Why did VTOL jets FAIL?

Why did VTOL jets FAIL?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >refuel soon after takeoff

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Have they? News to me. Forger's a shitbox, yes, but that doesn't mean every VTOL jet is.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It didn't fail :
    There was simply no real need, since the most likely scenario is a deployment from a ship and most countries that will need to do that have an aircraft carrier long enough to not need vertical take off.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    VTOLs are more popular than ever before

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Their entire raison d'etre ceased to be once military planners realized that by making highways straighter, they could afford conventional planes the same versatility and basing redundancy VTOLs have without the million mass and volume compromises necessary for a supersonic aircraft to take off from a parking lot. Take the F-35 mentions, is the perfect example: compared the STO/VL B variant, the CTOL A version has:

      >Better acceleration
      >Better climb rate
      >Better turning circle
      >Lower drag coefficient
      >Longer range
      >Higher g-limit
      And most importantly
      >Bigger, far more versatile IWBs that can internally carry heavy munitions like JSOW, GBU-31, and more in the future

      All while being cheaper and mechanically simpler. The only real advantage VTOL capability offers today is the opportunity to skimp on carrier infrastructure by gaining the ability to launch naval fighters via ramp as opposed to expensive CATOBAR or EMALS systems. While this actually works pretty well for the fighters in question, you kneecap the ability to operate anything else aside from helicopters, light aircraft and maybe Su-33s with a headwind and ~200 lbs of fuel/ammo in total.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >be once military planners realized that by making highways straighter
        I don’t understand. Did they actually make highways straighter for planes or are you joking?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Why would he be joking? It just doesn't really invalidate the vtol concept because nobody is planning for the war where the Autobahn or the M1 are relevant to the front line, let alone a road in the USA.
          Shithole countries will either have poorer road infrastructure, or kindly crater them out.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Thirdies don't understand that the US has 1-2 mile long straight sections of interstate highway every few miles
          >Thirdies don't understand why the majority of plane "crash" stories are the aircraft safely landing on a highway in the same direction as traffic at a minor inconvenience to motorists.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >other countries don't have roads

            moron

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Try landing a Airbus 380 in favella backstreets.

              When the space shuttle flew they had a big list of ten mile backup runways to land on, that list had a lot of strips of highway.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                the space shuttle has been gone for a decade and is literally not the reason they made straight roads..

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The difference is the US makes roads intentionally straight for a reason.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >lot of strips of highways
                No it fricking didn't, it had a lot of military/civilian airfields in friendly and neutral countries.

                https://www.globalsecurity.org/space/facility/sts-els.htm

                It's pointless too, because although the Space Shuttle was a fat pig, it still had decent cross range capability. Why would it land on some random ass road somewhere when a capable emergency landing site was available?

                When this list says emergency landing sites it means it btw. They come in hot, no backing out, and they're landing on the runway or attempting a bailout. The ATC in Darwin is going to be very fricking confused on what to do after a Space Shuttle lands, and they're not going to have a say in it. The Shuttle is not going to land in the Australian Outback somewhere. It's going to land on the emergency runway it's chosen.

                Also you're moronic since from memory the Space Shuttle never did a retrograde launch (which might require emergency aborts with low energy into the CONUS), nor do I remember it ever doing a polar launch. If it's deorbiting, why the frick would it do so into an area where it has no established landing site?

                God I hate you homosexuals. You can just say that the highways in the US are built that large so they can truck around large cargo and operate fighters from them. You don't need to gloat about something that doesn't exist like a magical Space Shuttle landing capability.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              They do, but only a handful thought of designing them so that military planes could use sections of them as runways.
              On top of that, the US has STRAHNET.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_strip

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yes VTOLs are a clusterfrick of compromises, but being able to upgrade your heli carriers to F35 carriers is a big fricking deal either way.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You have posted a failed *STOVL* aircraft that Lockheed had redesigned. Well done, moron.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Are you moronic? That was the prototype for the eventual F-35. It was never intended to be a combat capable aircraft anymore than the YF-22.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    USA, Britain, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Singapore are all buying VTOL F-35s.
    If Spain and Taiwan end up getting F-35, they have stated that they intend to also operate VTOL variants
    VTOL seems to still be considered a valuable capability.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Britain, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Spain and Taiwan

