View Full Version : F-18 Ski-Jump Trials
https://twitter.com/livefist/status/1339142380000165888?s=20
SLXOwft
21st Dec 2020, 17:25
I assume I am not the only one who can't see anything in ORAC's post?
Presumably it is PPRuNe's tw*tter aversion. Boeing tw££ted a video of trial launch
https:_//_t.co/eBSaYF97sy (remove _s)
Story here amongst other places https://eurasiantimes.com/boeing-f-a-18-super-hornet-almost-ready-for-indian-navy-carriers-as-it-clears-ski-jump-test (https://eurasiantimes.com/boeing-f-a-18-super-hornet-almost-ready-for-indian-navy-carriers-as-it-clears-ski-jump-test/)
Flight Global in February:Boeing has confirmed plans to conduct ski-jump take-off tests with the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet during the first quarter of 2020.
Jeff Shockey, vice-president global sales and marketing at Boeing Defense, Space & Security, says the trials are being driven by an Indian navy fighter requirement.
India’s only carrier, the INS Vikramaditya, is equipped with a ski-jump ramp to launch aircraft, as is a second carrier - the INS Vikrant - that has yet to enter service.
Can we have some please?:} On a (slightly) serious note, might Growlers be a useful addition at a future date - are the QEs still fitted for but not with arrestor gear?
Given the price quoted I’d suggest the answer to “fitted for” is a definitive no....
NutLoose
21st Dec 2020, 19:02
I wonder if the F-18 has had any software updates to change to the angled launch as the software flies the aircraft off the Carrier.
Wensleydale
22nd Dec 2020, 10:33
They experimented with a Jaguar many years ago, although they started at the top of the ramp and ran it down to get a bit more speed......
Bob Viking
22nd Dec 2020, 11:34
There can have been few flight test jobs as terrifying as sitting in a Jaguar on the deck of a carrier.
They must have drawn straws for that one.
I would have insisted the carrier run with engines at 150% to generate 40 knots of wind over the deck and waited for the Captain to point straight into a bloody strong gale before agreeing to strap a Jaguar to a catapult.
To be fair you could show me the ODM figures and I’d still need a hell of a lot of convincing that an F18 off a ski ramp is a good idea as well. Even with its high alpha capabilities that must be a scary gig.
BV
Mogwi
22nd Dec 2020, 13:15
They experimented with a Jaguar many years ago, although they started at the top of the ramp and ran it down to get a bit more speed......
You may laugh (and many did!) but the Jag was supposed to be built for the French Navy!
Mog
To be fair, if you need the curvature of the earth to be able to climb, flat ocean is probably a good place to start......
Minnie Burner
22nd Dec 2020, 14:51
You may laugh (and many did!) but the Jag was supposed to be built for the French Navy!
Mog
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=avbIcbCG5Rs
dead_pan
22nd Dec 2020, 14:56
You may laugh (and many did!) but the Jag was supposed to be built for the French Navy!
Mog
I wondered why the French carriers were so much taller than ours...
sandiego89
22nd Dec 2020, 17:51
Perhaps of interest, a US study on ski jumps. Commented on the 1979 US Navy trials with F-14, F-18 and T-2C with the F/A-18 taking the ramp some 91 times, then goes into length about ground based use by USAF types. The F-4E was not suitable due to excessive forward stick requirements. I also seem to recall the E-2 Hawkeye was ruled out from ski jumps during US navy studies, maybe due to gear loading- can't quite recall?
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a237265.pdf
NutLoose
22nd Dec 2020, 21:17
A Jag off a carrier would come fourth at the international birdman competition.
..
SLXOwft
23rd Dec 2020, 16:04
Technical question: I have now seen ORAC's original post in Chrome on my phone and on MS Edge on my laptop but still can't in my preferred browser Firefox, any IT techies able to explain?
Back to the subject - the cynic in me wondered about the length of roll and fuel load for the clean config. Bubba's video clip starts at the base of the ramp.
Anone know if the story that the evaluation report of the Jaguar M v the (single engined) Super Etendard marked the Jag down because of it's handling characteristics with one engine is true?
sandiego89
24th Dec 2020, 00:45
Anone know if the story that the evaluation report of the Jaguar M v the (single engined) Super Etendard marked the Jag down because of it's handling characteristics with one engine is true?
