F-35b unprepared STOVL landing capability?

kcran567

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
14 August 2009
Messages
679
Reaction score
61
Had a question re the F-35b ability to land in an unprepared area. Does the F-35b have anything to prevent foreign object ingestion while taking off in an unprepared area, or does the F-35 always require a pad or reinforced area to land?

I ask because if there are orders for the F-35b Japan just announced a purchase of 100 more F-35a/b, what is the value of a STOVL if not to be able to deploy it in scattered positions not requiring expensive reinforcement and preparation.

That said, I really like the Russian approach to protect the engine while enabling rough field performance! (Yak-130 intake "swiveling plugs")

Yak-130 plugs shown @0:36

https://youtu.be/6utHkjOO8S0
 

Attachments

  • f-35b landing.jpg
    f-35b landing.jpg
    5.6 KB · Views: 436
  • f-35b.jpg
    f-35b.jpg
    4.9 KB · Views: 433
  • Yak-130 1.jpg
    Yak-130 1.jpg
    65.1 KB · Views: 428
  • 130 intake.jpg
    130 intake.jpg
    6.9 KB · Views: 411
There are no "blockers" as such in the F-35 and it depends on the intake's relation to the lift fan to prevent ingestion issues.
 
The value is in operating them off a (relatively) small ship. They'll use them much like the Marines will. Between Russia and China, they probably need a credible amphibious deterrent/threat with regards to disputed island ownership.
 
The reason the Japanese want F-35B is that it turns their "Helicopter destroyers" into actual carriers. Not that they are going to change the designation any time soon...
 
For USMC F-35Bs, it was originally planned that they would be able to operate from semi-prepared sites ashore, but that has pretty much gone by the wayside.
 
It's well known that the F-35B can land on pretty much any kind of unprepared surface.

Once.
 
Hasn't everyone decided that dispersed operations are a losing proposition in the last 30 years? How do you support all the dispersed sites? The F-35 is certainly not suited to it at any rate.

Honest question: did the RAF or RN operate from unprepared surfaces or dispersed sites in the Falklands that I'm unaware of?
 
The cornerstone of the USMC's plan for the F-35B is having an austere op capability and they train for it.

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/usmc-develops-f-35s-austere-capabilities
http://navalaviationnews.navylive.dodlive.mil/2018/03/21/marines-f-35b-expeditionary-envelope-expands/
https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/videos/f-35b-expeditionary-testing-video/
https://vimeo.com/148711514
 
_Del_ said:
Hasn't everyone decided that dispersed operations are a losing proposition in the last 30 years? How do you support all the dispersed sites? The F-35 is certainly not suited to it at any rate.

Honest question: did the RAF or RN operate from unprepared surfaces or dispersed sites in the Falklands that I'm unaware of?
Depends on the opposing forces and the situation as to whether dispersed operations are a losing proposition. It's a good capability to have if needed anyway. STOVL or rolling vertical landing to reduce FOD makes it easier and safer. V/STOL aircraft can also go and land were the support is currently located if necessary too, e.g. a convoy of fuel and armaments vehicles that hasn't made it to an airbase yet on a suitable road.

The RAF and RN operated from a forward operating base at San Carlos during the Falklands War. Good article here - https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/san-carlos-fob/
 
Ostensibly the "austere" field needs to be capable of handling C-130 operations to take advantage of ADGR capability.
We seem to be stepping away from unprepared forward sites in the OP, to a more traditional FOB.


Fake edit: interesting read on the FOB at San Carlos.
 
Obviously fully prepared and stocked airbases are always going to be more efficient as long as they escape concentrated attacks.
 
The more serious response is that dispersed operations of a large (F-4-sized) and complex aircraft are going to be difficult. Sweden has done it, but with well-prepared sites relatively close in road miles to the main base and intentionally low-Mx-footprint aircraft. RAFG tried many ways to do it with the Harrier - their last solution is the basis for the Marines' latest F-35B model, as far as I know. The Marines have done it once per war with the AV-8B.
 
Midway through last year (June or July I think) the USMC finally admitted that actual austere capability (as opposed to simulated PR stunts on nice concrete runways, aprons and dispersal areas) would have to be delayed to an unspecified future Block. I think we can safely assume it has been indefinitely shelved, Lockheed Martin's claims notwithstanding.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom