Model Boat Mayhem
Mess Deck: General Section => Chit-Chat => Topic started by: john s 2 on January 15, 2012, 09:00:42 pm
-
It appears that the 5bn contract to purchase joint strike fighter planes from America has a minor problem.In tests the plane has been unable to catch the arrestor cable. Owing to the arrester hook being too near the wheels. This means that the plane will need a significant redesign if possible? Another minor problem appears to be the inabilty to fire British Asraam missiles. Along with the real possibilty of further major faults yet to come. Not to worry lads we only have one carrier anyway. As discussed in a previous when, if, our new carriers are commissioned what further adaptions will they need? It certainly seems that the decision to scrap the Ark Royal was totally wrong. With problems looming in Iran and else where, a carrier of size would help. Time will tell. Your thoughts please. John.
-
Its serious FUBAR of biblical proportions , the designers knew that there was a design specification on the books that the tail hook had to be a minimum 13-16ft from the rear wheels to allow it to catch the wires and the JSF just had the hook far too close to the wheels. There are more fundamental problems as well such as using afterburner damages the tail of the plane so they can't use it just now if ever plus a lot of other problems.
MacDonald Douglass still make the excellent F/A:18D Super Hornet which is all we really need and its also a LOT cheaper to buy and maintain so we really should use this as an excuse to dump this aircraft and just order F18's as at least the money would let us buy enough for BOTH carriers as they are about half the price !!!
-
Thanks Davie. It sounds that the problems are mounting. Whats the bet that the plane you suggest will never be brought. Its too simpler a solution.John.
-
The choice is between the F18 Super Hornet or the inferior ( less range , lower ordnance weight , non folding wings so less room in hanger ) Dassault Raffale jet so it should be a very simple decision to dump the JSF and buy F18's , Sabb has offered a CTOL carrier version of the Viggen but that has never flown from a carrier where the F18 is a proven reliable design but as you say common sense isn't common enough !!
-
Hi everyone
The main reason why neither will be bought by the mod is simply that the typhoon (eurofighter) is being developed as a naval aircraft for the Indian navy so it makes sense that the mod wait until the typhoon is ready as a naval aircraft instead of wasting their money on inferior aircraft.
Nick B
-
I suppose that anything you make is obsoleat by the time it goes into production .Techology advances so quickly. But as already mentioned. Why are design faults like hooks occuring. Is the MOD gambling that when we finally get a carrier or two. That the plane will be sorted? Whats the odds? John.
-
Nick the version BAE is trying to flog to India would not be able to operate off our carriers , the naval Typhoon would launch in the russian style ( held back at the aft end of the ship by blocks infront of its wheels which drop to release the plane once its at full power , they then go at full afterburner up a long ramp styled bow section ) and the airframe cannot take the stress of having a nose wheel catobar fitting used to launch it using a catapult.
-
Hi Dave
The stories I have been told by bae personnel are that suitable modifications are being planned and that was why the papers were reporting that work had stopped on the two carriers to allow a redesign, obviously if it could work, to fly a redesigned typhoon from the deck.
Surprisingly I discovered that originally the tornado bomber was designed to operated from the old ark royal (if you believe the rumours from within the raf)!
Just the stories I have been told recently to add my pennies worth!
Nick B
-
With problems looming in Iran and else where, a carrier of size would help.
Hi John
Sounds like a proper job for the Mayhem team - delivery from scratch in less than two years.
Most of that time would not be build, but would of course be the usual technical 'discussions' %) :}
Dave
-
You are not alone.
Australia has cancelled our deal to buy our next generation fighter from the US due to cost, design etc overruns and in the meantime have purchased super hornets, (since delivered) to fill the gap while we look for a replacement for the F111 and Hornets.
We also have a brains trust in our Defence Dept who think like your MOD, they must be related.
If it wasn't so serious it would be funny.
