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 6856 times)

Netleyned

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,985
  • Location: Meridian Line, Mouth of the Humber
    • cleethorpes mba
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #25 on: January 21, 2012, 10:19:08 AM »

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
Logged
Smooth seas never made skilful sailors
Up Spirits  Stand fast the Holy Ghost.
http://www.cleethorpesmba.co.uk/

roycv

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,484
  • Location: S.W. Herts
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #26 on: January 21, 2012, 01:29:36 PM »

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
Logged

Shipmate60

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,373
  • You bark - I will bite!!!
  • Location: Fareham
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #27 on: January 21, 2012, 03:20:50 PM »

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
Logged
Officially a GOG.

CF-FZG

  • Guest
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #28 on: January 21, 2012, 03:24:07 PM »

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.
Logged

Netleyned

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,985
  • Location: Meridian Line, Mouth of the Humber
    • cleethorpes mba
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #29 on: January 21, 2012, 03:30:22 PM »

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
Logged
Smooth seas never made skilful sailors
Up Spirits  Stand fast the Holy Ghost.
http://www.cleethorpesmba.co.uk/

Shipmate60

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,373
  • You bark - I will bite!!!
  • Location: Fareham
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #30 on: January 21, 2012, 03:52:25 PM »

Ned
The pilot or navigator would change them in flight.

Bob
Logged
Officially a GOG.

Netleyned

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,985
  • Location: Meridian Line, Mouth of the Humber
    • cleethorpes mba
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #31 on: January 21, 2012, 04:10:27 PM »

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
Logged
Smooth seas never made skilful sailors
Up Spirits  Stand fast the Holy Ghost.
http://www.cleethorpesmba.co.uk/

CF-FZG

  • Guest
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #32 on: January 21, 2012, 04:19:37 PM »

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.
Logged

Umi_Ryuzuki

  • Guest
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #33 on: January 21, 2012, 06:59:11 PM »

You don't need no stink'n tail hook....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki86x1WKPmE

 %)
Logged

RaaArtyGunner

  • Guest
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #34 on: January 21, 2012, 10:39:07 PM »

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.
Logged

pugwash

  • Guest
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #35 on: January 22, 2012, 12:20:31 AM »

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
Logged

RaaArtyGunner

  • Guest
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #36 on: January 22, 2012, 01:33:34 AM »

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
Logged

RaaArtyGunner

  • Guest
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #37 on: January 25, 2012, 01:00:20 PM »

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/.
Logged

Circlip

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,735
  • Location: North of Watford, South of Hadrians wall
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #38 on: January 25, 2012, 03:16:45 PM »

Anybody heard that they're tightening the rivets and putting new valves (fiery transistors) and spark plugs in the Shackleton's??   :o

  Regards   Ian.
Logged
You might not like what I say, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
 
What I said is not what you  think you heard.

Bryan Young

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,894
  • Location: Whitley Bay
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #39 on: January 25, 2012, 05:10:02 PM »

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.
Logged
Notes from a simple seaman

Netleyned

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,985
  • Location: Meridian Line, Mouth of the Humber
    • cleethorpes mba
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #40 on: January 25, 2012, 05:18:21 PM »

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
Logged
Smooth seas never made skilful sailors
Up Spirits  Stand fast the Holy Ghost.
http://www.cleethorpesmba.co.uk/

pugwash

  • Guest
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #41 on: January 25, 2012, 06:11:26 PM »

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
Logged

Circlip

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,735
  • Location: North of Watford, South of Hadrians wall
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #42 on: January 25, 2012, 07:42:54 PM »

They had to be built like tanks so the WAFU's didn't rip their bums off.

  Regards  Ian.
Logged
You might not like what I say, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
 
What I said is not what you  think you heard.

roycv

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,484
  • Location: S.W. Herts
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #43 on: January 25, 2012, 07:50:22 PM »

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
Logged

CF-FZG

  • Guest
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #44 on: January 25, 2012, 09:16:43 PM »

They had to be built like tanks so the WAFU's didn't rip their bums off.

 :-)) :} :} :-))
Oh how true ;)
Logged

CF-FZG

  • Guest
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #45 on: January 25, 2012, 09:33:43 PM »

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.
Logged

RaaArtyGunner

  • Guest
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #46 on: January 25, 2012, 09:41:26 PM »

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.
Logged

CF-FZG

  • Guest
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #47 on: January 25, 2012, 10:24:34 PM »

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.
Logged

RaaArtyGunner

  • Guest
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #48 on: January 25, 2012, 11:24:00 PM »

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.
Logged

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,589
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #49 on: January 25, 2012, 11:35:56 PM »

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
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up