F-35 - Not VTO?

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: F-35 - Not VTO?

Troybob.
Wha'?! You mean Fox News may be fibbers?!

The F35B *can* hover, it has to be able to decelerate to a hover and land, but it's unlikely anyone will see it take off vertically to a hover *and* rotate to flight as it does in BF2.

http://www.jsf.mil/

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/jsf/

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/jsf.htm

http://www.jsf.org.uk/jsfuk.htm

http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/6-20847.asp

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/jsf.html

There's enough information above about the F35 variants to keep the geeks, starry eyed plane spotters and wannabe pilots happy. :)

LOL, complete self ownage right there. :laugh:

[Flares]

Re: F-35 - Not VTO?

maybe i should've mentioned it in my first post, i am aware that the F-35 is capable of Vertical Landing (STOVL)

No prob's m8. Unlike the Harrier, which fullfilled a specification for a VTOL attack jet which could be used to defend against a potential European cold war attack into Germany from forest "hides", the F35B has never had a VTOL specification requirement. The requirement was always for a STOVL capable aircraft which would take off from something like this, which will replace the current class of carrier used to launch Sea Harriers.

LOL, complete self ownage right there. :laugh:

As I understand irony and being good at self deprication, I couldn't agree more. When you get to my age, you can't care less if you look cool or not. :)

[[1SMB]D|Cpl.StealthC]

Re: F-35 - Not VTO?

Why is this in BF2 Discussion? It doesent seem to have much with the game, other than the plane being in it... :p

[colony]

Re: F-35 - Not VTO?

Who cares? Does it really matter? No

They just wont need those catapult lines to help them take off of a carrier etc since it can take off in shorter distance. And if the need arises, they also wont need those arrest cables on carriers if they land vertically.

[jnick]

Re: F-35 - Not VTO?

wow really? The X-35 can VTOL? That's interesting - I don't think that's ever been discussed in this thread before.

OH WAIT! it has. sheesh.

Whoops. Thought you mean prototype, not production model. In any event, your still a sarcastic son of a *****.

[Ali G]

Re: F-35 - Not VTO?

OMG, there are so many serious issues out there concerning bf2 and ur ticked off cuz DICE did not use the correct version? WHO THE HELL CARES? besides, why is this even in the normal discussion? it is should be moved to off-topic as Talus would say, right Talus?

p.s i doubt anyone uses the verticle take off in the game unless there is a ******* blocking u, i just go boost and nose up.

[exho]

Re: F-35 - Not VTO?

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-35.htm

please show me where it says VTOL?

The distinguishing feature of the USMC version of the JSF is its short takeoff/vertical landing capability (STOVL). There will not be an internally mounted machine gun, but an external gun can be fitted. This version requires controllability on all axes while hovering. Another critical design feature is its impact on the ground surface beneath it during hover. The USMC expects their version of the JSF will replace the F/A-18 Hornet and the AV-8 Harrier. The Marine Corps expects to purchase 480 STOVL versions of the F-35.

From that article

[IVfluids]

Re: F-35 - Not VTO?

Kid, calling someone "assnine" in response to a lighthearted dig is a little unnecessary. The fact you couldn't spell "asinine" correctly is ironic to say the least and ruins the credibility of that particular insult.
In the time you took to compose your misinformed post, and giving you the benefit of doubt by presuming you're more intelligent than you seem, you could've scanned the thread, found the correct information and not bothered posting.
Go back to the playground and pick on someone your own size.

1) If you're going to criticize me for spelling errors to make yourself look cool, turn your spell checker on. Nice one.

2) Like I said, I'm not going to be all butt hurt if you don't like what I have to say, did you really think that was going to change after your lame attempt to slag me? I'm probably way too old to be your kid, so blow me :)

[gunitsoldier127]

Re: F-35 - Not VTO?

FYI: VTO = vertical take-off.

So I'm sittin at home waiting for the dern server guys to finish their work so I can wrap up my network duties and I'm watchin the history channel.

They're doin a piece of how crappy the harrier is and they briefly talk about the F-35 JSF. They said "Although it does not have the capability of vertical take-off, it does have an impressive short take-off capability".

