PPRuNe Forums


Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 23rd Aug 2010, 16:03   #21 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Pathfinder Country
Posts: 392
RP.

Spot on!

AD.
aw ditor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd Aug 2010, 17:04   #22 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bedale, North Yorkshire
Age: 62
Posts: 989
RP

Totally agree. Very sensible idea.

But it'll never happen.
taxydual is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd Aug 2010, 17:09   #23 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Roland,

A fan of BUPA are we ? So sod the rest it appears...

My mother is in a famous hospital at the moment, which would be tricky if everything was private; I agree this country can afford decent defence, but take out the true waste of bankers & politicians, not the health service.

We could be knee-deep in JSF's, Type 45 destroyers, Astute sub's and F-22's for the money THEY waste !
Double Zero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd Aug 2010, 17:28   #24 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: England
Posts: 1,817
00

Not a fan in the sense that I have, or pay for access to a private medical scheme. Would I like to be? Yes, but that is different argument. I do have relatives in a number of other nations where the health service is better at providing a service, faster, to a higher standard, in a cleaner environment and without spending such a vast amount of money.

I honestly believe that we need to look at how the NHS is run, managed, paid for and yes I do think one of the options is that you should pay for any treatment first but then you are reimbursed for LEGITIMATE operations/treatment. It would cut out the ineligible, the malingerers and time-wasters and it works very well in a number of European nations. I just think that 110 billion per year is more than this nation can afford and, therefore, we have to think differently.

Hope your mum makes a swift recovery though.
Roland Pulfrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd Aug 2010, 19:15   #25 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Roland P,

Thanks for that.

I agree there's waste in the NHS; for example each hospital bed seems like it was designed by Brunel on drugs !

However if there's a place to chop it would seem to be the admin', it sure as hell isn't those 'at the coalface'.

It's a twisted society when footballer prats are paid mega-bucks a week, and nurses get a pittance...

Back to aeroplanes, I agree that the attractive thing about going for 'cat n' trap' is it would also allow the use of Hawkeyes, but in the current financial climate I can't see any increased cost on the carriers being approved by shiny-seated polticians.

A long time ago a televised 'Gringold Report' reckoned the Sea King AEW was pushing our luck, but unless we go for something like the V-22 ( which aint' gonna happen ) we seem stuck with just upgrading it.

The F-35 is a wonderful bit of kit ( they've probably on purpose let slip a few slightly mind boggling details which I would have thought secret ) - but it's a matter of budget.

I think there might be a slim chance for Harrier II+ as it would have commonality with JFH ( if that survives ! ) and see to immediate needs, but there's no way in hell we'd ever get F-18E etc, better if spending serious money to proceed with F-35B; but that's worth several politicians & bankers' pay.
Double Zero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd Aug 2010, 19:50   #26 (permalink)


Probationary PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Plymouth
Posts: 1
Quote:
I do have relatives in a number of other nations where the health service is better at providing a service, faster, to a higher standard, in a cleaner environment and without spending such a vast amount of money.
Sorry gotta bite on this one.
Won't don't spend a vast sum of money on health care in this country. We actually spend less than the majority of other European nations (around $(US)2700 per head per annum).
Thats a lot less than France, Germany, Denmark, Australia, Canada and even Iceland. And a HUGE wedge less than the states. The only reason so much is made of it is because nearly all of it comes from Taxation rather than top-up payments or private insurance so everyone sees it.
Yet we have, IMHO, a very good but rather overworked system. It can be a bit slower than elsewhere at times, but I can assure you not by much, an in that I include the rubbish service peddled by the private sector in the UK. And although some of the hospitals are showing their age, everyone in this country has access to high quality health care free at the point of delivery regardless of means.

Don't believe everything you read the the Daily ******* Mail and their ilk.
There are far riper targets for cuts than the NHS (although a few less managers and the removal of some of Mr Brown's over regulation would be nice!).
So far as my amateur view goes, I really can't see how anyone outside the US can afford the F35, the figures are eye-watering.
DocBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd Aug 2010, 20:09   #27 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: AirshowLand
Posts: 29
Double Zero,

You have already pointed out that the production line is long since closed, thus second-hand would be required. How much usable life is likely to be in any airframes (and engines etc.) that the USMC would be prepared to hand over (their older ones?) once they get their shiny new F-35s? Surely not that much? However it might be enough to keep us going for a few years until the price of a F-35 comes down into our affordable budget. Personal view is that if 60,000 tonnes of diplomacy is what the UK wants, I think that buying into UCAV operations is the longer term solution, so anything else (F-35, F-18, others) should be considered a stop gap until then.

QA
Question_Answer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd Aug 2010, 20:48   #28 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Q-A,

I've seen Harrier II+ in build, and reckon even with acoustic vibration they have a long life !

Quite a lot beefier than GR9 etc.

There are also monitoring systens such as EUMS, and I'm quite sure RR would provide support with zero-lifed engines.

