No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent post John.
Have we not seen similar (not identical) scenarios where the A-10, though clearly not as pointy as other pointy things seems to be a really effective type for it's role and is not easily replaceable, and also with the B52 which soldiers on even though the B-1& B-2 surpass it on almost any technological level.
When you consider what the USMC already hangs off the Harrier 2s and 2+s, how long before it has a Storm Shadow / Scalp equivalent stand off weapon?
Have we not seen similar (not identical) scenarios where the A-10, though clearly not as pointy as other pointy things seems to be a really effective type for it's role and is not easily replaceable, and also with the B52 which soldiers on even though the B-1& B-2 surpass it on almost any technological level.
When you consider what the USMC already hangs off the Harrier 2s and 2+s, how long before it has a Storm Shadow / Scalp equivalent stand off weapon?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back of beyond!
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course, the Govt could cancel the QE Class and procure the A-model post-2015.....
Cheapest of all three and I'm guessing that, by then at least, 5 years without Maritime Strike may or may not have embarrassed said Govt
Cheapest of all three and I'm guessing that, by then at least, 5 years without Maritime Strike may or may not have embarrassed said Govt
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: W Sussex
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see Herr Goering of The Register has been allowed out again.
Cameron 'to change his mind' on the one thing he got right in Defence ? The Register
Such angst
Cameron 'to change his mind' on the one thing he got right in Defence ? The Register
Such angst
JF
A good post, but...
There is one thing that SHar always lacked and that was speed for air-to-air. Three things come to mind:
1. High Value Air Asset Defence (HVAAD) sometimes you need to cut the corner on a 'leaker' that is going for the asset you're protecting.
2. Supersonic launch gives a 10-20% launch success zone (LSZ) to missiles like BVRAAM/AMRAAM. Plus a block 5+ launch puts a further throw on missiles. You want to schwack the enemy long before it gets anywhere near your fleet or other assets, so long rockets are a vital capability.
3. Chase down and disengagement speed is a vital for an Air Defence fighter.
I know the SHar did well in the FIs, but the air to air threat wasn't really credible IMHO.
Just my 2 penneth, and as always, aircraft selection is a compromise - it just depends on what capability that were willing to sacrifice.
LJ
A good post, but...
There is one thing that SHar always lacked and that was speed for air-to-air. Three things come to mind:
1. High Value Air Asset Defence (HVAAD) sometimes you need to cut the corner on a 'leaker' that is going for the asset you're protecting.
2. Supersonic launch gives a 10-20% launch success zone (LSZ) to missiles like BVRAAM/AMRAAM. Plus a block 5+ launch puts a further throw on missiles. You want to schwack the enemy long before it gets anywhere near your fleet or other assets, so long rockets are a vital capability.
3. Chase down and disengagement speed is a vital for an Air Defence fighter.
I know the SHar did well in the FIs, but the air to air threat wasn't really credible IMHO.
Just my 2 penneth, and as always, aircraft selection is a compromise - it just depends on what capability that were willing to sacrifice.
LJ
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kbrockman
Yes the Boeing concept was simpler than the Lockheed but it fell on the hurdle of supersonics. Supersonics need a much higher exhaust gas velocity and we don't know how to get that velocity for the combat mission without making the exhaust pretty hot in the process. So when they pointed this exhaust out under the CG they had recirculation problems with hot air making its way into the intake.
I'm sorry but combining supersonics and VL is very difficult. Lockheed have managed it (by using the cool fan exhaust as a dam to stop the rear hot exhaust penetrating forward) but at the cost of much complexity.
Leon
I would never suggest a subsonic engine can give top class interceptor capability for all the reasons you mentioned. However a simple reliable multi role capability available in real numbers is a very useful tactical bit of kit. The UK never saw the Harrier as having ANY air to air capability until the USMC in 1970 said putting a sidewinder on it could be very useful tactically because it had real persistence in a fight with the US reheated fighters of the day, could fight remarkably well defensively until they bingoed and got them as they tried to disengage. Harry Blot then stayed on the range and said send the next lot out. Its hard to beat the sfc of a large subsonic turbofan.
Hey ho.
JF
Yes the Boeing concept was simpler than the Lockheed but it fell on the hurdle of supersonics. Supersonics need a much higher exhaust gas velocity and we don't know how to get that velocity for the combat mission without making the exhaust pretty hot in the process. So when they pointed this exhaust out under the CG they had recirculation problems with hot air making its way into the intake.
I'm sorry but combining supersonics and VL is very difficult. Lockheed have managed it (by using the cool fan exhaust as a dam to stop the rear hot exhaust penetrating forward) but at the cost of much complexity.