-
Gunner - Have been reading articles put out by a military think tank in OZ, their conclusion was if Australia bought F35 they would have second rate air defence
when comparing it to the Russian Su 35 not to mention the being built PAK-FA. The final comment was the F35 can't turn, (the old F4 phantom could pull more Gs
on a turn) Can't manoeuvre and finally can't outrun the Russian Aircraft. The F22 fared better as it had the ability to "get out of Dodge" because of it superior speed,
In recent a war game exercise in the Far East (paper Exercise using the performance of these aircraft and their missiles) the Americans lost 200 more planes than the
Russians and Chinese.
It is beleived that by 2015 the Americans will have lost masterly of the sky to Russian and CHINESE aircraft
The stealth properties of these aircraft is now fixed (unless they redesign the aircraft) but Infra Red seeker technology on the missiles is improving all the time so the
properties of steath will not count against the superior performance of the opposition aircraft.
The PAK-FA is believed to have some stealth but is still geared towards air superiorority and agility so when it comes into service I would not like to be an F35 pilot
or a country that relies on them for their air defence
Geoff
-
Pugwash,
Yes there has been a lot said about the aircraft's failings.
The change of Government, allowed a rethink on the aircraft deal and the defence Minister bit the bullet.
You have to wonder if the top brass that supported these recommendations have lost all their nous.
Also read something along the lines, that whilst the Russian aircraft are faster etc etc they are using "old technology" but this "old technology" stops their planes being rendered inoperable by counter measures. A bit too technical for me but if I understood it correctly the US planes are now too sophisticated and their systems, computers no doubt, are easily vulnerable to electronic counter attack, jamming or some such means.
-
Hi, I think the 'Old Technology' referred to the electronics which were valves not i/c circuits. But correct me if I am wrong.
And possibly hydraulic flying surface control rather than fly-by-wire.
regards Roy
-
Hi Dave
The stories I have been told by bae personnel are that suitable modifications are being planned and that was why the papers were reporting that work had stopped on the two carriers to allow a redesign, obviously if it could work, to fly a redesigned typhoon from the deck.
Surprisingly I discovered that originally the tornado bomber was designed to operated from the old ark royal (if you believe the rumours from within the raf)!
Just the stories I have been told recently to add my pennies worth!
Nick B
The Tornado was built for extremely short landings ( hence the clamshell over the engine to slow it down and it was tested with an arrestor hook ) and is strong enough so could have operated off the Ark , the Jaguar was tested as a carrier aircraft as it was in serious contention for both the Ark Royal and the French Carriers in the 70's
It would be cheaper and easier to rebuilt current RAF Typhoons if possible ( scrap the RAF fighters responsibility and hand over all fast jets to the fleet air arm ) and built a few more new Typhoons for the Navy that way you have a single fast jet type so one set of spares and one set of training for pilots and ground crew as well as a much larger pool of pilots and planes
Never happen though as its too much like common sense and thats never been known to exist in the MOD planning department
-
"It would be cheaper and easier to rebuilt current RAF Typhoons if possible ( scrap the RAF fighters responsibility and hand over all fast jets to the fleet air arm ) and built a few more new Typhoons for the Navy that way you have a single fast jet type so one set of spares and one set of training for pilots and ground crew as well as a much larger pool of pilots and planes"
hand over all fast jets to the fleet air arm. what a dumb idea.
-
Hi, I think the 'Old Technology' referred to the electronics which were valves not i/c circuits. But correct me if I am wrong.
And possibly hydraulic flying surface control rather than fly-by-wire.
regards Roy
Roy,
Yes, I remember now that is what it was about. Thanks
-
"It would be cheaper and easier to rebuilt current RAF Typhoons if possible ( scrap the RAF fighters responsibility and hand over all fast jets to the fleet air arm ) and built a few more new Typhoons for the Navy that way you have a single fast jet type so one set of spares and one set of training for pilots and ground crew as well as a much larger pool of pilots and planes"
hand over all fast jets to the fleet air arm. what a dumb idea.
