JSF - 6 Months on...
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevo...r_us/f018.html
http://www.history.navy.mil/planes/fa18.htm
Seems the F/A-18 was just a wee bit different than its YF-17 ancestor. Several years and many billions of $ later and it became a fine carrier aircraft. Like, perhaps, a navalized Typhoon. But do be careful with chucking stones around........
Yes, it was, but that was not just a function of adding carrier capability.
The original YF-17 was a lightweight air superiority fighter, while the F/A-18 was an all-weather, multi-role tactical fighter.
And in any case, I'd still call the F/A-18 a successful carrier-based derivative of a land-based design.
(You should bear in mind that Boeing, and McD/D before always had a vested interest in emphasising the difference between the YF-17 and the Hornet - as all the lawsuits demonstrated. As a result, the aircraft are often portrayed as being less inter-related than they really are.)
The original YF-17 was a lightweight air superiority fighter, while the F/A-18 was an all-weather, multi-role tactical fighter.
And in any case, I'd still call the F/A-18 a successful carrier-based derivative of a land-based design.
(You should bear in mind that Boeing, and McD/D before always had a vested interest in emphasising the difference between the YF-17 and the Hornet - as all the lawsuits demonstrated. As a result, the aircraft are often portrayed as being less inter-related than they really are.)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: WSM
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Todays Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...9-2497741.html
I can't figure out how do get this to link but I'm sure someone out there will be able to.
Edited because it seems the system does the linking all by itself. damned clever what?
I can't figure out how do get this to link but I'm sure someone out there will be able to.
Edited because it seems the system does the linking all by itself. damned clever what?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And in any case, I'd still call the F/A-18 a successful carrier-based derivative of a land-based design.
wikipedia is certainly not a conclusive source, but it's the best I can find with limited effort. Full text is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-18_Hornet
The Navy fought for and won permission to develop an aircraft based on the YF-17. Since the LWF did not share the design requirements of the VFAX, the Navy asked McDonnell Douglas and Northrop to design a new aircraft around the configuration and design principles of the YF-17. The new aircraft, designated the F-18, shared not a single essential dimension or primary structure with the YF-17.
Last edited by OFBSLF; 12th Dec 2006 at 16:34.
To weigh in, late...
If the Neddy Seaphoon were to be developed successfully it would be the first successful CV adaptation of a CTOL jet in the West.
A few data points:
Both the MiG-29 and Flanker have been adapted for CV use. Major mods (structure, folding, high-lift) but the basic outer mould lines are pretty close. What we don't know is exactly how well they work.
The Hornet was not a derivative of the YF-17, but a different aircraft with the same overall layout. Bigger wing, bigger engines, different landing gear.
The Rafale and JSF were both designed from the outset to have CV and CTOL versions. Off the top of my head I don't remember any others.
From the early days of the jet age, the key difference between CV and CTOL fighters has been speed and controllability on approach, which drives wing/tail size and configuration. That's one of the factors that nailed Boeing in JSF - they just could not get the delta on board the boat.
Argument pro-Seaphoon: the Rafale M looks very like a Rafale C - it gets away without a 50 per cent bigger wing unlike Dave C. Seems that a canard delta is easier to drive to high lift and low speed than a quad-tail (one basic problem is that the tail on a Dave C or an F-18 is pushing down with a short moment arm while the wing is trying to push up).
Argument con-Seaphoon: There are a lot of basic Rafale features that reflect the CV requirement including overall size, landing gear location (mains and nose) and radome size/cockpit location.
If the Neddy Seaphoon were to be developed successfully it would be the first successful CV adaptation of a CTOL jet in the West.
A few data points:
Both the MiG-29 and Flanker have been adapted for CV use. Major mods (structure, folding, high-lift) but the basic outer mould lines are pretty close. What we don't know is exactly how well they work.
The Hornet was not a derivative of the YF-17, but a different aircraft with the same overall layout. Bigger wing, bigger engines, different landing gear.
The Rafale and JSF were both designed from the outset to have CV and CTOL versions. Off the top of my head I don't remember any others.
From the early days of the jet age, the key difference between CV and CTOL fighters has been speed and controllability on approach, which drives wing/tail size and configuration. That's one of the factors that nailed Boeing in JSF - they just could not get the delta on board the boat.
