red admiral
Senior Airman
- 479
- Mar 24, 2005
deleted
Last edited:
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
A 'desperation measure' that was in the original JCA requirement and that QinietiQ has been developing for a decade, or did you just choose to ignore that in your fight with FBJ?
Ha - and in the mean time the F-35 rolls down the assembly line to become the most advanced combat plane ever built. As stated until the program is cancelled for 'show cause' all you have are your opinions...Take a hard look at FBJ's 'argument' and you'll see why I can no more be bothered to continue my 'fight' with him than I can be bothered to fight with the Noah's Ark true believers.
I admit that I cannot see where this comment is coming from. The F35 is being tested and by all accounts is going pretty well. Some delays at the start but you would be hard pushed to find a complex aircraft that didn't have these problems.What's 'rolling' down the assembly lines and straight into the hangers are expensive things that look like advanced combat planes, but can't fight. In fact, they don't even fly. Kind'a like the A and C SDD jets..
Doing an SRVL on an Illustrious may be small but the proposed RN carriers are a lot bigger than the Illustrious so I don't see the problem.BTW, I guess that I'm not gonna be seeing 100 F-35Cs on carrier decks within 5 yrs after all since they've pushed the IOC date to 2016. Which means more new SuperBugs unless they want to use those carrier decks as tennis courts. And as for my dated link, well the newest I could find is from '09, but it's the same old story. Simulated SRVLs seem to be more practical than the real thing when it comes to smaller flight decks, I guess...
The clip I posted was from Friday, the A model has been flying continually at EDW, wanna try again????What's 'rolling' down the assembly lines and straight into the hangers are expensive things that look like advanced combat planes, but can't fight. In fact, they don't even fly. Kind'a like the A and C SDD jets...
BTW, I guess that I'm not gonna be seeing 100 F-35Cs on carrier decks within 5 yrs after all since they've pushed the IOC date to 2016. Which means more new SuperBugs unless they want to use those carrier decks as tennis courts. And as for my dated link, well the newest I could find is from '09, but it's the same old story. Simulated SRVLs seem to be more practical than the real thing when it comes to smaller flight decks, I guess...
QinetiQ solution for F-35B 'rolling landings' (QinetiQ)
More delirious ramblings - the B-2 was slashed because it wasn't needed, the cold war ended and that was that, same goes for the number of F-22s. Its funny how you're such an expert when you gather all your information from reading dated internet articles!! Again your perception of how the US spends its military dollars is out of whack, in the mean time the F-35 continues to roll - its funny how when you're stymied in your argument you bring up the US borrowing money and the Chinese!The program probably won't be put completely out of its misery , but like the other Power Point dream machines of those living in Cloud Cukoo Land (that long lost place where money flowed like water and people were scared of the commies...) the numbers will be slashed and the unit price will continue to soar. Remember the 132 B-2s and the 750 F-22s? And that 41 cents of every dollar in the US budget is borrowed from folks like the Chinese?
I admit that I cannot see where this comment is coming from. The F35 is being tested and by all accounts is going pretty well. Some delays at the start but you would be hard pushed to find a complex aircraft that didn't have these problems.
Prove that pleaseWaynos,
I have never argued that the F-35B cannot perform SRVLs, but rather that the SRVL is inherently more dangerous than a true vertical landing (Which is why Harriers make fuel-consuming and 'bring-back 'limiting VLs ...), and that the need for the F-35B to use an inherently more dangerous landing technique is a reflection of the inherent flaws of the a/c itself. It is quite simply underpowered, not to mention that due to the properties of its jet exhaust (Which FBJ seems to imply is different when at sea than on land...)preclude the possibility of it being landed vertically on existing decks as an SOP.
Did you forget about the natural headwind the aircraft will always be landing into based on the moving ship??????To gain any advantage from wing lift, a CAP-loaded F-35 must be travelling at a minimum of 60mph, and because carrier captains cannot order up wind on demand, you cannot rely on having a touchdown speed of less tha 30 mph. Higher if you're landing aboard an AAS. Which are after all, the ships the Marines plan on putting their F-35s aboard...
Even older fighters moving at 30 knots can be quickly stopped, examine the brake system on the F-35 and you tell me why it won't work over a distance of say 100 feet, more than ample room needed for the F-35 to come aboard an AAS???The problem with bringing the aircraft to a stop with brakes alone is not running off the other end of the deck. The problem is with veering off a straight path. A 16-18 ton airplane on three high-pressure tires is not the same as car, or even a semi. There's a lotta mass and inertia to deal with, esp on a deck that may be rolling, pitching, yawing, and wet. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that things can get dicey very quickly. Esp when the a/c cannot bolter if things go awry. BTW, doesn't it strike you as somewhat strange that even with a skilled test pilo, a minimal load in a lighter a/c, and the luxury of choosing the weather conditions, they didn't attempt a single SRVL landing on the Illustrious?
Data?If you need an 800+ ft flight deck to safely carry out SRVLs, you might as well install catapults and arrestor cables so you can operate a/c that are not handicapped by the range, load, and aerodynamic limits that STOVL capability necessarily imposes.
Perhaps, but again that argument lends nothing to any of your pointsOh well, it's looking like moot point for the RN anyway, since it seems that they can afford either the carriers or the JSFs, but not both...
Glider: The blast from the hot nozzles of a Harrier is not only much slower, cooler(reportedly approx 1200 F versus 15-1700F), and significantly less, it's also less concentrated (2 nozzles on either side) and I suspect higher above the deck than the F-35B's aft nozzle. But if you wanna ignore what the USN says, and believe Lockmart, that's up to you.
JL
Agree on all points, even about the F-35CYes, I do see where you are coming frm with all that, but is it really such a problem?
Sea Harriers, or as we now have instead, 'Harriers at sea', have always used a standard VL because there was never any other option for recovery. It was also always a manual process.
The first automated landing by a STOVL aircraft at sea was only achieved in 2002, SRVLS must be automated I believe. Maybe the RN could have tried to develop it sooner, but would it have offered enough advantages to make it worthwhile?
I believe that the SRVL was always going to be required on the F-35, even without needing to generate wing lift to increase the 'bring back' load, exactly because of the concentrated jet blast you describe. It is not concievable to me to think that anyone ever thought this aircraft would do a standard VL onto a ship?
I also wonder how ill advised might have seemed catapults and arrestor wires when first proposed and this appears a much 'gentler' recovery opton than either of those?
Plus, I do agree that we might as well have a standard CV model anyway. It has superior range, payload and combat capability so I don't actually see where selection of this type over the STOVL model was 'marginal'?**
** oops, silly me. a higher proportion of the STOVL version is UK sourced of course.
I also have a feeling that we will manage to afford both, but it will mean the RAF having to replace Tornado with it too, another reason I would choose the F-35C as standard.
If you need an 800+ ft flight deck to safely carry out SRVLs, you might as well install catapults and arrestor cables so you can operate a/c that are not handicapped by the range, load, and aerodynamic limits that STOVL capability necessarily imposes.
Glider: The blast from the hot nozzles of a Harrier is not only much slower, cooler(reportedly approx 1200 F versus 15-1700F), and significantly less, it's also less concentrated (2 nozzles on either side) and I suspect higher above the deck than the F-35B's aft nozzle. But if you wanna ignore what the USN says, and believe Lockmart, that's up to you.
JL