Phil,
For the benefit of us out of country and with similar idiots running defence procurement, why
-
Okay, I've read some garbage on here before but this thread really takes the biscuit for uninformed mindless speculation <*<
It appears that the 5bn contract to purchase joint strike fighter planes from America has a minor problem.In tests the plane has been unable to catch the arrestor cable. Owing to the arrester hook being too near the wheels. This means that the plane will need a significant redesign if possible? Another minor problem appears to be the inabilty to fire British Asraam missiles.
It's a development aircraft FFS, you'll get minor problems during development, after all it's what that phase is for. Oh, asraam uses the same launcher as the AIM9M so it'd be a software update for the MMU - no surprise really as it's been designed for AIM9 series.
Its serious FUBAR of biblical proportions , the designers knew that there was a design specification on the books that the tail hook had to be a minimum 13-16ft from the rear wheels to allow it to catch the wires and the JSF just had the hook far too close to the wheels. There are more fundamental problems as well such as using afterburner damages the tail of the plane so they can't use it just now if ever plus a lot of other problems.
MacDonald Douglass still make the excellent F/A:18D Super Hornet which is all we really need and its also a LOT cheaper to buy and maintain so we really should use this as an excuse to dump this aircraft and just order F18's as at least the money would let us buy enough for BOTH carriers as they are about half the price !!!
:D :D the hook doesn't need to be that far behind the wheels to take a wire - Tonka certainly doesn't. So the aircraft can't fly then, as it needs AB to take off.
The stories I have been told by bae personnel are that suitable modifications are being planned and that was why the papers were reporting that work had stopped on the two carriers to allow a redesign, obviously if it could work, to fly a redesigned typhoon from the deck.
Surprisingly I discovered that originally the tornado bomber was designed to operated from the old ark royal (if you believe the rumours from within the raf)!
Just the stories I have been told recently to add my pennies worth!
Too much redesign work needed to allow Typhoon to operate on a cat that you'd end up with a new aircraft, and Tonka was never designed to operate of a carrier, (it was in the original spec but was removed as impractical).
The final comment was the F35 can't turn, (the old F4 phantom could pull more Gs on a turn)
F4 was limited to 7.5G with anything more than AAMs fitted - not sure of F35, but I'd be surprised if it was less and would expect it to be higher.
Hi, I think the 'Old Technology' referred to the electronics which were valves not i/c circuits. But correct me if I am wrong.
And possibly hydraulic flying surface control rather than fly-by-wire.
I haven't seen valves use since I worked on the Lanc, so it really is 'old tech', (although IIRC the same PTR was used on the Shack too).
Even fbw uses hydraulics to move the surfaces, I think you mean as opposed to control rods and cables.
The Tornado was built for extremely short landings ( hence the clamshell over the engine to slow it down and it was tested with an arrestor hook ) and is strong enough so could have operated off the Ark , the Jaguar was tested as a carrier aircraft as it was in serious contention for both the Ark Royal and the French Carriers in the 70's
The clamshell thrust reverse on Tonka is to provide initial deceleration and reduce brake wear, the hook is not strong enough for anything but emergency landings, (funny that as it was designed that way), and in 7 RHAG landings I saw - 6 hooks were changed due to excess stretch/damage, and the hook on the Jaguar was the same.
I deleted the rest of the quote as it's pure fiction >:-o
Sorry if this post seems argumentative, it's not meant to be, but rather to correct some of the myths and hearsay being repeated as facts.
Mark.
-
Phil,
For the benefit of us out of country and with similar idiots running defence procurement, why
not quite sure what it has to do with procurement but common sense. the last fast jets the fleet air arm ran were phantoms in the 70's. the raf is where the expertise is. whats being suggested here all fighters must operate off of two maybe built carriers and sack 50% of the raf.
bit like buying a brothel, sacking all the prostitutes and replacing them with nuns. you can offer the same service but no one will be satisfied
phil
-
Bearing in mind when the last commission of ark royal (1970's) took place two thirds of it's fast jet aircrew were RAF.
Why not continue with the harrier idea that ALL aircrew were capable of flying from the carriers.
The same as the current helicopter training everyone is trained to fly from carriers not just the FAA.
