nex gen VTOL for an unprecedentedly capable NGAD which this thread was originally focused on. ...would protest that DARPA spent ~$11m on D STAR Engineering's gearless Nester Core Turbine and it sits fallow.. Up to M 4. It is less complex and there is much less dead weight to my understanding. Likewise, D-STAR's gearless, very high RPM, AVX lift fan could also receive consideration. AVX high heat hardening discussions w/ United Technologies Research Center went nowhere as the USG wouldn't assume risk. Majors? "Not invented- controlled here." A continuous theme.
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

jsport said:
Understood VTO is often viewed as a parlour trick and a bad thread when in any arguement involving budgets and operational capability.

On the decision
Understand the position of the evaluators (Boeing did itself no favors) at the time so understand but still question the time alloted. ..could have beeen longer as by your own admission vectored thrust is simpler therefore couldn't the gov'n have waited till the rival efficient single propulsors were matured before competing a craft?

Not having access to the person on the program who beleived Boeing superior, guess it appears ...have nothing else to counter.

On lift fans for a nex gen VTOL for an unprecedentedly capable NGAD which this thread was originally focused on. ...would protest that DARPA spent ~$11m on D STAR Engineering's gearless Nester Core Turbine and it sits fallow.. Up to M 4. It is less complex and there is much less dead weight to my understanding. Likewise, D-STAR's gearless, very high RPM, AVX lift fan could also receive consideration. AVX high heat hardening discussions w/ United Technologies Research Center went nowhere as the USG wouldn't assume risk. Majors? "Not invented- controlled here." A continuous theme.


The best answer I could give you would be, why should they wait? They put out a requirement. They said, "Here's what you have to do. Here's when we need your a/c so that we can test". Lockheed, MDD and Boeing (who originally was not selected to go to the semifinals) responded. At the semi finals, MDD's lift+cruise got dropped. Boeing offered vectored thrust, which had been very successful subsonically, and Lockheed offered fan+cruise. During the run-up Lockheed redesigned their submission, not because of STOVL, but to meet the carrier compatibility requirements. In the evaluation, Lockheed did well, Boeing didn't but said they could submit a substantially modified, but still ugly, design in the future (again, mostly for carrier compatibility reasons). While vectored thrust is simpler, at least in a subsonic design, in this case it had to be compatible with different versions of the same aircraft that would be pure CTOL. This might not make it so simple.

In any case, it comes back to Lockheed did well, Boeing didn't . To decide to just stop until the Boeing design could be "fixed" is tantamount to saying that the vectored thrust concept was the only one they really wanted. In which case, why not just specify vectored thrust from the start and not bother with evaluating alternative concepts?

As a side note, IMHO it was actually trying to fit the carrier requirements, not STOVL, into a "does-all" plane that caused most of the design grief. You don't have to make much provision in the F-35A design to accommodate the B. Basically take an A, drop in the STOVL system, lose the fuselage tank, change the refueling method, put in some better radios for a/g and you've got a B. The B didn't impose that many constraints on the overall design. The requirements for the C, OTH, required all versions to have the structure to be there to support the bigger wings and empennage, the strength to withstand shocks for cat and trap that the A&B wouldn't do anyway, the requirement for approach visibility and constant AoA, engine change constraints, etc. I would opine that if the Navy had proceeded with A/FX, the JSF that resulted would have been a USMC/AF design that would be lighter and simpler and would have had less development problems.
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

sferrin said:
Being an Aero Engineer, I think I'm a little bit more clued in than you.

ROFL!! You just keep digging that hole don't you? I've worked with many "Aero Engineers" and while most of them can work CFD software, and perform various calculations they were generally clueless to military aviation history. As you're demonstrating. So no, having a diploma doesn't automatically grace you with all military aviation information.


The simple facts are the U.S has full size carriers and my room mate from college who was a Marine aviator operated just fine off of them. We've never really had an operational need to use STOVL off of LHA's. Now if you are arguing for the Navy to go to smaller carriers like the rest of those countries who don't have full size carriers you might have an argument. But you really don't. There simply isn't an operational need for the U.S. to have that capability as has been proven in every war we've fought since we first started flying Harriers.
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

F-14D said:
As a side note, IMHO it was actually trying to fit the carrier requirements, not STOVL, into a "does-all" plane that caused most of the design grief. You don't have to make much provision in the F-35A design to accommodate the B. Basically take an A, drop in the STOVL system, lose the fuselage tank, change the refueling method, put in some better radios for a/g and you've got a B. The B didn't impose that many constraints on the overall design. The requirements for the C, OTH, required all versions to have the structure to be there to support the bigger wings and empennage, the strength to withstand shocks for cat and trap that the A&B wouldn't do anyway, the requirement for approach visibility and constant AoA, engine change constraints, etc. I would opine that if the Navy had proceeded with A/FX, the JSF that resulted would have been a USMC/AF design that would be lighter and simpler and would have had less development problems.

