More delays for the F-35
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: The Chemistry Lab
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its been said before and it bears repeating. By the time the F-35C is available, unmanned aircraft technology will have advanced to the point where drones will be able to carry out this "first day strike" role deemed so neccessary.
Delays can only get worse - not lesser - and its going to be at least 15 years before the -35C is ready. In that time we could have purchased a mixed fleet of F-18 variants for interim use while the drone technology is optimised, and which could be relegated to lesser duties when the drones come online.
The F-35 in ANY of its variants can only ever be an expensive stopgap as the last of the manned fighters before the whole business becomes unmanned. Not only that, but the current stealth technology is a failure from a useability point of view anyway - failing coatings, massive repair overheads in time and cost. By the time the aircraft comes online the technology will be outdated anyway. Time to slash and burn and kill the project completely
Delays can only get worse - not lesser - and its going to be at least 15 years before the -35C is ready. In that time we could have purchased a mixed fleet of F-18 variants for interim use while the drone technology is optimised, and which could be relegated to lesser duties when the drones come online.
The F-35 in ANY of its variants can only ever be an expensive stopgap as the last of the manned fighters before the whole business becomes unmanned. Not only that, but the current stealth technology is a failure from a useability point of view anyway - failing coatings, massive repair overheads in time and cost. By the time the aircraft comes online the technology will be outdated anyway. Time to slash and burn and kill the project completely
Last edited by COCL2; 12th Jan 2012 at 23:51.
kbrockman,
All good points, but why do we need a gun that fires 10,000 rounds per minute when the box (in the case of the the F35) can only hold 180 or 220 rounds? I know I'll get corrected here, but we can (sorry, could) drive our guns electrically (only to spin the fly wheel we were talking about earlier), it's gas pressure from the fired rounds that drive most guns, init?
Lighter guns, fine. But guns for the job we want them to do. Have I misunderstood your point? Sorry if I have. Also the gun in the picture (could it be a bit smaller?), doesn't look a bit like the Gatling equivalent of an AK47? Only because I like big guns, I guess.
Oh, and I don't think we would want to be relliant on the Russians for our gun parts (I know you weren't suggesting that).
Courtney
EDIT: COCL2, very good points too. You'll find find my thoughts about that somewhere around here. F-18 could well be the answer. What gun's it got?
All good points, but why do we need a gun that fires 10,000 rounds per minute when the box (in the case of the the F35) can only hold 180 or 220 rounds? I know I'll get corrected here, but we can (sorry, could) drive our guns electrically (only to spin the fly wheel we were talking about earlier), it's gas pressure from the fired rounds that drive most guns, init?
Lighter guns, fine. But guns for the job we want them to do. Have I misunderstood your point? Sorry if I have. Also the gun in the picture (could it be a bit smaller?), doesn't look a bit like the Gatling equivalent of an AK47? Only because I like big guns, I guess.
Oh, and I don't think we would want to be relliant on the Russians for our gun parts (I know you weren't suggesting that).
Courtney
EDIT: COCL2, very good points too. You'll find find my thoughts about that somewhere around here. F-18 could well be the answer. What gun's it got?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney Mil
I think you where reading too much in my post.
I'm in no way suggesting we should use the GSH cannons iso the GAU22,
I was just asking Engines if he knows why the Russians go with the simpler, faster,lighter technique while we seem to use a more complex system to drive our Gatling guns.
Maybe there is some good reason for it, I just don't know what that reason is
but that has everything to do with my general lack of knowledge when it comes to Guns.
I'm in no way suggesting we should use the GSH cannons iso the GAU22,
I was just asking Engines if he knows why the Russians go with the simpler, faster,lighter technique while we seem to use a more complex system to drive our Gatling guns.
Maybe there is some good reason for it, I just don't know what that reason is
but that has everything to do with my general lack of knowledge when it comes to Guns.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kbrockman
"why the Russians go with the simpler, faster,lighter technique while we seem to use a more complex system "
You don't really need to ask that do you? Its because complexity = cost overruns = more profit
Remember - whats good for the corporation is good for the country!
