F-35B: For Who? For What?

5f0928a1-66b4-4511-8e68-dbeabfef2fa8.Large.jpg


Bill Sweetman has a post over at Ares on the roll out of the F-35B, the STOVL (short takeoff, vertical landing) variant of the Joint Strike Fighter. But, according to Sweetman, after nearly 50 years of effort to produce a STOVL fighter that could fly supersonic, It’s like Ricky Watters said–for who? For what?

But the world has changed and so has the STOVL fighter – because nobody, back then, expected that it would be the size of an F-4. Also, some realism has entered the calculations. Going off-base with an F-35B is probably not too practical: it takes at least one CH-47 to deliver enough fuel for one sortie, and I would really question whether the jet would be stealthy after one landing on anything except clean, FOD-free concrete. Anti-access threats are different today: in expeditionary warfare, the attack’s more likely to be aimed at troops and accommodation than at the runway. The USAF flirted with the idea of a STOL or STOVL F-35B a few years ago, but is no longer interested. It may have occurred to them that the day when an F-35B can perform a vertical landing in Kabul (5900 feet) with a useful payload is a few engine upgrades away.

Go read the whole thing for yourself, but I’ve never found the rationale for STOVL very convincing. The Marines want to be able to operate from remote bases close to the battle, but a first-class Navy ought to be able to seize and build landing strips, position aircraft carriers, refuel in mid-air, etc., so as to obviate the need for STOVL. Our allies, the British and the Italians specifically, operate small carriers that rely on STOVL aircraft. So it makes a lot of sense as an export. But the added cost in R&D is substantial, and it has long since become a serious drag on an already expensive program. If the Marines ever get into a situation where they are dependent on STOVL for close air support, we will have already lost the battle.

Related Content