thanks A225HVY. What about two props not located on the same spot? Like perhaps with a gear arrangement..?

Wouldn’t happen in normal flight, but the Osprey is set up so one engine can drive both sets of rotors should one engine fail.

The Harrier’s vertical landing capability is always used for landing on the Invincibles, but it seems that the F-35B will be using a rolling landing technique on the CVFs, so it will effectively be a STOL rather than a STOVL aircraft.

They can land vertically like a Harrier and will on the gators and the Italian carriers, but for QEs and CVN where you have a larger deck they SRVL will be the standard. Vertical landings waste a lot of fuel and unused munitions.

I hope this is not a dumb question, but what is the low speed handling of the F-35B like? The reason I ask is I am wondering if the F-35B could be adapted to use weapons which would normally be used off helicopters, such as the future Lightweight Multi-Role Missile System (I am naively assuming that weapons fired off helicopters need the firing platform moving at slow speeds or even to be in a hover)

In theory, they could slow down in combat operations, but it would make them really easy to hit with AAA.

“Helicopter” weapons are usually used on rotary platform much they are smaller and have a smaller warhead. But they have no problem being launched from fixed wing platform. Hellfire has been used with UAVs and the UK’s Brimstone is a modification of the hellfire but with a different seeker. The Hellfire’s replacement, the JAGM will feature a tri-mode seeker and will be launched off both rotary and fixed wing platforms using existing hellfire and brimstone launchers.

Aren’t the Americans planning to re-manufacture their C2’s or replace them? Wouldn’t it be easiest to simply buy a couple of theirs off the shelf?

If we have any extra. We might need them.

1.So the C version is substantially cheaper? its cheap enough to make up for the difference in added maintenance training work ups in order to do cat launches? The how much does it cost to train, berth feed, and retire the extra 100 or so shirts that will need to run the cats? I predict that even if you do go cat you wont see any substantial savings. You think the stovl will cost 10 million more 20 million? are you really saving money in the long run?

Not saving money, but getting more for your dollar or pound. STOVL is 75% capability for 95% cost. Once you factor in the increased maintenance requirements of the extremely complex lift fan system, its probably about even.

2. You keep only counting weapons loads internally what about external loads?
even if you buy the C version you will still have to spend money to certify certain weapons on it.

That you do, but the weapons code is to be standard across all variants. You pay for ASRAAM or Storm shadow integration, all F-35A/B/Cs can carry it.

With the C you can also carry larger external loads as the external carriage on the middle external pylon was reduced to 1000lb class weapons making only the inner pylons capable of carrying 2000lb class weapons on the F-35B.

3. Yes in range and payload it is behind the F-35C. But its still well above legacy plat forms as stated above.

The F-35B is roughly equal to legacy to legacy platform although being single seat its forcing the Marines to give up tactical reconnaissance and airborne forward air control mission. The problem with the F-35B is its support aircraft. Searchwater AEW on Sea King and Merlin helicopters is about 30 years behind the Hawkeye in tracking ability and the small dish and slow helicopter cruise allow it to control a fraction of the airspace that even the oldest Hawkeye Cs could let alone the newer ones or the Ds. As of now, the F-35B also has no recovery tanking option which could come into play with SRVL becoming the standard landing type.

4. Yes the C and A version can do the above, but as noted before they are limited when it comes to basing.

Operationally, the only place the F-35B would go that a C wouldn’t is a smaller ship and only if it goes through a very expensive deck refit. Forward basing is a myth with the Harrier, let alone the F-35. The FOD at unprepared runways would be very detrimental to a plane with the F-35B’s airflow intake, would probably metal the metal decking, and then there’s logistic issues. How are you going to keep them supplied with fuel, ammunition, and spares? The later one has kept ground deployed harriers deployed at conventional airbases.

Too bad you couldn’t catapult launch the B version while it’s in semi-VTOL trim to get it up with much more load.

In theory, you could. They’ve toyed around with the idea of putting a lower power version of EMALS into a ski-jump as an assist for higher loads. Airframe would have to be slightly strengthened and attachment points would have to be added though.

Nope. There is margin for catapults and arresting gear – I did state as much myself (Note: that was margin left for steam cats and conventional arresting gear as the requirements for EMALS are, still, something of a variable). They did not design a catobar carrier and remove the catobar bits as you assert though.

CVF-FR took the baseline STOVL design and ADDED two C13’s, auxilliary boilers and arresting gear, plus other changes, and added about 9000tons to the displacement to make it all fit together. Voila Porte Avions 2.

CVF-UK took the selected Thales’ CATOBAR design and had them come up with both CATOBAR and STOVL configurations of the same ship.

We aren’t talking about lego here gents!. Nocuts is exactly right here!.

Margin has been left in the design for the installation of catapult and arresting gear, but, the carrier is designed as a STOVL ship.

Actually you have it backwards. Its a CATOBAR design that’s been adapted to STOVL. There is room specifically for the catapults, arresting rear, an extra gas turbine for extra power production, and a steam generation boiler. They decided it it was a lot easier to bolt a ski-jump onto a CATOBAR carrier than end up screwed with a pure STOVL design if something went wrong with the F-35B.