JSF - 6 Months on...
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, OK... my mistake--- and I apologise to Jackonicko for that part... and only that part... of my statement.
HOWEVER, that just goes even further in supporting my point... THAT Nimrod was from the days when a fighter type rarely even used a catapult to take off from a carrier... and had a landing speed of 50-70 MPH... rather than 120+MPH!!
See note added in my earlier post.
HOWEVER, that just goes even further in supporting my point... THAT Nimrod was from the days when a fighter type rarely even used a catapult to take off from a carrier... and had a landing speed of 50-70 MPH... rather than 120+MPH!!
See note added in my earlier post.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Olddog... "Part of the reason for it being so named was in recognition of the success of the successful Hawker Nimrod biplane which helped you chaps learn that carrier ops were a possibility!"
Wasn't that a lot of years after we backward Colonials had already modified one collier (see USS Langley) to a carrier, and had such success with it (and in operating aircraft from it) that we had modified 2 partially complete Battlecruiser hulls to full Carriers (see USS Lexington & USS Saratoga)? Which were, by the way, far better carriers than your own such conversions (see HMS Courageous, Glorious, Furious)!
All in the friendly spirit of "family fueds", of course...
Wasn't that a lot of years after we backward Colonials had already modified one collier (see USS Langley) to a carrier, and had such success with it (and in operating aircraft from it) that we had modified 2 partially complete Battlecruiser hulls to full Carriers (see USS Lexington & USS Saratoga)? Which were, by the way, far better carriers than your own such conversions (see HMS Courageous, Glorious, Furious)!
All in the friendly spirit of "family fueds", of course...
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pass-A-Frozo
Unfortunately, this is an area in which I am in total agreement with you... as one with many programmer friends (and a brother who is the chief programmer for a multi-state electric power utility: Sierra-Pacific Power, which controls all electric power in Nevada, eastern Oregon & Washington, and parts of California), the state of programming in the US (as far as coherence, simplicity, and effectiveness) has deteriorated drastically in the last 25 years!
This is emphatically shown by the fact that virtually every major US Defense project (and many civilian ones) has experienced major software problems during its development phase... accounting for a majority of the cost and time overruns on almost every such program!
Unfortunately, this is an area in which I am in total agreement with you... as one with many programmer friends (and a brother who is the chief programmer for a multi-state electric power utility: Sierra-Pacific Power, which controls all electric power in Nevada, eastern Oregon & Washington, and parts of California), the state of programming in the US (as far as coherence, simplicity, and effectiveness) has deteriorated drastically in the last 25 years!
This is emphatically shown by the fact that virtually every major US Defense project (and many civilian ones) has experienced major software problems during its development phase... accounting for a majority of the cost and time overruns on almost every such program!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Yeah, but you were still putting on wooden decks up to and including the Essex and Ticonderoga class carriers, which proved a bit of an embarassment when the kamikaze attacks started. 
The Royal Navy switched to steel decks in 1936 with the Illustrious class.....
The Royal Navy switched to steel decks in 1936 with the Illustrious class.....
Untitled
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Transatlantic
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd be astonished but pleasantly surprised if Trust-me-Tone and co. had the balls to pull the plug on Dave and re-assert some British self-determination. Paying such a colossal amount of money to not actually "own" ones jets, nor to be able to hang what one will from them, seems ridiculous and doing so will be yet another meek international surrender of sovereignty.
Would certainly be interesting, let the Saudis buy Rafale, navalise all their prospective Typhoons and still provide a potential boost for UK contractors.
Can't see it.
Of course, with Greedy Gordon effectively running the country now, cancelling Dave might just prove an excuse to shave another couple of billion from the defence budget rather than appropriate reinvestment in CVF.
Would certainly be interesting, let the Saudis buy Rafale, navalise all their prospective Typhoons and still provide a potential boost for UK contractors.
Can't see it.