I am out of the loop now, the only UAV's I dealt with were Jindeviks, but I get the feeling there's a generation or two of Naval Pilots to go before we put our lives and country entirely in the hands of machines.
Double Zero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd Aug 2010, 21:29   #29 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Midlands
Posts: 220
Quote:
I've seen Harrier II+ in build, and reckon even with acoustic vibration they have a long life !

Quite a lot beefier than GR9 etc.

There are also monitoring systens such as EUMS, and I'm quite sure RR would provide support with zero-lifed engines.
The Harriers are all tired aircraft now sadly, and are quite a way down the path of fatigue enhancing structural upgrade. Having worked with both types and had full access to the build drawings for both, I can assure you that the HarrierII+ does not have a 'quite a lot beefier' airframe and with the Frame 29 and 19 structural enhancement mods carried out, the GR9 is arguably stronger in many ways. The GR9 and T12 fleet are also now modified so that the majority of airframes now have the FMCS (Fatigue Monitoring and Computing System) monitoring systems fitted to the aircraft.

As anyone who will have seen full power ground runs of a Harrier on Tie-Down, they shake and rattle theirselves to pieces, and this manifests itself with structural issues in the aft end and tail areas, and there is only so long you can realistically and cost effectively keep 'patching this up' Unfortunately, the II+ suffers from the exact same problems as any other Harrier in this and other regards and is itself now a tired fleet.

My own opinion of course, but should we find ourselves in the market for an F35 alternative, I personally cannot see the logic or argument for purchasing a fleet of tired aircraft which are frankly ill suited to the task, versus a fully fledged, and comparatively modern genuine multi-role aircraft, such as the F/A-18?


Flipflopman
flipflopman RB199 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd Aug 2010, 21:33   #30 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: AirshowLand
Posts: 29
If there is good life to be had, then it sounds like an idea worth the MOD to assess in a bit more detail along with F-18 - no harm in keeping options open.

Regarding UCAV operations, agreed for sometime to come there will be human in the loop whilst fully autonomous technology and doctrine matures (to solve ROE and other key contraints). However one could argue that in the BVR scenario you describe with an AMRAAM, the AAM is already a form of UCAV that once launched has its own guidance and decision making (countermeasure or real aircraft) to deliver the effect. What difference (in BVR situation) if the launch platform is actually a UCAV, the operator just happens to be sitting with a cup of coffee in his hand in a secure location miles from the action... just a thought...

QA
Question_Answer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th Aug 2010, 02:33   #31 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Flipflop,

I'm familiar with frame 29 etc, ( don't play with systems in certain conditions as breaking '29 is unpopular ) and trained first as a fitter; the II+ is very markedly stronger than a GR9, reinforced particularly for aft fuselage acoustic vibration; I've walked on the things while being built and photographed every inch; I was not a PR photographer, more an assistant to fitters and designers.

I've also been to many an engine run on GR5's and FRS1-2's, I agree it's like seeing an angry T-Rex chained down !

With a proper refit and TLC applied, there's no reason why the aircraft should appear tired, and I'd be surprised if the airframe gets anywhere near life cycles, it's the engine one has to refurbish, which is taken care of by EUMS.

Doc boy, I completely agree !

Last edited by Double Zero; 24th Aug 2010 at 09:32.
Double Zero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th Aug 2010, 17:24   #32 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Midlands
Posts: 220
00,

With respect, I think you underestimate the differences between the GR5 (ZD serials) and the factory built GR7 to GR9 (ZG serials) and this would partly explain your views on the II+ being "markedly stronger"

The GR5 in its early incarnation, was indeed a little 'underengineered' as it were, and problems with vibration and the associated cracking of structural components did begin to occur and had to be dealt with. By the time the ZG serial GR7's were under construction there was a handle on this (possibly including your own photographic evidence!) and as a result of this the ZG serial GR7's were structurally slightly different in many areas, along with the subsequent attempts to beef it up. This becomes more evident with a quick look at the differing part numbers of structural components in the early ZD batch aircraft to the later ZG batch aircraft, with the ZG serial former GR7's sharing a much higher degree of commonality with the II+ than the ZD serial former GR5's, the early ones of which rarely sharing commonality between theirselves!!

However, regardless of these facts, the Harrier - in all forms - is unfortunately now a tired aircraft, and all are suffering from the same forms of fatigue, especially around the rear end. You would perhaps be surprised to discover the extent to which this is true, and whilst not insurmountable, the aircraft will soon be reaching the stage where it is no longer cost effective.

I could go on, however, I get the sneaking suspicion that London Eye Hospital has just had its stock of glass eyes bored to sleep!!


Flipflopman
flipflopman RB199 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th Aug 2010, 18:39   #33 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
FLIPFOPMAN,

Your experience is a lot more recent than mine, though I did photograph the early GR7's, and Wittering were kind enough to invite self and Father ( Dad was no.1 crew chief on Dunsfold Trials Harriers ) last year.

