I don't understand why an F-35 needs a ski-jump. Just sayin'.....
did you...actually read the article?
I don't understand why an F-35 needs a ski-jump. Just sayin'.....
Someone was using the half pipe.
I don't understand why an F-35 needs a ski-jump. Just sayin'.....
You have to ask? :snort: it's the 'short take-off' part I keep forgetting about. This isn't like the Harrier, that could take off vertically from a stationary position.
It could do so, but without any weapons and limited fuel. What good is that?
It could do so, but without any weapons and limited fuel. What good is that?
The weapons load and range requirements were in the original contract. A war fighting aircraft without either is pretty useless.depends, were weapons and fuel a requirement or have those been moved to another program to resolve
The weapons load and range requirements were in the original contract. A war fighting aircraft without either is pretty useless.
Anyone know what that is that popped open up front? An air ram maybe?
It could do so, but without any weapons and limited fuel. What good is that?
Well, to be fair, the thing is so GD loud, it doesn't need weapons. All the pilot has to do is fly over the bad guys' house until they surrender, which ought to happen about the 2nd pass or so.
you miss the sarcasm, check out P-8.
Not! A British LCDR determined that the deck run on INVINCBLE class aircraft carriers was inadequate to provide meaningful carriage of anything on Harriers. He developed the concept of the ski jump which provided increased capability. After several iterations, a twelve degree exit angle was chosen and retro-fitted on that class.Unless I'm mistaken, the ski jump is a cheap easy way to either increase the allowed take off load, or decrease the fuel burn required for take off. The Brits built carriers around that concept.
You have to ask? :snort: it's the 'short take-off' part I keep forgetting about. This isn't like the Harrier, that could take off vertically from a stationary position.