      Why do those countries even need VTOL? I can some what understand if they are going to use it for aircraft carriers but half of them don't even own 1

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Take off from more secret bunkers, land of helicopter carriers and frigates.
        All sorts of fun low cost low risk stuff that while takes away overall capability, lends a different kind of versatility that is unmatched by anything else outside of drones.
        The future F35B may well have no pilot, even.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I feel like you'd need to beef up the average helicopter pad to take an F35B, those frickers are heavy. But beefing up the pads has to be easier than making real carriers of any size, so it's still a worthwhile consideration.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            They're heavy but they're not that heavy.
            Helicopters are also frick heavy.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Helis can be heavy and the bads are hardened against dynamic forces already, so they should be mostly fine on that account.
            The real cost is hardening the pad for the engine downwash, but that's a solved issue as well.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        They all have carriers or at least large LPHs apart from Singapore and Taiwan who regularly train launching their planes from austere runways like converted highways and will be interested in adding STOL capability to increase the number of places they can launch jets from

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        VTOL is useful for taking off from smaller ships. You don't always need to send your capital big carrier if an escort carrier will do for the mission.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        How else is Japan going to launch airspace defense aircraft from their self-defense plane carrying destroyer?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Short air strips as well as bombed out landing strips are possible scenarios.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Britain, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain
        All of these countries have proper carriers or helicopter carriers that are/could be capable of launching F-35Bs.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        STOL/VTOL off short runways on literally any island.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You could've designed an STOL jet that could've taken off from the Izumo or QE without the Rube-Goldbergesque boondoggle that is the F35B

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The Sea Harrier is 21-0 undefeated in air combat and the AV-B+ is 7-0 so cope Black person

        >You could've designed an STOL jet that could've taken off from the Izumo or QE without the Rube-Goldbergesque boondoggle that is the F35B

        Conventional STOBAR already exist and are operated by chinks and Russians. They are worse than the Harrier and F-35 in every way including range, payload, availability and safety. There's a reason STOVL aircraft use 30 degrees of nozzle position on carrier takeoff.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          kino

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      South Korea isn't, they changed to buying more F-35A and instead promised they'd make a navalized KF-21N

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >VTOL F-35s
      F-35 VTOL is a MARKETING GIMMICK. it is absolutely useless and is only on the plane so it can do cool tricks. Absolutely NONE of the F-35 buyers are going to be using VTOL in the field. ZERO.
      F-35 VTOL is bullshit, snake oil, unserious, flimflammery

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        > Absolutely NONE of the F-35 buyers are going to be using VTOL in the field.ZERO.

        So, you're just going to pretend all those F-35b going on small carriers/assault ships don't exist?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          And every single one of them uses short take off rolls (the STO part of STOVL)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > Every!

            Defeating yourself whenever you use an absolute. And VS is an option. Not mandatory. Very contingent on the mission, load out weight and deck design.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              So what navy currently operates F-35Bs with operational vertical takeoffs?? (not just for testing/training)

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    armaturd implying yet again that if the soviet union failed at something then everybody else failed too

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      He's just pathetic. I wish he would kill himself.
      Once he found out the F35B was partially designed by bongs (good VTOL testing and design experience) his rage tears made him hate a plane he once loved.
      He now shills for the A and C, but not B, despite its versatility of being able to land and take off from things besides carriers and refuel midair.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Every F-35A should be an F-35B

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      See

      https://i.imgur.com/vYetmSc.jpeg

      Their entire raison d'etre ceased to be once military planners realized that by making highways straighter, they could afford conventional planes the same versatility and basing redundancy VTOLs have without the million mass and volume compromises necessary for a supersonic aircraft to take off from a parking lot. Take the F-35 mentions, is the perfect example: compared the STO/VL B variant, the CTOL A version has:

      >Better acceleration
      >Better climb rate
      >Better turning circle
      >Lower drag coefficient
      >Longer range
      >Higher g-limit
      And most importantly
      >Bigger, far more versatile IWBs that can internally carry heavy munitions like JSOW, GBU-31, and more in the future

