Joint Strike Fighter - More delays! - Page 2




 
--
 
January 17th, 2012  
Trooper1854
 
 
I reccomend people read this:

Empire of the Clouds: When Britain's Aircraft Ruled the World
by James Hamilton-Paterson.

Its a bit of an eye opener and dispels many myths.
The aviation business is as corrupt as any other.
The Lockheed F-104, and TSR2/F-111 business was nothing to other goings on.
Our poor aviators loose out everytime, having to use aircraft that can barely stay in the air yet alone carry out the mission they were meant for.
The book shows this with the Gloster Javelin.
Such a shame.
January 17th, 2012  
VDKMS
 
Businesses mixed with politics is not good for the military.
January 17th, 2012  
BritinBritain
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trooper1854
I reccomend people read this:

Empire of the Clouds: When Britain's Aircraft Ruled the World
by James Hamilton-Paterson.

Its a bit of an eye opener and dispels many myths.
The aviation business is as corrupt as any other.
The Lockheed F-104, and TSR2/F-111 business was nothing to other goings on.
Our poor aviators loose out everytime, having to use aircraft that can barely stay in the air yet alone carry out the mission they were meant for.
The book shows this with the Gloster Javelin.
Such a shame.
I was in Singapore at RAF Tengah when the Javelin was scrapped around 1968 or 1969. I thought it was an ugly and ungainly aircraft.
--
January 17th, 2012  
Trooper1854
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
I was in Singapore at RAF Tengah when the Javelin was scrapped around 1968 or 1969. I thought it was an ugly and ungainly aircraft.
The chief test pilot for Gloster had to make a crash landing in one when the tail broke off.
He only let the fire crews fight the fire long enough for him to recover the data recorders so he could prove what a piece of junk it was, then he tried to stop them putting thr fire out!
It was past its best long before it went into service but the RAF had to have it because of "Contractual obligation".
January 17th, 2012  
BritinBritain
 
 
Another crap aircraft we had in the Far East was the Westland Belvedere twin rotor chopper. It had a nasty habit of falling out of the sky.
January 17th, 2012  
Yossarian
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by George
Generally speaking the Air Force can use a carrier plane, but not the other way around. An article said the F-35B can land vertically but is a short, but not verticle, take off.

Manufacture testing on the JSF Bravo model conlcuded that for a short period of around 70 90 seconds ( I Forget) the X 35 B could take off vertically.

But that was with an empty payload, and heating concerns become critical at that point.

Lastly, there just isn't much use for that function, so I doubt it would be in the production model.

Not much use in scrambling a flight of empty VTOL jets I suppose.
January 18th, 2012  
BritinBritain
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yossarian
Manufacture testing on the JSF Bravo model conlcuded that for a short period of around 70 90 seconds ( I Forget) the X 35 B could take off vertically.

But that was with an empty payload, and heating concerns become critical at that point.

Lastly, there just isn't much use for that function, so I doubt it would be in the production model.

Not much use in scrambling a flight of empty VTOL jets I suppose.
The Harrier could do a vertical take off, put the payload had to be somewhat reduced, and the fuel used was horrific. That's why all RAF and RN Harriers did a rolling take off.
January 18th, 2012  
Trooper1854
 
 
Why the need to replace the Harrier?
It worked.
It had been continually updated and developed and had plenty of room for further development.
It was war proven, it did what it was designed to and then some.
Greatest **** up by the MOD when they took the Harrier out of service and tried to replace it with an aircraft still not proven and never likely to be.
Must have been one hell of a back hander given somewhere.
January 18th, 2012  
mmarsh
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trooper1854
Bring back the Harrier!
With all the advances in technology and materials they could have developed an aircraft thats unbeatable.
The whole JSF project has been a waste of time and money.
You cannot replace a CVOL with a STVOL. STOVL don't have the range that CVOL aircraft do as the "hovering" ability needed for landing is a gas guzzler.

Secondly you'd have to redesign the bow of every US carrier with a ramp for take off, which would screw up the operations of other older aircraft that operate from a carrier flight deck.

If the Pentagon refuses to pay for relocating the arrestor hook it sure as hell not going to pay for redesigning all 11 Carriers. Nor should it, why should taxpayers pay for LM screwups...AGAIN!

Its a disaster. Either LM fixes the flaw themselves or the entire F-35C project is scrapped.

LM has been disengenious about the F-35 from the very start, first with the gross cost overruns and now this.

And of course BOEING is going to cry "foul" because carrier operations was a basic requirement in the JSF program. Their X-32 might have won the JSF competition had this flaw been discovered sooner.
January 18th, 2012  
George
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
You cannot replace a CVOL with a STVOL. STOVL don't have the range that CVOL aircraft do as the "hovering" ability needed for landing is a gas guzzler.

Secondly you'd have to redesign the bow of every US carrier with a ramp for take off, which would screw up the operations of other older aircraft that operate from a carrier flight deck.

If the Pentagon refuses to pay for relocating the arrestor hook it sure as hell not going to pay for redesigning all 11 Carriers. Nor should it, why should taxpayers pay for LM screwups...AGAIN!

Its a disaster. Either LM fixes the flaw themselves or the entire F-35C project is scrapped.

LM has been disengenious about the F-35 from the very start, first with the gross cost overruns and now this.

And of course BOEING is going to cry "foul" because carrier operations was a basic requirement in the JSF program. Their X-32 might have won the JSF competition had this flaw been discovered sooner.
The US Harriers wen't operated off the big deck Carriers but from the Amphibious Assault Ships, no idea why they didn't install ski jumps on those where it increased the range/load considerably
 


Similar Topics
JF-17 Vs LCA Tejas
'Women should be allowed to fly fighter aircraft': IAF
Bush, Blair Resolve Dispute over Joint Strike Fighter
New delays but French rail strike to end
Opinion of the new JSF(joint strike fighter)