I completely agree with all of this. However, I would add that by combining a conventional and STOVL variant you are limiting the weight requirement of the land based variant. Of course, given how often they end up being overweight that isn't necessarily a bad thing. But you also challenge the design volumetrically with the lift fan. Once again, I would argue that's actually a plus as using that volume puts the fuel fraction back into a useable range (See the F-22 for ref. on not having a good fuel fraction ;) ) In fact, that's one of the few compromised positives about the F-35 program I like.
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

Repeating the same argument is frustating. The Marines can rightly argue the Navy may leave them on a beach as they did in WWII. CTFs could easily end up protecting only themselves out to sea in high intensity conflict where there are hypersonic cruise missiles, super high speed torpedoes, carrier killing ballistic missiles leaving the Marines on the beach. This is getting old and is not NGAD related.
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

jsport said:
Repeating the same argument is frustating. The Marines can rightly argue the Navy may leave them on a beach as they did in WWII. CTFs could easily end up protecting only themselves out to sea in high intensity conflict where there are hypersonic cruise missiles, super high speed torpedoes, carrier killing ballistic missiles leaving the Marines on the beach. This is getting old and is not NGAD related.

I seriously doubt your argument will happen again, but you're entitled to it. Of course those same hypersonic cruise missiles will obliterate Marines and F-35's on those beaches they were able to some how land on before the missiles or torpedoes are launched.

Also, I agree this doesn't have anything to due with NGAD. Will the mod's please prune the posts in this thread regarding the F-35/STOVL pros and cons and move it to a separate thread in the bar? Thank you.
 
Re: STOVL Discussion



I seriously doubt your argument will happen again, but you're entitled to it. Of course those same hypersonic cruise missiles will obliterate Marines and F-35's on those beaches they were able to some how land on before the missiles or torpedoes are launched.

Also, I agree this doesn't have anything to due with NGAD. Will the mod's please prune the posts in this thread regarding the F-35/STOVL pros and cons and move it to a separate thread in the bar? Thank you.
[/quote]

in closing: Hypersonics have difficulty in ground clutter beyond the beach where ground forces and their organic CAS attempt hide/reside. Anti-Anti-Access will likely have time limits.. You insert you retreat back out to sea & pray you gain a beachhead you use for further AAA.
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

Sundog said:
F-14D said:
As a side note, IMHO it was actually trying to fit the carrier requirements, not STOVL, into a "does-all" plane that caused most of the design grief. You don't have to make much provision in the F-35A design to accommodate the B. Basically take an A, drop in the STOVL system, lose the fuselage tank, change the refueling method, put in some better radios for a/g and you've got a B. The B didn't impose that many constraints on the overall design. The requirements for the C, OTH, required all versions to have the structure to be there to support the bigger wings and empennage, the strength to withstand shocks for cat and trap that the A&B wouldn't do anyway, the requirement for approach visibility and constant AoA, engine change constraints, etc. I would opine that if the Navy had proceeded with A/FX, the JSF that resulted would have been a USMC/AF design that would be lighter and simpler and would have had less development problems.

I completely agree with all of this. However, I would add that by combining a conventional and STOVL variant you are limiting the weight requirement of the land based variant. Of course, given how often they end up being overweight that isn't necessarily a bad thing. But you also challenge the design volumetrically with the lift fan. Once again, I would argue that's actually a plus as using that volume puts the fuel fraction back into a useable range (See the F-22 for ref. on not having a good fuel fraction ;) ) In fact, that's one of the few compromised positives about the F-35 program I like.