-
Gingyer Thats not strictly correct - the Joint Helicopter Command formed after one of the previous Defence reviews controls all helicopters used by the
Army, Navy and Airforce with the exception of the RN/RAF Air Sea Rescue squadrons and what is classed as RN Fleet helocpters - Anti-Submarine helicopters on
carrier and small ships and the AEW Sea kings, but I do agree with you that as our armed forces aircraft numbers dwindle it would be preferable to have all pilots
trained for deck landings on carriers. The navy used to teach pilots to fly, then taught them combat skills and ground attack THEN it allowed then to start deck landings.
As the job is pretty much the same from an airfield or a ship either ground attack or air defence the RAF pilots would just have to do the additional deck landing training
and we would have more than enough pilots where required, and as someone else suggested if we had the same aircraft for both services there would be a vast savings
on spares, training and ground staff
Geoff
-
Geoff that is correct for command
But the pilots all go through the same training at RAF shawberry( I think it's called)
All RAF helicopter pilots HAVE to be able to land on carriers as they
Could be deployed there in the future
-
I haven't seen valves use since I worked on the Lanc, so it really is 'old tech', (although IIRC the same PTR was used on the Shack too).
Hi CF-Z...I think we need some correction here!
I was an RAF air radar fitter in the late 50's early 60's. Everything was valves!
I was trained on Green Satin navigation gear (among others) and I then did a conversion to Blue Silk which was the smaller version but that had miniaturised valves not transistors.
This equipment was in Canberras and the V bombers.
regards to all, Roy
-
The best real Hi Fi amps are still valves. Even my 20 year old Audio Innovations valve amp sounds better than most transistors. O0
Mind you, for the price of some of them, one could attend several concerts anywhere in the world! <:(
-
I was an RAF air radar fitter in the late 50's early 60's. Everything was valves!
I was trained on Green Satin navigation gear (among others) and I then did a conversion to Blue Silk which was the smaller version but that had miniaturised valves not transistors.
This equipment was in Canberras and the V bombers.
All of which were designed while the RAF were still buying prop jobs in the late 40's early 50's - so it stands to reason that they'd use valves as they aircraft are from a similar era and if my (ex 80's rigger) memory is reasonably accurate, transistors didn't become widely available until after this in the late 50's early 60's {:-{
Mark.
-
In the RN we started to get solid state kit in the early 60's but we still had ships running valve equipment in the Falklands War
Ned
-
Hi CF-F2G.
I agree that military technology takes some time to appear, and the slightly out of context remarks you picked out were referring to Russian aircraft.
Your reference to 'Lancs' is interesting as I also worked on Gee-H did you have experience of that in Lancs?
I came across it fitted into Canberra BI 8's. Some of the equipment was marked 'Tropicalised 1944' so we can't say they were wasting tax payers money in this instance.
The post valve era for military electronics was a re-think as even in 1958 an aircraft could be spotted by the enemy because of RF emissions.
When I arrived in Germany in 2nd TAF (1958) my first job was to take out the tail warning radar. It was said at the time that it could be damaged by a steep take off climb. Years later I realised it was acting as a beacon giving it's position away to the 'enemy'.
It is nice to know we have experts on the forum and even nicer when 'corrections' are handled in a positive way.
regards Roy
-
If I remember correctly, if not please feel free to correct.
Wasn't it in the 70's that a Russian built Mig 21 or 23 was landed in Japan where the pilot wanted to defect.
The US technicians had the aircraft in bits in quick time and were deriding the radio which had valves.
When they got round to asking the pilot there was a simple explanation that the US techs had overlooked.
In any nuclear exchange in the first strike are several air bursts.
These are specifically designed to knock out radio communications as the electromagnetic charge fries transistors.
With a valve set all that was required was to replace the damaged valves and communications restored.
I am not certain if this is an "old wives tale" but was believed when I was younger.
I am sure if it is wrong but with the expertise on here someone will be able to confirm or deny this.