Of course, with Greedy Gordon effectively running the country now, cancelling Dave might just prove an excuse to shave another couple of billion from the defence budget rather than appropriate reinvestment in CVF.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: W. Sussex
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even when added to the cost of building the ~75, I think it was, Seaphoons and the ~65 Typhoon F.3s for the RAF in order to replace those 140 JSFs? At the current price for Typhoon (more than Dave A, remember) plus the re-design costs?
Not bloody likely!!!
And yes, I do remember Dave B costs a bit more than Typhoon, but not that much more!
Not bloody likely!!!
And yes, I do remember Dave B costs a bit more than Typhoon, but not that much more!
Was going to give Jacko's post the savaging it deserves, but note it's already been done by GK121.
Would also add that to the best of my knowledge none of the Sea Hornet / Sea Venom / DH110 alleged land-based progenitors ever had an extensive service career. Funnily enough, the Fury didn't last long on ships either, although obviously a very succesful land-based fighter.
As for EF2000N - I don't think anyone who saw those studies believed what BAe were saying - it was a clear attempt to knock JSF off the options plot, as became clear when people started getting into the detail of what it would need to do aboard ship.IIRC the aircraft was not fitted with nose-tow and was STOBAR only, making it by far the worst for deck ops and sortie generation.
All that said, the OCA/DCA abilities of Dave do not engender confidence.....
Would also add that to the best of my knowledge none of the Sea Hornet / Sea Venom / DH110 alleged land-based progenitors ever had an extensive service career. Funnily enough, the Fury didn't last long on ships either, although obviously a very succesful land-based fighter.
As for EF2000N - I don't think anyone who saw those studies believed what BAe were saying - it was a clear attempt to knock JSF off the options plot, as became clear when people started getting into the detail of what it would need to do aboard ship.IIRC the aircraft was not fitted with nose-tow and was STOBAR only, making it by far the worst for deck ops and sortie generation.
All that said, the OCA/DCA abilities of Dave do not engender confidence.....
Last edited by Not_a_boffin; 9th Dec 2006 at 13:05.
Marion Carl (who knew a thing or two about air-to-air combat and aeroplanes) is on record somewhere as having said that given an Fury with an afterburning engine, he'd have happily have taken on any aircraft anyone chose to point in his direction, and would have been willing to have a crack without the burner...; he still thought the FJ-3/4 perhaps the finest naval aircraft he ever flew.
The point JN challenged was:
"No non-STOVL land-based design has EVER been developed into a successful carrier-based variant."
It doesn't matter about massive redesign for carrier use (which is a form of 'development', even if pushing the word to its very extreme); landing speeds; over-engineering, or anything else raised to attack JN. Also, note the assertion's use of the emphasised 'ever'. JN's rebuttal of that absolute was not imprecise. A post-facto application of historical conditions to undermine JN's point is rather unfair.
Had JN attacked a point phrased - 'only with rare exceptions has a land-based design been developed into a successful carrier-based variant and the chances of this being done today given the cost, increased structural stresses of carrier operations and current approaches to aircraft design where the over-engineering of the past doesn't take place', then 'savaging' the post would be reasonable.
He didn't. The generalised charge made about turning a land-based design into a successful carrier-based variant is inaccurate, whether or not one thinks JN is using the point to push the case for a navalised Typhoon. Trying to savage him for attacking an inaccurate generalisation is, if I may be so bold, unfair.
There is a useful and valid debate to be had about whether a Seaphoon could ever provide the sort of capability the RN requires at a reasonable cost and without serious redesign. I'm in the same camp as N_a_b and GK, i.e. unconvinced: but I don't think it's valid to imply that JN's rejoinder is little more than pro-Typhoon propaganda, since he actually has a point regarding the intial observation.
The point JN challenged was:
"No non-STOVL land-based design has EVER been developed into a successful carrier-based variant."
It doesn't matter about massive redesign for carrier use (which is a form of 'development', even if pushing the word to its very extreme); landing speeds; over-engineering, or anything else raised to attack JN. Also, note the assertion's use of the emphasised 'ever'. JN's rebuttal of that absolute was not imprecise. A post-facto application of historical conditions to undermine JN's point is rather unfair.