      All while being cheaper and mechanically simpler. The only real advantage VTOL capability offers today is the opportunity to skimp on carrier infrastructure by gaining the ability to launch naval fighters via ramp as opposed to expensive CATOBAR or EMALS systems. While this actually works pretty well for the fighters in question, you kneecap the ability to operate anything else aside from helicopters, light aircraft and maybe Su-33s with a headwind and ~200 lbs of fuel/ammo in total.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Unironically poor design and engineering stuck in the past. Jet powered VTOL worth a damn needs computer controlled thrust vectoring and dynamically available thrusters in numbers greater than 2.
    We do it for drones and precision guided munitions but we're too dense and stuck in the mud to put that shit on planes, cuz aviation engineers think they shit gold coins and if they don't personally re-invent the wheel every single time they build a new plane it's not going to work right. So we're still stuck in the 70s jetplane era while literally every othet technical field is 40 years ahead

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Harrier one of the most successful jets ever built
    >Even go so far as to work its capabilities into the F35 when they replace it
    They didn't.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The F35 is a VTOL jet, but it works by having a dedicated vertical propeller in the center of the plane that is powered by the rotation of the central shaft of the jet engine. This increases mechanical complexity of the engine by quite a bit and is adding what is essentially dead weight whenever you're not in VTOL mode.

    The VTOL jets made before then worked by redirecting some of the thrust from the engine downwards which caused some pretty big safety issues because during VTOL. When these downward exhaust gasses hit the ground they could be forced towards the front of the jet causing these hot exhaust gasses to be sucked into the air intake leading to a sudden drop in engine power, which also means a sudden drop of the jet itself very close to the ground. This can also sometimes happen if the jet starts traveling backwards slightly or if there's a strong tail wind. So in these older jets attempting a VTOL is actually a little bit of a risky maneuver that you would want to avoid doing if you could, and certainly wouldn't want to regularly take off or land this way.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >propeller
      Stopped reading there.
      You non-Americans make me laugh.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That is functionally what it is no matter what it looks like, and just calling it a thruster would be ambiguous as to what type of thruster it is. It cannot use the usual kind of turbojet thuster because that woud just cause the same kind of problem as the Harrier with the hot exhaust being pulled into the engine.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It's not called a thruster and it's not a propeller. ESL morons that don't know the basics of the F-35 programme and proulsion don't belong in threads like this.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yet you are here.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Its the spinny thing in the center of the winged thing that makes the winged thing go up. Call it whatever you want it doesn't change how it works. I don't care what the guys who build it arbitrarily choose to call it, knowing the name of something is entirely irrelevant to actually understanding how something works.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              [...]
              I probably knew what they called it when I first learned about it, but I have since then forgotten because that knowledge is so trivial, it's not at all useful information.

              I mean a lift fan is actually a very technically impressive thing at this power and form factor, so you're kinda moronic for not knowing what it's called. It's not a propeller, in the same way that the ducted fan part of a turbofan isn't a propeller. It's a very particular thing that has a very particular reason to exist, to the point that it's silly to use the same name that you use for the thing on the front of a Cessna 172.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                A fan? No that can't be right. I think it's called a rotor. The F-35 is actually a type of helicopter.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                1- All jet turbines contain fan blades.
                2- The rotating action of the fan blades produces thrust.
                a: Therefore, all fan blades produces thrust.
                3- A "wing" is a body that provides lift.
                4- Traditional wings/lifting bodies do not actually provide lift on their own; they require a certain airspeed to function.
                b: Therefore, a wing is not, in fact, the "wing" of the aircraft.
                5- The airspeed required for wings/lifting bodies to function is a product of thrust.
                6- This thrust is a provided by rotating fans in jet turbines.
                c: Therefore, the lift-producing part of the aircraft is, in fact, the rotating fan of the jet turbine.
                d: Therefore, all jets are rotary-winged aircraft.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >1- All jet turbines contain fan blades.
                >2- The rotating action of the fan blades produces thrust.
                >a: Therefore, all fan blades produces thrust.
                >3- A "wing" is a body that provides lift.
                >4- Traditional wings/lifting bodies do not actually provide lift on their own; they require a certain airspeed to function.
                >b: Therefore, a wing is not, in fact, the "wing" of the aircraft.
                >5- The airspeed required for wings/lifting bodies to function is a product of thrust.
                >6- This thrust is a provided by rotating fans in jet turbines.
                >c: Therefore, the lift-producing part of the aircraft is, in fact, the rotating fan of the jet turbine.
                >d: Therefore, all jets are rotary-winged aircraft.
                Solid Socrates there!

