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 6891 times)

RaaArtyGunner

  • Guest
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #50 on: January 25, 2012, 11:53:12 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

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.

Logged

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,639
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #51 on: January 26, 2012, 12:29:19 AM »

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
Logged

Bryan Young

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,894
  • Location: Whitley Bay
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #52 on: January 26, 2012, 11:59:34 AM »

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.
Logged
Notes from a simple seaman

John W E

  • I see no ships !!
  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,541
  • Location: South shields
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #53 on: January 26, 2012, 01:31:22 PM »

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
Logged

deadbeat

  • Guest
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #54 on: January 26, 2012, 02:52:53 PM »

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.
Logged

gingyer

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,573
  • Location: Glasgow
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #55 on: January 26, 2012, 03:31:53 PM »

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
Logged

RaaArtyGunner

  • Guest
Re: Yet another M.O.D. fiasco.
« Reply #56 on: January 26, 2012, 09:37:46 PM »

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 :-)) :-)) :-))
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up