F-35B The F135 engine with lift fan, roll posts, and rear vectoring nozzle, as designed for the F-35B, at the Paris Air Show, 2007
The F-35B is the short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) variant of the aircraft. Similar in size to the A variant, the B sacrifices some fuel volume to make room for the vertical flight system. Takeoffs and landing with vertical flight systems are by far the riskiest, and in the end, a decisive factor in design. Like the AV-8B Harrier II, the B's guns will be carried in a ventral pod. Whereas F-35A is stressed to 9 g, the F-35B is stressed to 7 g.[193][194] Unlike the other variants, the F-35B has no landing hook; the "STOVL/HOOK" button in the cockpit initiates conversion instead of dropping the hook.[195]
The British Royal Air Force and Royal Navy plan to use this variant to replace their Harrier GR7/GR9s. The United States Marine Corps intends to purchase 340 F-35Bs[196] to replace all current inventories of the F/A-18 Hornet (A, B, C and D-models), and AV-8B Harrier II in the fighter, and attack roles. [197] The USMC is investigating an electronic warfare role for the F-35B to replace the service's EA-6B Prowlers.[198][199]
One of the British requirements was that the F-35B design should have a Ship-borne Rolling and Vertical Landing (SRVL) mode[200] so that wing lift could be added to powered lift to increase the maximum landing weight of carried weapons.[201]
The U.S. Marines are investigating the use of the SRVL method to operate F-35Bs from CVNs without disrupting carrier operations as the landing method uses the same pattern of approach as wire arrested landings.[202] However the aircraft is able to "bring back" 2 x 1K JDAM, 2 x AIM-120 and reserve fuel to a vertical landing.[203]
The F-35B was unveiled at Lockheed's Fort Worth plant on 18 December 2007,[204] and the first test flight was on 11 June 2008.[205] The B variant is expected to be available beginning in 2012.
Specifications Function strike fighter Contractor two competing teams: Lockheed-Martin Boeing Service U.S. Air Force U.S. Marine Corps U.K. Royal Navy U.S. Navy Variants Conventional Takeoff and Landing (CTOL) Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) Carrier-based (CV) Unit Cost FY94$ $28M $35M $38M Inventory Objectives U.S. Air Force 2,036 aircraft U.S. Marine Corps 642 aircraft
U.K. Royal Navy 60 aircraft U.S. Navy 300 aircraft Inventory Objectives 1,763 aircraft 609 aircraft 480 aircraft Propulsion Baseline: P&W F119-PW-100 derivative from F-22r Alternate Engine: General Electric F120 core Thrust Empty Weight ~22,500 lbs ~24,000 lbs Internal Fuel 15,000 lbs 16,000 lbs Payload 13,000 lbs 17,000 lbs Maximum Takeoff Weight ~50,000 lbs Length 45 feet Wingspan 36 feet 30 feet Height Ceiling Speed supersonic Combat Radius over 600 nautical miles Crew one Armament First flight 1999 Date Deployed 2008
Interesting design but what a disaster of a plane, overbudget by a cost of tens of millions per plane and it's not nearly as effective as what was promised. Hopefully Canada pulls their support and just buys the Typhoon from BAE, or maybe see if the US will reconsider their position on exporting the F-22 Raptor, really I'm pretty sure they can trust us with the F-22, and besides those fuckers still owe us for screwing us over on the Arrow in 1959.
the f-35 is better than the, the harrier desine isnt capble of vertical takeoff, limited time for hovering before it over heats, and the f-35 desine helps prevent its exhaust from being sucked back into the engine and choking it out wich is a real danger to harrier pilots
as for technical difficulties the harrier probly had just as many or more wile in development
Um, are the forces going ahead with this model? I've heard reports that there have been too many technical difficulties and is going to be scrapped.
Also, though there are vast differences between the two air frames, I always find it interesting that the method of S/TOVL used by the Russian 141 should be employed by the NATO forces after being bad mouthed for so many decades.
Both parties should have stuck with continuing to develop the Harrier and not been 'side tracked' by trying to lessen the cost of the F-35 in this manner. A 'standard' STOL (Maybe resurrecting the blown wing slots of the TSR-2?) flying along side 'modern' Harriers would have been a better way to go.
~!
Hopefully Canada pulls their support and just buys the Typhoon from BAE, or maybe see if the US will reconsider their position on exporting the F-22 Raptor, really I'm pretty sure they can trust us with the F-22, and besides those fuckers still owe us for screwing us over on the Arrow in 1959.
Port = Red
Starboard = Green
Other than that, nice work.
the harrier desine isnt capble of vertical takeoff, limited time for hovering before it over heats, and the f-35 desine helps prevent its exhaust from being sucked back into the engine and choking it out wich is a real danger to harrier pilots
as for technical difficulties
the harrier probly had just as many or more wile in development
Um, are the forces going ahead with this model? I've heard reports that there have been too many technical difficulties and is going to be scrapped.
Also, though there are vast differences between the two air frames, I always find it interesting that the method of S/TOVL used by the Russian 141 should be employed by the NATO forces after being bad mouthed for so many decades.
Both parties should have stuck with continuing to develop the Harrier and not been 'side tracked' by trying to lessen the cost of the F-35 in this manner. A 'standard' STOL (Maybe resurrecting the blown wing slots of the TSR-2?) flying along side 'modern' Harriers would have been a better way to go.
I'll stop throwing my two cents in now. :