In an emergency, maybe. I wouldn't like to bet on it though...
I'd imagine that the SHAR with the safety engineers has big red circles around hands off procedures...
In an emergency, maybe. I wouldn't like to bet on it though...
The push button VTOL capability is very important for F-35B. Landing a Harrier was and is very hard. Not every fighter pilot could do it and took a lot of training effort for those that could. By making it automatic any operator of the F-35B can build their pilot force from a wider cohort, reduce the training demand and the risk of accidents.
As to landing on the back of a frigate that shouldn’t be too much of a problem but only in flat seas. An aft flight deck on a frigate moves up and down a lot more than the amidships landing position on a VTOL carrier. No amount of automatic landing capability is going to help if the flight deck comes up and hits you so hard its like a springboard.
I very much doubt you will see F-35Bs lily padding from frigates but it might be a good way to save an airframe of a battle damaged fighter that can’t make it back to the carrier.
It would take up almost the entire helo deck, most likely. About the only benefit this would have would be an ability to avoid a time- and asset-consuming CSAR operation, as well as an opportunity to strip the most valuable components before deep-sixing the jet. If it can't fly and takes up too much space (you would NOT be able to operate a Seahawk if there was an F-35 on the pad) , you should probably ditch it.
Also, light shipboard helicopters have a RAST (Recovery Assist Secure Traverse) system to automatically lock the aircraft to the deck upon landing. AFAIK, the F-35 in any iteration does not have this system, and would be unsecured and a potential threat to the ship and crew if it began shifting.
Like any damaged plane that can be recovered that will be done by heavy lift helicopter.
I suppose they could remove the engine & lift fan.... that should save quite a bit of weight and get it well below 10 tons.
Besides, the CH-53K can do over 15 tons IIRC.
It would take up almost the entire helo deck, most likely. About the only benefit this would have would be an ability to avoid a time- and asset-consuming CSAR operation, as well as an opportunity to strip the most valuable components before deep-sixing the jet. If it can't fly and takes up too much space (you would NOT be able to operate a Seahawk if there was an F-35 on the pad) , you should probably ditch it.
Also, light shipboard helicopters have a RAST (Recovery Assist Secure Traverse) system to automatically lock the aircraft to the deck upon landing. AFAIK, the F-35 in any iteration does not have this system, and would be unsecured and a potential threat to the ship and crew if it began shifting.
Thats one hell of a heavy lift.. 14t or so empty? Whats going to lift that?! I would imagine craning it off in port would be more suitable. If its a refuel they could be done at sea I would imagine atleast enough so it can get the hell of it.
I would imagine it will happen at some time. F-35's aren't exactly cheap...
I do remember seeing a harrier land on the helo spot on a ship, it looked dam difficult. Push to land will make things a great deal easier, I would imagine the F-35 sensors would proberly inform the pilot if the landing spot is moving too much to attempt a landing.
Well, since we are talking about a VL on a frigate, only the F-35B applies![]()
A Harrier made an emergency landing on top of a container on a smallish cargo ship in the Med once. To think it could do this, but an F-35B couldn't (at all) land on a frigate flight deck as an emergency measure, definitely requires a bit of close minded thinking....
YouTube - Sea Harrier ZA176 Makes Emergency Landing on Cargo Ship Alraigo (1983)
Further to this, a RAST equipped FFG-7 flight deck landing area measures 60 feet long and 38' feet wide. The full flight deck however (including RAST control station) measures 76 feet long and over 40 feet wide.
An F-35B measures 51.2 feet long and with a 35 feet wingspan, so from a basic measure perspective an F-35b WOULD fit on an FFG-7 sized RAST equipped flight deck.
Of course all sorts of engineering data would be needed to confirm an F-35b could actually vertically land on the deck. But a basic look suggests it's possible...
FM 1-564 Appendix D
Nope, none of that is accurate. CSAR is what you do when the pilot has to eject behind enemy lines or out in the sea somewhere. If the damaged aircraft can recover to alongside friendly forces then the pilot can be recovered by those forces. In the case of a frigate the pilot ejects alongside and an RHIB can pick them up.
If the plane can still land but doesn’t have the fuel to make it to the carrier then such a landing doesn’t mean it has to takeoff again. Like any damaged plane that can be recovered that will be done by heavy lift helicopter.
This has happened a few times with the RN Sea Harrier force where aircraft that would otherwise be a total loss were recovered and returned to service. Even during the Falklands conflict when a very valuable fighter would have been lost to the fleet but was able to stay in the fight after a slight delay.
The loss of the frigate’s flight deck to helo operations while the VTOL fighter is aboard is not half as bad as it appears. Naval helos frequently lily pad – that is operate from other ship’s flight decks – and the helo of the affected ship will just fly from other decks until theirs is cleared.
This gear is only used for high sea state landings. Otherwise the helo just touches down and is secured in a conventional fashion. I have a few frigate landings in helos and I’ve never seen the RAST/Beartrap stuff used in action.
A decade later and they're still bummed: Boeing engineers: We should have won F-35 fighter contract
I do think the vertical lift system of Boeing was just a variation of the Harrier's, so I'm not so sure about this ex-Boeing Engineer's statement:
“I thought our vertical takeoff model was far superior,” Cole said. “The design was definitely cutting edge, it was new technology. We really thought it was going to win the day for us.”
Yep. They were definitely hard done by. I mean why should the fact that their system didn't work and couldn't meet the requirement be held against them?
Didn't work? Wasn't it Boeing who demonstrated the STOVL + Supersonic flight first?