It does seem that throttle response and poor single-engine performance (thrust was never a strong suite) was cited as a reason for not proceeding with the M, but my understanding the higher cost of the Jaguar M was a larger driver, meaning they could not afford the desired 100 airframes. The Super Entendard was pitched as a cheaper alternative so they could buy more airframes, quietly ignoring any single-engine worries. As it turned out, the SuE costs crept up and it was never bought in the numbers originally desired either. I also understand there was a desire to spread some work to Dassault (jobs). So sounds like a bit of politics, favoritism, under bidding and cost creep- a typical cycle!
typerated
24th Dec 2020, 03:18
I never understood why the French were involved with the Jaguar.
At the same time they were developing the Mirage F1 which is very similar to the Jag in terms of weight as well as thrust and wing loading.
Says a lot about why the Mirage F1 was the greatest fighter though!
What did a Jag do that the Mirage F1 could not?
The Super E was was few year behind but also broadly similar.
Darren_P
24th Dec 2020, 08:41
It does seem that throttle response and poor single-engine performance (thrust was never a strong suite) was cited as a reason for not proceeding with the M
Would the airbrake location mean that they couldn't be extended on landing too?
Royalistflyer
27th Dec 2020, 17:33
Getting back to the original post about FA-18s being trialled on ski jump. The Indian carrier apparently has no cat just like ours. AFAIK it is not bigger than QE or POW - so the question arises about using conventional aircraft flying off them too.
You can probably get airborne - as long as you don’t want to go anywhere or carry anything....
Martin the Martian
27th Dec 2020, 21:07
I never understood why the French were involved with the Jaguar.
At the same time they were developing the Mirage F1 which is very similar to the Jag in terms of weight as well as thrust and wing loading.
Says a lot about why the Mirage F1 was the greatest fighter though!
What did a Jag do that the Mirage F1 could not?
The Super E was was few year behind but also broadly similar.
Breguet were working on the Jag as a strike aircraft along with BAC, with Dassault developing the F.1 as a pure fighter aircraft. Of course, then Dassault developed a multi-role F.1, the two companies merged and the idea of flogging an all-French jet was a better idea than one with 'Built in UK' stamped on half of it. Hence why Jaguar exports were all chased by and signed up by BAC/BAe. And the French still got to build half of each one.
Thud_and_Blunder
27th Dec 2020, 22:01
Wasn't the Breguet 121 originally proposed as a NATO light-fighter replacement for all the Sabres and F84s rattling around? Competition eventually won by the Fiat G91. I can remember reading in 'Look and Learn' back in the 60s about the Jaguar being the replacement for the Gnat in AFTS service, too.
Royalistflyer
27th Dec 2020, 23:43
You can probably get airborne - as long as you don’t want to go anywhere or carry anything....
Then why would they bother running the tests. They seem to be trying to get an order from the Indians so the aircraft would have to be operationally capable.
Not_a_boffin
27th Dec 2020, 23:47
Then why would they bother running the tests. They seem to be trying to get an order from the Indians so the aircraft would have to be operationally capable.
As with the old joke about wildlife phots and the.lions, the Bug only has to be better than/cheaper than the Fulcrum or the Rafale.....
Asturias56
28th Dec 2020, 09:09
Wasn't the Breguet 121 originally proposed as a NATO light-fighter replacement for all the Sabres and F84s rattling around? Competition eventually won by the Fiat G91. I can remember reading in 'Look and Learn' back in the 60s about the Jaguar being the replacement for the Gnat in AFTS service, too.
I think it was Gunston who pointed out that the french wanted a strike aircraft, the British a trainer and then French used all of them for training and the British all of them for strike................
As with the old joke about wildlife phots and the.lions, the Bug only has to be better than/cheaper than the Fulcrum or the Rafale.....
https://thewire.in/security/another-crash-brings-inherent-technical-problems-with-mig-29kub-to-the-fore
I think it was Gunston who pointed out that the french wanted a strike aircraft, the British a trainer and then French used all of them for training and the British all of them for strike................
Alas, untrue.....
https://tinyurl.com/ycrx37y6
etudiant
28th Dec 2020, 17:47
Alas, untrue.....
https://tinyurl.com/ycrx37y6
Surely that says more about the quality of the 'requirements' write up than on the actual requirements.
factanonverba
6th Jan 2021, 19:13
The French Jag on the carrier trial only had one main-wheel per main axle. Was that a pre-preproduction model as UK and French front line models had double bogey main wheels per axle?
sycamore
6th Jan 2021, 20:15
Probably because the land version was supposed to go `off-piste`occasionally; not usually muddy or grassy on a tin-tub....