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >4- Traditional wings/lifting bodies do not actually provide lift on their own; they require a certain airspeed to function.
                thats nonsense

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Its the spinny thing in the center of the winged thing that makes the winged thing go up. Call it whatever you want it doesn't change how it works. I don't care what the guys who build it arbitrarily choose to call it, knowing the name of something is entirely irrelevant to actually understanding how something works.

            I probably knew what they called it when I first learned about it, but I have since then forgotten because that knowledge is so trivial, it's not at all useful information.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The F-35 also uses the jet stream for thrust in VTOL mode though

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      While there is a theoretical risk for long hovers, usually these planes are landing relatively quickly carriers, there is pretty much always a crosswind and the problem doesn't really exist since most of the reused air is minor, the hot air mostly leaves the general area near the rear, only a small amount ends up back in the engine because the intakes are far forward and procedure has them face the wind.
      I have seen a harrier sit in one place for above 30 seconds comfortably spinning virtually perfectly still during a demonstration flight, you are full of shit and overstating the problems with it because you have personal beef with bongs.

      Because it's a stupid concept. VTOL jets never worked, every jet needed to be short take off to have usable payload and range.
      You can make STOL jets with much less compromises than VTOL ones

      Not for naval use. Lack of initial range can also be resolved with refuel drones and other support assets.

      The Yak-38 was a beast but then they changed the default map size to be much larger which means a lot more enemies climb. Plus there's a lot more planes with flares now. So you can't just dive on unaware people for free R-60 kills all day anymore
      The Yak-141 is absolutely beautiful, if it could take 4 ERs instead of just 2, I would play it instead of the Su-27. Its radar is amazing

      Noone cares about your Russoid delusion game.

      Everyone posting 2nd Gen Harriers and F-35Bs are morons. They're STOVL, not VTOL. There's a difference.

      F35 is fully VTOL, it's just the fuel payload is poor with a combat load if missiles, but again this can be resolved by other assets in air or booster attachments like in ww2 for gaining sideways momentum. Or, hell, a ramp unironically.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why did Soviet VTOL jets FAIL?

    Le fix

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because it's a stupid concept. VTOL jets never worked, every jet needed to be short take off to have usable payload and range.
    You can make STOL jets with much less compromises than VTOL ones

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Considering the Harrier and F-35 exist and were/are being produced it's hard to say they failed. Are they less efficient than traditional takeoff designs? Yes. The war they were intended for was a peer conflict with a peer who had the capability to deny airfields. Current evidence shows Russia as being unable to effectively deny airfields, but China is a possibility. Some aircraft you can land on roads if they are straight enough, however aircraft are very heavy and very wide, so you need a road capable of taking the landing, braking, and takeoff force of an aircraft and no power lines or vehicle traffic getting in the way. The more you weigh down a plane with fuel and ordnance, the worse the takeoff and landing performance is. There is a reason military fields are 10,000ft+. Even if you do use a roadway for an off-airport landing, you still need to get supplies out to that remote area.

    The US specifically also mostly dealt with the lack of potential airfield problem by both having bases literally everywhere, as well as having the best logistic capacity of any nation, specifically in terms of aerial refueling capability. Aerial refueling lets you launch planes from farther away, fuel them to go do the mission, then potentially fuel them to come back as well. You don't need an airport in artillery range if you can just fly the planes in from across the Atlantic.

    Just because they are not efficient and not necessary doesn't mean you don't want an aircraft to be capable of fulfilling that gap. We thought guns were useless on planes in Vietnam and that went poorly (majority still missile kills though). These are not the same degree of issue, but just a representation of a potential problem and it's consequences. VTOL aircraft also work from helicopter/littoral ships that don't necessarily have dedicated fixed wing launching/receiving capability.

    tl;dr they aren't as good, but it's still an extra capability if you can afford it.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    you could say, that they never really... took off!

