Originally Posted by Jackonicko
Why STOVL?
Because it's easier and safer to stop, then land, than to land and then try to stop.
Well thank goodness for that! Is that why we send the best pilots to the Harrier force - to do those landings that are easier than performing a 'normal' one?!
Now I cannot recall exactly where it was, but I have read that exact phrase in a publication somewhere before..... so are you going to credit your quote to the person who actually said it 1st Jacko?!
STOVL was what we needed back in the days of massed Soviet tank columns, dispersed ops etc etc. I honestly cannot fathom why STOVL JSF offers us the best option as opposed to CTOL today
The reason for the STOVL variant existing in the 1st place is for the USMC to operate from their amphib carriers. Those platforms just wouldn't be fitted with cats and arrestor gear - that kit would be wasted on a platform that exists to deploy and support Marines. AV-8B and F35B is just what they need. For ourselves, if we have big ass, purpose built strike carriers, why put jets with shorter legs and less bomb carrying capability on them?! Its a little silly! A huge big platform to land on and our jets will be hopping onto a spot at the back!! If we had CTOL we could get E-2 for MASC and operate better with the Yanks.
As everything else in defence procurement is based on money, I would hazzard a guess at that being the reason to procure a STOVL fleet. Then again, isn't F35B more expensive than the C model (Please correct me if I'm wrong)?! It will save money on arrestor and catapult equipment but won't these savings be lost in buying the more expensive jets? Answers on a postcard please!
