In the discussion comments
about restarting the F-22 production line, a comment was made that the F-22 and
F-18 aren’t STOVL (Short TakeOff Vertical Landing). This comment prompted me to think - is there
really any value to STOVL for the USN?
Before I go any further, let
me be quite clear and upfront about why I’m writing this post. I am absolutely not using this as an
opportunity to embarrass the person who wrote the comment. Just the opposite, in fact. The comment inspired me to continue the
discussion and for that I sincerely thank the writer. So, moving on.
Once upon a time we dreamed
of hordes of jump jets operating from patches of jungle, rising up from
nowhere, striking, and vanishing again with the enemy left helplessly trying to
track down individual, well hidden mini-bases.
A nice idea, huh? Well, reality
has long proven that the dream is just that - a dream. The logistics of supplying dozens of remote
bases with fuel, munitions, and parts renders the concept void. Further, modern stealth jets, the F-35B, in
this case, require exquisite and extensive maintenance – hardly an enabler of
remote bases.
The concept has never been
used and as modern aircraft become ever more complex, the likelihood of it ever
happening is as close to zero as can be.
That leaves operating from
LHx amphibious vessels. Now this is the
real question: does the ability to operate a dozen STOVL aircraft really gain
us enough to justify the impact on the LHx's main function which is delivery of
fully equipped troops ashore?
Given the significantly
reduced size of current air wings, couldn’t we base the dozen extra F-35s on
one of the carriers? There will always be
one or more around if we’re conducting amphibious operations. Operating from a carrier will free up spots
on the LHx for transport helos/V-22s and eliminate an entire maintenance
line. The carrier will already operate
and maintain F-35s so, again, it makes sense to base the F-35Bs on the carrier.
Of course, this immediately
leads to the next logical question: why
do we even need the F-35B if we’re going to base them on a carrier? They have less range and less payload. Wouldn’t it make more sense to simply have
more F-35Cs?
OK, that covers the USN’s
needs. What about our allies? Well, they have small carriers or limited
carriers (like the Royal Navy) and may well have to operate a STOVL
aircraft. Honestly, I’m not familiar
enough with foreign navies to understand their situations with certainty. Still, are the needs of our allies enough to
justify the abomination of a program that F-35 has become – and the F-35B is
one of the major contributors to the disaster?
What are we talking about
for total F-35B sales? A couple
hundred? Is that sufficient
justification? If it is, let the STOVL
aircraft be a dedicated program with our allies paying the full cost. I suspect we’d find that STOVL wasn’t all
that important to them.
Recognize that I’m not trashing
our allies. They’re quite logically
jumping on board to gain what benefit they can.
However, both the US
The F-35, in general, and
the F-35B, in particular, have wrecked the US Marine Corps force structure and
many of our allies budgets and force structures, all in the name of a STOVL
capability that is of very limited value.
