Has the (S)VTOL capability of the F35-B proven to be useful?

[-]

dffffgdsdasdf@reddit

Posting here because this doesn't seem like a big post-whatever-question-pops-into-your-head subreddit: is there a name for the maneuver when the pilot pitches the plane up to an angle incompatible with flight at that airspeed and maintains that attitude via thrust?

I coulda sworn there was a special name for this technique that isn't just a hover.

[-]

LostPilot517@reddit

High Alpha Pass?

[-]

dffffgdsdasdf@reddit

Yeah, that qualifies. I was probably conflating it with it supermaneuvrability and thinking along the lines of the cobra which definitely isn't what I described. Thanks!

[-]

Potential_Wish4943@reddit

For one thing, countries that could only operate naval aviation in the form of helicopters now have a stealth capable supersonic fighter?

If you're operating from unprepared, unofficial fields. (Basically Sweden's plan to fight world war 3 after Russia nukes all their airfields in minute 1 of the fight) you now also have a very capable stealth fighter. (Although sweden prefers domestic designs)

[-]

PropOnTop@reddit

Good point, although I would see more use for the likes of Japanese helicopter carriers, since Japan cannot officially have plane carriers and is a much more useful ally (against China) than Sweden is, right?

[-]

Potential_Wish4943@reddit

Not by a whole lot. The problem with Non-CATOBAR aircraft carriers is the aircraft wind up very limited on payload and fuel capacity. So really only become useful in short range shore bombardment strikes. Thats why you saw so many Russian naval aviation assets deploy off the coast of syria with 4 empty missile/bomb pylons. Just to get off of the deck and not into the sea.

Japans pair of helicopter-destroyers in a real conflict with China would be overwhelmed with short range ballistic missiles quickly, as they would need to deploy deep into their range.

[-]

Known-Associate8369@reddit

Except the Falklands War proves you wrong.

An entire air war which on one side was fought from non-CATOBAR carriers, and won by that side as well.

[-]

Festivefire@reddit

This is a poor comparison since Argentina did not really have the capability to operate large amounts of aircraft from the Falkland Islands, and instead had most of their combat missions flown from an extreme distance with serious fuel, payload, and time-over-target limitations, which is not at all the same as trying to operate an LHD off the coast of China, which has plenty of military airfields within striking range of any point off the coast you could choose to post your LHD and have it close enough for F-35Bs to take off and actually conduct air strikes, and beyond that, China has demonstrated that they have Anti-ship ballistic missiles with more than enough range to hit any LHD close enough to launch an airstrike against them. IMO you would be hard pressed to launch any kind of substantial strike against anything in China using LHDs, because your choices are 1.) launch a few cruise missiles at a time form extremely long ranges, since we can't actually carry and launch enough F35s to do anything substantial from a stand-off distance or 2.) get close enough to the coast to launch air strikes with more than just tomahawks in the half-dozens, and be promptly bombarded by hundreds of coast launched anti-ship missiles, losing your LHD and all it's F35s.

[-]

Known-Associate8369@reddit

Why is it a poor example?

If the VSTOL capability didnt exist for the UK to use it, then that those combat missions that Argentina could fly would have prevented any landing at all, and thus prevent the UK from retaking the island.

Even with Harrier coverage, Argentina still managed to sink several task force vessels and kill a lot of UK soldiers in bombing missions. Imagine what they could have done with no British air cover at all.

Why is that so hard for people to understand? It in fact makes it a perfect example of why VSTOL capability is a good one to have.

[-]

Festivefire@reddit

If you actually read what I posted, I actually already explained in detail why the falklands islands are a very poor example of VSTOL carrier attacking China. Try ACTUALLY reading what I wrote this time.

[-]

Potential_Wish4943@reddit

The Argentinian air force had little to no ability to operate over the Falklands with land based air power, as the island itself featured little military infrastructure and, at 400 miles from the mainland, their aircraft either could not reach it at all or had extremely limited time over target limitations, often flying hours to make haphazard rocket attack before immedietly turning back for the flight home.

If they (argentina) had been given the time to construct a henderson-field like situation where large numbers of well supplied land based aircraft could be deployed from the falklands, this would certainly have shifted the balance of power. And in fact this is widely considered a primary reason for the rushed british response: They didnt want to fight dozens and dozens of fully fueled Mirages and A-4s from hundreds of miles away as they approached.

