Trust us, we are the experts, hey SSSETOWTF?
So one guy tried it once without putting very much thought into it and it didn't work so we should never ever re-evaluate the idea? Do you not give any of the dozens and dozens of very smart scientists and engineers that are looking at SRVL any credit at all? Do you think they might have considered the odd failure case and assumed the deck will be wet, covered in fuel, and pitching in sea state 6 etc? Or do you think they plucked the number 35kts out of their collective backside?
Here's how Bill Sweetman put it last year.
Ares: A Defense Technology Blog: F-35B Challenges
Some observers, however, have pointed out that SRVL has inherent risks. How fast "rolling" might be is not clear, but on take-off the F-35B is going more than 80 knots before it gets enough wing lift to make a difference. The Royal Navy's new carriers will not be fast ships, so the 15-ton JSF would probably be touching down with 40 knots or more of relative velocity, nose-up to generate lift, with the engine winding down, and with only the wheel brakes to stop. Any problems, and there is no chance of a traditional carrier-type "bolter" – that it, shooting off the front of the deck at full power and trying again – because the thrust is pointing the wrong way.
the SRVL project is part of "intensive program action" to meet the F-35B's bring-back weight goal, which is "at risk" because of "weight challenges and propulsion system integration issues"....
...All the easy (and even moderately difficult) ways to cut weight out of the F-35B have been done in the course of fixing the 2004 weight gain. Fuel reserves on landing have been pared to a minimum. The engine is giving its best – at service entry, the stress of vertical landings will already reduce the engine's life. Moreover, running the jet hotter is not an easy option. The JSF is a stealthy aircraft and consequently dumps a minimum of heat overboard, in order to reduce its infra-red signature. Instead, it uses its fuel as a heat-sink (as the F-22 does) but reducing the fuel reserve means that there's less cooling capacity. Hence the interest in SRVL
Now a couple of post back.
The big problem with PCB is / was the terrific heat & erosion to whatever surface the aircraft was operating from.
Which makes me wonder, no chance that terrific heat & erosion might also be an issue with SRVL is there? But that wouldn't really be a BAE problem, unless they were involved with building the carriers, I suppose
Now Elmo says
3) The STOVL version will be as good a STOVL fighter as anyone can make in the early 21st century.
(4) In spite of (3), it is a mistake to center Britains' aircraft carrier program on this one type of warplane with no competitor in its category.
Come on now, isn't STOVL JSF just an excuse to give BAE another little job creation work package?
Shades of the Spey Phanton hey? I seem to recall that went a 'little' over as well.