The UK's Royal Air Force has been landing jet fighters vertically for the last 30 years. The US Marine Corps and five navies use Harriers as their only shipboard fixed-wing aircraft.
Today five services are planning to co-operate on development of the Joint Strike Fighter, but only the Marines, the Royal Navy and the RAF want their JSFs to land vertically. What is the future of vertical landing if major players like the US Air Force and Navy do not want such a capability?
When the Harrier entered service, the limited payload possible from a vertical take-off meant sorties normally started with a heavy short take-off and finished with a lightweight vertical landing, and STOVL was born.
Design for vertical landing, and vertical and short take-offs become available at no cost, giving the ultimate in operating site flexibility. At sea, that means cheaper and smaller ships. On land it means using anything from an aluminium pad in a field, to a supermarket car park.
What are the disadvantages of a vertical landing capability? Virtually everything else you can think of. For the same up-and-away performance as a conventional aircraft, a STOVL design will cost more, require more maintenance, provide less room for fuel or weapons, and probably have worse radar and infra-red signatures. Plus aircrew and ground crew will need extra training.
In my opinion, however, the smaller the force you have, the more you need vertical landing as it is the only way to ensure guaranteed operating capability.
So has vertical landing a future? Ask the Marines. They understand the advantages of operating site flexibility, perhaps because they realise that, in the real world, an aircraft carrier will never be sitting just off the beach.
Source: Flight International