So yes, if your strategic needs are a navy built around attacking islands effectively undefended by air power, VTOL aircraft from shipping container carriers is your move. But thats not going to do a great deal of good in an engagement with a peer state.

[-]

Known-Associate8369@reddit

The Argentinian air force had enough capability to sink several Royal Navy ships, and conduct regular combat patrols over the islands themselves.

If the RN couldn't put Harriers over the islands for a CAP and air cover, the entire landing operation would have come under significant attack - see for example the Bluff Cove attacks, conducted by aircraft from the Argentinian mainland and resulting in the loss of both Landing Ships Logistics vessels (Sir Galahad was sunk, and the Sir Tristram was hit and abandoned), and the sinking of one LCU and damage to several others.

Or the loss of the HMS Ardent, which was also attacked by mainland based Argentinian aircraft and sunk.

Two other RN ships were also sunk by mainland based Argentinian aircraft, and one rendered inoperable. The Atlantic Conveyor was also hit and sunk in a similar fashion.

And that was with the air cover provided by the Harriers. Against a mainland based force.

So I think your response needs a rethink. The Harriers provided a capability that otherwise would have made the retaking of the islands impossible for a contemporary British force.

[-]

Potential_Wish4943@reddit

The Argentinian air force had enough capability to sink several Royal Navy ships

Yes, its pretty impressive that they managed this despite the logistically challenges i pointed out.

and conduct regular combat patrols over the islands themselves.

I think calling them "Combat air patrols" is more than a little generous considering their air superiority fighters (Mostly Mirage IIIs and Isreali Nesshers), already operating at the bleeding edge of their operational range and without any meaningful air to air refueling typically had as little as 5 minutes of meaningful patrol time over the islands, certainly less than 10, before they needed to turn back. And the harriers parked just out of range with fully fueled tanks had the option to simply not come out to play today.

Sources: I'd suggest "Air War South Atlantic" by Jeffrey Ethell and Alfred Price and "Argentine Fight for the Falklands" by Martin Middlebrook, both of which im drawing from directly for this post. Also there are plenty of MoD reports that show they were fully aware of the lack of loiter time of the Argentianian fighters, and the need to quickly secure the island before a military airfield could be constructed.

[-]

Known-Associate8369@reddit

We can play ifs, buts and maybes all you want to change the example, but you are still ignoring the basic fact that a VSTOL capable force proved divisive in a military campaign.

Was it perfect? No.

Did it prove to be effective? Yes.

Would it have gone better if the RN still had CATOBAR capability? Probably.

But in the real world we had a situation where a foreign force attacked and occupied a territory which they could project power over from their own territory, and where the defending military had no capable air strips for thousands of miles around (see the hellish logistics of the Black Buck missions - the reason they didnt use the Buccaneer for that was because the Bucc would run out of oil before it got to the islands).

A UK with a naval force that was in decline at that point in time managed to put a capable air force over the islands, with great effect.

[-]

Festivefire@reddit

You brought up the Falklands as a counterpoint to another commenter saying that non-CATOBAR carriers wouldn't be of much use against China. Now you are mad that they are making points about how the Falkland Island campaign wouldn't have gone nearly as well for Britain if Argentinian air power had actually been close enough to participate in any meaningful way? That makes no sense since this discussion started as a conversation about using carriers in a war with China, and a war with China would not look anything like the Falkland Island campaign, and the presence of significant air power within range of any potential conflict with China, say over something like Tiawan, is exactly WHY the Falkland Island example does not apply to a discussion about carrier aircraft in a fight with China. Potential_wish is not ignoring the fact that a VSTOL carrier won britain the falkland islands, they are pointing out how that example doesn't match a potential conflict with China. YOU are ignoring the fact that your example is not actually representative of a conflict with China.

[-]

Lampwick@reddit

The Argentinian air force had little to no ability to operate over the Falklands with land based air power, as the island itself featured little military infrastructure

Wasn't the point of the Black Buck raids with Vulcans from Ascension to prevent Port Stanley Airport from being used to deploy Argentinian Mirage III's?