With a STOVL/CTOL combination, you can have a degreel of commonality. Regarding weight, arguably the STOVL variant can impose a "weight discipline" on the two by forcing rigorous attention on keeping empty weight down, benefiting both. then with the CTOL, you can allow gross weight to grow beyond what the STOVL would accept. We see this in the F-35 through the fact that the F-35A has a larger weapons bay, can lift more and carries an internal gun all the time (the latter is actually not on the B because of weight as much as it is a perception by USN/USMC that a gun is not needed all the time). The fan does introduce a volume issue, but the idea is that that volume can be used for fuel in the other variants, whereas with other technologies you don't have the "dual use"

Granted, if all three variants were developed independently, they would be optimized for their respective services' role. For example, did USMC really need supersonic speed? However, the prevailing opinion was that that would be unaffordable. Who knows? They might have been right.
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

This STOVL/CTOL/JSF direction might indeed be better served as another topic.
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

thinkin "anti-access, area-denial" and "CAS" requirements once again call for innovations such as swing wing & STOVL on a two engine craft but the current USG-Major(s) disfunctional incest prevents any new approach and or capability.
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

jsport said:
Style has nothing to do w/ the enhanced capabilities mentioned..and none of the capabilities is in style except maybe forward canards in Euroland.. Swing wing and its capabilities have been all but been forgotten. very sad. STOVL isn't even style w/ many folks on this forum.

Would further add forward and leading edge concepts which likely continue to languish and will not be explored.

if youre a pilot you'd like to live wouldn't you?

Style is irrelevant. It's about what is the best configuration to meet the mission requirements. STOVL carries a weight penalty, so the Air Force doesn't want it. Canards have some advantages, but for the missions the U.S. is designing for a convetionally tailed design is better. You can see that in how many US designs began as canards and ended up as conventionally tailed; see the L-M F-35/JAST design process for reference.
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

would argue that smart materials could do a great deal for driving down the weight of swing designs as well as retractable canards thus mitigating their currently perceived shortfalls.

for STOVL it appears I need to bang my head on the wall explaining anti-access area, area denial over and over again.
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

jsport said:
"Style has nothing to do w/ the enhanced capabilities mentioned.."

Theoretically, it doesn't. Practically it does. When the budget allocated to a multi-billion dollar defense program lies in the hands of Congressmen who know NOTHING about the value of this or that aerodynamic feature, better have a fighter that looks good if you want to increase your chances that they support it!!!
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

Sundog said:
jsport said:
Style has nothing to do w/ the enhanced capabilities mentioned..and none of the capabilities is in style except maybe forward canards in Euroland.. Swing wing and its capabilities have been all but been forgotten. very sad. STOVL isn't even style w/ many folks on this forum.

Would further add forward and leading edge concepts which likely continue to languish and will not be explored.

if youre a pilot you'd like to live wouldn't you?

Style is irrelevant. It's about what is the best configuration to meet the mission requirements. STOVL carries a weight penalty, so the Air Force doesn't want it. Canards have some advantages, but for the missions the U.S. is designing for a convetionally tailed design is better. You can see that in how many US designs began as canards and ended up as conventionally tailed; see the L-M F-35/JAST design process for reference.

Couple of things:

USAF's main opposition to STOVL, and this will no doubt show up in the next generation, is that they assume that there will always be a 9,000 ft. hard surface runway wherever they go--and if there isn't, well then it's just not worth going there.

Regarding the F-35 change from a canard, Lockheed said they did it primarily because they felt that their canard design would not be able to meet the Navy's requirements for carrier approach. This, BTW, is the same reason Boeoing changed their JAST/JSF design from hideous to merely butt-ugly.
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

F-14D said:
Couple of things:

USAF's main opposition to STOVL, and this will no doubt show up in the next generation, is that they assume that there will always be a 9,000 ft. hard surface runway wherever they go--and if there isn't, well then it's just not worth going there.


Also because they assume that if you don't have a real air base, you'll never be able generate enough sorties to survive enemy counter attacks and soon have all your ground personal and operating equipment destroyed. If the enemy lacks the ability to counter attack or other assets such as the navy can prevent it, then an airfield can be constructed at will anyway. This is why the USAF has about fifteen squadrons worth of Red Horse engineering teams specifically to repair and construct combat airbases. The USMC also has engineers trained for this job, and US Army engineers are capable of large scale assistance. You might notice the US got pretty far in the Second World War building its own hard surface and matted airfields all over the world.


Meanwhile since the USAF has more air refueling tankers then the rest of the world put together it is also simply capable of conducting fighter operations at distances no one else can on a sustained basis. STOVL always ends up meaning less range or less firepower or some other major drawback which turns into a harder time fighting to keep your airfields operating and winning air superiority. All STOVL can do is remove the need for a large runway, but the runway is the hardest to damage and easiest to repair component of an air base.
 
Re: STOVL Discussion


Although we have still have not taken F-32 STOVL issues to another forum it seems necessary to continue to check those who feel obliged to second guess historic precedent and warfighters express requirements.. the below from an Internet source.

