Joint Strike Fighter - More delays!

Trooper1854

Trooper1854

The Brit Pack
Just heard on the BBC the the JSF can't land on aircraft carriers because they've put the arrestor hook in the wrong place!!!!!!
Who have they got working on this thing, the three stooges?:stupid:
And we gave up the Harrier for this thing!
 
Trooper1854 said:
Just heard on the BBC the the JSF can't land on aircraft carriers because they've put the arrestor hook in the wrong place!!!!!!
Who have they got working on this thing, the three stooges?:stupid:
And we gave up the Harrier for this thing!
Click to expand...

It doesn't look good for the F-35C. (F-35 Lightning II News) I think the RN will have to choose a replacement. The F-35B (VTOL, like the Harrier) or the A/F18-E or the French Rafale (unlikely).
 
BritinAfrica said:
The Nimrod was a bit of a pigs ear right from the start, she never did what she was supposed to do.

As for the new fighters for the Royal Navy, I wonder if the Euro fighter would stack up? From what I hear RAF crews quite like it.
Click to expand...


Intense redesign of the airframe and the wing structure as well as major structual reinforcing of the landing gear would have to be done.

Essentially what you would get is a slightly heavier EuroFighter but I have no idea how well the aerodynamically unstable design ( kept stable while aloft almost entirelly by computers) would handle under slow speed landing and take off conditions out at sea.

But I guess is the French Rafale Can do it I suppose it can be done with the Eurofighter.

Of course after all the modification and the money spent...It would probally exceed the cost of the JSF program in the first place.
 
Good points. Perhaps they ought to bring back the Harriers.

This remind's me of when the MOD scrapped the Lee Enfield Number sniper rifle and sold them off for peanuts. They then realised they didn't have a rifle to replace it with, so they had to buy back as many as they could at inflated prices.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
There was a super sonic version of the Harrier on the drawing board that got scrapped. Perhaps they should build that.
 
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.
 
Trooper1854 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
BritinAfrica said:
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.
Click to expand...

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".
 
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.
 
George said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Yossarian said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.:shoothea:
Must have been one hell of a back hander given somewhere.
 
Trooper1854 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
mmarsh said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top