> Harriers, F-35s, and Ospreys are all VTOL aircraft that could’ve launch from a sub. The other airplanes have only one engine and the osprey 2. They already land vertically on carriers.
F-35s and Ospreys didn't exist when this was proposed (the Harrier, but not the Harrier II, did), and the use of a Mach-3 fighter after consideration of the F11F suggests that the role envisioned for the fighters was interception, which is at best a secondary role of the F-35, and not a role of the Harrier (and even less the Osprey).
> I don’t think the image in the article would’ve worked where planes take off going straight up without additional thrusters.
I doubt it would have been practical for recovery at sea; launch would have worked better, and, IIRC, both were demonstrated successfully with prototype aircraft on land.
F-35s and Ospreys didn't exist when this was proposed (the Harrier, but not the Harrier II, did), and the use of a Mach-3 fighter after consideration of the F11F suggests that the role envisioned for the fighters was interception, which is at best a secondary role of the F-35, and not a role of the Harrier (and even less the Osprey).
> I don’t think the image in the article would’ve worked where planes take off going straight up without additional thrusters.
I doubt it would have been practical for recovery at sea; launch would have worked better, and, IIRC, both were demonstrated successfully with prototype aircraft on land.