Can an F-35 VIFF?

[pmulcahy11b]

:confused:

[rcaf_777]

YES

[kato13]

Actually I think it is no.

VIFF is Vectoring In Forward Flight

The F-35B is the only model that has any sort of thrust vectoring. The thrust vectoring is physically tied to the vertical lift fan IIRC.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2007/03/sweetman-no-viffing-allowed/

Bill Sweetman, who literally wrote the book on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, says the VIFF’ing maneuver won’t work on the F-35B. Says Sweetman:

"The Harrier can VIFF (although it drains energy) because it can simply rotate its nozzles down. F-35B won’t because it has to engage a clutch and open doors that aren’t designed for high speeds."

[mikeo80]

IMHO, this is why the F-35 will never be built in the numbers we need. As with many American military devices, it tries to do too many things at the same time. Therefore, it does none of them well.

I point at the V22 Osprey, M247 DIVAD, Atomic Cannon, Davy Crockett, USS Zumwalt and others. The original idea may have been valid, but once the design folks got ahold of it, KA-BLOOOEEE....

Look at things that went right. A10 Warthog, Iowa class Battleships and the upgrade, B52's.

Again, all of this is my opinion. I will always respect and admire those who take the good and the bad into harms way.

My $0.02

Mike

[rcaf_777]

How many V22 Osprey, and Zumwalt class destoryers do you need? I mean they are building 458 and 3 of the Zumwalt

and was'nt the M247 DIVAD cancelled due to the new soviet gunships were able to fly at ranges beyond its guns and dos'nt the US army have the Avenger and Linebacker System which can do the same job?

And while the Atomic Cannon looks on paper is based on the railroad gun that the germans used durring WWII. Not to metion it was a weapons with a single use. It was replaced by the W48 for the 155mm and the W33 for the 203mm which could fired out of M110 and M115 Howitzer. So instead of having a one weapon that fire nuclear shell you have many.

Davy Crockett I think this make less sense since it would kill many of the troops who it was suposed to save, one good this about it is that it served as basis for Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM)

[kato13]

I think the V22 had significantly scaled back acquisition from what people expected.

Over the course of its development proponents of the V22 suggested that its rising development costs could be offset by the fact that variants of it could be a replacement for the following

C-46s
E-2s
KA-6s
EA-6s
C-2-COD
SH-60F
S-3s
SH-2s
CH-47s
MH-47s
CH-53s
MH-53s


In the end it really only succeeded in replacing some of the helicopters listed above. As it matures it might replace a few others, but it was an attempt to make an aircraft whose variants could do virtually all support tasks.

The KA-6 refueling replacement is still one I would like to see the navy go for. Being able to refuel directly from the fleet oilier and not taking up valuable deck landing/takeoff time could really increase operational tempo during crucial hours in a conflict.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

DIVAD was cancelled because Jesus Christ what a horrible joke of a weapons system.

APG-68 F16 radar that can't see past the tips of the 40mm guns if they're elevated too high.

Also said radar will go into reset mode if cannons are fired in long bursts due to vibration of the hull.

Said cannons ROF is too low to engage jets, too low to engage helos flying at oblique angles.

The hull is built on an M48 turret - plenty of spare parts, not nearly enough speed to keep up with Bradley and Abrams.

There are systems introduced that out of the box have "Teething issues". The M988 wasn't one of them: it was just plain broken from the get-go.

[Schone23666]

As I understand it with DIVAD, at the time they were trying to get some more modern mobile AA platform for the Army, which was lacking while the Soviets had several systems, among them the ZSU-23-4 for engaging low flying aircraft and helos. I remember at least a few reporters carping during Gulf War I at how the Iraqis had all these nasty mobile AA systems that would "tear apart" our A10's and helos, while we mostly had guys riding alongside the M1 tanks in humvees with Stingers.

I would say the "idea" of having a system like DIVAD wasn't necessarily bad at all, especially if they could've tweaked it to provide ground fire support in a pinch like the Russians did with the ZSU-23-4, though I heard the Russians lost a lot of ZSU's when they pressed them into that role. But once they started designing it with inferior components in a very sloppy and poor execution of said platform....ugh, yeah, enough said.

[pmulcahy11b]

I would say the "idea" of having a system like DIVAD wasn't necessarily bad at all, especially if they could've tweaked it to provide ground fire support in a pinch like the Russians did with the ZSU-23-4, though I heard the Russians lost a lot of ZSU's when they pressed them into that role. But once they started designing it with inferior components in a very sloppy and poor execution of said platform....ugh, yeah, enough said.

The DIVAD was a poor excuse to use "off the shelf" components to provide something we needed at a time when defense budgets were getting slim for R&D. It was a PBI (Partially Baked Idea).