Bob
-
Hi Roy,
My experience of the Lanc PTR stemmed from my life as a space cadet in the early 70's where out RT instructor was an ex Lanc Nav/RO, (and radio Ham), who'd acquired his own T1154/R1155 set on demob and set it up in one of 'our' huts. A few years later I was on the team doing anti-corrosion repair work on the rear spar of PA474, and when it was decided to 'power' the beast up, I had to show the fairies how to operate the radio :-)
To sum up the old/new technology, I compare the Lanc PTR setup with the PTR1721 we had in the Tornado - a 'small' ok2 difference in size and capabilities. The T1154/R1155 was a lovely set to use though <:(
Mark.
-
The 1155 is still in demand among those that 'know'
Bob, if an aircraft had been subject to an airburst and came back
to have its valves changed it would have been rather'hot' radioactive
wise. I for one would not want to be the radio fitter changing them!
Ned
-
Ned
The pilot or navigator would change them in flight.
Bob
-
Bob, the radios in the Hunters I maintained were in a compartment in the belly of the aeroplane.
Don't think they carried an outside wrecker.
Ned
-
If I remember correctly, if not please feel free to correct.
Wasn't it in the 70's that a Russian built Mig 21 or 23 was landed in Japan where the pilot wanted to defect.
A Mig 25, a scary fast interceptor, in Sept '76.
Various reasons were given for using valve tech, including the following;
That they were more tolerant of temperature extremes, thereby removing the need for providing complex environmental cooling.
Easy to replace when sophisticated transistor parts might not have been readily available.
With the use of vacuum tubes, the MiG-25's radar had enormous power – about 600 kilowatts.
The use of vacuum tubes also makes the aircraft's systems resistant to an electromagnetic pulse, for example after a nuclear blast.
The pilot or navigator would change them in flight.
There was no Nav as it's a single seater, and they would be in an 'avionics compartment' as it's easier to cool.
-
You don't need no stink'n tail hook....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki86x1WKPmE
%)
-
If I remember correctly, if not please feel free to correct.
Wasn't it in the 70's that a Russian built Mig 21 or 23 was landed in Japan where the pilot wanted to defect.
The US technicians had the aircraft in bits in quick time and were deriding the radio which had valves.
When they got round to asking the pilot there was a simple explanation that the US techs had overlooked.
In any nuclear exchange in the first strike are several air bursts.
These are specifically designed to knock out radio communications as the electromagnetic charge fries transistors.
With a valve set all that was required was to replace the damaged valves and communications restored.
I am not certain if this is an "old wives tale" but was believed when I was younger.
I am sure if it is wrong but with the expertise on here someone will be able to confirm or deny this.
Bob
Bob, not an expert and not even well read on the matter.
But from what iremember it is still similar today hence my comment that I read Russia is suing "old technology" which will withstand a high tech assault, which I take means electronic means against it's equipment and installations, their current fighter out performs anything that is available.
Our Fiasco, In OZ we operated and rebuilt our F-111's and kept them flying for 30 years after it went into service.
Reason, there was nothing then or now, that could do what it did or match it even today.
Our F-111's regularly went to the US and took part in their exercises and we were unbeatable taking home their trophy using an obsolete old aircraft. which they had dumped.
But politics and Defence dept came into play and the Howard Government scrapped the F-111, to expensive to maintain, etc we will buy the you beaut top of the range joint strike fighter.
After we have scraped the F-111's, they would still be flying as the US has a lot more airframes in its aircraft graveyard, oops it is now not yet available and will now cost the earth, so we bought Super Hornets at a good deal ??????????? to tide us over.
Bottom line we have gone backwards and now have no "strike" capabilty that the F-111 provided.
-
Mr Gunner there was one aircraft that would outfly the F111 and it was cheaper and your government was going to buy it.
Unfortunately your politicos were "pursuaded" by the Yanks to buy F111 in its place. Even the USAF SAID TSR2 WAS BETTER but we could not afford to develope
it for just ourselves and we had a stupid Labour government that was also "pursuaded" to by the F111 as it was going to be half the price
It was the TSR2 which outclassed every aircraft around at the time.