Pretty interesting eh? The F-35 can't take off verically IRL.

YES IT CANN!!!!! irl, on a carrier, the f-35 doesnt have enough fuel to take off verticaly so the only use to its hydrolic rotating turbine is for vertical landing.

[[AC-DC]Aioth]

Re: F-35 - Not VTO?

1) If you're going to criticize me for spelling errors to make yourself look cool, turn your spell checker on. Nice one.

2) Like I said, I'm not going to be all butt hurt if you don't like what I have to say, did you really think that was going to change after your lame attempt to slag me? I'm probably way too old to be your kid, so blow me :)

Where's the spelling error?

[Ephphatha]

Re: F-35 - Not VTO?

YES IT CANN!!!!! irl, on a carrier, the f-35 doesnt have enough fuel to take off verticaly so the only use to its hydrolic rotating turbine is for vertical landing.

The reason they run the F-35 as STOVL, is that it can carry a larger payload on the takeoff and can then land vertically when it has fired/jettisoned whatever it was armed with.

An almost empty F-35 (ie, no bombs missiles or pods) is capable of VTOL, while a loaded F-35 is not.

[Flares]

Re: F-35 - Not VTO?

Originally Posted by Flares
In the time you took to compose your misinformed post, and giving you the benefit of doubt by presuming you're more intelligent than you seem, you could've scanned the thread, found the correct information and not bothered posting.
Go back to the playground and pick on someone your own size.

2) If you're going to criticize me for spelling errors to make yourself look cool, turn your spell checker on.

The spelling error was mildly amusing in the context of your unnecessary insult. I'm aware people have different standards of education and understanding of the English language, however your less than witty retort and criticism of me for abbreviating "could have" is brilliant.
I've little interest in looking "cool", but you're digging a hole for yourself. Summer school for you...

Where's the spelling error?

Well spotted. Have a lolly-pop. :)

OMG, there are so many serious issues out there concerning bf2 and ur ticked off cuz DICE did not use the correct version? WHO THE HELL CARES? besides, why is this even in the normal discussion? it is should be moved to off-topic as Talus would say, right Talus?

There's no such thing as a "serious issue" regarding BF2, it's just a game. I've yet to see anyone "ticked off". It's simply a discussion about the real life capabilities of an aircraft featured in the game and I don't think anybody cares that much. If you've nothing interesting to contribute, and are not interested in the discussion, don't read it. I'm sure a moderator will move the thread to off topic if deemed necessary.

gunitsoldier127 and Ephphatha the thread almost decended into the usual pointless spam and name calling, thanks for the informed posts. There's an article here which touches on the reasons behind the change in emphasis from VTOL to STOVL.

[Xantos]

Re: F-35 - Not VTO?

interesting how you say f-35b is vtol but then you list it as stovl

Well I made a mistake when I was typing. It often happens to me.

[delemorte]

Re: F-35 - Not VTO?

OMFG..... its just a game you guys.....

[IVfluids]

Re: F-35 - Not VTO?

The spelling error was mildly amusing in the context of your unnecessary insult. I'm aware people have different standards of education and understanding of the English language, however your less than witty retort and criticism of me for abbreviating "could have" is brilliant.
I've little interest in looking "cool", but you're digging a hole for yourself. Summer school for you...

Nice, so you're going to criticize me for my spelling error, tell me I need to go to school and then use sh*tty english at the same time and pass it as 'ok', good one champ Abbreviated words like couldn't, shouldn't and wouldn't show up in the dictionary, not could've, try Merriam Webster next time you plan on being a d*ck.

Apparently you're mistaking me for someone who gives a sh*t. In short, I could care less if I'm digging a hole on a message board or not, it's the internet, I don't have to make bed with you. My e-penis won't get all bent sideways over it.

Instead of making an As(s)inine comment in your original reply to me, you could have just said 'just an fyi, they scrapped the VTOL variant and are now just sticking with the STOVL and standard jet configuration'. I would have then gladly replied and said 'oh sh*t, I didn't realize that, when did that happen?', but that is not how it went. It would have gone a lot further along than having several posts of 'f*ck you' from me when you started acting like a d*ck about it.