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The Yak-38 was a beast but then they changed the default map size to be much larger which means a lot more enemies climb. Plus there's a lot more planes with flares now. So you can't just dive on unaware people for free R-60 kills all day anymore
    The Yak-141 is absolutely beautiful, if it could take 4 ERs instead of just 2, I would play it instead of the Su-27. Its radar is amazing

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Everyone posting 2nd Gen Harriers and F-35Bs are morons. They're STOVL, not VTOL. There's a difference.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      2nd gen Harriers can't take off vertically?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      F-35B can do VTOL, it just doesn't make sense to unless it were 100% necessary because you lose a ton of payload capacity. STOVL gives you a MUCH larger usable loadout.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      F-35Bs do a VTOL flight test after being built, they don't operate with VTOL because as the other anon said you lose too much carrying capacity, but they're perfectly capable of doing a vertical take off if that's what you wanted to do.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        F-35B can do VTOL, it just doesn't make sense to unless it were 100% necessary because you lose a ton of payload capacity. STOVL gives you a MUCH larger usable loadout.

        Not the guy complaining about the designation, but I'd say if you don't VTOL under usual combat loads, that indicates that VTOL isn't a necessary requirement
        Or, as OP puts it, that means VTOL jets FAIL

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          There is just no reason to use VTOL, you can get useful payload airborne, but you'll get even MORE payload airborne with STOVL.

          The F-35B operates from long flat tops with plenty of room for a running start.

          That doesn't mean it isn't VTOL capable, it just means you'd be moronic for ignoring the 200 feet of runway in front of you giving you free additional payload capacity.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So in case of emergency a F-35B could land and take off from something like a frigate's helipad?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Yes, but it would destroy the deck as they're not rated for the heat/thrust of an F135 engine

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                too bad

                >in an emergency could an F-35 take off vertically
                ...Yes? Are you a dumbass?

                mayhaps

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >in an emergency could an F-35 take off vertically
              ...Yes? Are you a dumbass?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Yes, a harrier had to make an emergency landing on a cargo ship once.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                What annoys me about this landing is he landed it great on the top of the container but then forgot to put the brake on till it was too late, leading to it falling backwards.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Even helicopters avoid hovering as much as possible prefer to STOL than VTOL, and this includes dirt fields with FARPs.

            A little bit of forward movement provides better control, stability and safety. Even if you have to hover during the actual landing or takeoff. Also ground effect hovering is slightly more efficient. This means you can leave the refueling pad and hover in ground effect and then do a short takeoff from that ground effect hover.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >They're STOVL, not VTOL
      STOVL and VTOL aren't mutually exclusive. STOVL is just a operational consideration to increase take off payload of VTOL aircraft in normal operation. Same as the ramps that Americans are so fond of.
      Operationally F-35B and CV-22 also don't perform VL on carriers either, they use SRVL in order to increase landing payload. VL is only on smaller ships such as LPH/LHA.

      Harrier and F-35 can and do perform VTO, and can still do it with light combat payloads.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >2nd gen harriers can't VTOL
      >I saw it in my mind
      You think a stronger engined harrier can't VTOL but a weaker engined 1st gen can? You dumb on purpose or did your mom drop you as a baby?

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Additionally, Lockheed purchased technical data from the canceled Yakovlev Yak-141 in 1991 for examination and analysis of its swivel nozzle.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Pratt & Whitney F401 variant with swivel nozzle
      >1973
      ...

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah but the Yak-141 one looks better, which is an important consideration of building planes

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >goalpost moving
          >yak 'ugly ass' 141 looks better
          bruh

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What about XCOM style VTO without the L for all your "launch a jet from a secret base" needs?

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Be British
    >Design first ever semi functional VTOL jet
    >Every single VTOL since is a useless piece of shit
    Did the Bongs sell their soul to the devil or how did they pull it off?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They had very clear, narrow goals and fit the aircraft to it like a glove. They did what few militaries/government projects are capable of: sticking to the plan.

      They used it exactly how they originally designed it so it performed really well. They didn't often put Harriers in situations it couldn't handle well.

      That's why the F-4 Phantom looked mediocre as an air superiority fighter in Vietnam and conversely why the air-superiority versions of the F-15 104-0.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    IT'S STOVL YOU FRICKING KIDDIEBlack personhomosexual COD PLAYERS
    FRICK

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Aren't AV-8Bs still in service? AFAIK they've been involved in interdiction over Yemen right now

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, besides Spain and Italy who both still operate the AV-8B. The USMC still has two squadrons active set to transition to F-35Bs in 2026 and 2027 respectively.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because they can't VT

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *