Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

JSF and A400M at risk?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

JSF and A400M at risk?

Old 15th Oct 2008, 05:28
  #161 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,541
Aerospaceweb.org | Aircraft Museum - Joint Strike Fighter

Since the designation X-32 had already been set aside for a CALF STOVL demonstrator and X-35 for an advanced fighter demonstrator, these were reallocated to two Joint Strike Fighter demonstrators to compete for a production contract. Manufacturers began considering design concepts in 1994 and the official request for proposals was released in 1996. The three design teams that expressed interest included:
  • McDonnell Douglas, Northrop Grumman, and British Aerospace: a relatively conventional design except that it did away with standard horizontal and vertical tails in favor of a flat-angle butterfly control surface. The STOVL version employed a separate lift fan installed aft of the cockpit coupled with a clam-shell to divert the main engine exhaust to two rotating nozzles for vertical flight. In forward flight, the clam-shell was opened and the exhaust flowed through the aft nozzle. The conventional models replaced this lift engine with an additional fuel tank.
  • Boeing: a delta wing design with a V-tail, and a scoop jet intake under the nose. The STOVL version drove thrust from the engine forward to a pair of vectored lift nozzles under the aircraft's center of gravity. The nose intake scoop hinged forward to allow greater airflow.
  • Lockheed Martin: conventional design, resembling a single-engined version of the F-22 Raptor. The STOVL version featured a lift fan behind the cockpit, driven by a shaft off the main engine, plus a vectored exhaust and two exhaust ducts, extending from each side of the engine to exit in the bottom of the wings.
Following evaluation in 1996, the McDonnell Douglas design was rejected as too complex, so Boeing and Lockheed were given contracts to build prototypes of their respective X-32 and X-35 submissions. These were not true prototypes participating in a competitive flyoff, as with the YF-22 and YF-23, but technology demonstrators showing different approaches to producing a common aircraft for the three armed forces.

Nonetheless, the Lockheed X-35 design was judged superior in 2001, and the company is now proceeding with additional development leading to full production of an operational fighter to begin entering service in about 2010. For detailed information on each of the competitors, see the Boeing X-32 and Lockheed Martin X-35 entries as well as the F-35.


Aerospaceweb.org | Aircraft Museum - F-35 Lightning II



X-32



MDD/NG/BAe entry

GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2008, 01:42
  #162 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: N.Ireland
Posts: 3
Maybe this is because I do not know that much about the user side of aircraft but i'm going to point out one thing that struck me but im sure it has been said before.

"Theres no fighters that have been made into carrierborne fighters" and "rafale and E/FA-18C/D/E and Dave are the only carrierborne fighters"

-Both Mig 29K and Sukhoi 27K/33 were designed as land based aircraft then converted for Naval use.

By using a ski-jump for Typhoon (such as is able to be built into the new carriers) it does not need to be stressed for catapult launches. I really dont know if Typhoon is/could be powerful enough to launch like this but im guessing its more likely to be do-able than not (possibly bigger wing area?)

. The big difficulty then is to get the aircraft back on deck and it probably isnt as big a job to get the airframe strengthened for the arrested landing than for arrested landing and catapult takeoff. Strengthened gear is heavy as well so even less payload , and I really dont know if it can be done. (Getting the aircraft to the point where the hook is to be used is a different story, though more wing area and a lower stalling speed wouldn't hurt)

OK big downside is that there needs to be air-to-air refuelling before the aircraft can have any sort of range with payload so it is a non starter but it is a different way to look at the problem other than saying cat launches wont work.

A400 is needed as soon as is possible and in my opinion it is too important to be cancelled, will be late but will prove to be pretty decent in the long run.
MrDave is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2008, 09:40
  #163 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: england
Posts: 935
MrDave...

Su-27 and Mig-29, whilst they do indeed get airborne from carriers, and doubtless are very feisty once they have, can also carry about as useful payload as a small flying fish in the process. Typhoon likewise would doubtless be able to get airborne from a carrier with a ski ramp, but a useful long range A-G payload sans catapult? Hmm.... as you say, only solution is to have AAR, which for UK PLC is going to mean buddy-buddy if you want a reliable form of carrier AAR, as the VC-10/Tristar/A-330 PFI are not always going to be avail. Buddy buddy means half the useful sortie rate, which is not ideal!

As for landing back on, it's not just as simple as re-jigging the gear to make it strong enough. Either you strengthen the whole airframe, or your fatigue life of the jet has just been hugely shortened.Even more so if you actually want to land back on with anything hanging under the wings.
pba_target is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2008, 14:05
  #164 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,545
Which raises the interesting question of how much one would have to mod the 'phoon in order to equal the stellar payoad/range performance of Dave B - 470 nm radius (high alt out, drop to LGB designation alt, high alt back) with 2 x 1000 lb bombs and two AMRAAMs? My guess (it's only that) is that the 'phoon could do that on internal fuel, and could readily do a STO at that weight.

So in one sense the response to the "nobody's ever modded a land-based fighter into a Navy fighter" is "well, Navy fighters aren't so hot either". In fact, if you look coldly at the Rhino, Dave B and their landbased contemporaries, you realize that the US Navy has allowed the performance gap between Navy and land-based fighters to widen to its greatest proportions since the days when the F4F Wildcat and the F2A Buffalo were the contemporaries of the Spitfire and Me109.

Another response is "nobody's tried since 1950". One thng we have learned since then is computer aided design, which actually makes it easier to build extra strength into the airframe without driving the weight through the roof or redesigning every part. We are also within spitting distance of routine carrier autoland.

Arrest is an issue... but if you look at the 'phoon it has a lower wing loading than the Rhino. The problem is that the delta likes to be more nose-up to get a higher CL and can't carry the Rhino's enormous flaps... but then, if a CEO can fly his Gulfstream into Jackson Hole on a filthy night using infrared, you'd think a steely-eyed fighter jock could do the same.

SeaPhoon? Risky, yes. Expensive, yes. More so than nine mission-critical doors and a 20-some MW clutch, driveshaft and bevel gears?
LowObservable is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2008, 20:57
  #165 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 64
Posts: 140
A recent browse of the jobs advertised on Budgie News's web site revealed a German firm looking for engineers to work on the 'Conceptual' design of the cargo floor and aerial delivery system for the A400M. Isn't it a bit late in the day to be working on a concept for what should be the heart of a Tactical Transport Aircraft.
What's the prototype got as a floor then?
wz662 is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2008, 05:52
  #166 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 137
Don't forgot, no prototype is ever intended to actually do the job. They are flying test-beds full of clever geekery to measure everything so that future frames can be perfected. I suspect the prototype has a floor that is not stressed for load carrying but is used solely for test equipment and will never see a landrover or pallet.

The floor really isn't the problem though. Unless the engines are sorted out, it doesn't matter what payload you've got on board
moosemaster is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2008, 10:05
  #167 (permalink)  

Do a Hover - it avoids G
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 86
Posts: 2,206
Interesting how the same words can mean different things to different people

I took 'Conceptual design of the cargo floor and aerial delivery system for the A400M' as relating to the detail design of the fittings associated with different loads, tie downs, delivery systems even powered loading systems ie the whole load handling package
John Farley is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2008, 20:18
  #168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 64
Posts: 140
I know for a fact that the A400M has already had at last two designs of cargo handling system (WZ662 is admiting to being involved with the project) and the prototypes have been built to accept one of them, hence my horror at the word conceptual in a job advert only posted this week. My fear is that things have changed yet again.
wz662 is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2008, 15:13
  #169 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,275
Defense-Aerospace.Com's Press Releases, 17 Oct 2008...

Norwegian Industry Wants Sweden's Gripen Jets- Report
(Source: Nordic News Digest; issued Oct. 16, 2008)

The best decision for the Norwegian industry would be the purchase of Swedish JAS 39 Gripen fighter jets and not US F-35 Lightning II, a common report by two industry organisations and a labour union showed on Wednesday.

The Norwegian Defence and Security Industries Association (FSi), trade union Landsorganisasjonen (LO) and Norwegian Society of Engineers (NITO), with a total one million members, recommended in the report the authorities to invest in 48 new JAS 39 Gripen jets instead of in US F-35 Lightning II, know as Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), made by Lockheed Martin Corp. Gripen is manufactured by Swedish defence and aerospace group Saab AB.

Gripen is the best alternative from the industrial perspective, FSi administrative director Torbjorn Svensgard told Norwegian daily Dagsavisen today.