[-]

Potential_Wish4943@reddit

Full disclosure: I am neither in the british or argentinian military nor a professional military historian. I'm just an autist who is confident and thinks i'm not talking shit:

I think that raid was more about them not using that field as an emergency landing location and forward operating base for a limited amount of fighters. And britain waving its cold war dick around. (Argentina having even a modest amount of air refueling would have been a game changer in this conflict).

The field was realistically months or years away from being a proper military airbase with protected fuel tanks and weapons depots, something the quick deployment of the expeditionary force was meant to contest, instead of dragging it out with diplomacy for who knows how long while Argentina parked dozens and dozens of attack aircraft on the island.

[-]

Known-Associate8369@reddit

Yup, agree with this - the UKs intention here was to limit the effective resupply of the islands through use of the runways, and while the Black Buck missions didnt completely eliminate this they did cause supply flights to be curtailed.

Argentinian air support was always going to be from the mainland, that was their planning.

[-]

MaddingtonBear@reddit

China doesn't need fleet carriers. The PLAN's mission extends 100 miles offshore and that's it. The only reason for them to have carriers is to keep other countries' naval assets further away.

[-]

Potential_Wish4943@reddit

1950s aircraft had ranges of 400nmi. Modern aircraft have much more (practically unlimited, the US did a circumnavigation by air in the 1940s.

Aircraft carriers are for parking temporary airfields in strategic locations far from your own airfields, and not much else.

Helicopter/VTOL carriers are for operating in uncontested or not-very contested airspace to support amphibious landings and littoral combat where a lack of range isnt a priority and a lack of armement is an acceptable cost trade-off

[-]

returntoglory9@reddit

none of this answers OP's questions

[-]

Festivefire@reddit

It absolutely does. The VSTOL functionality of the F-35B has proven useful for countries who otherwise would not be able to operate a supersonic stealth fighter from a ship. That is in fact, very useful. This is a situation (in fact, it is THE situation the B variant was exclusively designed for) in which the F-35B requires the VSTOL capability. The ability to operate an advanced fighter from a small, improvised air field, as in Sweden's war plans for dispersing aircraft along roadways, is also an example of when the F-35B's VSTOL capabilities would be useful or required.

Literally everything they said was a direct answer to OP's question.

[-]

DirkBabypunch@reddit

If your only naval aviation is helicopter carriers, and the VTOL capability enables you to operate a fighter without having to design and fund a fixed wing carrier, then the ability has been useful. One could even argue it was necessary, which is a second question answered.

[-]

EvidenceEuphoric6794@reddit

I do like Swedens Road runway plans especially as they have led to 3 great aircraft designs

[-]

bangelo@reddit

Technology bought from the Russians. We couldn't do it ourselves.

[-]

fcfrequired@reddit

Certainly we can't build high speed gearboxes or fans

[-]

bangelo@reddit

Building isnt the problem. Apparently it's the interactions of the thrust with the ground.

[-]

bangelo@reddit

How is everyone so reactionary? Are ya'll experts in this field? You're right, my comment wasn't 100% accurate. But the US paid hundreds of millions for Russian technical research on the issue. It's probably accurate that we could have accomplished it eventually, but facts are facts -

I believe the USA purchased four Russian VTOLs after the collapse of the Russian Empire and integrated the learnings into their own designs.

ig reddit won't let me post full articles from 1995 - "The Soyuz Aero Engine Co. will provide vectoring nozzle information for the Lockheed Martin Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) aircraft design under a technical assistance agreement it signed with Pratt&Whitney. Soyuz is the second Russian company to join the short takeoff/vertical landing.." https://aviationweek.com/pratt-study-soyuz-data-designing-jast-nozzle

[-]

Korshtal@reddit

Hey just wanted to check in on this comment, could you provide some examples of fifth generation VSTOL aircraft produced by the Russian Federation?

[-]

Aethelredditor@reddit

I assume Bangelo is referring to Lockheed's investment in the Yak-41M, which some people argue is where the F-35's swivelling nozzle originates. However, according to Kevin Renshaw (an aeronautical engineer who worked on the X-35 project), Lockheed only received limited performance and design data from Yakovlev. In the United States, the swivelling nozzle design has been floating around since the 1960s, with designs like the Convair Model 200 integrating it.

[-]

UncleArfur@reddit

Found one!

