Is STOVL worth the trouble?

[Pendekar]

There were no less than twelve different STOVL fighter design in the history of aviation. Out of this twelve, only few become operational; the Harrier and the Yak-38 Forger serve with distinction despite the many limitation due to it's design. While the F-35 is still struggling with countless technical problems.

I understand that the capability to take off and land from a small patch of land rather than a long strip of runway is highly desirable. But is the problem associated with STOVL design worth the problem? How much advantage the STOVL give versus the cost and limitation impose upon the platform? What if JSF was design as a purely conventional take off fighter? Will the development be less costly and problematic than the current STOVL design?

IMO STOVL doesn't give as much advantage to a fighter design. To a transport, yes. STOVL is a great advantage. But to a fighter, not so much. I think we better of with STOL capability. Even if a fighter have STOVL, the fighter aircraft is still a logistic heavy platform and fuel and spare parts need to be delivered regularly. This mean's the base must be near the road. If so, why not just use the road as a runway instead?

 

[StobieWan]

You're missing the naval dimension there - the biggest users of the F35B are the USMC and the RN, followed by the Italians and some followup sales with other nations.

The ability to get an aircraft on and off a deck in a lot less room than a cats and traps carrier is clearly desirable (in that a number of nations have bought into it)

 

[Todjaeger]

You're missing the naval dimension there - the biggest users of the F35B are the USMC and the RN, followed by the Italians and some followup sales with other nations.

The ability to get an aircraft on and off a deck in a lot less room than a cats and traps carrier is clearly desirable (in that a number of nations have bought into it)

There are also some nations that use carrier launched STOL combat aircraft. However, they typically cannot carry their full ordnance and/or fuel load when in STOL operations. This then means the aircraft sortie has to either tank during the sortie, carry less than a full weapons/sensor loadout, or both. The MiG-29K comes to mind with this limitation.

 

[barney41]

I'm more curious as to the OP's information sources to have such negative and limited appreciation of STOVL as it pertains to JSF.

 

[SpazSinbad]

I'm curious to know why 'Pendekar' does not know about USMC F-35B IOC. What has gone wrong since then?

 

[StobieWan]

There are also some nations that use carrier launched STOL combat aircraft. However, they typically cannot carry their full ordnance and/or fuel load when in STOL operations. This then means the aircraft sortie has to either tank during the sortie, carry less than a full weapons/sensor loadout, or both. The MiG-29K comes to mind with this limitation.

They're STOBAR (Short Take Off But Arrested landing) which I've always felt was the worst possible of all worlds - they have to take off with a fairly limited config, then smack the crap out of themselves on a deck instead of "stop" then land (or at least, slow down quite a bit and then land)


For land use, the STOVL config works well for the Marines in terms of flexibility in where they run their aircraft - they can go over the beach, work their way inland and continue to fly short and rapid turn arounds. The UK used the Harrier in much the same way in the cold war and the F35B has far less shortcomings than the Harrier in terms of range and payload.

 

[youpii]

You're missing the naval dimension there - the biggest users of the F35B are the USMC and the RN, followed by the Italians and some followup sales with other nations.

The ability to get an aircraft on and off a deck in a lot less room than a cats and traps carrier is clearly desirable (in that a number of nations have bought into it)

The LHDs operated by USMC are about the same size as the French Charles de Gaulle.

 

[Ranger25]

Along with the given Naval advantages, STOVL is also a good way to keep flying if/when traditional fields have been cratered. The RAF and USMC used to practice this in Europe back in the old days

 

[swerve]

The LHDs operated by USMC are about the same size as the French Charles de Gaulle.

Only slightly less tonnage & length, but considerably smaller deck because beam at deck level is much less than Charles de Gaulle.

Different shape because built for a different purpose.

 

[Todjaeger]

Only slightly less tonnage & length, but considerably smaller deck because beam at deck level is much less than Charles de Gaulle.

Different shape because built for a different purpose.

Indeed, and normally the LHD's only carry a half-dozen fixed wing aircraft, unlike a normal aircraft carrier. Again, because the role of the vessel is quite different.

 

[StobieWan]

The LHDs operated by USMC are about the same size as the French Charles de Gaulle.

I suspect you'd not be able to get an F35C on or off the De Gaulle however - not with anything like a combat load, whereas an F35B would be no trouble.

 

[SpazSinbad]

The UK made it clear in their deliberations about 'will they - won't they' switch to the F-35C and 'Cats'nFlaps' that the F-35C could not operate from CdeG. Anyway here is a recent hint that even the Israelis think the F-35B is worthwhile.