Leon
I would never suggest a subsonic engine can give top class interceptor capability for all the reasons you mentioned. However a simple reliable multi role capability available in real numbers is a very useful tactical bit of kit. The UK never saw the Harrier as having ANY air to air capability until the USMC in 1970 said putting a sidewinder on it could be very useful tactically because it had real persistence in a fight with the US reheated fighters of the day, could fight remarkably well defensively until they bingoed and got them as they tried to disengage. Harry Blot then stayed on the range and said send the next lot out. Its hard to beat the sfc of a large subsonic turbofan.
Hey ho.
JF
JF is right, of course...
The Marines could do their classic air mission perfectly well with a subsonic direct-lift STOVL. It's not the best for air superiority, but could certainly be equipped to take on a low-level threat (eg Naughtystan with a couple of squadrons of rusty MiGs). The high-level capability of the JSF-B, in the USMC, is in any case fatally compromised by the lack of organic AEW&C.
Supersonic STOVL is fundamentally difficult because of the complexity of avoiding HGI. Adding stealth to that equation makes things worse. Granted that the F-35B can be made to meet spec, it will be expensive to support and have very limited room to add any other capability, both because of volume and VL thrust considerations.
And how did we get into this mess? Because the experts (particularly in industry) assured us that it could be done in the first place, relatively cheaply and quickly. And after the X-plane stage, they assured us again that the risk had been reduced as never before.
The Marines could do their classic air mission perfectly well with a subsonic direct-lift STOVL. It's not the best for air superiority, but could certainly be equipped to take on a low-level threat (eg Naughtystan with a couple of squadrons of rusty MiGs). The high-level capability of the JSF-B, in the USMC, is in any case fatally compromised by the lack of organic AEW&C.
Supersonic STOVL is fundamentally difficult because of the complexity of avoiding HGI. Adding stealth to that equation makes things worse. Granted that the F-35B can be made to meet spec, it will be expensive to support and have very limited room to add any other capability, both because of volume and VL thrust considerations.
And how did we get into this mess? Because the experts (particularly in industry) assured us that it could be done in the first place, relatively cheaply and quickly. And after the X-plane stage, they assured us again that the risk had been reduced as never before.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JF,
Just a small point...
....this is not an issue, all the RN's helos get back on board - I do not recall there ever being a helo lost due to an inability to recover due to sea state or visibility - or for that matter a diversion ashore. The platform only needs to be within limits (viz and pitch/roll) at the moment of touch down.
Just a small point...
It needs more complicated ships and even they cannot operate for recovery in some sea states or visibilities. (How may helos fail to get aboard due motion and vis?)
JF
" (In combat manoeuvring) it's hard to beat the sfc of a large subsonic turbofan"
Absolutely agree.
I was the RAF trials pilot on the definitive Phase 2 VIFF trial (flown in a GR3 with AIM9G plus SEAM), versus a Lightning Mk3 and a Hunter Mk 6 in the same sortie on Aberporth range. In each mission the 3 Combats against the Lightning were just 3 mins each and then he had to go home; against the Hunter we could manage 5 mins. No big fuel problem managing 6 engagements with the GR3.
The souped-up GR3 was XV277, ( with beefed - up nozzle drive etc.), last seen at Scottish Aviation Museum East Fortune.
Happy days.
" (In combat manoeuvring) it's hard to beat the sfc of a large subsonic turbofan"
Absolutely agree.
I was the RAF trials pilot on the definitive Phase 2 VIFF trial (flown in a GR3 with AIM9G plus SEAM), versus a Lightning Mk3 and a Hunter Mk 6 in the same sortie on Aberporth range. In each mission the 3 Combats against the Lightning were just 3 mins each and then he had to go home; against the Hunter we could manage 5 mins. No big fuel problem managing 6 engagements with the GR3.
The souped-up GR3 was XV277, ( with beefed - up nozzle drive etc.), last seen at Scottish Aviation Museum East Fortune.
Happy days.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bismark
I must sharpen up my prose. Gravebelly is right I was suggesting that helos cope with really bad ship motion and vis because of the ability to hover.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amateur question here.....whatever happened to the idea of using plenum chamber burning to make the Pegasus supersonic?
Its a development direction whichhas stalled yet years ago it seemed to have promise, and would appear to ease this problem of hot exhaust in the hover.
Could it not be made to work? Or was it simply that other methods appeared better?
Its a development direction whichhas stalled yet years ago it seemed to have promise, and would appear to ease this problem of hot exhaust in the hover.
Could it not be made to work? Or was it simply that other methods appeared better?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JF,
I am not sure the issue is the same in a 65,000 ton ship. I suspect STOVL and CATOBAR ops would stop at about the same time - certainly it has not been a problem for the USN.
Now, STOVL off the back of a frigate is a different matter! Remember the SkyCrane?
I am not sure the issue is the same in a 65,000 ton ship. I suspect STOVL and CATOBAR ops would stop at about the same time - certainly it has not been a problem for the USN.
Now, STOVL off the back of a frigate is a different matter! Remember the SkyCrane?
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bismark
It depends on whether you have a ski jump. With one of those you are always going up and away from the sea regardless of where the bow is.
