Posted: 7/6/2016 2:33:04 AM EDT
|
Who else thinks this VTOL ability is a waste of time and money? Yeah, it's cool to do and all, but how much advantage does this ability really give anyone? Consider that a jet engine operates on this simple principal, SUCK, SQUEEZE, BANG and BLOW (hereto referred as SSBB).
Now there are alot of parts inside an engine that are durable, yet fragile and not much damage is allowed on some of these parts. Considering the idea of a VTOL aircraft is to land in areas where there are no traditional runways in hostile environments, re-arm, re-fuel and VTO out of their unimproved area sounds nifty. But they can't even take on a full load-out and do a VTO, so that's another negative feature. I know, I know, it's not VTOL, it's STOVL, they renamed it because they figured out they couldn't do a VTO loaded out and fueled up, so now it's a "short take-off", vertical landing, they can do the vertical landing because they're about out of fuel and have supposedly used up all their stores and are light enough to accomplish this. However there is this thing that most any aircraft......person is aware of, especially on jet aircraft is this thing called F.O.D., Foreign Object Damage. Objects that can get sucked into the intake of a jet engine that aren't supposed to go in there that damages an engine. Sometimes you get away with minimal damage, but oft times not. So when your supposedly out in this remote area that is not a runway and you go to take off your vertical lift thrust is blowing all this crap on the ground up and around in the air which invariably gets sucked into your fancy jet engine causing a fod'd out engine (a term of endearment). But considering the military has deep pockets and all the time and money in the world to buy new jet engine parts and tear down the engine and replace those damaged parts then slap it all together and cross your fingers you put it all back together right, I guess that's not a big deal to them. Nevertheless, anyone involved in ground ops of aircraft performs this daily beloved routine of a FOD walk, all lining up in a neat line and slowly walking forward with eyes looking to the ground in front of them, picking up anything that can be picked up and throwing it away as to not FOD out an engine. But, somehow no one told congress about this little drawback when they were begging for more money so their new jet could take off from "foddy" places. So, as neat as it is for a jet to take off without a roll-out then fly around and land while hovering is cool, even I admit. But it is a novelty that has no realistic application, not enough to warrant the complexity and cost, this ability will not be the linchpin upon which any war, however dynamic, will be determined. But as the congress has absolutely no scruples whatsoever, they were conned into authorizing these vast amounts of funds so our "next generation" of stealth fighters can landing without doing final approach shit on normal runways. Actually, the common sense thing to have done would have been to build one version and make them all use it, like the F-4, all three branches used that airplane and they were all fundamentally the same. And get this, the only version of the F-35 that gets an internal cannon is the F-35A, the Air Force version, what gives with that? The Air Force gets a gun and the Marines don't? And the Navy version is the biggest version, I guess room on a carrier deck isn't such a big deal anymore? Things are truly going gay. |
|
So, what exactly where you trying to say?
"If you can't have conventional runways and traditional aircraft, then there's no point in having aircraft?" That's about all I got out of that mess above. ETA FOD is traditionally "foreign objects [and] debris" meaning shit on the tarmac that gets sucked into intakes. Damage from such debris being FOD damage. |
|
I think I have replied here before on this very topic and gave numerous examples of when V/STOL aircraft have been used in anger to put bombs on target in support of dudes on the ground while being based at austere sites. Pretty sure I even I argued with a guy about Dwyer, as it was a FOB and not yet a Camp.
