JSF.........ANY THOUGHTS

[mid life update]

The downselection for JSF is scheduled for its decision in October. Which version will suit us best and are we "Totally onboard " with the USA on this one. I personally think this is a much better route than any "European partnership programme".

Any thoughts anyone.....

[Booger]

Most people probably expect the Lockheed-Martin proposal to win - due to the more conventional layout and LM's Raptor experience.

Personally, I reckon the winner is going to be harder to pick than a broken nose...

I don't know what is best for the RAF, but from what little I can glean from the two proposals, the Boeing variant looks to be a safer bet - using a basic "Harrier" thrust-vectoring system for STOVL has to be simpler than the LM lift-fan system with its myriad of additional sub-systems and unfielded technology.

Anyone else for Boeing versus Lockheed-Martin argument?? :p

[Red Snow]

On the other hand, from what little could be gleaned publicly from the flight test programme, it would appear that Boeing were right on the edge as far as hover lift was concerned, whereas LM were doing VTOs in the high desert at 96 F with less than full throttle.

[Hong Kong Fuey]

And lets be honest about it - the Boeing version looks like a Basking Shark. At least the LM jet looks good!

[Reheat On]

And UIAVMM both lead test jocks on each programme are Brits :-)

The competition was always intended to be a boiling down process, with the loser likely becoming a major subbie for the production models.

[Red Snow]

Not quite true, Reheat. LM certainly - but Boeing X-32B CTP is ex-USMC AV-8B. Both teams have a Brit service pilot each.

[Jim Haskins]

Anyone asked the Americans? The Navy are happy (So the politicians tell them) with the Super Hornet and would not shed a tear if JSF folded and everyone bought the F18E/F.... The US Marine decision is very important!

How late will JSF be? We are decades behind in military procurment, lets buy something that has been tested and on time......

If we don't fly capable jets in the 'RAF of today' then we should'nt be shocked when no one asks us to play with the big boys..........

When do we want it? NOW...

Whoops too late

[BEagle]

Even if both jets are on time and on budget now (and I agree that the Boeing one is utterly hideous to look at!), when would they make the front line after les girls at KwintyKwoo had finished bug gering about with them? 5 years late? By the way, what's the latest estimate for Bureaufighter to enter squadron service? This year? Next year?? Sometime??? Never????

[John Farley]

An aircraft that can hover before it lands offers considerable advantages in regard to operating site flexibility. Also, during an approach to a hover, there is much more flexibility with regard to track, speed and approach angles compared to the conventional fast jet approach case. The Harrier family has offered these operational advantages for over 30 years. It is what STOVL is all about.

However, the Harrier has never broken free from the constraints of a limited thrust weight ratio. As the thrust has increased over those 30 years so has the aircraft weight. As a result, its ability to land back from the hover with a full range of expensive weapons has been limited effectively to cold temperatures and sea level altitudes.

So for me, any Harrier replacement must break out from this bind. If it does not offer a step change in hover payload capability please don’t waste my taxpayer’s money on it.

Of the two JSF B model prototypes one is “relatively” simple and uses only direct jet lift from its 119 while the other is more mechanically complex and couples a shaft driven fan to essentially the same engine when it joins the circuit.

Somebody will doubtless correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that giving up say 6000lb of direct lift to drive a fan that is going to return you some 18000lb of lift is a very good piloting deal in regard to the all important hover capability that the Harrier lacks.

But what about the mechanical complexity involved? Where would the Harrier have been if it had not been simple and thus reliable? Not in service with anybody is probably the answer to that.

But we are 35 years on from the days when the Harrier was designed. My motorcar in those days was powered by a very simple Ford 100E (ah!) 64 BHP side valve engine and the wipers were driven by vacuum because nobody trusted electrics. The car was far from reliable despite its 1000 mile servicing schedule. Today my car is so mechanically and electrically complex that my mind boggles. But it is also totally reliable (no need to even touch wood) and needs negligible servicing despite being turbocharged and producing 220 BHP. It also does more mpg than my 100E and reaches the top speed of that Ford in second gear out of six.

So that is why I would pick the JSF that has the much better hover performance, even if it is more complex than the Harrier.

[BEagle]

64 BHP from a 100E, John? I thought that 37 BHP was about all the wheezing old lump was capable of. Remember how the wipers went nuts when you backed off to change down from top to second (Yes - only 3 speed and no synchro on 1st, Chums) and then hardly moved when you tried to overtake? The hissing, wheezing sound of the dreaded Ford 100E - once sampled, never loved!! 1970, went touring to Jockland with 2 mates in my 100E. Up on 4 cylinders, back on 2!!

[John Farley]

Know what you mean Beags, but an ali head, better manifolds and twin SUs did help. Then you needed a 2 speed high/low ratio box fitted instead of the main box extension housing (which gave six forward and two reverse) plus an A frame to locate the rear axle blah blah blah - never did sort out the brakes though. Still it went from Jever to Bodo and back.