As for an arrested landing with the backend heaving - dodgy.
It was the Skyhook - but SkyCrane desribes it too!
It depends on whether you have a ski jump. With one of those you are always going up and away from the sea regardless of where the bow is.
As for an arrested landing with the backend heaving - dodgy.
It was the Skyhook - but SkyCrane desribes it too!
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Milo
Sorry my friend PCB was on the FRONT nozzles and would have destroyed the engine unless you kept moving forward quite fast when in ground effect or used a gridded platform. Using a gridded deck edge lift might just have been on for vertical ops but all the benefits of operating site flexibility would have gone right out of the window. I was SO glad when the P1154 was cancelled.
Sorry my friend PCB was on the FRONT nozzles and would have destroyed the engine unless you kept moving forward quite fast when in ground effect or used a gridded platform. Using a gridded deck edge lift might just have been on for vertical ops but all the benefits of operating site flexibility would have gone right out of the window. I was SO glad when the P1154 was cancelled.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that John - I hadn't realised it would have been used in the hover. I'd naively assumed it would have just have been an alternative to afterburner while in conventional flight, not in vertical.
Something else learnt.... thanks again
Something else learnt.... thanks again
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Age: 71
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F-35 announcement to be delayed?
I having just been reading about the Home Office’s latest c**k-up concerning Abu Qatada; after all of this government’s very recent U-turns and knowing what politicians are like, do we really think the government is going to follow that up any time soon with another announcement that is going to open them up to more ridicule and allegations of incompetence? My guess is that there will be no announcement until just before the House of Commons summer recess; of course it could also lead the government to stay with the C as they will probably be out of office before anything connected with this project ever floats let alone has an aircraft on its deck. As Harold MacMillan once said “it’s all about events dear boy, events”!
Last edited by 163627; 19th Apr 2012 at 17:32. Reason: Poor memory resulted in misquoting MacMillan!!!
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Milo
Yes I said many times to the Bristol engine men I am happy to use PCB except for takeoff and landing.
But they needed to light the fires for TOL because the supersonic part of the spec mission profile used enormous amounts of fuel which of course made the aircraft bigger and heavier until it needed the fires for TOL. The mission spec could not be met with an aircraft that would VL with cold thrust.
Yes I said many times to the Bristol engine men I am happy to use PCB except for takeoff and landing.
But they needed to light the fires for TOL because the supersonic part of the spec mission profile used enormous amounts of fuel which of course made the aircraft bigger and heavier until it needed the fires for TOL. The mission spec could not be met with an aircraft that would VL with cold thrust.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Southern Jessieland
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Better Harrier?
How much more mileage is there in the Harrier design?
Kingston did propose a tin wing "Harrier GR5" in the early 80's before the AV-8B was selected. From memory it looked like a GR3 with a bigger wing. Did that offer any improvements performance wise?
I had heard that the AV-8B aerofoil is less than optimum due to CFD taking a wrong turn at the time it was designed.
Kingston did propose a tin wing "Harrier GR5" in the early 80's before the AV-8B was selected. From memory it looked like a GR3 with a bigger wing. Did that offer any improvements performance wise?
I had heard that the AV-8B aerofoil is less than optimum due to CFD taking a wrong turn at the time it was designed.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Age: 71
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting that the MoD is planning for contingency operations or interesting that an aeroplane with far greater wing area and no lift fan can take more petrol and more bombs and therefore might be deemed more useful?
None of this is news. You just have to choose which camp you fall into:
1. We are broke and cannot afford carriers full stop. (Gloss over magic acquisition of C-17, reprieve of Puma etc etc as signs that we aren't.)
2. Anything's better than nothing, buy the B. It'll also save no end of time getting the ships rigged up. Might cost a bit (lot) more and could even fail altogether, but them's the breaks.
3. Last manned aeroplane. Buy the one that goes the furthest. Don't accept that it'll cost £1.7 Billion to fit out the ship(s). Invite USN and the French to embark occasionally as well.
4. Ask nicely for some Super Hornets to tide us over and then join the chaps in option 3.
5. Conveniently forget that this is and always has been a Maritime Strike capability and talk about it like it's a GR4 replacement.
None of this is news. You just have to choose which camp you fall into:
1. We are broke and cannot afford carriers full stop. (Gloss over magic acquisition of C-17, reprieve of Puma etc etc as signs that we aren't.)
2. Anything's better than nothing, buy the B. It'll also save no end of time getting the ships rigged up. Might cost a bit (lot) more and could even fail altogether, but them's the breaks.
3. Last manned aeroplane. Buy the one that goes the furthest. Don't accept that it'll cost £1.7 Billion to fit out the ship(s). Invite USN and the French to embark occasionally as well.
4. Ask nicely for some Super Hornets to tide us over and then join the chaps in option 3.
5. Conveniently forget that this is and always has been a Maritime Strike capability and talk about it like it's a GR4 replacement.