[-]

No-Comment-4619@reddit

I see several dismissive posts, and I don't know why, it's a good question!

On land I'd say the hover will likely be of nominal use, nor am I aware of any situations where the capability was necessary on land. Theoretically it could help the aircraft land and take off in short runway environments, although I'm skeptical this is important enough to demand a SVOTL function.

Where it's much more important, practically revolutionary, is at sea. The short takeoff ability allows countries fielding flattop ships (carriers, helicopter carriers, etc...) to field a high performance 5th generation fighter without having expensive catapults and traps installed. The US, France, and China are the only countries that have catapults and traps on their carriers. Prior to the F-35B in the West, the only option was the Harrier. A good plane, but temperamental and aging. With the F-35B countries like the UK, Italy, Japan, and others are able to field 5th generation fighters at sea, dramatically increasing their capabilities. These planes appear to be far more capable than any naval aircraft that likely rivals Russia and China are capable of deploying from ships.

Was it worth it? Hard to say. For the US, arguably not. While it represents a significant upgrade for the USMC, the F-35B doesn't do anything for the USN, and the USN carriers are the primary aerial strike arm of the USA. The USN doesn't use the F-35B, it uses Super Hornets and the far more capable F-35C. The C can do what the B does, but with better range and a larger weapons bay. During development the B was the primary culprit in the F-35's at times shambolic development history, because the turbofan design and other things that needed to be modified stretched to the limit the idea of a one size fits all fighter plane. If the program just developed the A and C, it would have gone much more smoothly and less expensive.

But for those navies that lack the ability to launch non SVOTL aircraft at sea, I'd say it was very much worth it.

[-]

RedFiveIron@reddit

USN carriers are the primary aerial strike arm of the USA.

USAF all day.

[-]

Atarissiya@reddit

Boeing wouldn’t have been forced to produce the goofiest looking fighter in history if not for STOVL requirements, too.

[-]

Festivefire@reddit

The usefulness of it is entirely related to takeoff and landing performance, and has no combat use per say. The F-35B is essentially a 5th gen replacement for the Harrier, so that nations who can't afford a full-sized carrier can have a mini-carrier and still launch fixed wing aircraft from something that's arguably only really big enough for helicopters unless you want to go back to WW2 aircraft in 2024.

The F-35B was built exclusively because that functionality was REQUIRED so that nations such as England, France, Japan, (or military branches, like the us marine corps, who operate F-35Bs off of LHDs/LHAs, despite the US navy operating F-35Cs off of full scale carriers with catapults and arrester gear.) can operate them off of ships that are neither large enough for, nor equipped to handle traditional fixed wing naval jets.

Nobody is out here paying a fuckton of extra money into the F-35 development program to get a VTOL capable variant just for shits and giggles, it's because they need that capability if they want to have a naval air wing at all, because they do not possess ships capable of supporting F-35Cs.

[-]

FZ_Milkshake@reddit

F-35B is by far the largest capability jump in the F-35 program, USAF got a stealthy Viper/Cheaper F-22, USN got their first 5th gen fighter and a great companion to their super Hornets.

The US Marine Corps, the Fleet Air Arm and all the other ex Harrier operators are getting catapulted right into the 21st century.

[-]

oogaboogaman_3@reddit

The navy uses the C model unless I’m mistaken, not the B.

[-]

FZ_Milkshake@reddit

Let me rephrase the first sentence:

F-35B is by far the largest capability jump in the F-35 program, USAF got the F-35A, wich is a stealthy Viper/Cheaper F-22, USN got the F-35C as their first 5th gen fighter and a great companion to their super Hornets.

[-]

oogaboogaman_3@reddit

Gotcha, makes sense.

[-]

Electrical_Army9819@reddit

Both, they fly Cs off the big boats and Bs off the slightly smaller ones.

[-]

lordderplythethird@reddit

Navy does not fly Bs, only the USMC flies Bs in the US

[-]

Electrical_Army9819@reddit

I never said they did. The USMC flies B and Cs, the B replacing harriers and the C replacing hornets A-Ds, US Navy only flies Cs, or so I read. Given your flag you may know better.

[-]

usmcmech@reddit

Like the Harrier before it, being able to take off from helicopter carriers is VERY useful.

