Does the RAF need a STOVL capability?

Re: Does the RAF need a STOVL capability?

feeds@yuku.com (FreeloaderUK) — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 20:48:48 GMT

a STOVL capability is required- the Harrier has been around 40years purely because of STOVL- lets be honest, there are faster planes out there that can carry a greater payload also at a much greater range.

Re: Does the RAF need a STOVL capability?

feeds@yuku.com (Scouse) — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 11:18:21 GMT

Nathan wrote:

Wasn't there a post by somebody knowledgeable in these things a while back that automated landing aids on F35C were believed to dramatically reduce the training issue to the extent that the problem disappears?
If automated landing can't be made to work reliably then I don't see much future for UCAVs!

What that doesnt cover though...

Re: Does the RAF need a STOVL capability?

feeds@yuku.com (Zen9) — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 00:37:10 GMT

Flaw in that logic is the idea automated aids for VL landing have'nt improved as well, still making VL safer and easier than conventional landing.

Re: Does the RAF need a STOVL capability?

feeds@yuku.com (Nathan) — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 22:14:13 GMT

Scouse wrote:
Quick answer is yes - the RAF do need STOVL capability. We are saddled with Joint Farce Harrier and there is no other way that RAF pilots will be able to land on a carrier deck. The logistics of trying to keep a separate pool of CATOBAR deck qualified pilots current from a joint RAF/RN flying programme are significant and, as the USN proves with grim and tragic frequency, deck landing skills are perishable.
...

Re: Does the RAF need a STOVL capability?

feeds@yuku.com (Scouse) — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 10:45:22 GMT

Quick answer is yes - the RAF do need STOVL capability. We are saddled with Joint Farce Harrier and there is no other way that RAF pilots will be able to land on a carrier deck. The logistics of trying to keep a separate pool of CATOBAR deck qualified pilots current from a joint RAF/RN flying programme are significant and, as the USN proves with grim and tragic frequency, deck landing skills are perishable.

So its STOVL or we're back to naval aviation being the sole preserve of...

Re: Does the RAF need a STOVL capability?

feeds@yuku.com (Zen9) — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 23:38:23 GMT

Of course Typhoon was designed to operate from strips just about 500m long, which was based on assesments that such strips of runway would survive a runway denial attack.

Re: Does the RAF need a STOVL capability?

feeds@yuku.com (Trouble) — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 22:38:33 GMT

i think the gr7/9s went there because GR4s couldnt get out of the airfield at kandahar, and when it gets rocketed the harriers can just use whatever stretch happens to be available. gr4s need a lot of runway, esp hot and high. hence why typhoon with its superlative performance is going out ASAP to ease the JFH burden.
at which point we might see a lot more of CVS Harrier flying finally.

Re: Does the RAF need a STOVL capability?

feeds@yuku.com (Zen9) — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 23:54:09 GMT

STOVL offeres ease of getting high sortie performance form the deck of a carrier.

S/VTOL offeres operations from a carrier or a rough field.

F35-B will do this. It will do it while being a better fighter/attack machine than a F/A18 Hornet, or SuperHornet.

Afghanistan should not dominate long term procurement decisions, which should cover a far wider range of scenarios than hunting the Taliban over Herat province or surpressing Sadrists in Basra.

In the...

Does the RAF need a STOVL capability?

feeds@yuku.com (shaun) — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 16:47:16 GMT

I've been thinking about this as the nature of JFH obviously has implications on the airwing of the CVFs, given that any aircraft (whether Dave-B or -C) that will be deployed on board the CVF will undoubtedly come from a joint RAF/FAA pool.

My question is, after the GR7/9s retire, why does the RAF need to replace this with a similar type of aircraft? Operations in Afghanistan are met by a number of high-end aircraft such as F15Es and Mirage 2000s that don't have the...