Argument pro-Seaphoon: the Rafale M looks very like a Rafale C - it gets away without a 50 per cent bigger wing unlike Dave C. Seems that a canard delta is easier to drive to high lift and low speed than a quad-tail (one basic problem is that the tail on a Dave C or an F-18 is pushing down with a short moment arm while the wing is trying to push up).
Argument con-Seaphoon: There are a lot of basic Rafale features that reflect the CV requirement including overall size, landing gear location (mains and nose) and radome size/cockpit location.
There haven't been many recently, certainly, but then there haven't been many programmes, full stop.
But Typhoon would not be "be the first successful CV adaptation of a CTOL jet in the West."
We still have the Sea Venom, the FJ-3 Fury, the Sea Vixen (DH110), and the T-45 to count (forgetting the various Sea Vampires, T-33s and their ilk), even if we allow that the F/A-18 is more than an adaptation.
As to the Su-33K, it's a minimum change navalised 'Flanker-B' with astonishingly few changes (folding on exactly the same wing, a beefed up gear, folding tailplanes and a hook), while the MiG-29K designation has been applied to two different aircraft, one a minimum change adaptation of the land-based MiG-29M (with a new landing gear and new tailplanes and an all-new wing)and the other one now being built for India.
But Typhoon would not be "be the first successful CV adaptation of a CTOL jet in the West."
We still have the Sea Venom, the FJ-3 Fury, the Sea Vixen (DH110), and the T-45 to count (forgetting the various Sea Vampires, T-33s and their ilk), even if we allow that the F/A-18 is more than an adaptation.
As to the Su-33K, it's a minimum change navalised 'Flanker-B' with astonishingly few changes (folding on exactly the same wing, a beefed up gear, folding tailplanes and a hook), while the MiG-29K designation has been applied to two different aircraft, one a minimum change adaptation of the land-based MiG-29M (with a new landing gear and new tailplanes and an all-new wing)and the other one now being built for India.
"We still have the Sea Venom, the FJ-3 Fury, the Sea Vixen (DH110), and the T-45 to count (forgetting the various Sea Vampires, T-33s and their ilk), even if we allow that the F/A-18 is more than an adaptation."
I'll just about let the Sea Venom pass (and to some extent other early straight wing jets, where landing speeds were less of an issue). The Sea Vixen was a nasty brute and more to the point was not really a derivative insofar as the land-based DH.110 never got very far in development. The FJ series diverged from the F-86 in the process of being made useful for carrier ops, and the FJ-3 bore only an outline resemblance to any F-86.
Historical experience is only a partial guide to the feasibility or advisability of the Seaphoon... but anyone who tells you that it's a low-risk, low-effort development is blowing smoke up your jetpipe. Look at the way that Dave C's wing has grown!
I'll just about let the Sea Venom pass (and to some extent other early straight wing jets, where landing speeds were less of an issue). The Sea Vixen was a nasty brute and more to the point was not really a derivative insofar as the land-based DH.110 never got very far in development. The FJ series diverged from the F-86 in the process of being made useful for carrier ops, and the FJ-3 bore only an outline resemblance to any F-86.
Historical experience is only a partial guide to the feasibility or advisability of the Seaphoon... but anyone who tells you that it's a low-risk, low-effort development is blowing smoke up your jetpipe. Look at the way that Dave C's wing has grown!
It's going to be compromised, of course, and there will be issues, but looking at how other canard Deltas fare on carriers, perhaps a much bigger wing is unnecessary -- the Gripen boys have done some interesting sim work, Rafale manages well, and though the MiG-29M has more wing area, it's all added at the tips, the flaps, and via a new leading edge.....
The question isn't whether it will be easy, the question is whether it's a possible back up/alternative.
The question isn't whether it will be easy, the question is whether it's a possible back up/alternative.
It's going to be compromised, of course, and there will be issues, but looking at how other canard Deltas fare on carriers, perhaps a much bigger wing is unnecessary -- the Gripen boys have done some interesting sim work, Rafale manages well, and though the MiG-29M has more wing area, it's all added at the tips, the flaps, and via a new leading edge.....
*sims are all very well, but sending our enemies a sternly-worded letter and a screenshot from a sim might not be quite as appreciated by our gallant troops on the ground under fire in dusty places as the well-timed accurate delivery of real ordnance from real aeroplanes.
Cost and time issues would seem to be somewhat critical, if Trust-me-Tone's eagerness to involve British forces in dangerous situations without the right kit continues on its current track..
Which means, realistically, sticking with one or other type of F-35 (sorry, but 'Dave' is too spotterish) depending upon whether the RN's new carriers will be big enough to support the -C or will be limited to the -B with its complex STOVL system.