The pilot of the english Electric Lightning which was the chase plane for its last test flight was on full afterburner and was being left behind by the TSR2 which only
had one engine on afterburner. His words not mine - documentary on TV a few weeks ago.
In the end F111 got so so expensive our poor country couldn't afford it in the end and the RAF got nothing.
Geoff
-
Mr Gunner there was one aircraft that would outfly the F111 and it was cheaper and your government was going to buy it.
Unfortunately your politicos were "pursuaded" by the Yanks to buy F111 in its place. Even the USAF SAID TSR2 WAS BETTER but we could not afford to develope
it for just ourselves and we had a stupid Labour government that was also "pursuaded" to by the F111 as it was going to be half the price
It was the TSR2 which outclassed every aircraft around at the time.
The pilot of the english Electric Lightning which was the chase plane for its last test flight was on full afterburner and was being left behind by the TSR2 which only
had one engine on afterburner. His words not mine - documentary on TV a few weeks ago.
In the end F111 got so so expensive our poor country couldn't afford it in the end and the RAF got nothing.
Geoff
Geoff,
Yes, you are absolutely 100% correct.
The comment I was making is, after we had been persuaded to buy the F-111 and fixed the faults, we kept these obsolete planes flying and resisted further 'persuasion' to 'upgrade' until now, to upgrade to an inferior product, here we go again..
As per the topics title, Fiasco
-
It was mentioned earlier that Australia had pulled out of their contract for the JSF because of its inferiority.
Here are a couple of links reflecting Aussie concerns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27qdB1D0s9M&feature=related
http://www.ausairpower.net/.
-
Anybody heard that they're tightening the rivets and putting new valves (fiery transistors) and spark plugs in the Shackleton's?? :o
Regards Ian.
-
Can anyone give me a simple reason why all aircraft of this "type" can't be made to operate from both land and carriers? Surely the so-called "economy of scale" could apply here. After all, the old Buccaneers used to do it..and of course the Harrier could even land on an RFA or (once) on top of a loaded container ship. Just a thought. BY.
-
Buccaneers were designed to land on carriers Blackburn NA39. NA Naval Aircraft.
They were only given to the RAF when we binned our carriers.
Ned
-
Yes Bryan - one of my favourite fleet aircraft. Because they were built for low level strike and anti ship work they had to be built like tanks
so even the RAF couldn't break them. Not that they wanted them until the government started to de-commission some of their other aircraft
then they discovered what a good aircraft they were. When they were considering replacing the Bucc it was reasoned that the only aircraft
which could replace them was another Bucc
Geoff
-
They had to be built like tanks so the WAFU's didn't rip their bums off.
Regards Ian.
-
Hello Bryan, I think that the undercarriages have to be stronger for landing on aircraft carriers, they have to stand up to regular almost crash landings and stopping very quickly, with the power on just in case they have to go around again.
regards to all Roy
-
They had to be built like tanks so the WAFU's didn't rip their bums off.
:-)) :} :} :-))
Oh how true ;)
-
Roy,
There was no difference between the aircraft the WAFU's used compared to the RAF ones in that department apart from the double extending noseleg on the F4's. The WAFU's made enough of a mess of them as it was.
A friend of mine was on the survey team from the RAF to select which, (if any), they could accept - I forget the exact number, but most of the F4's went off the cat into the oggin.
Mark.
-
Can anyone give me a simple reason why all aircraft of this "type" can't be made to operate from both land and carriers? Surely the so-called "economy of scale" could apply here. After all, the old Buccaneers used to do it..and of course the Harrier could even land on an RFA or (once) on top of a loaded container ship. Just a thought. BY.
Simply put they can.
My understanding is that navalised aircraft, ie operated of carriers etc, have to have a much stronger and corrosive resistant (rust) airframe and consequently cost more.
So they build two types navalised version and standard.
The majority of countries don't want/need navalised versions.
However, it make sense if they are all manufactured as navalised, then the costs would come down due to quantity and production would be faster.