Gripen has already identified much more projects in Norway, to take part in, compared with JSF, and these projects are spread across the whole country. A JSF choice will have negative consequences for the expansion and further development of the Norwegian defence industry, according to the report.

If Norway chooses Gripen, this will enable large production, as well as research and development, and more work places, FSi said.

Although the report is important, the LO union has not taken a final position in the discussion yet, LO's leader Roar Flathen said.

Norway's government is due to make a decision about the fighters before Christmas.
ORAC is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2008, 15:49
  #170 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,545
Once there was a silly old ram
Thought he'd butt a hole in a dam...


Wouldn't have expected this a couple years ago, would you?
LowObservable is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2008, 07:08
  #171 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 137
wz662.

You must be a bit ahead of me in the information chain (also admits to A400M involvement, although thankfully not linked to designing the beast)

We must compare notes some time.
moosemaster is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2008, 07:37
  #172 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: GONE BY 2012
Age: 47
Posts: 151
So are we looking good for the hotly rumoured 12/24 month delay to delivery of the A400M then?

Has Snoopy actually flown any of the 50 hour engine flight test schedule?

Does it have ESF/Fuel Tank inerting and the latest DAS for all 25 airframes?

Does it have a usable cargo floor?

Have we sorted out para and air despatch/re-supply yet?

41 months until the last remaining C130K's are retired and counting
Truckkie is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2008, 13:36
  #173 (permalink)  

 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bourton-on-the-Water
Posts: 886
Truckkie, you ask about A-400M
Does it have ESF/Fuel Tank inerting and the latest DAS for all 25 airframes?
If it's any help the DEC (Director of Equipment Capability) who covered the A-400M from Apr 2005 to Apr 2008, Brig Hamish McNinch, gave evidence on oath about this at the Hercules Inquest.

He confirmed that the RAF will have 25 A-400Ms (and 24 C-130Js and 6 C-17s), and the coroner asked him
Will all those aircraft be fitted with some form of fuel tank protection?
The Brigadier answered unequivocally, "yes".

However, earlier he had said that the funding had not yet been made available for the whole OBIGGS fit for the A-400M. They had instead funded fitting the pipework, with a view to using the 'Pro-Fit' system which he said can be fitted as required in a matter of hours.

The question of DAS did not come up directly in this part of the Inquest, but the scuttlebutt has it that fewer than half of the 25 aircraft have had funding approved for DAS.

airsound
airsound is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2008, 01:24
  #174 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 74
Only ‘cretins’ jeer forces, says John Hutton - Times Online

Hutton is surprisingly frank about the shortage of money, making it clear he plans to axe one or more big procurement projects.

He won’t be drawn on detail, but insiders believe his comments spell the end of the £9 billion joint strike fighter (JSF) jump-jet project. Plans for 25 transport aircraft for the RAF are also likely to be at risk. Some other big projects, however, such as the Eurofighter and the Astute submarine, are just too costly – both politically and financially – to abandon at this stage.

“There’s precious little point in cancelling a contract if it ends up costing more as a result. I’d rather have the kit than the liability,” Hutton says.
TiffyFGR4 is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2008, 08:22
  #175 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Pathfinder Country
Posts: 454
If you cancel JSF what are you going to put on the two bl--dy great Carriers?
aw ditor is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2008, 09:39
  #176 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 150
"[Hutton] won’t be drawn on detail, but insiders believe his comments spell the end of the £9 billion joint strike fighter (JSF) jump-jet project. Plans for 25 transport aircraft for the RAF are also likely to be at risk."

Can someone tell me what is an insider? Surely an insider with direct access to these programmes or procurement decisions at ministerial level would not "believe", they would know. Sounds to me like a journalist guessing by looking around at various programmes that could be cancelled/reduced (following on from previous Times' articles on cancellation/reductions of Eurofighter tranche three and the cancellation of Future Lynx) knowing that some cuts are inevitable somewhere.
mick2088 is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2008, 11:49
  #177 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Henley, Oxfordshire
Posts: 165
When did the Times ever predict the death of Tranche 3 and how would that save any money? It wouldnt. Try to forget JSF, you arent going to get it.
Mick Smith is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2008, 13:23
  #178 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Well you can start with an article from 2007 entitled MoD seeks a way out of Typhoon contract - Times Online which directly mentioned cancellation and reduction adding to other speculation like the cancellation of the Future Lynx.

