This forum is in read-only mode for archive purposes, please use our new forum at https://community.justflight.com
Forum Home Forum Home > Just Chat > Real World Aviation
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Aircraft Carriers and JSF
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Aircraft Carriers and JSF

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 6>
Author
Message
VulcanB2 View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 13365
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote VulcanB2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2012 at 5:59pm
Originally posted by simi_av8r simi_av8r wrote:

Originally posted by VulcanB2 VulcanB2 wrote:


Strange they can find the troops to protect the Olympic sites, but not the borders!!!!

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!

I know, and it is totally disgusting.

This country is currently falling into the hole of oblivion.

Best regards,
Vulcan.
Back to Top
simi_av8r View Drop Down
Ground Crew
Ground Crew
Avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2008
Location: Oxfordshire
Points: 83
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote simi_av8r Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2012 at 6:30pm
Originally posted by FSaddict FSaddict wrote:

Originally posted by simi_av8r simi_av8r wrote:


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.


You mean the Invincible simi, the Ark Royal (V) wasn't involved in the falklands. Although I wish that the Ark Royal (IV) was!


my bad.... of course you're right!
Rgds, Simi
Editor of:
Back to Top
Hot_Charlie View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot


Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 1839
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hot_Charlie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2012 at 8:50pm
Originally posted by simi_av8r simi_av8r wrote:


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!


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.

Quote 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.


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.
Back to Top
VulcanB2 View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 13365
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote VulcanB2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2012 at 1:30pm
Quote That's not the case. The Harrier wouldn't have been able to drop the required ordnance anyway on the initial missions.

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.
Back to Top
Hot_Charlie View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot


Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 1839
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hot_Charlie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2012 at 7:10pm
Originally posted by VulcanB2 VulcanB2 wrote:

Quote That's not the case. The Harrier wouldn't have been able to drop the required ordnance anyway on the initial missions.

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.


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...
Back to Top
VulcanB2 View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 13365
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote VulcanB2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jan 2012 at 2:47pm
Yes....

Best regards,
Vulcan.
Back to Top
allardjd View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command


Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Location: Florida - USA
Points: 4506
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote allardjd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jan 2012 at 5:14pm

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
Back to Top
VulcanB2 View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 13365
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote VulcanB2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jan 2012 at 11:43pm
http://www.f-16.net/news_article4506.html

http://www.f-16.net/news_article4494.html

Quote Yet, a November 2011 U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) quick-look report relating to engineering challenges arising from what is being called “concurrency issues” revealed that all eight run-in/rolling tests undertaken at NAS Lakehurst in August 2011 to see if the F-35C CV JSF could catch a wire with the tail hook have failed.

........

It is highly probable that this design fault could be the last straw for the F-35C. The program will attempt some more rolling tests with a different hook design, but this does not address the problem of the poor location of the tail hook on the airframe.

Other F-35 program problems identified in the QLR Report included the helmet visual cueing which is seriously affected by design issues and airframe buffet in the heart of the combat envelope. Also, all F-35 variants suffer from paper-thin weight margins, unsafe fuel dumping, flight restrictions on diving, speed and proximity to lightning hazards to name a few. And, it can only be flown during the daytime.


Best regards,
Vulcan.
Back to Top
papeg View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot


Joined: 25 Mar 2009
Location: CA
Points: 1434
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote papeg Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jan 2012 at 12:23am
Yea, so.  This is why they are redesigning the tail hook.
 
Quote It is highly probable that this design fault could be the last straw for the F-35C.
I seriously doubt this.  Too much money has been dedicated to the F35 to just drop the entire program.
 
 
Quote “We’re modifying the hook to accommodate what we found so far in test,” Burbage said. “The new parts, we expect to have them back in the next couple of months.”
 
The reason the problem with the hook arose in the first place is because of the inherent constraints of building a stealth fighter, said Burbage. The F-35 is the first naval stealth fighter and as such, Lockheed had the unique challenge of designing the jet with a tail-hook that had to be concealed when it’s not being used.
Greg
Back to Top
VulcanB2 View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 13365
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote VulcanB2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jan 2012 at 1:42am
Quote Too much money has been dedicated to the F35 to just drop the entire program.

F-35C, not F-35.

Best regards,
Vulcan.
Back to Top
papeg View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot


Joined: 25 Mar 2009
Location: CA
Points: 1434
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote papeg Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jan 2012 at 2:25am
OK, Too much money has been dedicated to the F-35C to just drop that aircraft.
Greg
Back to Top
allardjd View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command


Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Location: Florida - USA
Points: 4506
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote allardjd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jan 2012 at 4:19am

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
Back to Top
Hot_Charlie View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot


Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 1839
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hot_Charlie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jan 2012 at 10:17am
Originally posted by allardjd allardjd wrote:

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.



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?
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jan 2012 at 10:47am
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.
 
 
Back to Top
Hot_Charlie View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot


Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 1839
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hot_Charlie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jan 2012 at 12:26pm
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".
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jan 2012 at 4:09pm
Yes but STOVL is [like me] sexy Hotty.
Back to Top
Hot_Charlie View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot


Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 1839
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hot_Charlie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jan 2012 at 5:32pm
It's sexy because today's generation of enthusiats have been brought up alongside the Harrier!
Back to Top
allardjd View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command


Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Location: Florida - USA
Points: 4506
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote allardjd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jan 2012 at 6:28pm
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
Back to Top
VulcanB2 View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 13365
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote VulcanB2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jan 2012 at 6:48pm
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.
Back to Top
Hot_Charlie View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot


Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 1839
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hot_Charlie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jan 2012 at 10:45pm
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!
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 6>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down