"...At some stage in the future, or perhaps even the near future, Israel is likely to sign a contract to buy Adirs [F-35Bs] with short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) capabilities. Israel is likely to decide to buy these planes if it believes that the runways in its airbases will be vulnerable to missile attacks." 10 Sep 2015

Globes English - Israel to double attack range of F-35 Stealth fighter

 

[King Wally]

The Falklands War is one pretty dam good case study. If you remove the STOVL option from the UK kit you may well have seen a dramatically different outcome. The lengths the Brits went to just to multi-tanker one Vulcan bomber to the islands was remarkable enough, no land based fixed wing fighters had a chance of ranging in.

STOVL may not be perfect, far from it, but when its that or NOTHING on the battlefield it can make a big difference.

 

[StobieWan]

STOVL also really complicates matters for the enemy in terms of run way denial - when you can air taxi jets from one stretch of runway, over a breach and onto a longer section, have it then fully fuelled and armed, cutting the runway in some places is no longer good enough.

So, it's not even an issue of operating from dispersed strips made from PSP - most modern jets need something like 300 metres to get airborne and 700 to get back down (at a minimum, assuming thrust reversing, dry strip etc)

 

[AegisFC]

There were no less than twelve different STOVL fighter design in the history of aviation. Out of this twelve, only few become operational; the Harrier and the Yak-38 Forger serve with distinction despite the many limitation due to it's design. While the F-35 is still struggling with countless technical problems.

The YAK-38 was a joke. It did not serve with "distinction", it was a failure. The fact that you hold it up as some sort of success while pointing at the F-35B shows your bias.

 

[SpazSinbad]

Yes the yakkityyak had a few troubles indeedy: text page also at the URL (add the missing 'h' at beginning of same)

ttp://www.liveleak.com/view?i=29d_1256477821

[ame=http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=29d_1256477821]LiveLeak.com - YAK-41 Crashes On Carrier landing Test[/ame]

 

[StobieWan]

The YAK-38 was a joke. It did not serve with "distinction", it was a failure. The fact that you hold it up as some sort of success while pointing at the F-35B shows your bias.

I did struggle to not snigger earlier when I saw that - I don't think the Yak got more than twenty minutes from deck in service. The F35 *test* program may have clocked up more hours airborne than the Yak operational fleet by now.

 

[Pendekar]

I'm curious to know why 'Pendekar' does not know about USMC F-35B IOC. What has gone wrong since then?

More like pushed into service despite many unresolved issues. But I'm not criticizing the F-35 performance. I'm sure it's a superb aircraft. What I try to point out here is that, if F-35 was not design with STOVL in mind, It may not suffer as much problem as it is now. The development cost alone is far higher than the more capable F-22. There's reason why many countries which embarked on supersonic VTOL program ditched it in the end.

 

[StobieWan]

More like pushed into service despite many unresolved issues. But I'm not criticizing the F-35 performance. I'm sure it's a superb aircraft. What I try to point out here is that, if F-35 was not design with STOVL in mind, It may not suffer as much problem as it is now. The development cost alone is far higher than the more capable F-22. There's reason why many countries which embarked on supersonic VTOL program ditched it in the end.

STOVL didn't have any negative impact on the F35 program - there's a link on F16.net that gives a lot more detail but the *first* aircraft variant of the three designed was the Airforce one - the A model. The exterior dimensions, the number of engines etc were all driven largely by the A model with the one caveat that the result had to fit onto the deck elevators of the STOVL customer base.

That wasn't a tough challenge to meet as anything longer or larger would have been heavier with impact on the general performance of the entire fleet, so that constraint wasn't a bad thing.

The next impact STOVL had on the program was a need to keep the model light and claw back some margins for weight, and the outcome of that was to find several hundred kilograms in weight savings which benefited the entire model range.

I see the "STOVL has had a major impact" thing on the internet quite a bit and I've watched it been debated by aircraft designers and people involved in the program. I'm pretty much convinced that the STOVL requirements didn't impact any of the other models to any great degree.

All of the spaces that the B model uses for it's control and effector equipment are recovered in the A and C models, and a lot of the flight testing for the engines and other gear in the B was carried out by the A model, which means the program never slowed *down* for the B to any great degree.

 

[SpazSinbad]

STOVL didn't have any negative impact on the F35 program - there's a link on F16.net that gives a lot more detail but the *first* aircraft variant of the three designed was the Airforce one - the A model. The exterior dimensions, the number of engines etc were all driven largely by the A model with the one caveat that the result had to fit onto the deck elevators of the STOVL customer base....

Also a requirement was the USMC needed to fit SIX F-35Bs aft of island and NOT interfere with landing area - hence wing max. span defined. A good overview is in this PDF: http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA399988 (1Mb)

The Influence of Ship Configuration on the Design of the Joint Strike Fighter by Mr. Eric S. Ryberg, 26-27 Feb 2002