Could it be argued that putting great research effort into creating an enormously capable STOL fighter aircraft–quadruple-slotted flaps, leading-edge devices, boundary-layer control, blown flaps, etc. etc.–would be a more productive way to go than the vectored-thrust technology of the Harrier and separate lift fan of the F-35B?
The original raison d’etre for the Harrier–every runway in Europe would be destroyed in 20 minutes by Warsaw pact forces and we’d have to operate out of tennis courts and farmers’ fields–seems to have gone away, and STOVL aircraft all seem to use at least moderately prepared and reasonably sized basing or small carriers, if only to facilitate the necessary ground-support structure. (Not counting carefully staged PR demos…)
I guess the question comes down to: are we giving away too much range and ordnance-load capability to retain an unnecessary vertical-flight capability, when a fighter with seriously advanced STOL technology could accomplish the same missions but with more load and range if they foreswore the need to land (to say nothing of taking off) vertically?
Is this a job we could assign to the Swedes?
By: Moggy C - 23rd December 2014 at 10:48
Interesting thread topic, possibly falling under ‘future historic’?
Plenty of similar threads over on ModMil, so this one is closed.
Moggy
Moderator
By: Bager1968 - 23rd December 2014 at 10:04
I could understand the Royal Navy operating them off the Arc and Lusty as they were small carriers that could not operate anything bigger…. But the new carriers that are bigger so it is a farce to constrain it to the likes of the vstol F35 and the Harrier, it’s barking, RAF Harrier I could understand but a naval one is there for strike and to defend the fleet, it’s never going to operate from hides in the back of beyond.. So they should ditch all the lift engine crap and replace it with fuel and armaments…. Just my take on it, the Harrier was size of carrier driven, they are now using that same staid thinking to the detriment of the new carriers Capability.
Only 2 of the 14+ carriers/amphibs that are intended to operate F-35Bs are large enough to give up STOVL capabilities.
And those two (HMS QE & HMS POW) had their designs set long after the decision had been made by the RN to buy the STOVL version of the “Joint Strike Fighter” – which itself had been in the works since the mid-1980s (the final winning design was selected while the RN was still deciding just how large the CVF would be).
By: Arabella-Cox - 22nd December 2014 at 14:35
I think you could make the argument for STOL for ground based attack, but not for sea based aircraft.
With a bit more compromise a STOL Harrier, or simular STOL attack aircraft, would have been quite usefull for cold war planning for the loss of airbases. Several European countries tried to go down the VSTOL path, and only the Harrier worked well. A STOL would have been less of a compromise and likey would have resulted in soemthign a bit bigger, faster and with more payload/range, and would still meet most requirements for operating in austere environments such as a section of road, etc. No, not the supermarket parking lot.
F-35B was driven as a harrier replacement, and those countries wanted something that could operate from their ships, with the US LHA/LHD being the major driver. A LHA/LHD really calls for STOVL, as do the Italian and Spanish carriers, as did the Invincible class. The US Marine Corps was always going to be the biggest customer, thus the driver for STOVL from the LHA/LHD and forward bases. The coming UK carriers could have likely been STOL (or CATOBAR, or STOVL) but the UK would have been the only customers for a STOL aircraft in replacing the Harriers and Sea Harriers. “Son of harrier” never got past the thinking about stage, and the UK decided to be part of the JSF program.
Perhaps there could have been some interest in a European program for a STOL attack replacement for the Jaguar, Harrier, Sea Harrier, Super Entendard, Mirage F-1, Fiat, F-104, etc, but it would have competed for support when the Tornado was still in production and the Eurofighter and Rafale programs were gearing up. Few could afford multiple fast jet programs at the time, and everyone seemed focused on multi-role/swing role. The attack role, and VSTOL/STOVL/STOL is a niche market.
By: Stepwilk - 22nd December 2014 at 07:10
Yes, I’ve put it there as well. Hadn’t realized there was a modern military section.
By: mike currill - 22nd December 2014 at 06:36
I feel it should move to modern rather than here.
By: charliehunt - 22nd December 2014 at 05:46
Interesting questions but shouldn’t this be in Military not Historic?
By: TonyT - 22nd December 2014 at 04:44
RAF wise they were planned to operate from supermarkets if I remember correctly, they would bulldoze part of the glass frontage in and push the shelving to the back, the store would then become the hide and the carpark the pad.
I could understand the RAF utilisation in a European theatre, I could understand the Royal Navy operating them off the Arc and Lusty as they were small carriers that could not operate anything bigger…. But the new carriers that are bigger so it is a farce to constrain it to the likes of the vstol F35 and the Harrier, it’s barking, RAF Harrier I could understand but a naval one is there for strike and to defend the fleet, it’s never going to operate from hides in the back of beyond.. So they should ditch all the lift engine crap and replace it with fuel and armaments…. Just my take on it, the Harrier was size of carrier driven, they are now using that same staid thinking to the detriment of the new carriers Capability.
Sign In
December 22, 2014 at 12:42 am