Aircraft Carriers and JSF |
Post Reply | Page <12345 6> |
Author | ||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I know, and it is totally disgusting. This country is currently falling into the hole of oblivion. Best regards, Vulcan. |
||
simi_av8r
Ground Crew Joined: 28 Dec 2008 Location: Oxfordshire Points: 83 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
my bad.... of course you're right! |
||
Hot_Charlie
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 1839 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
That's not the case. The Harrier wouldn't have been able to drop the required ordnance anyway on the initial missions. Once deployed to Italy, the mixed Tornado/Typhoon force offered far better flexibility for a potentially hostile air environment.
Different game now though, with MPA and it's air defence assets, a larger garrison and the very real threat of Tomahawks lurking unknown under the south atlantic. I suspect the Argentines are very wary of the RN sub fleet. |
||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Not the first time I have heard the Tornados did long-haul to/from the UK prior to deploying to Italy. So it is bogus? Best regards, Vulcan. |
||
Hot_Charlie
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 1839 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
The first strike missions were launched from the UK (the second being aborted as civilians had been moved to the target area, as reported in the press), and fairly comfortably too. The jets deployed to Italy only a day or two later. It's worth remembering that the element of surprise launching an attack on Libya from Italy would have been absolutely zero. The UK on the other hand... |
||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Yes....
Best regards, Vulcan. |
||
allardjd
Moderator in Command Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: Florida - USA Points: 4506 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
SecDef Panetta OKs F-35 Fighter Jet http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/01/20/Panetta-OKs-F35-Fighter-Jet.aspx#page1 It's not all sweetness and light for the F-35, which has some development problems but this is a positive development and indicates a commitment to move forward with all three of the proposed versions. "Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said on Friday that he was endorsing the Marine Corps version of the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jet because sufficient progress had been made on resolving technical issues." "Panetta removed the F-35B model from a two-year "probation" a year ahead of schedule because its development was back on track with two other F-35 models being developed for the U.S. Air Force and Navy." "Panetta's announcement lifted a black cloud that had hung over the $382 billion Joint Strike Fighter program, but it still faces a significant slowdown in planned production under the Pentagon's fiscal 2013 budget proposal." |
||
John Allard
|
||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
http://www.f-16.net/news_article4506.html
http://www.f-16.net/news_article4494.html
Best regards, Vulcan. |
||
papeg
Chief Pilot Joined: 25 Mar 2009 Location: CA Points: 1434 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Yea, so. This is why they are redesigning the tail hook.
|
||
Greg
|
||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
F-35C, not F-35. Best regards, Vulcan. |
||
papeg
Chief Pilot Joined: 25 Mar 2009 Location: CA Points: 1434 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
OK, Too much money has been dedicated to the F-35C to just drop that aircraft.
|
||
Greg
|
||
allardjd
Moderator in Command Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: Florida - USA Points: 4506 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Papeg is correct. The tailhook problem is not a show-stopper except to those who have already decided that the F-35 must be stopped and are looking for reasons to support that. http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/01/dn-design-blamed-for-f35c-tailhook-issues-011712/ F-35C Tailhook Design Blamed for Landing Issues Efforts to fix the problem are well underway, a top company official said. “The good news is that it’s fairly straight forward and isolated to the hook itself,” said Tom Burbage, Lockheed program manager for the F-35 program. “It doesn’t have secondary effects going into the rest of the airplane.” ...the rest of the design of the tailhook system, which include the doors and bay that conceal the device and other ancillary hardware, is sound... “We’re modifying the hook to accommodate what we found so far in test,” Burbage said. Tests with the newly modified tailhook should start...in the second quarter of this year. “The big test for this airplane is not until the summer of ’13 when we take the Navy jet out to the big deck carrier and do actual traps at sea,” Burbage dismisses claims that the F-35C will be unable to land on a carrier as falsehoods. “That’s patently not true,” he said. Richard Aboulafia, an analyst at the Teal Group, Fairfax, Va., said the claim that the F-35C could never land on a ship was always highly dubious. “They turned the YF-17 into a carrier plane, why couldn’t they correct carrier-hook problems here?” “This does not appear to be a killer problem.” “This is the kind of problem that might come out during the flight testing of a carrier-based plane,” he said. There's a brief explanation of the technical issues affecting this at the end of the article, but it comes down to placement with respect to the main landing gear, hook shape and damping. None of those things will require breakthroughs at CERN's LHC to solve them. These are the kinds of problems that engineers solve (after first having created them) every day. EDIT: Just realized that's the same article papeg linked. JDA
|
||
John Allard
|
||
Hot_Charlie
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 1839 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Exactly, just like any other programme. As for the list of thing the aircraft "can't" do, well, just about every programme will go through various issues, and have restrictions placed on it at certain times (the RAF had a trainer aircraft within the last 12-13 years that couldn't fly in cloud for the first 2-3 years of service). I suppose that's why they have test programmes eh? |
||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Precisely, as i said earlier in the thread.