-
Can anyone give me a simple reason why all aircraft of this "type" can't be made to operate from both land and carriers? Surely the so-called "economy of scale" could apply here. After all, the old Buccaneers used to do it..and of course the Harrier could even land on an RFA or (once) on top of a loaded container ship. Just a thought. BY.
Simply put they can.
Sorry to disagree RaaArtyGunner, but...
Simply put they can't.
As far as materials used, (apart from a couple of areas) - they are the same, corrosion protection/prevention is the same, (maybe more frequently on the naval aircraft).
Now take a 'modern' fighter or strike aircraft, they are designed to operate as land based aircraft, and there are a couple of areas that need modifying to operate off a carrier.
Okay, I'll give you a known example, and roughly what was needed to make it 'catapultable' and 'take the RHAG as normal and not an emergency'.
The BAe Hawk was bought by the USN as a naval trainer - the T45 Goshawk.
I started writing War and Peace here and then decided to paraphrase it as follows;
Numerous modifications were required to make it suitable for carrier operations. These included improvements to the low-speed handling and a reduction in the approach speed. Other changes were strengthened airframe, wider stronger landing gear with catapult tow bar attachment and ahook. It features a twin nose wheel gear partly for strength, partly for the tow bar attachment.
A lot of work involved in this I'm sure you'll agree :-))
Now consider what would be needed to convert a Tornado or Typhoon to the same spec - I included the Tonka as the landing gear was designed with possible carrier ops in mind, but not the rest of the airframeas the idea was quashed quite early on. Now look at the nose gear on Typhoon and think firstly what would be needed to convert to a twin-wheel setup capable of taking catapult loads and where you're going to put it. Now secondly, do the same for the hook.
The reason I said 'modern' fighter etc., is because the previous generation of aircraft that the WAFU's used to operate from a rolling, pitching, moving, very short runway - was because they were designed for naval operations, (even the US F4's), and the Air Force ops came later.
Mark.
-
Sorry to disagree RaaArtyGunner, but...
Simply put they can't.
As far as materials used, (apart from a couple of areas) - they are the same, corrosion protection/prevention is the same, (maybe more frequently on the naval aircraft).
Now take a 'modern' fighter or strike aircraft, they are designed to operate as land based aircraft, and there are a couple of areas that need modifying to operate off a carrier.
Okay, I'll give you a known example, and roughly what was needed to make it 'catapultable' and 'take the RHAG as normal and not an emergency'.
The BAe Hawk was bought by the USN as a naval trainer - the T45 Goshawk.
I started writing War and Peace here and then decided to paraphrase it as follows;
Numerous modifications were required to make it suitable for carrier operations. These included improvements to the low-speed handling and a reduction in the approach speed. Other changes were strengthened airframe, wider stronger landing gear with catapult tow bar attachment and ahook. It features a twin nose wheel gear partly for strength, partly for the tow bar attachment.
A lot of work involved in this I'm sure you'll agree :-))
Now consider what would be needed to convert a Tornado or Typhoon to the same spec - I included the Tonka as the landing gear was designed with possible carrier ops in mind, but not the rest of the airframeas the idea was quashed quite early on. Now look at the nose gear on Typhoon and think firstly what would be needed to convert to a twin-wheel setup capable of taking catapult loads and where you're going to put it. Now secondly, do the same for the hook.
The reason I said 'modern' fighter etc., is because the previous generation of aircraft that the WAFU's used to operate from a rolling, pitching, moving, very short runway - was because they were designed for naval operations, (even the US F4's), and the Air Force ops came later.
Mark.
Mark,
Not being a fly boy, So are you saying the "carrier" planes cannot land on the ground, which they can and do. Does not naval training with naval aircraft include flying a mock up of a carrier etc on the ground.
I recall our Fleet Air Arm Skyhawks, were always landed at Nowra Naval Air Station when the carrier was in port.
Agree there is a distinction between standard, read Airforce, and navalised, but except for cost, what is the valid reason the Air Force can't fly a navalised version of the same plane. However not the other way round. In other words as you point out standard planes can't land on carriers etc.
