13 ms·
> This has a significant deterrence effect because it means you can’t just massively attack all airbases and expect the Air Force to be disabled. I'd be very s
by rewmie 3y ago
> This has a significant deterrence effect because it means you can’t just massively attack all airbases and expect the Air Force to be disabled.
I'd be very surprised if being able to land/takeoff from highways wasn't one of the most basic design requirements for a project as massive as the F-35. If highways are already designed to be usable as ad-hoc airfields, it would make no sense at all to design new airplanes to keep them compatible.
- ipnon 3y agoAbsolutely, that's why STOVL is the defining feature of the F-35B. It's common knowledge where American and allied air bases are, by making them able to base anywhere with modern infrastructure it makes "zerg rushes" untenable. The astute reader will note recent examples of countries with outdated airframes being vulnerable to massive surprise attacks.
- dragontamer 3y agoBoth F-35B and F-35C are the variants that can liftoff from a Carrier (aka: Navy) or WASP-class Assault Ship (aka: Marines) respectively. F-35A is the one that needs the full runway. This is a big deal, as the F35A has the best performance overall but needs the nicest conditions to launch. If the "hardest to launch" variant can be flown from a highway, then the other two models will do even better. This is a "steelman argument". We're demonstrating the worst F35 at this job. All other variants will do even better.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> Both F-35B and F-35C are the variants that can liftoff from a Carrier (aka: Navy) or WASP-class Assault Ship (aka: Marines) respectively. Other way around: F-35B is the Marine Corps STOVL variant, F-35C is the Navy CATOBAR variant. (No reason an F-35B couldn’t take off from and land on a regular carrier, too, but its the C that is made to launch with a catapult and catch an arrestor hook to land.)
- 3seashells 3y agoCould a F-35A be launched from a near vertical catapult rail?
- t0mas88 3y agoNo. The acceleration would be far above the design limits of the airframe.
- coryrc 3y agoSo all airbase runways are destroyed but the planes are untouched? This is a dumb waste of money.
- fooker 3y agoIt is a lot easier to hide planes than to hide runways. It could be a dumb waste of money either way, but your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premise. Consider the current Russia/Ukraine war, Russia destroyed the vast majority of the runways Ukraine could have used but Ukraine still has an air force.
- coryrc 3y ago> but Ukraine still has an air force. That's a generous statement.
- anikan_vader 3y agoIt is not, as the Ukrainian air force continues to conduct regular sorties and has successfully prevented the Russian air force from every gaining air supremacy. The Russian air force has taken massive losses, both in terms of planes and pilots, but it also continues to exist, from a non-generous and factual perspective.
- vGPU 3y agoThe Air Force with an estimated strength somewhere stern that of algeria and chile? Last I checked, they literally had more trainer aircraft than actual combat jets left.
- nicholasbraker 3y agoIt's not only a matter of having a runway available. The F-35 is very data-centric and is very dependable on IT-systems which need connectivity also on remote sites. This can be easily solved by using modern 4G/5G networks (either dedicated MoD ones or public ones) with the "right" encryption running over it cleared for military use, but it is a constraint which needs to be taken into consideration. In the Gripen/Viggen days, you probably only needed a few trucks with equipment/fuel and conscripts. Now you need additional "datacenters in a box" to make this work.
- actionfromafar 3y agoGripen days are not over.