It doesn't matter if it's civilian or military, all new designs will have technical issues and overrun their budgets.
The Harrier could barely get off the ground it was so underpowered, the 747 was way over weight, loads of issues with the A380, issues with the 787, the F16 had stall issues, etc, etc, etc.
It's par for the course... unless you happen to be biased against the aircraft for some strange reason. The expected issues that always arise during test programs then become a mechanism at your disposal, a mechanism you can use to trash the program and call for it's cancellation.
|
||
Hot_Charlie
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 1839 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I can't see why Brits get upset either. We're replacing the limited capability of a single engined non air to air fighter with the most state of the art carrier borne fighter available in the current times, and not the daft (well, maybe not daft, but unnecessary) STOVL variant either! . And we're getting a carrier with decent capacity rather than the limited size of a "through deck cruiser".
|
||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Yes but STOVL is [like me] sexy Hotty.
|
||
Hot_Charlie
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 1839 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
It's sexy because today's generation of enthusiats have been brought up alongside the Harrier!
|
||
allardjd
Moderator in Command Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: Florida - USA Points: 4506 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
It's been said here before, but bears repeating - if you don't build the carriers with cats and arresting gear, you're buidling them for a single, specific AC type - one which has not yet reached the production stage. If you do that and the F-35B is cancelled, you've just build two amphibious assault ships, suitable only for helicopters.
If the ships are fully equipped, ANY carrier-capable naval aircraft may be used, now and in the future, including the F-35B if the MoD changes their mind and decides that they want STOVL capabiltiy.
|
||
John Allard
|
||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Don't take posts such as my last as me saying I want to see the F-35 die - I don't, not least because it will royally screw us if it did (unless we are suddenly going to be buying F-18 or Rafael).
No doubt there are people who want to see the F-35 crash and burn (metaphorically speaking), and whilst there is no doubt new aircraft have tech problems in development, failure to trap 8 out of 8 times on land is a new record for a carrier based aircraft. A bit hard, but it (YF-17/F-18) caught the wire: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lxv7O3EyjPw The issue with the hook on the F-35 is the placement of it. It will be interesting to see what ideas they come with to over come that! Maybe a telescoping hook to make it longer? The graphic here helps visualize the problem. The F-35 would have to have a much higher nose attitude to get that tiny hook into the same position as F-18/F-14 do to trap. Even the XB-47B has, relatively, much better placement even though it appears to be much shorter (remembering that it is a much smaller aircraft). The main wheels on the F-35 are at great risk of catching the wire before the hook, and this is what people are failing to understand about the problem. Unless they can physically shift the hook backwards or find some way to make it longer so it extends below the gear AND still fits in the fuselage when retracted, they are stuffed. I rotated the drawing 10 degrees, and used the UNCOMPRESSED gear position. Hopefully it better highlights the problem! Remember too that when they designed it, the question was "where can we put the hook", not "how long does the fuselage need to be to put the hook where we need it". The F-35B is the base model unfortunately - another big mistake. Best regards, Vulcan. |
||
Hot_Charlie
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 1839 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Your diagrams illustrate the issue quite nicely. You could think the solution would be for a longer hook between the main wheels (the only way to not have it being scorched by the exhaust!?)
Can't think it would be comfortable though! |
||
Post Reply | Page <12345 6> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |