More delays for the F-35
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 53
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4. Longer startup time - the aircraft meets its startup time requirements. Yes, big engines take a longer time to get going, though.
The 'Naval Typhoon' (not that it actually exists) is not resistant to saline environments.
7. Because of this, talk of 'only limited strengthening being needed' is about as credible as the LM claims you mentioned. 370kg is a dream, and doesn't match the actual results of doing the same exercise on T-45 or F-35. The problem is that for cat and trap ops, there are all new load paths that just don't exist on a land based aircraft. You need new metal in new places, not beefed up existing.
At least we should give the EF consortium the same benefit of the doubt like we're giving the likes of LM (not that any of them really seem to desreve it).
9. Finally, and here's the crunch, the UK do not want the world's best A2A close combat aircraft (which, by the way, I agree that the EF very probably is) flying off the ships. They want a fully capable strike aircraft with 'day one' signature. That's why the USN are going for F-35C, and that's why we are too.
The F35 is on the verge of being your biggest enemies best allie, it will deplete funds so much that you have to cancel other necessary assets just to fund this one weapon which makes the dubious claim to be a one size fitts all, something promised before by other 'miracle' weapon systems but never delivered upon.
I just cannot forget a discussion I had with a US Army captain UH60 pilot who said that it seemed to him that the public are vastly overestimating the technological capabilities the US DoD really has while at the same time underestimating the level of training put into many of its soldiers.
The USAF (or NAVY, RAF, RAAF, .....) are not superior just because they have better weapons but also, mainly because we have better training and education methodology.
This blind willingness to poor vast amounts of resources into something like the F35 (and before the F22) which promises to rule from its technological level of supremacy is a potential disaster waiting to happen, it severely undermines other important parts of the military such as its ability to buy, train and maintain sufficient numbers of planes and people.
Like N Shwarzkopff (spelling?) once said "there's no quality like quantity".
Also what's gonna happen when one day we really get involved in a full scale conflict and the adversary has somebody with half a decent brain (think general Paul K. Van Riper-type )on him and decides to play not with the same rules like we do, just look at what happened the first days of exercise
Millennium Challenge 2002 and see how far the reliance on technology brought the blue forces.
¨[RANT OFF]¨
Even if NF2000 was capable of ramp t/o (and as Engines suggests it's some way off that), the STOBAR method is an incredibly inefficient way of operating a deck. It's the worst of both worlds - large launch area (cf catapult) and large recovery area (cf STOVL). You end up with the lowest safe parking area for a given size of ship compared to the alternatives.
On a more ironic note, have just dug out the Aircraft Carrier Reference Data Manual and although the specific geometries are not included, it does cover all the considerations and references the relevant MIL std (18717C if you must know). Interestingly, two specific technical references to work on both arrester cable depression by wheel impact and hook bounce are included, both from RAE Farnborough and dating from the early 50's!
On a more ironic note, have just dug out the Aircraft Carrier Reference Data Manual and although the specific geometries are not included, it does cover all the considerations and references the relevant MIL std (18717C if you must know). Interestingly, two specific technical references to work on both arrester cable depression by wheel impact and hook bounce are included, both from RAE Farnborough and dating from the early 50's!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What an excellent debate and every single piece of footage I have seen of the SU-33 taking off on the ski slope of the Russian carrier gives the impression that its take off weight is severely restricting the amount of ordinance it can carry. Reading literature is one thing but reality may well be something completely different.
Talking about Naval versions of Air Force aircraft
(I'm guessing Photoshopped)
I have no idea where all our money has gone but after the Sea Vixen and Buccaneer did we then start looking across the ocean instead of designing our own aircraft? (thinking F-4 Phantom) Sea Harrier was an excellent example of what we could achieve but we are talking aircraft for conventional or proper aircraft carriers.
I still keep asking myself 'Was it just a joy ride when our First Sea Lord was granted the opportunity of going up in an F-18?'
Is there a chance that the F-35 might be the equivalent of our Nimrod modernization program? (question and NOT a sarcastic quip)
Talking about Naval versions of Air Force aircraft
(I'm guessing Photoshopped)
the British who seem to be too willing to just give up on their ability to design a complete fighter from the ground up themselves.
I still keep asking myself 'Was it just a joy ride when our First Sea Lord was granted the opportunity of going up in an F-18?'