Could 't Bungling Baron really develop a carrier capable Typhoon within the same timescale as the F-35B? Would it really fit the new carriers?
Which means, realistically, sticking with one or other type of F-35 (sorry, but 'Dave' is too spotterish) depending upon whether the RN's new carriers will be big enough to support the -C or will be limited to the -B with its complex STOVL system.
Could 't Bungling Baron really develop a carrier capable Typhoon within the same timescale as the F-35B? Would it really fit the new carriers?
Rumour has it 
that the feasability and design changes required for a carrier Typhoon conversion have been 'considered', also a costing of the technical publication issues has also been looked at with regards any changes that may, or may not be possible. Wether this can be done within the timescales of the F35B I do not know if this was considered. Rumour also has it there was some talk of a requirement to modify the new carriers to allow the Typhoon version to use it. The only other rumour was about a rather complex nose door arrangement that someone designed to accomodate a new nose leg. Sorry if this is a bit vague but one does not know what one can or cannot say nowadays for fear of reprimand or worse. It is also possible that a carrier version of the Typhoon was mentioned to the odd person across the pond who has the occasional interest in new aircraft 
.
that the feasability and design changes required for a carrier Typhoon conversion have been 'considered', also a costing of the technical publication issues has also been looked at with regards any changes that may, or may not be possible. Wether this can be done within the timescales of the F35B I do not know if this was considered. Rumour also has it there was some talk of a requirement to modify the new carriers to allow the Typhoon version to use it. The only other rumour was about a rather complex nose door arrangement that someone designed to accomodate a new nose leg. Sorry if this is a bit vague but one does not know what one can or cannot say nowadays for fear of reprimand or worse. It is also possible that a carrier version of the Typhoon was mentioned to the odd person across the pond who has the occasional interest in new aircraft .
I could not see this elsewhere (did not look to hard I must admit), so as this is a JSF thread:
The first F-35 Lightning II aircraft - a Conventional Take Off and Landing variant – took to the skies above programme partner Lockheed Martin’s site in Fort Worth, Texas at 1845hrs UK time on Friday 15 december. The aircraft was in the air for around an hour, during which time it performed a variety of manoeuvres to test aircraft handling and the operation of the engine and subsystems, before landing back at its Fort Worth base.
Following first flight, Chief Test Pilot Jon Beesley commented: “F-35 Lightning II performed beautifully. It was a great start for the flight test programme, and a testimony to all of the people who have worked so hard to make this happen.”
The F-35 Lightning II is a supersonic, stealth fighter designed to replace a wide range of existing aircraft, including AV-8B Harriers, A-10s, F-16s, F/A-18 Hornets and United Kingdom’s Harrier GR7s and Sea Harriers. The F-35 will be the most powerful single-engine fighter ever produced.
Three versions of the F-35 JSF are in development: a conventional take-off and landing (CTOL), a short take off/vertical landing (STOVL) and a carrier variant (CV). Each is derived from a common design, and will ensure that the F-35 Lightning II meets the performance needs of the U.S. Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy, the U.K. Royal Air Force and Royal Navy, and allied defence forces worldwide.
The first F-35 Lightning II aircraft - a Conventional Take Off and Landing variant – took to the skies above programme partner Lockheed Martin’s site in Fort Worth, Texas at 1845hrs UK time on Friday 15 december. The aircraft was in the air for around an hour, during which time it performed a variety of manoeuvres to test aircraft handling and the operation of the engine and subsystems, before landing back at its Fort Worth base.
Following first flight, Chief Test Pilot Jon Beesley commented: “F-35 Lightning II performed beautifully. It was a great start for the flight test programme, and a testimony to all of the people who have worked so hard to make this happen.”
The F-35 Lightning II is a supersonic, stealth fighter designed to replace a wide range of existing aircraft, including AV-8B Harriers, A-10s, F-16s, F/A-18 Hornets and United Kingdom’s Harrier GR7s and Sea Harriers. The F-35 will be the most powerful single-engine fighter ever produced.
Three versions of the F-35 JSF are in development: a conventional take-off and landing (CTOL), a short take off/vertical landing (STOVL) and a carrier variant (CV). Each is derived from a common design, and will ensure that the F-35 Lightning II meets the performance needs of the U.S. Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy, the U.K. Royal Air Force and Royal Navy, and allied defence forces worldwide.
