There’s probably a big difference between routine and occassional use of a piece of deck, and I have oftern heard over-cautious (and ultimately disproven) statements regarding all kinds of environmental interactions. Is the stated concern over DDHs heat and blast related, or structural loads at touchdown?

No, the Italians are more dependent on the STOVL F-35B than the British.

The British carriers are large enough for CTOL operations.

Swerve is dead right. In fact, the French are planning to build one of the same CVF ships as the UK, but of course in their case fitted with catapult and arrester gear.

The UK could still switch to F-35C to meet its carrier-borne aircraft requirement, and there are some in the RAF and RN who argue for this. Most people think it’s unlikely that the UK will move away from STOVL, though. As for me, I hope not.

I was thinking more along the lines of RN use………no organic tanking for the RN carriers will put something of a “crimp” in their operations.

You know these things have a funny habit of evolving with time – it’s just not in the plan now as far as I’m aware. Phantom II’s comment on Harrier is right on. Funadmentally, VL recoveries aboard ship don’t require the same precautions as conventional carrier recoveries (eg organic tanker in the overhead) because with VL the boarding rate is close to 100%. No bolters, few wave-offs, even in high sea state. At the risk of creating a hugely controversial thread: it’s all together a more gentlemanly way to recover aircraft at sea!

Why land and then stop when you can stop and then land?:diablo:

(Note however, to complicate the points made above, the UK is looking closely at what are called Ship Rolling Vertical Landings – I will put something on my website about this in due course).

😀

F-35B Rolls Out
Posted by Bill Sweetman at 12/18/2007 9:13 AM

http://tinyurl.com/yt65oc

But the good question I liked: “What is it for?”

Hey ELP thanks for the link – I like Bill Sweetman’s article. Very thought provoking. There are a number of issues with which I don’t fully agree, and I won’t take the several paragraphs necessary to mount a counter, but all STOVL advocates should take note of Bill’s excellent points.

One point I will make, which to me has always been the raison d’etre for STOVL: STOVL is about flexibility. Pure and simple, it’s the ace up your sleeve, it’s the (sometimes limited) capability which you can field when no-one else can. It’s the fighter you can put on a frigate (albeit with small payload) or a container ship, a torn up landing strip or a grass field (if dry!). You cannot put a value to that flexibility, but in the Falklands, it was priceless (yes we should avoid designing to fight the last war, but we can still learn). For a small country like the UK, where we can’t aford massive strategic or tactical air transport fleets, intercontinental bombers or forward bases all round the world, I just think you can’t beat the flexibility STOVL gives (not to mention cheaper carriers). And now, every Harrier pilot’s (aviation) dream is coming true: and aircraft with the flexibility of the Harrier, and the up and away performance to match all-comers.

Rumour has it the USAF were mad that they could’nt get in to Kandahar, when the Marines AV8’s could. I think Bill is a little quick in assuming the USAF interest in STOVL is history.

All personal opinions of course. Talking about variant choice for the UK right now is a bit like opening the debate on whether a modern fighter needs a gun: 10 pilots, 11 opinions.