Is there a chance that the F-35 might be the equivalent of our Nimrod modernization program? (question and NOT a sarcastic quip)
Last edited by glojo; 11th Jan 2012 at 14:53. Reason: re-think
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Stealth door on the gun?
I thought the gun was only internal on the A and was a centreline pod on the C? The space being used for the refuelling probe?
I thought the gun was only internal on the A and was a centreline pod on the C? The space being used for the refuelling probe?
A good link Glojo. Actually the most useful thing there is the link that says This graphic (which I cannot link to - sorry - just scroll down from the following link) on the page http://www.f-16.net/news_article4494.html as it very clearly shows the MLG to Hook show distances. Even the T-45 (a Hawk) has twice the distance of F-35C.
Mrs C has just remarked that surely the designers should have known about that. I can't help agreeing with her. Would I dare not?
Courtney
Mrs C has just remarked that surely the designers should have known about that. I can't help agreeing with her. Would I dare not?
Courtney
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 11th Jan 2012 at 17:45.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 53
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stealth door on the gun?
I thought the gun was only internal on the A and was a centreline pod on the C? The space being used for the refuelling probe?
I thought the gun was only internal on the A and was a centreline pod on the C? The space being used for the refuelling probe?
I was assuming ,with commonality in mind, that they all had the same gun in
the same place.
I assumed similar layout than F35B for the probe.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is an image of the file Courtney very kindly located.. Typing with both dinner on chest AND the keyboard is quite a challenge.. who knows?? I will have to try and resolve this problem next... Signed Captain Hook
This image is extracted from a file that is not classified
This image is extracted from a file that is not classified
Last edited by glojo; 11th Jan 2012 at 22:06. Reason: Add file
Interesting. The refuelling vid looks like the probe is very close to the fuselage (and on the wrong side AGAIN) so the drogue gets a fairly big push from the airflow around the nose.
Main debrief point: he's sitting too low in contact. Sort it out next time.
C
Main debrief point: he's sitting too low in contact. Sort it out next time.
C
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Is that so? I was assuming ,with commonality in mind, that they all had the same gun in the same place.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 53
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thx for the explanation ORAC, learned something new today.
I fail to see however why the Gun isn't integrated in the C version like in the A,
the Refuelling probe obviously isn't the problem, maybe something wrt weight ?
So when on CAP with a Stealth need, it will only carry 4 AAM's internally and no gun (probably not stealthy this gunpod ??) , seems very meager to say the least.
edit;spelling, spelling , spelling
I fail to see however why the Gun isn't integrated in the C version like in the A,
the Refuelling probe obviously isn't the problem, maybe something wrt weight ?
So when on CAP with a Stealth need, it will only carry 4 AAM's internally and no gun (probably not stealthy this gunpod ??) , seems very meager to say the least.
edit;spelling, spelling , spelling
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
The gun did not get integrated into the B for weight and fuel space reasons. On the C, simpler reason - just no requirement - USN have carried guns around for years on the Hornet and apparently hardly ever used.
Kbrock, your point on the gun is well made - my fault for misunderstanding you. Yes, the revolver Mauser cannon has its full rate of fire from trigger press, while the Gatling takes around .75 seconds to spool up. That is actually an issue with all gatlings, and usually coped with by simply opening fire early and 'swiping' the gun aiming point across the target. However, not an efficient use of bullets.
F-35C (and A) can carry 6 AAM internally not 4.
Best Regards as ever
Engines
The gun did not get integrated into the B for weight and fuel space reasons. On the C, simpler reason - just no requirement - USN have carried guns around for years on the Hornet and apparently hardly ever used.
Kbrock, your point on the gun is well made - my fault for misunderstanding you. Yes, the revolver Mauser cannon has its full rate of fire from trigger press, while the Gatling takes around .75 seconds to spool up. That is actually an issue with all gatlings, and usually coped with by simply opening fire early and 'swiping' the gun aiming point across the target. However, not an efficient use of bullets.
F-35C (and A) can carry 6 AAM internally not 4.
Best Regards as ever
Engines
Engines,
As ever, a concise and well made point. Question though about the Gatling. I don't recall the Vulcan cannon taking that long to fire. Of course, I now recall that the flywheel was spun up electrically as soon as we put power on the station. F-15 was the same. I am getting to the point slowly, I promise. Is this installation a 'fire from cold' gun? That would take some spinning up, but I don't know how it works in F35.
As ever, a concise and well made point. Question though about the Gatling. I don't recall the Vulcan cannon taking that long to fire. Of course, I now recall that the flywheel was spun up electrically as soon as we put power on the station. F-15 was the same. I am getting to the point slowly, I promise. Is this installation a 'fire from cold' gun? That would take some spinning up, but I don't know how it works in F35.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 53
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F-35C (and A) can carry 6 AAM internally not 4.
If so, I'm not entirely certain that the extra iternal hard point is also meant to carry an extra AAM, it was originally meant for extra A2G weaponry, I believe.
Also as an aside,
There are rumours flying around that the B has some serious weight and GoG issues (too far forward) preventing it from being able to lift up from the deck of the smaller carriers, certainly those without skijump (eg, Japanese and Korean)
with its full weaponsload (MTOW).
Anything other than the big US LHD's, the Cavour maybe and the new CVF's won't
be able to use it with sufficient weapons and fuel, that must be a concern to all those nations that dreamed of performing fixed wing ops from their small carriers.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave-B
Anything other than the big US LHD's, the Cavour maybe and the new CVF's won't be able to use it with sufficient weapons and fuel, that must be a concern to all those nations that dreamed of performing fixed wing ops from their small carriers.
S41
Would it not be smart to Fit the A model with a probe fuel system as well as the boom? The F-105 had both. ++
In these coalition war days having access to both types of tankers would be advantageous methinks...
*The Canadian CF-35 will differ from the American F-35A through the addition of a drag chute and an F-35B/C style refueling probe.
++This aircraft is a 21st Century F-105 if you compare the basic specs..
In these coalition war days having access to both types of tankers would be advantageous methinks...
*The Canadian CF-35 will differ from the American F-35A through the addition of a drag chute and an F-35B/C style refueling probe.
++This aircraft is a 21st Century F-105 if you compare the basic specs..
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney,
My apologies for not being clearer. Right, guns stuff...
A Gatling fires almost right away, flywheels or not. But it starts at a low rate of fire. The flywheel was there because the motor has to accelerate not only the gun barrel group and all the breeches and bolts, but also the whole ammunition train. The flywheel reduces peak loads and the size of the motor and gearbox, but at the cost of a constant power drain. What all that means is that it's usually about 0.75 seconds before the Gatling gets to full rate of fire.
What that means is that if you fire the gatling in short bursts (and you normally have to on a fighter as you don't have unlimited bullets) you get an average rate of fire that can be around half that on the box. What that means, in turn, is that you have less chance of hitting or killing the target, especially in air to air where the firing opportunity is usually a fraction of a second.
Gatlings are also high volume and high weight, as they have four/five/six barrels, use more ammunition (more volume and weight) and also use more power. None of these are great on a small and crowded aircraft like the F-35.
Revolver cannons fire at full rate straight away and stay at that rate for the full burst. That increases kill probability. They are less volume, lighter (especially the amazing Russian/Czech designs) and use less power. So, it's a slam dunk for revolvers? Not quite.
Gatlings have, thanks to excellent work by the US designers, very good ammunition feed systems, usually linkless, which is great for aircraft when you don't want spent links banging into the LO skin. Revolver guns are more difficult to feed, because they accelerate so fast, and Mauser were trying for some time to develop a linkless feed system for Typhoon as well as JSF. Don't know if they ever succeeded. Finally, because the rate of fire is spread over a number of barrels the issue of barrel wear is less of an issue. Revolvers are also more complex than gatlings and require more servicing.
In recent years, the issue of guns has changed, but most users haven't noticed. New radars that work at very short ranges, accurate EO sensors and computers that perform ballistic calculations 100 times a second instead of once a second all mean that the hit probability in air to air gun combat has shot up - but most air staffs don't really grasp that. Add in the possibility of taking 'off boresight' shots by using thrust vectoring and/or clever flying controls and the effectiveness of guns shoots up again.
Sorry to be a bit of a nerd, but i spent a few happy years in my youth buying guns. Niche job, but great.
So, as ever in any engineering decision, it's a balance and all depends on requirements, timing and often politics as well. The Gatling for the 35 looks a good solution, but in my view should stay in a pod as per the B and C - I don't think that the A really has the space and weight margin for an internal fit.
Hope this informs and helps
Best Regards
Engines
My apologies for not being clearer. Right, guns stuff...
A Gatling fires almost right away, flywheels or not. But it starts at a low rate of fire. The flywheel was there because the motor has to accelerate not only the gun barrel group and all the breeches and bolts, but also the whole ammunition train. The flywheel reduces peak loads and the size of the motor and gearbox, but at the cost of a constant power drain. What all that means is that it's usually about 0.75 seconds before the Gatling gets to full rate of fire.
