I s'pose I should get as witless as that empty-headed numbskull who you seem to admire so much and tell you to "f*ck off and die", should I?

Is that what passes for wit in the senior service nowadays?

Today's Wardroom must be a stimulating environment..... :rolleyes:

As you get paid to write, I see no margin of victory in your replies either.

Some "tired" sod's on here today.....................

And whilst the crabs bicker amongst themselves.....we shall build ships to defend this country. Yippeeeee

Spheroid
Looks like you'll have to wait a while longer .......BBC say service entry delay of 2 years? There was I thinking they wanted 'public works' jobs to fill in for the credit crunch.......should think 2 large floating airports should do the trick.......no......put it back and sack the welders/metal workers! Bloody typical if you ask me!

Off centre,

Thank you.

Elegantly and intelligently done. So much less depressing that "f*ck off and die" or "you're a condescending ****".

New Carriers
 

While I'm slightly surpised by the infantle slanging - I as ex tiny hand in the Sea Harrier 1 & 2 development take Jackonicko's stand on this one -he has the outside perspective, and internal knowledge & contacts to have a worthwhile view.

A few days ago I saw a programme on 'SKY' - obviously recorded some years ago but only out now - where a 'Navy Engineer' said 'the Sea Harrier was obviously not designed by an engineer, it's a nightmare to work on and you even have to take the wing off to get the engine out !"...

Well chum, the wing is only held on by 4 bolts, and my father could organise an engine change in 45 minutes - of course there was then the running up & calibration, first by resident Rolls Royce engineers like Mick Simmonds & Keith Wardle, then Test Pilots like John Farley.

I doubt this berk would be 'glad to see the back of it' if his ship was under attack - though that's never going to happen is it ( C*1981 ).

Rant over, my main point was...

Why am I not shocked to death to hear of delays in building the 2 carriers- both awfully but understandably neccessarily named.

I would have thought something more like the U.S. Marines Carriers might have have been more suitable, while we'll have to wait & see if the JSF works out - even I was staggered to read here the unit price to Norway of £209 million !

My only hope for the project is that Graham Tomlinson is fighting our corner.

I'm not a tactician, but if for some reason I was attacking Norway what would I rather take on, 20+ sorted out Gripens with links, or maybe 5-6 JSF's with downgraded kit ?

I will rant over just one more thing, UK Ltd had a ' three poster ' supersonic VSTOL fighter in full mock up design example at Kingston in the 1980's - it made the JSF look like the Sopwith Camel, and one version had forward swept wings, made of carbon fibre 'trained' to avoid wingtip digression.

Guess who cancelled it - the great margaret thatcher, whose poltical arse had been saved by the Harrier ( and AIM 9L, thanks largely to Test Pilot Taylor Scott - who was later killed serving his country, his family treated despicably, but eventually his widow beat the BAe teams of lawyers ).


Back to the carriers, we need them and aircraft able to operate from them, but I notice other 'poorer' countries are happy to operate ships we deemed fit for scrap or selling on...

There was a huge amount of truth in the Bird & Fortune sketch ( findadable on youtube ) " how many Admirals do we have at the moment ?" - " Oh about 85 " - " and how many warships do we have ? "

- " err, about 25 "...

Double Zero,

Thanks for your support!

I don't know where you got your JSF figures, but while it's an expensive jet, I don't think anyone's predicting £200m + yet......

The Norwegian offer was based on $58.7 m in FY02 dollars (eg about $80-90 m today), which is hopelessly over optimistic, when the USAF's own February 2008 figures suggest an eventual average unit flyaway price of about $83 m, with a post 2013 low of $79 m. They've slid up into the $90 m range since then for the F-35A, with $122 m for the F-35B.

:rolleyes:Well chum, don't you mean six.

If the aircraft are more than 100 miles off the coast then they will need AAR (based reasonably locally), in which case you could base the ac at the same place as the AAR ac, so no need for a carrier. If the carrier needs to be less than 100 miles off-shore, then it is probably too dangerous to put a 3 Billion pound asset in that position...so why buy it in the first place???



