4 ms·

Nope. You need to keep much more fuel in reserve if doing arrested landings compared to vertical ones. You probably also need airborne refuelling provided from

by rjsw 8y ago

Nope. You need to keep much more fuel in reserve if doing arrested landings compared to vertical ones. You probably also need airborne refuelling provided from the carrier. Another extra cost comes from needing to keep practicing landings, plus trainers like the T-50 to learn how to do them. There is more chance of losing an aircraft in a landing accident too. Not needing to keep practicing landings means that the mix of F-35s and helicopters can be changed at short notice.

arethuza 8y ago
Actually, my main concern is the risk created by coupling one very and expensive project (the carriers) to the design of a particular model of new aircraft. At least with CATOBAR there is the option of falling back to other designs.
- greedo 8y ago
  Correct. Harriers are out of service for the RN/RAF, and good they should be. The French were prudent in using CATOBAR with their carriers. They get the advantage of Rafale, F-18, E2, etc etc. Plus they wisely chose nuclear power.
greedo 8y ago
1. CATOBAR means no onboard AEW (I'm not counting the Crowsnest on the Merlin). An E2 Hawkeye has longer loiter time, range and higher ceiling (granting a longer detection range). 2. Airborne refueling from a carrier is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. STOVL aircraft have short legs anyways, so being able to provide dedicated tanking is essential. 3. Practice landings is an extra cost? How? With STOVL aircraft you still need to practice landings and takeoffs, and landings are still quite complicated. This will have no impact on the mix of aircraft that would or could be deployed. 4. Safety - the track record for STOVL is far far worse than normal aircraft. The Harrier has an atrocious rate of Class A accidents. Hopefully the F-35B will be better than past STOVL aircraft, but there's no indication that it will be safer than more traditional aircraft.

by rjsw 8y ago

arethuza 8y ago

Actually, my main concern is the risk created by coupling one very and expensive project (the carriers) to the design of a particular model of new aircraft. At least with CATOBAR there is the option of falling back to other designs.

greedo 8y ago
Correct. Harriers are out of service for the RN/RAF, and good they should be. The French were prudent in using CATOBAR with their carriers. They get the advantage of Rafale, F-18, E2, etc etc. Plus they wisely chose nuclear power.

greedo 8y ago

1. CATOBAR means no onboard AEW (I'm not counting the Crowsnest on the Merlin). An E2 Hawkeye has longer loiter time, range and higher ceiling (granting a longer detection range). 2. Airborne refueling from a carrier is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. STOVL aircraft have short legs anyways, so being able to provide dedicated tanking is essential. 3. Practice landings is an extra cost? How? With STOVL aircraft you still need to practice landings and takeoffs, and landings are still quite complicated. This will have no impact on the mix of aircraft that would or could be deployed. 4. Safety - the track record for STOVL is far far worse than normal aircraft. The Harrier has an atrocious rate of Class A accidents. Hopefully the F-35B will be better than past STOVL aircraft, but there's no indication that it will be safer than more traditional aircraft.