Model Boat Mayhem

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length.
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.  (Read 6857 times)

john s 2

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,184
  • Location: Southend on Sea Essex
Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« 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.
Logged

DavieTait

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,122
  • Location: Fraserburgh
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #1 on: January 15, 2012, 10:46:28 PM »

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 !!!
Logged
Davie Tait,
Scotland

john s 2

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,184
  • Location: Southend on Sea Essex
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #2 on: January 15, 2012, 10:50:10 PM »

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.
Logged

DavieTait

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,122
  • Location: Fraserburgh
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #3 on: January 15, 2012, 10:54:19 PM »

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 !!
Logged
Davie Tait,
Scotland

raflaunches

  • Guest
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #4 on: January 15, 2012, 11:04:57 PM »

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
Logged

john s 2

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,184
  • Location: Southend on Sea Essex
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #5 on: January 15, 2012, 11:13:19 PM »

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.
Logged

DavieTait

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,122
  • Location: Fraserburgh
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #6 on: January 15, 2012, 11:17:11 PM »

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.

Logged
Davie Tait,
Scotland

raflaunches

  • Guest
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #7 on: January 15, 2012, 11:29:33 PM »

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
Logged

Norseman

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,484
  • Location: Huyton, Liverpool
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #8 on: January 16, 2012, 01:55:58 AM »

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
Logged

RaaArtyGunner

  • Guest
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #9 on: January 16, 2012, 08:37:20 AM »

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.
Logged

pugwash

  • Guest
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #10 on: January 16, 2012, 09:45:22 AM »

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
Logged

RaaArtyGunner

  • Guest
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #11 on: January 16, 2012, 10:43:26 AM »

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.
Logged

roycv

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,484
  • Location: S.W. Herts
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #12 on: January 16, 2012, 01:23:14 PM »

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
Logged

DavieTait

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,122
  • Location: Fraserburgh
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #13 on: January 16, 2012, 04:12:53 PM »

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
Logged
Davie Tait,
Scotland

philk

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 279
  • Location: west kent
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #14 on: January 16, 2012, 05:42:55 PM »

"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.
Logged

RaaArtyGunner

  • Guest
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #15 on: January 16, 2012, 09:19:49 PM »

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
Logged

RaaArtyGunner

  • Guest
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #16 on: January 16, 2012, 09:32:14 PM »

"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

Logged

CF-FZG

  • Guest
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #17 on: January 16, 2012, 10:39:47 PM »

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.
Logged

philk

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 279
  • Location: west kent
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #18 on: January 16, 2012, 11:40:04 PM »


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
Logged

gingyer

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,570
  • Location: Glasgow
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #19 on: January 17, 2012, 10:30:36 AM »

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.
Logged

pugwash

  • Guest
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #20 on: January 17, 2012, 11:15:08 AM »

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
Logged

gingyer

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,570
  • Location: Glasgow
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #21 on: January 17, 2012, 11:58:41 AM »

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
Logged

roycv

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,484
  • Location: S.W. Herts
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #22 on: January 20, 2012, 11:43:39 PM »



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




Logged

brianB6

  • Guest
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #23 on: January 21, 2012, 12:06:58 AM »

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!  <:(
Logged

CF-FZG

  • Guest
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #24 on: January 21, 2012, 10:10:53 AM »

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.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up