You don't really need to ask that do you? Its because complexity = cost overruns = more profit
Remember - whats good for the corporation is good for the country!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 64
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reminds me of the old story about the need for folks who go into space to be able to write.
NASA spent a significant amount of money developing a pressurised ball point pen...the Soviet cosmonauts were given pencils.
NASA spent a significant amount of money developing a pressurised ball point pen...the Soviet cosmonauts were given pencils.
Trackmaster,
Pure BS I'm afraid. The NASA space pen was developed by a private US company for $1m with no NASA funding. The product was a commercial success before NASA ordered it. When they did order it they paid around $7 per pen. It was so successful that two years later the Russians also ordered it for use on the Soyuz programme as it was much more effective than the grease pencils they had been using hitherto.
Pure BS I'm afraid. The NASA space pen was developed by a private US company for $1m with no NASA funding. The product was a commercial success before NASA ordered it. When they did order it they paid around $7 per pen. It was so successful that two years later the Russians also ordered it for use on the Soyuz programme as it was much more effective than the grease pencils they had been using hitherto.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"why the Russians go with the simpler, faster,lighter technique while we seem to use a more complex system "
You don't really need to ask that do you? Its because complexity = cost overruns = more profit
Remember - whats good for the corporation is good for the country!
You don't really need to ask that do you? Its because complexity = cost overruns = more profit
Remember - whats good for the corporation is good for the country!
Is the pencil vs ball point pen statements more to do with fiction? My bank gave me one of the alleged biro that can work in conditions that are never ever experienced here in sunny Torquay, nice pen but I'm told they are quite expensive.
As it happened, they didn't need a pressurised pen. Whilst an ordinary ball point doesn't woek very well upside down on Earth, they work perfectly well at zero g. Pencils are not good in space as the bits of broken off graphite get into electical stuff.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: The Chemistry Lab
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the biggest problem with a ballpoint pen in space is the ink coming out the wrong end through capillary action and / or reduced air pressure and creating a mess?
Anyway back to topic
Press reports say the first F-35B was delivered to the Marine Corps on Wednesday
Anyway back to topic
Press reports say the first F-35B was delivered to the Marine Corps on Wednesday
Last edited by COCL2; 13th Jan 2012 at 11:09.
Apparently the cartridge is too wide and the capilary action only happens at the pointy end. Mind you, I've never tried it so you may well be right.
Where did you find the F35B report, COCL2?
Where did you find the F35B report, COCL2?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, a bit of guns stuff - lovely...
What's interesting (at least to some of us) is how conservative the US have been for some years as far guns are concerned. Having settled on gatlings in the 1960s, they have stuck with that basic design since. The core of the current M61 can be traced right back to 1930s designs or even earlier. They have always valued a high sustained rate of fire over just about any other parameter, and their aircraft have been large enough to carry the guns (and large ammo tanks) that resulted. The other side of the coin is that they have not, for many years now, had many teams capable of designing a decent gas or recoil powered gun or cannon. Mind you, nor has the UK - we are still using 1930s technology Browning M2s).
The Russians, by contrast, took a very different approach, and have appeared to go for guns and cannon that are as self contained as possible so that they can be used in a variety of platforms. They have also had very talented design teams that could produce clever stuff. So, self powered gatlings....
The 'Hind' was, for many years, armed with a 4 barrel .50 calibre gatling in the chin turret - the Yak B gun. It makes an interesting comparison with, say, the M3M .50 Browning design we still use. Lighter, fabulous rate of fire, and ever so simple - but clever. Basically, ports in the barrels allow gas to be tapped off to drive a sleeve around all four barrels that moves fore and aft - working a bit like a pump screwdriver, this sleeve then rotates the barrel group to feed new rounds in, and the gun stays going. It's started by a coiled spring up the centre of the four barrels, and if that doesn't work, there are three starter cartridges fired electrically to get things going.