So it makes good sense to buy navalised and therefore have flexibility as it can operate in both environments, namely land and sea.
The questin that was put was, "simply put ,can't one plane be built for both land and sea". The answer as I see it from what has been said by one and all, simply put is still yes.
-
I don't know if it is true in this case but in the past 'navalised' planes have suffered a performance penalty due to the need for their more robust construction. hence the two different types.
Colin
-
I don't know if it is true in this case but in the past 'navalised' planes have suffered a performance penalty due to the need for their more robust construction. hence the two different types.
Colin
Thats a good point and no doubt because the plane was designed as standard at the outset and later converted/modified to navalised.
But, if it was designed as such from the beginning then what.
-
It would still be heavier and carry a weight and possibly aerodynamic penalty. Probably couldn't carry the same payload as a non naval version.
Colin
-
Fair enough,Colin....but don't carrier based aircraft fulfil the same role as land based ones anyway? I mean, if "we" don't have an airfield within range of a conflict then the carrier based ones haave to be used. In that instance they will come up against land based opponents and also carry out the same mission parameters as their absent land based brethren would have. So the aircraft have to be equally capable. Perhaps good old Uncle Sam found this out long ago and did something about it. BY.
-
hi there, interesting thoughts and conversation between whether Naval Aircraft differ from landbased Aircraft.
I had a similar conversation a little while ago with a guy called Bombflyer (hi there Bomblyer) is the Whaleback still okay there mate?
As Bombflyer flew Buccaneers from HMS Ark Royal in the 1970s and he had some very strong views on its safety issues.
aye
john
-
Best performance characteristics for carrier borne aircraft exist only when they are designed for carrier operations from the outset. Navalising exisiting designs is a compromise and like all compromises don't uusally measure up and navalising exisitng designs is very expensive. One of the biggest problems is beefing-up the undercarriage and airframe for the more rugged carrier borne use, coorosion at sea is also i bigger problem than land-based aircraft. The Buccanner was a suberb aircraft designed from the outset as a carrier-borne aircraft, it was arguably one of our best aircraft of post-war years.
The Americans had lots of trouble navalising the British Hawk into their Goshawk carrier trainer (T45 I think).
If we don't buy American then the only alternative is the marine version of the Rafale. Any talk of navalising the Typhoon (once mooted) would be non-sensical.
-
Any talk of navalising the Typhoon (once mooted) would be non-sensical.
WHY????
the French did exactly this with the Rafale it was not inteded as a carrier bourne aircraft but due to cost restraints they
could not have a purpose built aircraft so modified the Rafale.......Come to think of it does this not sound familiar.....
The main problem with the JSF is that it has been a "jack of all trades" from the design concept with
differant ways of launching/ landing it is also so much dearer than others
approx cost comparison per plane
JSF F35 lightning $150m (excludes development and production costs) some speculation in the US this could reach $207M
E/F-18 super hornet $55M (excludes development and production costs)
Euro fighter $95M (includes development and production costs)
Rafale M $90M-124M (excludes development and production costs)
Personaly I would like to look into a Naval euro fighter. it is not the cheapest but
it is meant to be superior to the hornet and it may keep jobs in the UK so be cheaper also than paying people off
and I am sure we could navalise it for less than the cost of the JSF
-
Best performance characteristics for carrier borne aircraft exist only when they are designed for carrier operations from the outset. Navalising exisiting designs is a compromise and like all compromises don't uusally measure up and navalising exisitng designs is very expensive. One of the biggest problems is beefing-up the undercarriage and airframe for the more rugged carrier borne use, coorosion at sea is also i bigger problem than land-based aircraft. The Buccanner was a suberb aircraft designed from the outset as a carrier-borne aircraft, it was arguably one of our best aircraft of post-war years.
The Americans had lots of trouble navalising the British Hawk into their Goshawk carrier trainer (T45 I think).
If we don't buy American then the only alternative is the marine version of the Rafale. Any talk of navalising the Typhoon (once mooted) would be non-sensical.
O0 O0 O0 :-)) :-)) :-))