Aircraft Carriers and JSF |
Post Reply | Page <1234 6> |
Author | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
papeg
Chief Pilot Joined: 25 Mar 2009 Location: CA Points: 1434 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The F-35 was originally tasked with close air support and bombing duties after the F-22's cleared the airspace and radars. I don't think the stealth of the F-35 was as important as that of the F-22.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Greg
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
papeg
Chief Pilot Joined: 25 Mar 2009 Location: CA Points: 1434 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-vs-av-8.htm
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Greg
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
allardjd
Moderator in Command Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: Florida - USA Points: 4506 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Agree - that's correct. However, what's changed since the original requirement was written is the F-22 production run. With only 195 (max) of the Raptors, they may need a little help, depending on the adversary and the situation. If it's Iran - no problem - if it's China I don't think the F-22s are going to be able to do it alone. Fortunately, the F-35s have an A-A capability that is second only to the Raptors. Radar-killing, i.e. the old Wild Weasel role, is probaly better done by the F-35s than the F-22s anyway. The F-22 is going to be seen as so unique, valuable and in such short supply that it's going to be carefully husbanded and used only where nothing else will do. I think the F-35s will do a lot of the grunt work of establishing air supremacy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Allard
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
They didn't go with the simplicity of the harrier's thrust vectoring system for a number of reasons. Firstly, it wasn't capable of carrying the same payload, limited range, issues like pop stalls, issues like the requirement for water cooling during the hover. The harrier has a very limited hover duration, due to the water cooling requirement.
There was a design to use the same system (which is perfectly capable) whilst keeping the ability to have reheat, but they never went with it,
That was the Boeing X32 competitor, that was very under powered, it couldn't even do STOVL without parts being removed to make it lighter, couldn't handle the required payload, couldn't do the range, suffered from pop stalls in testing, and simply didn't make the grade.
The Lockheed Martin alliterative may be riskier, involving a shaft driven lift fan, but it offered far more advantages than the harrier system or the similar X32 concept.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Harrier was no slouch - could do 600 kts level with good acceleration and supersonic in a dive. Most fighters rarely go supersonic except when running fast from enemy AD/aircraft. Sustained supersonic flight is too expensive for a fighter in terms of fuel, and thus range, even if it can super-cruise (not forgetting it has to accelerate first).
Fast is only good if you are VERY fast, like the SR-71 was fast. Other than that it just means you take the fight to the other guy a bit quicker, but otherwise has limited tactical use. Most fighters are best around 300-500 kts depending on the situation, and turn radius and thrust to weight ratio are far more useful, but still not the whole story. BVR is only good if you can avoid a merge. F-22 should excel here with its ability to remain quiet in terms of RF emissions, and engage the enemy without being detected. Once it is seen however all bets are off (nearly all combat pilots are shot down by aircraft they never saw, but once they've spotted the enemy, the chances of evasion/survival are significantly increased). Best regards, Vulcan. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yep, agree, the Harrier was an awesome aircraft, will be sadly missed.
But the Harriers system of thrust vectoring and the almost identical system in the X32 just didn't cut it.
The F35 and the Boeing X32 went head to head for the prize and the X32 lost, simple as that.
Pity you don't have Discovery there was a fascinating documentary that followed the development of both aircraft, and the competition between them.
Unlike the competition between the F16 and F18 though, the looser, didn't go into production. The F18 did of course and was snapped up by the navy. It may have been no good for the air force, but with two engines the navy realized it was ideal for them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"Two engines" comes from the idea that they MUST HAVE TWO ENGINES. The F-16 proved that a modern fighter doesn't require two engines, but the idea that all fighters have two engines is still very deeply stuck in the mind of the people at the top.
The F-16 has greater reliability and uses half the fuel of the F-15. Put the F-15 RADAR in the F-16 and the F-15 is out of a job. Best regards, Vulcan. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7128837&c=AME&s=AIR
Umm - why are we paying for the upgrades to the US aircraft, as well as any changes required to our own aircraft??????? As usual, we get screwed over the US DoD. Best regards, Vulcan. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-14/panetta-says-budget-cuts-may-lead-to-lockheed-s-f-35-termination.html
Nov. 15 2011
I hope so!!! Best regards, Vulcan. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Well the Navy's need for two engines was the requirement back when the F16 and F18 were in competition for the airfiorce jet yes, but not now, hence the navy F35.