Navy Wants NG X-47B To Demo Aerial Refueling



Dec 8, 2008
By Graham Warwick


Northrop Grumman will modify the second X-47B naval unmanned combat air system demonstrator (UCAS-D) to allow autonomous aerial refuelling (AAR) using both U.S. Navy probe-and-drogue and U.S. Air Force boom-and-receptacle methods.

The U.S. Navy has announced plans to award the company a sole-source contract to support the demonstration of AAR capability by 2013, saying the X-47B is the only carrier-suitable unmanned aircraft capable of the task.

AAR would extend the surveillance and strike reach of a 2020-timeframe naval UCAS (N-UCAS) well beyond that of manned aircraft and allow carriers to engage land targets while staying out of range of anti-ship ballistic missiles.


…

Navy Wants NG X-47B To Demo Aerial Refueling | AVIATION WEEK

As a bystander and also as someone who has not seen any military service I might be talking out of turn but my tuppence worth is that if we are likely to venture, or have already ventured, into affairs requiring aerial support to back up any of our forces that cannot be provided by other safe means then do and do it now.

Like at least one other poster I can't understand that if the pack of idiots running this country want to help people with the "credit crunch" and job preservation then building them will help. I also presume a delay would also increase the unit cost thereby hurting the public purse even more.

If I'm wrong then flame away :E

Clicker

I also presume a delay would also increase the unit cost thereby hurting the public purse even more.

Yes it would appear like that to you and I, but to the Treasury.....

Modern Elmo

Over ten years ago I read that the US Navy wanted a UAV for support roles like tanking. Now that the carriers have no embarked tanker it must again be a priority. Why didn't the USN take the proven Hawkeye/Greyhound airframe and turn it into a tanker?

Now there has been progress with regards to Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landings - see this article: Happy Landings

An SRVL landing involves an aircraft executing a ‘rolling landing’ onto the carrier flight deck using air speed to provide wingborne lift to compliment engine thrust. Compared to standard vertical landing, an SRVL recovery allows heavier payloads to be brought back and landed onboard.
However, early studies revealed the F-35B had a critical vulnerability to deck motion for SRVL manoeuvres. As a result, the MOD placed a contract with QinetiQ in 2007 to devise a solution.
The Bedford Array visual landing aid system was designed to ensure pilots make an accurate approach to the deck, by combining inputs from external passive references and information in the pilot’s helmet mounted display to stabilise the approach in rough conditions.
A T4 Vectored-thrust Aircraft Advanced Control (VAAC) Harrier aircraft flew a total of 39 sorties in the southwest approaches to test the Bedford Array landing system and a total of 67 vertical landings and around 230 SRVL approaches were flown.


Once again, the UK is at the forefront of naval aviation technology. I wonder if there is export potential here? The US Marines and several other Navies will want to operate the F35B at sea and face the same challenges.

Modern Elmo

Over ten years ago I read that the US Navy wanted a UAV for support roles like tanking.

If you read that Aviation Week piece, it says the the Navy wants to demonstrate air to air refueling of a UCAV-- a carrier-capable UCAV and rather large, with a 62 foot wingspan. I suppose this UCAV could also function as a tanker..

Now that the carriers have no embarked tanker it must again be a priority. Why didn't the USN take the proven Hawkeye/Greyhound airframe and turn it into a tanker?

"Proven" - a euphemism for "old."

The USN has been wishing for years to get a new Common Support Aircraft to do what the Hawkeye/Greyhound and S3 Viking have been doing. I believe that this project remains just talk, at present.

What's happening de facto is that the USN is relying more and more on USAF tankers. I've been waiting to ask Royal Navy carrier enthusiasts, who's going to do their air-to-air refueling? RN F-35B's -> more RAF tankers needed.

Now there has been progress with regards to Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landings ...