I kow acoustic vibration is a major snag - it reduced the under-fuselage pylons for AMRAAM on the then FRS2 to 'warshot only' ( yes bring-back was associated too ).

When Dunsfold Instrumentation Dept. Put microhones etc in dummy missiles on those pylons, they had to look twice to believe the figures recorded !

However I still believe there's plenty of life in the aircraft, and it's difficult to think of an alternative; as I say the F-35 is potentially wonderful, though the price is a bit of a stopper, as is the point that it apparently can't operate from normal decks or concrete, which one would have thought the point of a VSTOL combat aircraft.

That may be anti-Lockheed propagada though.

In the meantime, any alternative other than Harrier looks like shooting oneself in the foot mega-bucks !
Double Zero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th Aug 2010, 18:42   #34 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
FLIPFOPMAN,

Your experience is a lot more recent than mine, though I did photograph the early GR7's, and Wittering were kind enough to invite self and Father ( Dad was no.1 crew chief on Dunsfold Trials Harriers ) last year.

The point is, are the II+ as tired ? some people say there are spare examples in the desert, while others say they're all being used.

I kow acoustic vibration is a major snag - it reduced the under-fuselage pylons for AMRAAM on the then FRS2 to 'warshot only' ( yes bring-back was associated too ).

When Dunsfold Instrumentation Dept. Put microhones etc in dummy missiles on those pylons, they had to look twice to believe the figures recorded !

However I still believe there's plenty of life in the aircraft, and it's difficult to think of an alternative; as I say the F-35 is potentially wonderful, though the price is a bit of a stopper, as is the point that it apparently can't operate from normal decks or concrete, which one would have thought the point of a VSTOL combat aircraft.

That may be anti-Lockheed propagada though.

In the meantime, any alternative other than Harrier looks like shooting oneself in the foot mega-bucks !
Double Zero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th Aug 2010, 20:11   #35 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 212
I'm not in the services any more, so have only the public information to base my opinions on, but surely the B model is a white elephant? It is hugely complex (read fragile and unreliable) and vulnerable to combat damage (could it land conventionally on the carriers if its STOVL systems were damaged?), while having a pitifully small payload and range, while the C model seems to do away with all of those issues and should be much cheaper and more likely to work. Since the Elizabeth Class carriers will have the voids for the catapult and arrestor equipment, surely the B model should be ditched?

As for a complete alternative if the whole project is canned, could EFA Typhoon be marinised like Dasault did with the Rafale? That would support British jobs and keep more of the expenditure within the British economy, so should be politically acceptable, if feasible.
Whippersnapper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th Aug 2010, 22:08   #36 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 68
Posts: 674
Hang on a Mo'....did someone suggest the vast preponderance of pointy nosed aircraft on floating bird farms were there to protect the bird farm?

If they did....give the man a Gold Star....send him to the front of the class!

Our guy Lehman and the Six Hundred Ship Navy proved that to be a fact.

As there is a shortage of CV's (the steel kind) at the moment....would not keeping the focus on land based pointy nosed things make more sense?

SVTOL pointy nosed things have some very big shortcomings....and unless doing Blue Water Navy ops....would not land based aircraft be far more bang for the buck....er Quid?

In light of past "Tri-Service" airplane projects.....is it not insane to repeat efforts hoping for different outcomes?
SASless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th Aug 2010, 04:37   #37 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
IF, and it's a big IF, the F-35B doesn't work out ( I had the privelige of working with Test Pilot Graham Tomlinson - G.T, and he wouldn't bother with a naff project, + this thing has heaps of money behind it ! ) there are some people who think a marinised Typhoon would do the trick.

A, This makes a Harrier II+ look very easy,

B, We all know how great the Spitfire was, but the Seafire markedly less so; my Father was there at the Salerno landings ( that's more like crash landings - ask him ! ).

Naval, carrier aircraft have to be designed for the job - and as I would bet my left wotsit that we won't have any more money - like cat n'trap - spent on the carriers, things like F-18's, old or new aren't going to happen; hence my suggestion of Harrier II+.
Double Zero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th Aug 2010, 10:39   #38 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
I notice the 'Daily Mail' ( ) today , Thursday 26-8-10, reckons the Sea Harrier first flew in 1960, and we're now going to lease them from the U.S. !

This would come as a bit of a surprise to Bill Bedford who first tentatively hovered the P1127 XP831 in late 1960, and John Farley who flew the first Sea Harrier XZ450 on August 21st 1978 !

I thought the image of a bunch of monkeys given typewriters was just an allusion...

Last edited by Double Zero; 25th Aug 2010 at 10:51.
Double Zero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th Aug 2010, 10:45   #39 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Devon
Age: 64
Posts: 120
I think you'll find "00" , today is Wednesday August the 25th.
grandfer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th Aug 2010, 10:54   #40 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Quite right, so much for my ***** atomic radio watch - don't stroll beneath my window for a few of your earth minutes !
Double Zero is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 00:49.


1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1