"UNCLASSIFIED
20 Oct 10
TALKING POINTS
Subject:WHY STOVL / WHY F-35B?
Points: The Marine Corps requirement is one tactical aircraft type, capable of multiple missions, providing the MAGTF with flexible expeditionary basing and the superior technology needed to dominate the fight. There are no viable alternatives to F-35B that support the full range of crisis response obligations of the United States Marine Corps. STOVL capabilities allow operations from major bases, damaged airstrips, and austere expeditionary operating sites with the added seaborne basing flexibility of conventional aircraft carriers and smaller amphibious ships. STOVL supports the rapidly changing nature of expeditionary operations by providing flexible basing options that allow tactical aircraft to improve responsivenes and increase sortie generation rates. The value of STOVL has been recently demonstrated in combat operations ashore in Iraq and Afganistan, as well as during embarked operations throughout the Central Command Area of Responsibility. The F-35B is far superior to any aircraft flying in the DoN inventory today. It is a total package of capabilities that will revolutionize our expeditionary Marine Air-Ground combat power in all threat environments while reducing the reliance on tanking and jamming support aircraft. The F-35B is compatible in the environments where the traditional Navy plans to fight future carrier battles. Its arrival will help evolve the CVN into a multi-purpose platform capable of operating afloatand ashore in expeditionary and power projection scenarios with far more effectiveness and efficiency than the classic ³cats and traps´ manpower intensive systems associated with CVWs of today. The Marine Corps gains a significant advantage in the overall joint warfighting capability by having a TACAIR platform that allows us to work detachments aboard L Class ships concurrently with operations at main base facilities, from austere forward deployed sites, and aboard conventional aircraft carriers. This capability enables us to conduct economy of force operations from sea or landbases with minimal disruption to the main effort. With the F-35B we can flex across the range of military operations and either assume, relieve, or augment our sister services TACAIR resources inthe execution of their assigned missions. Anywhere the Marine Corps can find 700' of flat deck or 4000' of tin the Marines can operate TACAIR. "
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

Sea Skimmer said:
F-14D said:
Couple of things:

USAF's main opposition to STOVL, and this will no doubt show up in the next generation, is that they assume that there will always be a 9,000 ft. hard surface runway wherever they go--and if there isn't, well then it's just not worth going there.


Also because they assume that if you don't have a real air base, you'll never be able generate enough sorties to survive enemy counter attacks and soon have all your ground personal and operating equipment destroyed. If the enemy lacks the ability to counter attack or other assets such as the navy can prevent it, then an airfield can be constructed at will anyway. This is why the USAF has about fifteen squadrons worth of Red Horse engineering teams specifically to repair and construct combat airbases. The USMC also has engineers trained for this job, and US Army engineers are capable of large scale assistance. You might notice the US got pretty far in the Second World War building its own hard surface and matted airfields all over the world.


Meanwhile since the USAF has more air refueling tankers then the rest of the world put together it is also simply capable of conducting fighter operations at distances no one else can on a sustained basis. STOVL always ends up meaning less range or less firepower or some other major drawback which turns into a harder time fighting to keep your airfields operating and winning air superiority. All STOVL can do is remove the need for a large runway, but the runway is the hardest to damage and easiest to repair component of an air base.

I hesitate to jump back in on this sub-topic, because it is incidental to the main subject, but since I've seen this argument before, let me offer a few thoughts, FWIW:

First, if you do have a well-defended operational base with a 9,000 ft. or so runway fairly near to your intended target(s), STOVL is very hard to justify. That's a given. STOVL is there to answer the question, "What if you don't".

USMC championed the Harrier for one simple reason: It could get there faster than anything. During the Vietnam War they learned that in the overwhelming majority of the cases, once the call for fixed wing air support went out, if it didn't arrive in 20-25 minutes, the results of the battle was already decided. It didn't really matter that much to the ultimate outcome how much air arrived after that. At that point it could help decrease the casualties on one side, or add to them on the other, but wouldn't change how the battle came out. USMC realized that the only way to insure fixed wings got there fast enough was if they had a fixed wing that could be stationed closer to the conflict and was flexible to move around as needs dictated. The point of air support is that it is supposed to be responsive to the needs of those on the ground, not that ground ops would only take place within a certain distance of immobile bases. That meant STOVL.