The bigger russian gatlings show, however, that staying self powered brings problems. The challenges of using gas power at 23mm and then 30mm are FAR harder than at 12.7mm, and there are big issues with recoil loads and other stuff. They were not able to simply 'scale up' the 12.7mm design, and the larger gatlings had reliability issues as well. If you don't go with multiple barrels, then revolvers are need for high rates of fire. But, revolvers can be very hard work to make effectively, which I believe is why the US have stayed with the Gatling.
So... the russians went for a gas powered design in the Flanker, but discarded revolvers and went for a more conventional 'linear' design with a fore and aft moving bolt and breech. It's a bit like a 30mm GPMG. They sacrificed muzzle velocity and rate of fire in favour of a heavy 30mm shell, and I have a suspicion that they have some form of advanced gunsight to improve kill probability. But the biggest win is weight - the gun weighs just over 100 pounds, and is called the 'Ballerina' - slim, light but powerful.
There IS a half way house, and that's the larget gun ever fitted to a helicopter - the Russian twin barrelled Gsh-30-2 automatic cannon fitted externally on some Hinds. One gun, two barrels, operated by combination of gas and recoil, huge great 30mm high velocity rounds like the A-10. And weighs a fraction of the A-10 gun.
You may have guessed that I am a bit interested in this stuff - mainly because it's an area where you get a lot of interplay between requirements, technology, pure engineering, dogma and politics. The decision to remove the gun from the Harrier GR5 and then the Typhoon was driven by one RAF senior officer who had decided that 'guns were outmoded'. The debates on the F-35 programme over guns were no less emotive and not much better informed.
Courtney, hope this helps a bit
Best regards
Engines
What's interesting (at least to some of us) is how conservative the US have been for some years as far guns are concerned. Having settled on gatlings in the 1960s, they have stuck with that basic design since. The core of the current M61 can be traced right back to 1930s designs or even earlier. They have always valued a high sustained rate of fire over just about any other parameter, and their aircraft have been large enough to carry the guns (and large ammo tanks) that resulted. The other side of the coin is that they have not, for many years now, had many teams capable of designing a decent gas or recoil powered gun or cannon. Mind you, nor has the UK - we are still using 1930s technology Browning M2s).
The Russians, by contrast, took a very different approach, and have appeared to go for guns and cannon that are as self contained as possible so that they can be used in a variety of platforms. They have also had very talented design teams that could produce clever stuff. So, self powered gatlings....
The 'Hind' was, for many years, armed with a 4 barrel .50 calibre gatling in the chin turret - the Yak B gun. It makes an interesting comparison with, say, the M3M .50 Browning design we still use. Lighter, fabulous rate of fire, and ever so simple - but clever. Basically, ports in the barrels allow gas to be tapped off to drive a sleeve around all four barrels that moves fore and aft - working a bit like a pump screwdriver, this sleeve then rotates the barrel group to feed new rounds in, and the gun stays going. It's started by a coiled spring up the centre of the four barrels, and if that doesn't work, there are three starter cartridges fired electrically to get things going.
The bigger russian gatlings show, however, that staying self powered brings problems. The challenges of using gas power at 23mm and then 30mm are FAR harder than at 12.7mm, and there are big issues with recoil loads and other stuff. They were not able to simply 'scale up' the 12.7mm design, and the larger gatlings had reliability issues as well. If you don't go with multiple barrels, then revolvers are need for high rates of fire. But, revolvers can be very hard work to make effectively, which I believe is why the US have stayed with the Gatling.
So... the russians went for a gas powered design in the Flanker, but discarded revolvers and went for a more conventional 'linear' design with a fore and aft moving bolt and breech. It's a bit like a 30mm GPMG. They sacrificed muzzle velocity and rate of fire in favour of a heavy 30mm shell, and I have a suspicion that they have some form of advanced gunsight to improve kill probability. But the biggest win is weight - the gun weighs just over 100 pounds, and is called the 'Ballerina' - slim, light but powerful.