Had JN attacked a point phrased - 'only with rare exceptions has a land-based design been developed into a successful carrier-based variant and the chances of this being done today given the cost, increased structural stresses of carrier operations and current approaches to aircraft design where the over-engineering of the past doesn't take place', then 'savaging' the post would be reasonable.
He didn't. The generalised charge made about turning a land-based design into a successful carrier-based variant is inaccurate, whether or not one thinks JN is using the point to push the case for a navalised Typhoon. Trying to savage him for attacking an inaccurate generalisation is, if I may be so bold, unfair.
There is a useful and valid debate to be had about whether a Seaphoon could ever provide the sort of capability the RN requires at a reasonable cost and without serious redesign. I'm in the same camp as N_a_b and GK, i.e. unconvinced: but I don't think it's valid to imply that JN's rejoinder is little more than pro-Typhoon propaganda, since he actually has a point regarding the intial observation.
Guest
Posts: n/a
But we did have air conditioning unlike the 'easy bake' ovens of the RN!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
All this is, of course, based on military capability instead of politics. There is is a political case, for the next few years, to demonstrate UK independence from the USA - hence the new UCAV being a UK only programme without US or EU participations.
An independent Typhoon variant rather than the JSF may be seen as just the right message to send....
An independent Typhoon variant rather than the JSF may be seen as just the right message to send....
Rafale would be a better bet than Sea Typhoon - after all its was designed for carrier operations.
Now then.....
1.
2. Blair doesn't seem very good at fighting the UK's corner. Does he try?:rolleyes
3. See the Sea Jet thread.
4. See the Future Carrier thread.
Now then.....
1.
2. Blair doesn't seem very good at fighting the UK's corner. Does he try?:rolleyes
3. See the Sea Jet thread.
4. See the Future Carrier thread.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Odiham
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To Greenknight 121
The Rafale started with the Rafale A demonstrator, which was a follow on to the Mirage 4000, demonstrating aircraft manoeuvrabiltiy VS instability using forward canards. Both were land based aircraft. The design for the Rafale M with reinforce landing gear and different intakes came after the first series of Rafale B/C. The rafale NEVER (do you like the underline?) started as a carrier based aircraft. Therefore I come back to my first comment. Quite successful for an aircraft firstly designed as land based 
So I would drop the patronising tone Mr and like the other one said go and BOF on your aircraft recce and history.
So I would drop the patronising tone Mr and like the other one said go and BOF on your aircraft recce and history.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
The rafale NEVER (do you like the underline?) started as a carrier based aircraft.
Why, you will ask, were the French so insistent on a 10 ton limit?
That was the maximum weight foran aircraft capable of operating off the deck of the Foch......
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I knew someone would bring up the Rafale A... which was just a technology demonstrator (materials/aerodynamic design/full fly-by-computer) like the EAP was... the actual Rafale B/C/M design was developed from that, yes... but they were quite different in their internals from R-A... and they were (ok, no underline) designed with the stronger structures needed by a production combat aircraft that would operate from a carrier.
One more thing. If the carrier design was mostly done before the first B/C model started building, then it counts as a "from the start/beginning" design! There was no modification of an in-production design needed... which is the problem with Typhoon at this late stage.
One more thing. If the carrier design was mostly done before the first B/C model started building, then it counts as a "from the start/beginning" design! There was no modification of an in-production design needed... which is the problem with Typhoon at this late stage.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: W. Sussex
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this is, of course, based on military capability instead of politics. There is is a political case, for the next few years, to demonstrate UK independence from the USA - hence the new UCAV being a UK only programme without US or EU participations.
An independent Typhoon variant rather than the JSF may be seen as just the right message to send....
An independent Typhoon variant rather than the JSF may be seen as just the right message to send....
Last edited by alex_holbrook; 10th Dec 2006 at 16:48.
Notaboffin,
“To the best of my knowledge none of the Sea Hornet / Sea Venom / DH110 alleged land-based progenitors ever had an extensive service career.”