What that means is that if you fire the gatling in short bursts (and you normally have to on a fighter as you don't have unlimited bullets) you get an average rate of fire that can be around half that on the box. What that means, in turn, is that you have less chance of hitting or killing the target, especially in air to air where the firing opportunity is usually a fraction of a second.
Gatlings are also high volume and high weight, as they have four/five/six barrels, use more ammunition (more volume and weight) and also use more power. None of these are great on a small and crowded aircraft like the F-35.
Revolver cannons fire at full rate straight away and stay at that rate for the full burst. That increases kill probability. They are less volume, lighter (especially the amazing Russian/Czech designs) and use less power. So, it's a slam dunk for revolvers? Not quite.
Gatlings have, thanks to excellent work by the US designers, very good ammunition feed systems, usually linkless, which is great for aircraft when you don't want spent links banging into the LO skin. Revolver guns are more difficult to feed, because they accelerate so fast, and Mauser were trying for some time to develop a linkless feed system for Typhoon as well as JSF. Don't know if they ever succeeded. Finally, because the rate of fire is spread over a number of barrels the issue of barrel wear is less of an issue. Revolvers are also more complex than gatlings and require more servicing.
In recent years, the issue of guns has changed, but most users haven't noticed. New radars that work at very short ranges, accurate EO sensors and computers that perform ballistic calculations 100 times a second instead of once a second all mean that the hit probability in air to air gun combat has shot up - but most air staffs don't really grasp that. Add in the possibility of taking 'off boresight' shots by using thrust vectoring and/or clever flying controls and the effectiveness of guns shoots up again.
Sorry to be a bit of a nerd, but i spent a few happy years in my youth buying guns. Niche job, but great.
So, as ever in any engineering decision, it's a balance and all depends on requirements, timing and often politics as well. The Gatling for the 35 looks a good solution, but in my view should stay in a pod as per the B and C - I don't think that the A really has the space and weight margin for an internal fit.
Hope this informs and helps
Best Regards
Engines
Engnes,
THANK YOU! It all makes perfect sense now you explain it. Why didn't enyone tell me before - and I was a QWI. Now you mention it I do recall that the electricaly driven flywheel in the F4 pod only ran the gun (dry) at an RPM much below the full up firing rate, but at least it started firing from already spinning. I don't think we were too short of power in the Phantom or the F-15 and the extra weight was nothing compared to what it is is in the 35. So, let's buy really big jets!
I am no wiser, but somewaht better informed!
Courtney
THANK YOU! It all makes perfect sense now you explain it. Why didn't enyone tell me before - and I was a QWI. Now you mention it I do recall that the electricaly driven flywheel in the F4 pod only ran the gun (dry) at an RPM much below the full up firing rate, but at least it started firing from already spinning. I don't think we were too short of power in the Phantom or the F-15 and the extra weight was nothing compared to what it is is in the 35. So, let's buy really big jets!
I am no wiser, but somewaht better informed!
Courtney
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 53
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gatling guns question
Engines,
Since you seem very knowledgeable about Gatling guns, is there a reason why
we don't do as the Russians and use Gas operated Gatlings iso the elektrical
or hydro-pneumatic operated guns we have.
As far as I know they have no issues with ramp up time , have an extremely high firing rate (up to 10000/min for 23mm), also automated feed and high reliability.
Also I read somewhere that on their FloggersB's or Su24's (don't know exactly anymore) they had some sort of automated fireline adjust system that was extremely accurate.
GSh-6-23,23mm up till 10000RPM and lighter than Vulcan cannon
GSH6-30,30mm, 6000RPM
Since you seem very knowledgeable about Gatling guns, is there a reason why
we don't do as the Russians and use Gas operated Gatlings iso the elektrical
or hydro-pneumatic operated guns we have.
As far as I know they have no issues with ramp up time , have an extremely high firing rate (up to 10000/min for 23mm), also automated feed and high reliability.
Also I read somewhere that on their FloggersB's or Su24's (don't know exactly anymore) they had some sort of automated fireline adjust system that was extremely accurate.
GSh-6-23,23mm up till 10000RPM and lighter than Vulcan cannon
GSH6-30,30mm, 6000RPM
Last edited by kbrockman; 12th Jan 2012 at 23:37.