There IS a half way house, and that's the larget gun ever fitted to a helicopter - the Russian twin barrelled Gsh-30-2 automatic cannon fitted externally on some Hinds. One gun, two barrels, operated by combination of gas and recoil, huge great 30mm high velocity rounds like the A-10. And weighs a fraction of the A-10 gun.
You may have guessed that I am a bit interested in this stuff - mainly because it's an area where you get a lot of interplay between requirements, technology, pure engineering, dogma and politics. The decision to remove the gun from the Harrier GR5 and then the Typhoon was driven by one RAF senior officer who had decided that 'guns were outmoded'. The debates on the F-35 programme over guns were no less emotive and not much better informed.
Courtney, hope this helps a bit
Best regards
Engines
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another bit of news from the F35 front, not all bad, not all good;
F-35B Weight Margins Pretty Thin, OSD Testers Say
Seeing that most of our forces are most likely dependant on how this
fighter performs, let's keep hope up but stay skeptical at the same time.
As for the article, a redesign to improve the survivability under fire (this is
most likely for all versions) probably doesn't bode well for the ,already
problematic, weight issue(s).
F-35B Weight Margins Pretty Thin, OSD Testers Say
F-35B Weight Margins Pretty Thin, OSD Testers Say
By Colin Clark
Published: January 13, 2012
......
The overall conclusion is that the most expensive conventional weapon in Pentagon history is doing, well, not too bad -- but not nearly as well as it should.
In terms of flight tests, the Navy version is 32 percent ahead of the new schedule, while the Air Force version is 11 percent behind and the Marine version lags 9 percent behind the new schedule.
Perhaps the most interesting item in the report comes from the full-up system-level testing. In live fire testing -- when they actually shoot stuff at the test item and analyze the results -- testers found "the fuel tank inserting system is incapable of providing protection from threat-induced fuel tank explosions during some critical segments of combat missions when the aircraft is most likely to be hit." This system, the report says, is being "redesigned" as a result of the testing. The new system will be tested again to see if it works.
etc,etc,etc.....
By Colin Clark
Published: January 13, 2012
......
The overall conclusion is that the most expensive conventional weapon in Pentagon history is doing, well, not too bad -- but not nearly as well as it should.
In terms of flight tests, the Navy version is 32 percent ahead of the new schedule, while the Air Force version is 11 percent behind and the Marine version lags 9 percent behind the new schedule.
Perhaps the most interesting item in the report comes from the full-up system-level testing. In live fire testing -- when they actually shoot stuff at the test item and analyze the results -- testers found "the fuel tank inserting system is incapable of providing protection from threat-induced fuel tank explosions during some critical segments of combat missions when the aircraft is most likely to be hit." This system, the report says, is being "redesigned" as a result of the testing. The new system will be tested again to see if it works.
etc,etc,etc.....
fighter performs, let's keep hope up but stay skeptical at the same time.
As for the article, a redesign to improve the survivability under fire (this is
most likely for all versions) probably doesn't bode well for the ,already
problematic, weight issue(s).
testers found "the fuel tank inserting system is incapable of providing protection from threat-induced fuel tank explosions during some critical segments of combat missions when the aircraft is most likely to be hit." This system, the report says, is being "redesigned" as a result of the testing. The new system will be tested again to see if it works.
To the layman, the 'obvious' solution is to restrict or close the tank vents. Unfortunately this turns the tank into a partial vacuum chamber, making risk of tank implosion an additional hazard for the designer to think about. Its even more serious if your tank walls are wing skins.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
evaluation test report JSF
For those who are interested (if not already posted before),..
The evaluation rapport
Section on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter from 2011 Annual DOT&E Report
The evaluation rapport
Section on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter from 2011 Annual DOT&E Report
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mechta
why not use a bladder / "bag in the box" tank? Or does that bring more problems?
why not use a bladder / "bag in the box" tank? Or does that bring more problems?