Not a historian, either, clearly. The ‘best of your knowledge’ simply and demonstrably doesn’t cut it. While the DH110 RAF did not see service, both the Hornet and the Venom served with distinction, and had careers that were no shorter than their contemporaries.
“IIRC the aircraft was not fitted with nose-tow and was STOBAR only, making it by far the worst for deck ops and sortie generation.”
Every time you post, you demonstrate further ignorance. The Typhoon N studies examined STOBAR and non-STOBAR carrier versions, the non-STOBAR versions including nose-pull and fuselage pull catapault sub variants.
GK121,
I don’t know why you are or are not surprised. As a Johnny come lately septic with 49 posts you are proving yourself to be every bit as clueless as your postcount would suggest.
The F/A-18 was a productionised derivative of the YF-17, the latter plainly a “non-STOVL land-based design that was developed into a successful carrier-based variant.
And like the USN, and despite teething troubles, yes, I’d call the Goshawk a success. And so did my Boeing guide while we examined the latest one taking shape at St Louis.
Like Notahistorian, you need to polish up your knowledge of aviation. Russia’s carrierborne Su-25UTGs are used only for pilot conversion training and standardization, and not for strike or attack. And the Su-33 has proved a success in its intended role, and the MiG-29K would have done, had funding allowed.
Orac,
“Shouldn't the Harrier be at the top of that list Jacko?”
No, cos old ‘Notafknclue’ did say non-STOVL.
“To the best of my knowledge none of the Sea Hornet / Sea Venom / DH110 alleged land-based progenitors ever had an extensive service career.”
Not a historian, either, clearly. The ‘best of your knowledge’ simply and demonstrably doesn’t cut it. While the DH110 RAF did not see service, both the Hornet and the Venom served with distinction, and had careers that were no shorter than their contemporaries.
“IIRC the aircraft was not fitted with nose-tow and was STOBAR only, making it by far the worst for deck ops and sortie generation.”
Every time you post, you demonstrate further ignorance. The Typhoon N studies examined STOBAR and non-STOBAR carrier versions, the non-STOBAR versions including nose-pull and fuselage pull catapault sub variants.
GK121,
I don’t know why you are or are not surprised. As a Johnny come lately septic with 49 posts you are proving yourself to be every bit as clueless as your postcount would suggest.
The F/A-18 was a productionised derivative of the YF-17, the latter plainly a “non-STOVL land-based design that was developed into a successful carrier-based variant.
And like the USN, and despite teething troubles, yes, I’d call the Goshawk a success. And so did my Boeing guide while we examined the latest one taking shape at St Louis.
Like Notahistorian, you need to polish up your knowledge of aviation. Russia’s carrierborne Su-25UTGs are used only for pilot conversion training and standardization, and not for strike or attack. And the Su-33 has proved a success in its intended role, and the MiG-29K would have done, had funding allowed.
Orac,
“Shouldn't the Harrier be at the top of that list Jacko?”
No, cos old ‘Notafknclue’ did say non-STOVL.
Jacko
Was it something I said?
Or are you just a single issue obsessive, with a sense of humour removal? Maybe it's the scars from the 70s where many RAF stations were covered in naval aircraft imposed on the RAF?
If BAe have undertaken Typhoon N studies with a nose tow (no sane person would go for a fuselage tow these days) I hope it was of better quality than the EF2000 work.
I bow to superior knowledge on the Hornet / Venom question however.
Ho hum....
Was it something I said?
Or are you just a single issue obsessive, with a sense of humour removal? Maybe it's the scars from the 70s where many RAF stations were covered in naval aircraft imposed on the RAF?
If BAe have undertaken Typhoon N studies with a nose tow (no sane person would go for a fuselage tow these days) I hope it was of better quality than the EF2000 work.
I bow to superior knowledge on the Hornet / Venom question however.
Ho hum....
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Alex Holbrook: - Which programme is that?
"Lord Drayson said that Britain had decided to develop the new type of aircraft alone, and would not be involved in any collaborative programme, either with the US or with European partners".........