It's true that CTOLs generally have greater range (although the AV-8B had greater radius than the Hornet [not sure about the Super Hornet, but the F-35B has greater than the E/F, according to USMC]), but that's kinda irrelevant in the context in question. The AV-8B or the F-35B can increase its range and/or by making a CTO, but again that's irrelevant. In the case of the -8B, all that matters is what it can do with a ground roll of 300 meters; that's the reason for its existence. After all, no one compares the F-16's payload/range if it had to operate solely from a similar strip. A related point is that because the STOVL is going to be based closer to the action, it doesn't matter that it can't fly as far as a CTOL so long as it can fly the distance it needs to for its mission. It's true that USAF has scads of tankers, but now you're into a very expensive massively complex operation, which still doesn't get you around the transit time and basing issue. During Gulf War I, USMC Harriers never required USAF tanking, because they were close enough that they didn't need it. In fact, had the ground war played out like they thought it was going to, the plan was that AV-8Bs would move forward as the troops did, operating from roads.

In that war, they were able to use their STOVL capability to generate a high sortie rate from airfields using techniques that others couldn't. For example, the first half of the runway was used for multiple landings at the same time the 2nd half was launching strikes. They've also used a FOB near Baghdad unusable by other aircraft. Similarly, when the move into Afghanistan began, they were able to operate from damaged airfields well before more conventional a/c.

As far as rapidly constructing combat airbases, if I remember the "bare base" concept, it assumed that the runway and apron were already there, and they could "rapidly" build the rest. Runways really aren't that hard to damage anymore. Hard to destroy, absolutely, but not that hard to damage. For example, using our 9,000 ft. runway example, you don't have to destroy it, just deeply crater it in three or four properly spaced locations. Add in some delay-fused explosives, and you're going to keep the CTOLs on the ground for quite a while. The STOVLs will be (gingerly) operational again as soon as you fill in one of those holes. In fact, depending on how they're spaced, they may not even need any filled in before you can fly.

As with everything else, there are always tradeoffs. Without some breakthroughs, I'm not all that convinced that we'd see a STOVL F-X F/A-XX. On the other hand, though, there will definitely be a need for the flexibility STOVL brings in other roles. Of course one critical question has to addressed, at least from USAF's point of view: If you don't have a base big enough to have a 9,000 ft. runway, where are you going to put the golf course? :)
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

During Gulf War I, didn't the A-10 operate out of the same FOB that the AV-8B's did? That seems to be my recollection.
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

Sundog said:
During Gulf War I, didn't the A-10 operate out of the same FOB that the AV-8B's did? That seems to be my recollection.

It's possible that some A-10s might have shared certain airfields at times with AV-8Bs, but they couldn't operate everywhere it could go or conduct operations everywhere the Harrier could and did. AV-8Bs (along with OV-10s) were the most forward land based fixed wings of any service, 35 nm from the Kuwait border. Of the 86 AV-8s sent to Desert Storm, 60 came ashore under one command with an additional 6 assigned elsewhere, the remaining 20 operated from two amphibs.
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

F-14D said:


USMC championed the Harrier for one simple reason: It could get there faster than anything. During the Vietnam War they learned that in the overwhelming majority of the cases, once the call for fixed wing air support went out, if it didn't arrive in 20-25 minutes, the results of the battle was already decided.


Yeah, exactly, a war in which the enemy presents no air opposition (south of the DMZ anyway), winning any given battle wasn’t vital to the US strategic defense and generally was pointless. A war in which the Skyraider was the most popular CAS plane no less, hardly a massive endorsement of fast moving jets of any sort.

The US precisely has the Marines and Navy carrier air power for bushfire nonsense like that. No reason exists why the USAF should also end up orienting its combat power to low intensity warfare like that. In any event we now have reasonably low cost and immensely accurate artillery guided missiles that make a joke of a 20 minute reaction time for anything really important. In Afghanistan GMLRS has become more popular then air strikes because of this. Since brushfires tend to make air to air combat irrelevant in the first place and the A-10 is entirely capable of operating from limited bases it has the job covered anyway. You certainly don’t need anything like 9000ft of runway for it. I see no reason why every branch of the US military should be armed for every possible situation, even when this means highly redundant capabilities. That kind of thinking is what turns into a bloated and unsustainable defense budget.


It's true that CTOLs generally have greater range (although the AV-8B had greater radius than the Hornet [not sure about the Super Hornet, but the F-35B has greater than the E/F, according to USMC]), but that's kinda irrelevant in the context in question. The AV-8B or the F-35B can increase its range and/or by making a CTO, but again that's irrelevant. In the case of the -8B, all that matters is what it can do with a ground roll of 300 meters; that's the reason for its existence.