Personally, I wouldn't blame them for preferring two engines, it's not just about engine reliability, it's also about having a reserve engine if the other one gets shot to pieces.
I tend to think the emphasis on one engine, is more to do with money, cheaper to procure, cheaper to maintain, saves the government money.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This was the argument at the time for having two engines, but as the F-16 proved, it doesn't work like that, and the F-16 has a far better record than the F-15. Best regards, Vulcan. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I know, but the F35 has one engine.
It was the argument at the time, not so much now. The point of my response.
you said...
"but the idea that all fighters have two engines is still very deeply stuck in the mind of the people at the top."
I say it isn't so much now. Especially now they have cottoned on to the fact one is cheaper.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Uh oh......
They just did the first sea trials of the F-35C landing on a carrier, and they had to abort as it couldn't trap! There is currently an investigation and design review under way into why this was so. What a fundamental screw-up! This is looking very bad for the F-35. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3Abcb29d8f-6a85-40c5-8f1d-c84d20afe997&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
Still think I'm being harsh on it? Best regards, Vulcan. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hot_Charlie
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 1839 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Whoops indeed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Marmite
Chief Pilot Joined: 11 Apr 2008 Points: 1029 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I thought they were giving up on the F-35C and were just going to get the Navy boys to throw paper planes off the deck instead
This is for you MoD Procurement -> |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Personally, I do still think you are being too harsh.
There can't be many aircraft, both civil and military, that haven't faced cost overruns and technical challenges. It's nothing new, almost to be expected.
The 747 was so heavy when it was first built that Boeing went into a full scale panic and had to remove tons of weight.
The Comet burst open in mid air.
Then we have the more recent 787 issues for example.
Same for military projects, the harrier was terribly under powered, before the engines were redesigned. Other issues too.
The list is endless!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Expatmanc
Check-In Staff Joined: 16 Aug 2010 Location: West Wales Points: 33 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Why do we need the carries in the first place? Times have moved on. The threat to our country now is from terrorism, not rogue nations. O.K. Iran is trying to build a nuclear capability but wouldn't you if someone like the Americans had a downer on you and as many nukes as they have. In my opininion, a carrier's only uses are either for agressive reasons or for nationalistic Donk waving. I feel the money would be better spent defending ourselves at home rather than in Afganistan, Iran, Yemen or wherever the next threat is coming from. It's a far more cost effective solution in the long run.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I agree. ICBMs are cheaper.
Strange they can find the troops to protect the Olympic sites, but not the borders!!!! $$$$$$$$$$$ Best regards, Vulcan. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simi_av8r
Ground Crew Joined: 28 Dec 2008 Location: Oxfordshire Points: 83 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
i'm afraid i have to partially disagree with that statement, ExpatManc. The reason we need A/C Carriers is far from the "nationalistic donk waving" you refer to and much more to do with having a Force in the right place at the right time. One example being our commitment to the UN role in combating the pirates of Somalia (other East African nations may be involved) - without a/c carriers, the allied UN nations would have nowhere to base their ISTAR a/c used for the task - in this instance the US Navy's 'USS Dwight D Eisenhower' has been used frequently for such operations. Then we've got the recent Libya mission when the Tornado's flew from RAF Marham and back because we didn't have the harriers out in the Med/Atlantic on a carrier, as would have normally be the case before SDSR! Not to mention The Falklands conflict, without HMS Ark Royal we'd have been overrun and would have lost, although the commander at the time didn't think highly of Air Power nor its impact, but that's another debate entirely.
not many are aware of this, but i've been reliably informed by my Sqn Ldr at work (under obligation not to disclose location) that we have a leave ban from may 25th thru August - thats where the 'extra' man power is comming from Vulcan, we've been declined our leave to cover the olympics! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FSaddict
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 1067 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You mean the Invincible simi, the Ark Royal (V) wasn't involved in the falklands. Although I wish that the Ark Royal (IV) was! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Post Reply | Page <1234 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 |