F-35B & Paveway IV
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sea Harrier looks
Incubus -
You think the Sea Harrier is ugly ? Compared to the Boeing JSF job ???!
The FRS1 - as now only seen in FRS 51 guise with the Indian Navy, is a very good looking jet indeed - IMHO the best looking Harrier or much else by a mile.
I once saw a product support type explaining, using a photo of J.F. in an FRS 1 at low level, how the pitot probe worked, to his secretary.
" Oh, I thought it was for styling ! "
The FRS / FA2 was a different matter aesthetically, but it looked good to the guys getting into it, not those opposing it, which must be the final count...
I haven't bothered working out posting photo's here before as it seems an exercise in ego for someone in my old job ( and anyway you all might think my stuff crap especially compared to the current digital results ! ) but if anyone should like to discuss please PM me.
DZ, ex - Dunsfold photographer...
You think the Sea Harrier is ugly ? Compared to the Boeing JSF job ???!
The FRS1 - as now only seen in FRS 51 guise with the Indian Navy, is a very good looking jet indeed - IMHO the best looking Harrier or much else by a mile.
I once saw a product support type explaining, using a photo of J.F. in an FRS 1 at low level, how the pitot probe worked, to his secretary.
" Oh, I thought it was for styling ! "
The FRS / FA2 was a different matter aesthetically, but it looked good to the guys getting into it, not those opposing it, which must be the final count...
I haven't bothered working out posting photo's here before as it seems an exercise in ego for someone in my old job ( and anyway you all might think my stuff crap especially compared to the current digital results ! ) but if anyone should like to discuss please PM me.
DZ, ex - Dunsfold photographer...
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Short Little Ugly Fella, as the old Vought PR brochures said...
Sad really, since the X-32 was actually one of the neatest ideas in combat aircraft since the A-4. What else is that size and has 20,000 pounds of internal fuel? And the concept of confining the differences to the three versions to the engine nacelle (which was all secondary structure bolted to the wing) was much tidier from a manufacturing viewpoint than the JSF.
It would have been an excellent solution to a CV/STOVL requirement - but the design got really nasty when CV drove them to four tails.
So it will be a bit lame when the USN finally cancels Dave-C and goes to a Super Hornet + UCAS wing.
And it has been pointed out that they had problems (reingestion and stalls) which I suspect forced them to throttle back in VL (hence the removed inlet lip and landing gear doors). However, it should also be pointed out that they were beaten by a design that was unexecutable and had to be reworked drastically, and is even now hanging on the VL by its fingernails.
Also, I remember Bill Gunston writing about the first pics of a new US fighter arriving in the Flight office, and everyone standing around cackling about how the designers had clearly screwed up and had to make all sorts of ugly fixes to make it work at all...
Sad really, since the X-32 was actually one of the neatest ideas in combat aircraft since the A-4. What else is that size and has 20,000 pounds of internal fuel? And the concept of confining the differences to the three versions to the engine nacelle (which was all secondary structure bolted to the wing) was much tidier from a manufacturing viewpoint than the JSF.
It would have been an excellent solution to a CV/STOVL requirement - but the design got really nasty when CV drove them to four tails.
So it will be a bit lame when the USN finally cancels Dave-C and goes to a Super Hornet + UCAS wing.
And it has been pointed out that they had problems (reingestion and stalls) which I suspect forced them to throttle back in VL (hence the removed inlet lip and landing gear doors). However, it should also be pointed out that they were beaten by a design that was unexecutable and had to be reworked drastically, and is even now hanging on the VL by its fingernails.
Also, I remember Bill Gunston writing about the first pics of a new US fighter arriving in the Flight office, and everyone standing around cackling about how the designers had clearly screwed up and had to make all sorts of ugly fixes to make it work at all...
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LowObservable - what a beautiful jet. No wonder I enjoyed some 2600 hrs in it so much.
It looks like it was built to do the job - and it did!
A 'proper' jet that talked to you. The whiz kids can put their software somewhere else - this one flies without it.
It looks like it was built to do the job - and it did!
A 'proper' jet that talked to you. The whiz kids can put their software somewhere else - this one flies without it.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
My PGM for a Fuze… Paveway-IV Hits Trouble in Britiain
In 2003, Raytheon UK operation won the GBP 120 million pound contract to develop and produce Paveway IV, beating Boeing's INS/GPS guided JDAM. The GPS/INS and laser-guided bomb 500 pound bombs are a British project, and will add a number of other enhancements including longer range than previous Paveway versions.....
The British military had wanted to deploy Raytheon's latest Paveway IV bombs in Afghanistan in September 2007, on board its newly-upgraded Harrier GR9 aircraft. Unfortunately, a recent MoD statement reveals that testing problems with the Thales UK's Aurora fuze have removed that option….
"As a result of poor system reliability during operational evaluation trials, the Paveway IV in-service date is likely to slip. Mitigation action is being investigated and we cannot, as yet, confirm the new date."
While other aspects of the system performed well, fuze difficulties mean bombs that don't go off. Defense News' report quotes Raytheon UK Paveway IV program manager John Michel, who believes qualification will be delayed at least until November 2007, with an estimated sign-off on the weapon's final design certification at the end of the year and a new set capability trials during "the first half of 2008."...
The contract is firm priced, meaning the contractors will bear the burden of any cost overruns. Meanwhile, other components already are being produced ahead of the fuze section so that overall delivery won't be as badly affected.
The firm has contracts to integrate the weapon on the F-35B (July 2007, GBP 24M), Tornado GR4 (agreement in principle, contract to follow, in service by 2010), and Eurofighter Typhoon (issued from BAE, introduction in 2012). When integration work on the different aircraft types is added, the project is forecast to cost GBP 341 million pounds, according to the National Audit Office's Major Projects Report 2006.
In 2003, Raytheon UK operation won the GBP 120 million pound contract to develop and produce Paveway IV, beating Boeing's INS/GPS guided JDAM. The GPS/INS and laser-guided bomb 500 pound bombs are a British project, and will add a number of other enhancements including longer range than previous Paveway versions.....
The British military had wanted to deploy Raytheon's latest Paveway IV bombs in Afghanistan in September 2007, on board its newly-upgraded Harrier GR9 aircraft. Unfortunately, a recent MoD statement reveals that testing problems with the Thales UK's Aurora fuze have removed that option….
"As a result of poor system reliability during operational evaluation trials, the Paveway IV in-service date is likely to slip. Mitigation action is being investigated and we cannot, as yet, confirm the new date."
While other aspects of the system performed well, fuze difficulties mean bombs that don't go off. Defense News' report quotes Raytheon UK Paveway IV program manager John Michel, who believes qualification will be delayed at least until November 2007, with an estimated sign-off on the weapon's final design certification at the end of the year and a new set capability trials during "the first half of 2008."...
The contract is firm priced, meaning the contractors will bear the burden of any cost overruns. Meanwhile, other components already are being produced ahead of the fuze section so that overall delivery won't be as badly affected.
The firm has contracts to integrate the weapon on the F-35B (July 2007, GBP 24M), Tornado GR4 (agreement in principle, contract to follow, in service by 2010), and Eurofighter Typhoon (issued from BAE, introduction in 2012). When integration work on the different aircraft types is added, the project is forecast to cost GBP 341 million pounds, according to the National Audit Office's Major Projects Report 2006.
The contract is firm priced, meaning the contractors will bear the burden of any cost overruns.