If your runway is that short then you also have no decent way to resupply the base in a remote area. You’d be stuck with parachute drop of bulk fuel, how long do you expect to sustain that kind of operation? You need 3,000ft for a C-130 to land for realistic resupply meanwhile, and an A-10 can fly from 2,400ft in the first place. If you intend to resupply overland then the question is rapidly raised as to what is the source of this resupply?

Course the closer to the enemy the field, the ever more effort needed to protect it from ground attacks. Even the most trivial ground opposition can blow up parked aircraft. Good reason to keep them away from the front.


After all, no one compares the F-16's payload/range if it had to operate solely from a similar strip. A related point is that because the STOVL is going to be based closer to the action, it doesn't matter that it can't fly as far as a CTOL so long as it can fly the distance it needs to for its mission. It's true that USAF has scads of tankers, but now you're into a very expensive massively complex operation, which still doesn't get you around the transit time and basing issue. During Gulf War I, USMC Harriers never required USAF tanking, because they were close enough that they didn't need it. In fact, had the ground war played out like they thought it was going to, the plan was that AV-8Bs would move forward as the troops did, operating from roads.


They did operate from a road actually, but so did A-10 Warthogs, which also trained for this mission in Germany. Yeah the Marines have some use for Harriers and similar aircraft, how does this translate into the USAF being horrible for not fielding them? Helps also that Iraq was one of the most incompetent and inactive enemies the US ever fought. It wouldn’t have taken much at all for an active Iraqi air force to blow those forward strips off the map if they didn’t have a layered defense of air force fighters and airborne early warning aircraft overhead at all times. A dozen or so harriers at a small airfield can’t support ground troops and maintain a CAP to defend the base at the same time.

As far as rapidly constructing combat airbases, if I remember the "bare base" concept, it assumed that the runway and apron were already there, and they could "rapidly" build the rest.


That is one concept, the capability and material also exists to build such runways from scratch. If you truly want to get big on deplorability in low threat situations, then an aircraft that can operate off dirt or grass would be a lot more desirable then a harrier, which still needs a hard surface or steel/aluminum matting. This was in fact part of the logic of the USAF buying and operating the Super Tucano, for vastly less money then Harriers or F-35B. In a low threat situation it will do anything anyone could want. In a big war it’s cheap enough not to worry about not using, and it can always help secure rear areas against enemy helicopter or guerrilla threats anyway.


Runways really aren't that hard to damage anymore. Hard to destroy, absolutely, but not that hard to damage. For example, using our 9,000 ft. runway example, you don't have to destroy it, just deeply crater it in three or four properly spaced locations.


But you do realize that your 300m strip would in fact be completely destroyed by the same bombing raid right? But a much bigger concern is the enemy drops several thousand cluster bomblets on the base, at which point a couple of Harriers clustered around a tiny 300m strip will be obliterated. Jets and ground equipment are easier to destroy then a runway is to damage. As Israel showed if you have good pilots its plausible to wipe out an entire enemy air force just with strafing.
Want to start building dispersal? Well the engineering effort required for this small will commence skyrocketing. But this is also just one more reason why small austere bases in isolation aren’t actually going to work out well in a hot war. You could have many of them sure, but then that will also mean each one has even less engineering support to keep it operating and fewer ground defenses from air or ground attacks.

Add in some delay-fused explosives, and you're going to keep the CTOLs on the ground for quite a while. The STOVLs will be (gingerly) operational again as soon as you fill in one of those holes. In fact, depending on how they're spaced, they may not even need any filled in before you can fly.

Risk 100 million dollar F-35Bs flying over known UXOs? Yeah I don’t see that happening. Now in fact, the USAF now has concrete that can cure to 3,500psi within 30 minutes, so patching those craters is going to be pretty quick and you don’t need 9000ft of runway to launch and recover fighters for an air to air mission to defend the base. In fact an F-15C can takeoff from only 1,500ft of runway with air to air missiles and full internal fuel. You need more like 4,500ft to land the thing, but you’d gain a couple hours to do more repairs in, assuming the plane cannot divert to another base or be inflight refueled by tankers dispatched from another base.

This means in fact, blow a 9000ft runway into four pieces and F-15s could still takeoff as soon as you swept the FOD off the concrete, FOD sweeping will be time consuming though if you don’t have the proper equipment to do it. This is likely to be the case at a small base. This also all assumes all your planes aren’t on fire and your ammunition dumps aren’t exploding and raining more burning debris onto said runway, which is fairly likely at a small forward base with little or no fortifications.
 

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom