The future of naval aviation warfare is changing dramatically!
Great video. I couldn’t help but notice that none of the take-offs were truelly vertical. Granted, they did not use a catapult, but I have seen plenty of videos where this aircraft makes a true vertical take-off with essentially zero runway. The implications are staggering when you consider that every cruiser could someday carry 1 or 2 of these aircraft. The days of massive aircraft carriers being the epicenter of our fleets might be numbered.
Yeah, and good thing too. More baskets, and less eggs in each one. This would obviously greatly reduce the effectiveness of the likely enemy tactic of launching a massive barrage of missiles at our carriers and hoping a few get through.
vertical take off severely limits payload and fuel; normal when AV-8s do vertical take offs they have very little ordnance on them and the first place they go is to the tanker to take on fuel
I don’t think the F-35B is as much of a game changer that is claimed and it will not replace conventional carriers. It has several severe limitations such as the following:
Limited range: The F-35B is very range limited compared to the F-18 super hornet as well as the F-35C which is the conventional carrier version. In addition, it as far less range than the old A-6 intruder or F-14.
Most ships are not suited for F-35B operations. The F-35B has one of the hottest exhausts of any airplane every built and most ships decks would not be capable of sustained operations for the F-35B. It is not that simple of just throwing one or two on a carrier.
Small carriers are a poor value for their cost. The U.S. Navy did several studies over the years and found that small carriers lack the flexibility and capability of the larger ships. A small carrier lets say 30-35,000 tons might still cost half that of the much large carrier such as a Nimitz at 90,000 tons but offer less than a quarter of the capability. Interestly enough in WWII the United States and Great Britain built large numbers of escort carriers also called jeep carriers which could be built at smaller shipyards but once the war ended the escort carriers were quickly scrapped in favor of the larger fleet carriers.
There are other reasons as well but these are three huge problems that an F-35B force would have in compared to a conventional carrier aircraft.
I get the one-aircraft-for-everything dream, but I really ‘enjoyed’ the days of A4s, A6s, F4s, F8s…all crowded onto one carrier.
Their is a reason for specialized aircraft and that is that one airframe simply can’t excel at all roles. IMO the F-35 is resembling the F-111 program in that initially the F-111 was sold as a universal fighter that could perform all roles for the Airforce and Navy and it was a spectacular failure.
crusader377,
Do you not see us moving away from massive carriers as VTOL UAV’s proliferate in the next 50 years?
I personally see the launch platforms going underwater – probably not in 50 years but maybe 75.
I think they should go the other direction. Low orbital launched aircraft could get anywhere fast. 
Not saying it is practical but would be nice.
Neat video. I’m going to withhold judgement until this platform proves itself. The F35 program has been plagued with technical problems and cost overruns. This particular variation, carries less fuel and weapons payload. The dependance on stealth technology has inhibited this planes conventional flight performance. If the stealth doesn’t perform as advertised, this plane flight performance leaves it vulnerable to more conventional high performance adversaries like MIG 29’s and Sukhoi 27’s in a close in dogfight.
Harrier redux, now with more stealth.
Lots of issues with that aircraft.
Same with the F-22.
Sometimes simplicity is better.
“One man with courage makes a majority.”
Not when you’re trying to penetrate airspace covered by an Integrated Air Defense Network with overlapping S-300’s and have a bunch of Sukhoi’s coming to get your ass.
Sure, the F-18’s, F-15’s, and F-16’s can still handle almost all the work that could be asked of them, but for how long?
Issues are exactly what one would expect when trying to field the first 5th Generation fighters. I wouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Manned aircraft. How quaint.
Is that real footage? Some of it feels cgi to me. Lighting and perspective issues I pick up slightly.
The Japs already did that in the 40’s. Not practical then either.
Dan
That’s like saying that submarines aren’t very practical because the Confederacy tried it during the Civil War and they only succeeded in sinking their own submarine.
UCAVs with VTOL capability would be a good mate for a submarine… although it would give the submarine one more mission that they frankly probably don’t need.
And I agree with kwelz: Geosynchronous low earth orbit would be an ideal platform for launching aerial attacks: You can be virtually anywhere on earth in less than an hour all while your launch platform remains within United States airspace. (Or space directly above US airspace.)
I think we definitely need 5th generation fighters but the biggest problem with the F-35 was unrealistic goals. Initially we wanted an affordable 5th generation platform to complament the F-22 and instead the pentagon constantly added missions and so now we are trying to have the F-35 to replace the F-16, F-18, AV-8B harrier, and A-10. In addition, the program management for the F-35 has been inept and unfortunatley since L-M is the only came in town, their is very little incentive for them to run the project well because they get paid either way.
Plus the F-35 now being a “Too big to fail” defense program is now sucking resources from many other worthwhile programs.
The B models are not for aircraft carriers but for the the Wasp Class “gator carriers” operated by the navy for the Marine Corps. They are intended to be deployed in groups of six, like the Harriers before them to augment the mixed helicopter group deployed aboard, in support of the amphibious task force.
Pretty neat I must say.
The concept of having an airplane launched from something other than a carrier was conducted during the interwar-period with battleships and cruisers. They wanted them to spot for the big guns.
They would have to make an area for the ship to accommodate one or two F-35b airplanes, which means they would need to make a bigger ship. All in all may not be a bad idea, but as it has been mentioned functionality to cost/benefit does not sound promising.
As for a submarine carrier now that cruise missiles, SLBMs, and drones exist as something launched from a sub I do not see the practicality of it. That would be one big sub for just one or two airplanes.
Wikipedia actually talks about it with regards to Imperial Japan’s submarine carrier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_aircraft_carrier#Future_designs
Remember you would have to house the aircrew, their support group, and their supplies, plus make room for a hangar to work on the plane itself.
That is their ConOps to support the MEUs; however they can as they did during desert storm and OIF 1 use the LHA/Ds as jeep carriers.
The first two of LHA-Rs, America and Tripoli, sort of will give the USN 2 Jeep carriers to operate in the Pacific. They don’t have well decks and are optimized for aviation. They plans both got approved when the Marines had the position for a GO on the OPNAV staff was gaped