It is this design that the UK carriers are built around, in fact the HMS Queen Elizabeth deployed with a combination or Royal Navy and USMC squadrons.

[-]

ComprehensiveEar7218@reddit

if this functionality has proven to be useful?

Of course it has. The entire point is to operate from austere bases and an array of air-capable ships while it can also takeoff and land from longer runways and conventional bases.

That's literally what they do. Every day.

[-]

SnooChocolates4137@reddit

so, on paper yes, practically no it hasnt yet been proven

[-]

wrongwayup@reddit

May I introduce you to the entire strategic nuclear arsenal

[-]

ComprehensiveEar7218@reddit

So you're saying there aren't F-35Bs operating off the USS Wasp? You're telling me that they only do these things on paper but not in real life?

[-]

SnooChocolates4137@reddit

no, im saying they have not been proven in theatre

[-]

ComprehensiveEar7218@reddit

An F-22 has never shot down an airplane in theatre. Can it do it? Never been proven! Who knows?!

[-]

YoureGrammerIsWorsts@reddit

An F-22 is incapable of shooting down more than a child's birthday balloon!

[-]

bardghost_Isu@reddit

I would jump in here and add that to my knowledge of what was reported during the last CSG that we did, British F-35B's have seen theatre use in the Med/Gulf for strikes on groups like ISIS.

[-]

aaronhayes26@reddit

The harrier has been flying US combat missions since the gulf war, saying that jump jets are of questionable practical value is an incredibly interesting opinion.

[-]

Known-Associate8369@reddit

Look, its pretty simple - it allows air warfare capabilities from a platform thats smaller than a full CATOBAR aircraft carrier.

And yea, in the past that has proven to be a game changer - the UK fought the Falklands war using the Harrier (the thing the F-35B is replacing) from small aircraft carriers. Harriers went up against normal fast jets and won. Mainly because they were there. And they were there because of their vertical flight capability.

Not only did the Harriers vertical capability mean they could take off from smaller aircraft carriers, but it also meant that they could ship a bunch of them down there on a cargo ship and have the aircraft take off from there as well.

So basically we have an entire war that was fought and won based on the fact that an aircraft had vertical flight capability. By that point in time, the UK had retired its CATOBAR capability, and was not looking to bring it back - so if it wasnt for an F-35B type of aircraft then the UK would not have won the Falklands War.

[-]

Terrible_Log3966@reddit

They'll mainly be used for the USMC they don't have big flat tops but the B's can be used on the smaller decks. Basically they'll be following up on years and years of service done by the AV-8 Harriers.

[-]

NeanderTarge@reddit

This. I was stationed on the USS ESSEX (LHD2), similar to the Tripoli that was at fleet week.the main advantage of the vtol capability is the short, unassisted takeoff from these “smaller” ships, and the ability to land vertically and high means no arrester cables. An added bonus for the marines is the ability to operate from forward unimproved airfields, although I’m not aware of this being taken advantage of.

[-]

Terrible_Log3966@reddit

Do they train for FOB procedures? I know they'll do deployments. But afaik these are to regular airfields?

There have been highway takeoff and landing excersises in Europe recently. But I don't think F-35B's were involved. I wonder if the roadservices can take the impact of these engines

[-]

NeanderTarge@reddit

Not sure really, i was a SWO so I just pointed the ship into the wind. I know it was a major use case for the AV-8 during the Cold War, I assume the F35 has similar capabilities.

[-]

Terrible_Log3966@reddit

Do they train for FOB procedures? I know they'll do deployments. But afaik these are to regular airfields?

There have been highway takeoff and landing excersises in Europe recently. But I don't think F-35B's were involved. I wonder if the roadservices can take the impact of these engines

[-]

27803@reddit

Umm the UK, Japan, US all operate them off of ships that wouldn’t support fixed wing aircraft otherwise

[-]

Terrible_Log3966@reddit

Add Italy to this list! Possibly Spain in the future!

[-]

27803@reddit

And Australia with their amphibs that ski jumps but no use for them

[-]

Shadowrend01@reddit

Australia has no B’s, and no plans to purchase them or use the LHD’s as anything other the helicopter ships. The only reason the ski jump remains fitted is because of weight and balance. The amount of engineering required to remove it wasn’t worth the cost, so it stayed

[-]