PDA

View Full Version : V/STOL Aircraft - A Stupid Idea?


spejic
25 Feb 2008, 05:12 PM
History is full of examples of promising military technology that was tried, found wanting, and then abandoned (such as hydrofoils for patrol boats). It is interesting that the Harrier has survived so long, given its problematic history. It has a crazy high accident rate - about a third of all US Marine Harriers have been lost to accidents in the history of the type, and some users (like India) have lost half of theirs. They have also been shown to be weak in combat, with limited payloads and ranges. The position of the engine exhausts mean that hits by small IR missiles will hit them directly in the center instead the much more survivable rear, as was demonstrated during the Gulf War. And the reason for their creation (dispersion from vulnerable airfields) has been rendered moot by better thinking. Modern European aircraft are designed to use roads as landing strips. The only place they have performed well is in the Falklands conflict.

This applies to other V/STOL aircraft as well. The requirement for this capability for a version of the F-35 has made the whole program slow and very expensive, and the V/STOL version has a almost uselessly small weapons bay and no gun. I like the Osprey a lot, but it too is extremely complex and expensive.

Foosinho
26 Feb 2008, 12:11 PM
On paper, it sounds great, right? All the advantages of helos and fixed wing aircraft - who wouldn't like that!

Unfortunately, in practice it seems to be more like all the disadvantages of both helos and fixed wing aircraft. I don't think the technology is there yet to really provide this capability in a useful way.

PhillyQuakesFan
26 Feb 2008, 12:40 PM
Obviously I'm not as familiar with the technoloyg as Foos is, but I tend to agree. I'm not really sure that it's necessary at this point in history anyway, at least on attack aircraft. Smart bombs can hit targets from dozens of miles away US air superiority is unchallengeable anywhere in the world (meaning our jets can circle around a target for as long as they want, or at least until they run out of fuel). I do think the idea is a lot more useful for transport craft such as the Osprey, but that's a totally different type of VTOL technology than the Harrier and F-35 anyway.

Plus John McClane already showed the world how one dude with an 18-wheeler can take down an F-35, so I doubt the Chinese are too worried about it.


(Incidentally, here's a scary thought--how many people have pulled/are going to pull the lever for a certain GOP Presidential candidate thinking they're voting for the guy mentioned above??)