The Marine Corps has never bought a jet that was VTOL. I don't know that there has ever been a jet that was truly VTOL. The AF was doing some experimental stuff with the X-13 in the 50s. They abandoned it due to lack of an operational requirement. I suspect the realized the physics involved with creating a true VTOL jet was not only cost prohibitive but operationally prohibitive. It is just physics, and the rules we were given by God (or whoever designed your world). In order to make the jet capable to producing enough lift to perform as a VTOL jet you are either going to need a really large fan for mass flow (helicopter) or spin the crap out of the fan, but there are limits (sonic flow, materials, etc) that don't allow for that. So the third option is to make a really light jet, now you can't carry anything (bombs, missiles, guns, etc.) Is there an operational requirement for a jet that can't carry any ordnance? Not really, except maybe to do ISR, but we have drones for that. Then V/STOL came along, and we bought the jump jet from the Brits. It should have been called STOVL as well, but V/STOL sounds cooler and looks better on a patch. It was never a true V/STOL aircraft (any of the Brit models, the A, or the B). It could not take off with full bag a gas and ordnance vertically. However, what it could do well was STOVL. Short take offs on unimproved areas and return to vertically land (or land slow on short runways). We have been dealing with FOD since we started flying airplanes. I don't think it has always been known as FOD, but it has been a problem. Other aircraft are susceptible. Most of the issues with FOD for V/STOL and STOVL aircraft occur with some forward velocity to about 60 KGS (maybe a little less). Debris can get pushed forward and if there is a forward vector of thrust it can energized the FOD getting it high enough of the ground for the jet to ingest it (front puffer ducts if energized can add to the problem). This is also true for conventional aircraft; airliners have low slung engines and can reverse thrust. Also, any engine with a low intake (like an F16) is also susceptible to FOD, if someone else is kicking up FOD and you are moving forward changes are you get it as well. No one pulled the wool over congress about FOD. Anything with an engine propelling an object airborne is susceptible to FOD; again back to physics and the laws we must deal with. Hell cars are susceptible to FOD, they have been putting air filters on cars for some time now. Now will this ever be the linchpin that decides how a war is won; I highly doubt it. However, I would say it will make a difference on the battle field. It has historically for the Marine Corps as well as the Britts. Some might have considered the Harrier the linchpin in the Falklands war; where the Britts set up a FOB and operated the Harrier out of the FOB. They did loose one Harrier to FOD, but they won the war; was it worth it? For the Brits, the Harrier was also a key element to defeating the Russians had they ever come over the fence. Runways are one of the first things taken out, the Brits had a way around it; the Harrier. The trained to and lived this reality for sometime. The operated of small airfields, roads, hides in the woods, grass strips, etc. The Marine Corps uses STOVL aircraft everyday; LHAs and LHDs, there are no cats and traps on those. Harriers have been used multiple times of flat decks in anger; Libya, Gulf war one, OIF and OEF; they even made Harrier carriers for a bit during some of those operations. While not even close to what a CVN can provide then do bring a bit to the fight; especially when there is no CVN around. Also, during the gulf wars Harriers were operated off roads and places conventional aircraft could not operate. I believe some of the first bombs dropped in the first one were from Harriers (not operating from conventional locations or CVNs). Again, perhaps not the lynchpin, but Schwarzkopf did specifically name it as one of the seven weapons that played a crucial role in the war. In OIF it was again used in locations conventional aircraft could not operate; same in OEF. The Marine Corps has a history of using STOVL (or V/STOL) aircraft in anger. Is/was it worth it? Could they have done all the things they did with other conventional aircraft? Perhaps. but the cost would have been spent elsewhere. Less aircraft in the air, longer time to get bombs on target, more tanker support, more aircraft carriers, etc. Anytime an airplane is involved, by design you start with a compromise. We weren't designed to fly, and to overcome the rules we were dealt we compromise. While cost is important, and is it worth it is something that must be asked; what is the compromise being made to satisfy the requirement is probably a better question to ask. The list is long with the F35, and I (and probably anyone else with a keyboard and internet connection) can give a long list on things compromised. Will it be worth it? I hope so, as it is what we asked for and what we purchased. "But as the congress has absolutely no scruples whatsoever, they were conned into authorizing these vast amounts of funds so our "next generation" of stealth fighters can landing without doing final approach shit on normal runways. " Congress wasn't conned into anything. And by the way every single F35 (to include all the As, Bs, and Cs) can land conventionally on normal runways (yes, even the B). "And get this, the only version of the F-35 that gets an internal cannon is the F-35A, the Air Force version, what gives with that? The Air Force gets a gun and the Marines don't? And the Navy version is the biggest version, I guess room on a carrier deck isn't such a big deal anymore? Things are truly going gay." The C is not STOVL. It does have folding wings (so they were concerned with room on the deck; just like the last two fighters the navy bought). If it was the same size as the A they wouldn't be able to get it aboard, approach speeds would be to fast (the bigger wing was made; again back to that compromise thing). STOVL didn't prevent it from having a gun. |