I have a question about these SRVL landings: If an approach is boltered, will it be possible to roll off the deck and into the air again, or not? ( Waiting for some smartie to tell us, "Oh yeah, off the deck, into the air, and then ... )

"I have a question about these SRVL landings: If an approach is boltered, will it be possible to roll off the deck and into the air again, or not? ( Waiting for some smartie to tell us, "Oh yeah, off the deck, into the air, and then ... ) "

The correct grammar is that an aircraft 'Bolts', at does not 'Bolter'. An aicraft which 'Bolts is referred to as a 'Bolter', not a 'Bolterer'. The term isn't applicable to SRVL as the approach speed is well below that of a conventional landing and in any case there are no arrestor wires to miss anyway.

In the case of a SRVL "bolt", the emergency procedure is as follows:

OH :mad:

BANG

SPLASH

GLUG GLUG

And I don't recall any discussion of a "KC-2". I suspect that may be connected with the speed-at-altitude performance of a wing that was designed to loiter rather than going anywhere fast.

The bolter question is an interesting one. Why do traditional tailhook aircraft bolter? I believe it's because it's quite challenging to fly the approach at 140ish kts using the 'meatball' as your primary visual landing aid (which gives you angular information of your position relative to the glideslope so, by design, it becomes extremely sensitive to errors the closer you get to it). So when you miss all the wires you need a plan B which is to bolt and try again.

SRVL is totally different. The proposal is to touchdown at a fast taxy speed. Are there any emergencies that happen at a fast taxy speed, either on land or on the deck of a carrier, where the standard procedure is to go flying rather than try to stop? Flying the approach at 40-50ish kts, against a new concept of visual landing aids, in an airplane with some state of the art flight controls may make bolters a thing of the past.

So far SRVL looks extremely promising. We could continue to investigate it and look for solutions to its problems. Or we could throw our hands up and give up because dinosaurs in their armchairs don't get it. But if you listen to dinosaurs we wouldn't have the tank, the airplane, carrier aviation or any number of other rather useful things.

Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

JSF 'Bolter'
 

Well as I understand it, the F-35B has only fractional forward nozzle braking ( maybe none if the noseleg is compressed ) so I can imagine that yes, if landing a bit forward on a wet deck, going around may well seem attractive - though I haven't a clue about the spool-up time of such a relatively big engine.

No-one has yet explained to me why, after so much STOVL experience with Harrier, this carefully renamed RSVL was not included from day one.

I am aware nozzle braking in a Harrier is not popular on wet decks, even less so on land due to kicking up ready to eat FOD, but maybe the tractor beam on the 'future' carriers can take care of that.

JackoNicko, I got the figure of $209 million per F-35A to Norway ( high unit cost due to small order, I still can't believe they're not considering the future Gripen - shades of Starfighter ?! ) from either a mention on here or a recent magazine; will try to trawl through the tinsel & PM you.

Double Zero:

One "day one" the P1127 was a VTOL beast. The undercarriage layout built into the P1127 from the day the engine got a second set of vectoring nozzles meant that a fairly low fraction of the current Harrier's weight is carried (on the deck/ground) by wheels that actually have brakes on them. Thus the braking performance is rather feeble compared to more conventionally arranged aircraft and also the F-35B. So the rather fundamental differences between Harrier and F-35B might mean that not every "truth" about V/STOL aviation as we have come to know it is directly applicable to the future.

That said, more than one Harrier has done a full-stop SRVL when the situation demanded.

Questions:

These proposed aircraft carriers lack angled deck extensions, correct?

So, in the EXTREMELY UNLIKELY EVENT that a roll-until-you-stop landing attempt fails, the boltering aircraft will have to roll toward the bow. This implies no aircraft on deck ahead, which implies no nearly simultaneous landings and take-offs, correct? Aircraft A will have to land before aircraft A can be positioned in front of one of the jet blast deflectors, which can't be raised until A is clear, correct?

Or does the RN plan to use to some sort of crash barricade, a.k.a. big volleyball net, on these ships? And how far from the stern are the two (?) jet blast deflectors located?

Here is the current plan of CVF as shown on : Royal Navy

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/img/navy....jpg&width=800


And another artist's view :

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b3...RRIER-2_hi.jpg