As for saying the UK won't get the JSF, on what basis? The original Times article that this new one draws on actually mentioned consideration, pretty much like most of the major projects are undergoing at the moment. No JSFs for the UK? Tell that to the JSF Programme Office and the companies working on it and have been working on the thing so it can operate on board the CVFs. Because they still think they are.
mick2088 is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2008, 19:48
  #179 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Henley, Oxfordshire
Posts: 165
Well I guess I made a rod for my own back there by allowing your original mistake in talking loosely about the Times. The two JSF refs are from the Sunday Times which shares a website but is completely different from the Times, and that article in the Times - rather than the Sunday Times - was by a business correspondent who didnt bother mentioning that unless all the main countries agree to a reduction they are all bound to pay for every aircraft they originally ordered whether or not they want them. Oddly, given the lock-in was designed by us to keep them in the deal, while slapping them about the head repeatedly for daring to think twice, the Germans seem very reluctant to let us off the hook on that one.

Whether or not the guys on the ground know anything, JSF is for the chop. The defence chiefs persuaded Des to take a plan to chop it to Gordon and he turned it down flat because he didnt want any public defence cuts. Hutton has obviously taken the job on the basis that the whole business side of the MoD needs sorting and has clearly persuaded Gordon to bite the bullet. Hutton was very clear, one or more big procurement projects will have to go. That is finally someone in government or at the top of the MoD actually admitting that there is just a small cash problem.

Hutton is surprisingly frank about the shortage of money, making it clear he plans to axe one or more big procurement projects.

“We’ve got to make ends meet,” he says. He admits this means “some changes on the procurement side”.

He won’t be drawn on detail, but insiders believe his comments spell the end of the £9 billion joint strike fighter (JSF) jump-jet project. Plans for 25 transport aircraft for the RAF are also likely to be at risk. Some other big projects, however, such as the Eurofighter and the Astute submarine, are just too costly – both politically and financially – to abandon at this stage.

“There’s precious little point in cancelling a contract if it ends up costing more as a result. I’d rather have the kit than the liability,” Hutton says.
It can't be Typhoon because of the lock-in deal. It won't be the carriers themselves because that would mean major loss of face not to mention major loss of jobs in Gordon's constituency. It can't be the T45s, we are just too far down the line on those. Future Lynx is an option but that would put Westlands down the tubes, the Italians would pull out straight away and Labour constituencies in the south-west would be effected, and anyway we have a dire shortage of helicopters. It can't be Astute because we are too far down the line there and anyway we need the seven attack subs and the four nuclear subs to keep the UK submarine industry going. Given that Hutton is MP for Barrow, I dont really see messing that up as an option. You could argue that all the latest armoured vehicles the army has make FRES irrelevant but we still need new armoured reconnaissance vehicles, Scimitar is dead on its feet. The A400 is a distinct possibility - cancelling it will be cheap - but won't on its own save enough money.

JSF on the other had just got 25 per cent more expensive thanks to the financial crash, working out how much that extra cost will be is an interesting one given that the dollar price is going up month on month and no-one at Lockheed can tell you how much it will actually cost when it is finally built, and there's that little matter of those numbskulls on the hill who think we Brits are dangerous lefties who cant be trusted with the technical secrets of an aircraft we're supposed to be building together.

Then add in BAE Systems being asked to work out whether some of our Eurofighters can't be marinised and surprise, surprise coming up with the bullish answer: "Oh yes". I'm afraid it doesnt really matter what the sceptics on PPRuNe think, or indeed how much more experience and know-how they have in landing on carriers than anyone making a decision. This is only going to go one way.

As I said, forget JSF, it's already gone.
Mick Smith is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2008, 20:20
  #180 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,541
Hutton has just been on 'The Politics Show' and when pushed asked with an unequivocal yes to the question would CVF be built.

In addition he gave the impression that at least part of the JSF order was safe stating that carriers without aircraft would be pointless. And here's the link to the politics show, interview on the BBC website:BBC NEWS | Programmes | Politics Show | Hutton: We could be there for decades.
GreenKnight121 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.