The F-35B STOVL sham

For those of us who have observed the program for some years, there were many indications that the F-35B STOVL would never be very expeditionary. That is that it could land anywhere there was a small road to short take-off from and land vertically. This was the initial reason for the Harrier for the British. Facing the Soviet threat in Europe.


(Original reason for the Harrier. Disbursed mobile bases in Europe
vs. a go-to-hell Soviet-Fulda-Gap scenario. This photo is unobtainium
for the F-35B STOVL)

And this shows the challenges of setting up expeditionary bases for the Harrier on-the-fly so to speak. There is no way you will see this done with the $250M each-plus, heavy and poor hot-high performance F-35B. Then there is the fact that the F-35 is too expensive to lose in war. It has no ability for attrition as the business of war over time.

The USMC were the late-comers to the STOVL fast-jet. And the USMC never made it that much of a value for the way U.S. fought wars. But back to the UK and STOVL. UK thinks STOVL SO IMPORTANT, that they GAVE UP this capability...FOR YEARS by letting it get away from them. Closed it down. ENDED it. And now the rest of the reality of how F-35B STOVL is a bad fit for, real warfare.

The new Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, which are currently being developed in the United States, are able to land normally on the current runway, but the RAF base, near Swaffham, will need three landing areas which can withstand high heats, so that the aircraft can also land vertically.

Because for the USMC and UK, we know there are always these kinds of landing pads anywhere within 50 miles of the enemy. So easy to put in place right away. Yes? And another rub in the F-35's Joint Operational Requirement (JORD) composed in the 1990s and signed off on at the beginning of the last decade. It assumed because of this kind of ability, the F-35B would do more sorties per day. Good luck with today's flying piano.

All of this, a sham. STOVL jets are not needed at any cost either. And who can conjure up almost 7-tons of gas for every sortie from an "austere" airfield?


---

-Time's Battleland - 5 Part series on F-35 procurement - 2013 
-Summary of Air Power Australia F-35 points
-Bill Sweetman, Aviation Week and the F-35
-U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) F-35 reports
-F-35 JSF: Cold War Anachronism Without a Mission
-History of F-35 Production Cuts
-Looking at the three Japan contenders (maneuverability)
-How the Canadian DND misleads the public about the F-35
-Value of STOVL F-35B over-hyped
-Cuckoo in the nest--U.S. DOD DOT&E F-35 report is out
-6 Feb 2012 Letter from SASC to DOD boss Panetta questioning the decision to lift probation on the F-35B STOVL.
-USAFs F-35 procurement plan is not believable
-December 2011 Australia/Canada Brief
-F-35 Key Performance Perimeters (KPP) and Feb 2012 CRS report
-F-35 DOD Select Acquisition Report (SAR) FY2012
-Release of F-35 2012 test report card shows continued waste on a dud program
-Australian Defence answers serious F-35 project concerns with "so what?"
-Land of the Lost (production cut history update March 2013)
-Outgoing LM F-35 program boss admits to flawed weight assumptions (March 2013)
-A look at the F-35 program's astro-turfing
-F-35 and F-16 cost per flying hour
-Is this aircraft worth over $51B of USMC tac-air funding?
-Combat radius and altitude, A model
-F-35A, noise abatement and airfields and the USAF
-Deceptive marketing practice: F-35 blocks
-The concurrency fraud
-The dung beetle's "it's known" lie
-F-35's air-to-air ability limited
-F-35 Blocks--2006 and today
-The F-35B design is leaking fuel