JSF having issues with carrier landings..
Discussion
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/901...
Well thats just ideal, perhaps we should hang on to the Harriers for a few more years...oh wait err...
Well thats just ideal, perhaps we should hang on to the Harriers for a few more years...oh wait err...
Can't land on a carrier, can't carry the ASRAAM and will not be able to do the close support role. All things that the USN, RAF and FAA wanted out of the aircraft. I can't even see the USN buying it let alone us!!! Another F-111 fiasco that will mean we end up buying a inferior American product or a French one.
Eric Mc said:
Yeah it looks that way, we are not buying the version that hovers so thats pretty much pointless. The easy solution is to have the landing deck 1ft deep in sand. That'll slow it down quickly. It works for lorries and they're really heavy with lots of big wheels.
And the benefit is the sand can be brought up for free using the only astute class sub - becuase the rest will be mothballed - with a big shovel attached to where the dolphin killing sonar used to be fitted.
Job jobbed.
And the benefit is the sand can be brought up for free using the only astute class sub - becuase the rest will be mothballed - with a big shovel attached to where the dolphin killing sonar used to be fitted.
Job jobbed.
rhinochopig said:
The easy solution is to have the landing deck 1ft deep in sand. That'll slow it down quickly. It works for lorries and they're really heavy with lots of big wheels.
And the benefit is the sand can be brought up for free using the only astute class sub - becuase the rest will be mothballed - with a big shovel attached to where the dolphin killing sonar used to be fitted.
Job jobbed.
.....and after that any used sand could be added to the food and laundry for environmental training.And the benefit is the sand can be brought up for free using the only astute class sub - becuase the rest will be mothballed - with a big shovel attached to where the dolphin killing sonar used to be fitted.
Job jobbed.
Caulkhead said:
I can't remember any aircraft development that hasn't had scare reports like this written about it. Anyone remember when the Apache was a complete failure because it couldn't fly in the rain?
Wasn't that solved by a couple of marines, two climbing harness and a bit of gash rope?Eric Mc said:
And in the list of current concerns is that it will be too nose heavy to land vertically.The F-111 showed up the problems of making one aircraft fit all. They should have split the program to get the best aircraft for each role.
rhinochopig said:
Wasn't that solved by a couple of marines, two climbing harness and a bit of gash rope?
Marines with NVGs on the wings I think, problem solved. This sounds more of a fundamental design flaw rather than a systems issue. You could strap a chav into the back end and get him to dangle out with a modified coat hangar to catch the arrestor cable, with liberal usage of bodge tape I think it will work. Ah so no one thought lets make sure the gap between the back wheels and the hook is more than a couple of feet?
Wonder if the US have any Navy Phantoms left, we could take a few of those as a cheap stop gap, put our naval avation capabilities back to the end of the 1970's. Either that or we could ask the Indians to build us some more FRS2 Harriers, could make that part of the deal to supply them Typhoons.
Wonder if the US have any Navy Phantoms left, we could take a few of those as a cheap stop gap, put our naval avation capabilities back to the end of the 1970's. Either that or we could ask the Indians to build us some more FRS2 Harriers, could make that part of the deal to supply them Typhoons.
doogz said:
I'm sure it won't be quite as simple as making the rod attaching the hook to the plane longer, there'll be a significant amount of analysis involved, but still, it's not quite the end of the world.
It'll take a bit of re-engineering, but i doubt they're going to scrap the entire project based on such a minor flaw.
And the ASRAAM problem, again, I'm pretty confident it's something they can work a solution out for.
And it made Mach 1.6. Big noise about it but they didn't say that they then limited all flights to Mach 1 as it damaged the control surfaces. There are problems with the A and B wing "slipping" in flight. The fuel tanks in certain circumstances aren't fire proof, the Main control display panels don't work, it can't fly in electrical storm conditions and the Integrated Power pack. Meant to last 2000 hours has to be replaced during flight testing taking 48 hrs to replace, oh and the cooling system for the Pilot and electronics can't do the job.It'll take a bit of re-engineering, but i doubt they're going to scrap the entire project based on such a minor flaw.
And the ASRAAM problem, again, I'm pretty confident it's something they can work a solution out for.
Oh and the engine has it's own problems too. It "screeches" on Afterburner. This causes severe vibrations due to airflow problems it prevents maximum power being reached. This far in to the development program these problems should have been solved.
Simpo Two said:
It seems to be the fighter equivalent of the Shuttle.
Too much technology, too much politics, too much compromise.
Arrestor hook in the wrong place indeed! Sydney Camm could get that right with a pencil and paper.
Could be worse. Could be like the time - so the story goes - a certain UK defence contractor showed the admiraltythe prelim design drawings of their shiny new diesel electric submarine and were asked where the battery compartment was. To which they responded, it didn't need one as the diesels powered the electric propulsion.Too much technology, too much politics, too much compromise.
Arrestor hook in the wrong place indeed! Sydney Camm could get that right with a pencil and paper.
and the big issue with the F-35 is the concurrency. In other words to save money they started to ramp up to full rate production before the LRIP (low rate initial production) versions had been finished and fully tested.
Therefore instead of being able to embody all the fixes needed (found during LRIP testing) into the final production variant aircraft as they are being made they are having to re-work the aircraft as they have already started production.
When the changes are small things this is ok, but when they are more fundamentals like cracked bulkheads, control services falling apart etc etc it becomes rather costly (just ask Boeing and the 787 fasteners, wing roots etc etc).
Lots of worry about escalating costs as a results. A the V/STOL variant is having serious issues with the V/S bit and could well be scrapped as I think is is only the US Marines who want it still.
Therefore instead of being able to embody all the fixes needed (found during LRIP testing) into the final production variant aircraft as they are being made they are having to re-work the aircraft as they have already started production.
When the changes are small things this is ok, but when they are more fundamentals like cracked bulkheads, control services falling apart etc etc it becomes rather costly (just ask Boeing and the 787 fasteners, wing roots etc etc).
Lots of worry about escalating costs as a results. A the V/STOL variant is having serious issues with the V/S bit and could well be scrapped as I think is is only the US Marines who want it still.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff