No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?
Trying to put myself in the position of the MoD re Harrier sale.
The only likely buyer is the USMC.
They offered us more than scrap.
They are going to an ally.
Did not the same situation exist in 1940 when we got those 50 destroyers off the Yanks?
and MoD is not in the business of speculating on the possible delays to the F-35B, especially as that would be betting against current policy.
Keeping it on the F-35B, I would now expect the US to be a bit more favourable towards us over it's future. It looks like that may have happened with Barak giving Dave a quiet word in his shell-like over current difficulties. They still seem to be keeping the Canadians in the dark over F-35 costs.
The only likely buyer is the USMC.
They offered us more than scrap.
They are going to an ally.
Did not the same situation exist in 1940 when we got those 50 destroyers off the Yanks?
and MoD is not in the business of speculating on the possible delays to the F-35B, especially as that would be betting against current policy.
Keeping it on the F-35B, I would now expect the US to be a bit more favourable towards us over it's future. It looks like that may have happened with Barak giving Dave a quiet word in his shell-like over current difficulties. They still seem to be keeping the Canadians in the dark over F-35 costs.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hval
I think the simple answer to all your questions is no. In the early days engine reilability was seen as vital to the future of jet VSTOL. Usually reliability gets better as you avoid complexity. In 1964 the Pegasus I flew had a 1 hour life with the nozzles deflected (25 hrs nozzles aft). Whenever it was pulled after the hour was up and went back for a strip overhaul there was always one blade missing in the hot end so the life allowance was hardly ultra-conservative. I don't know what thrust that engine would have produced at 50 deg C but I would guess about 8,000lb. Today's donk offers over 24,000 plus goodness knows what life - I lost interest once it passed 1000 hrs years ago.
There was continued development of the front end blade shapes and much more importantly big improvements to the hot end. In the end the Pegaus was FLAT RATED to 50deg C ambient. Or if you are not familiar with the significance of that in plain English it translates to the pilot only had RPM limits and could turn his back on JPT instead of checking that with evey third breath as was the case in earlier times.
With a powered lift aircraft you must control the thrust centre in the hover in the same way as the CG in normal flight. (sorry if I am teaching granny to suck eggs)
There was continued development of the front end blade shapes and much more importantly big improvements to the hot end. In the end the Pegaus was FLAT RATED to 50deg C ambient. Or if you are not familiar with the significance of that in plain English it translates to the pilot only had RPM limits and could turn his back on JPT instead of checking that with evey third breath as was the case in earlier times.
With a powered lift aircraft you must control the thrust centre in the hover in the same way as the CG in normal flight. (sorry if I am teaching granny to suck eggs)
Last edited by John Farley; 22nd Mar 2012 at 16:22.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mickj3
The F111 proved a most capable multi roleaircraft and is still in service with the USAF 40/50 years later having seenactive service from the Vietnam war onwards . The Phantom is long gone.
Not quite... The USAF retired the last bomber-version F-111 in July 1996, and the last EF-111 in May 1998.
The only other user in the world, Australia, retired theirs in December 2010.
So the USAF only used the F-111 for 30 years, and the RAAF used them for 37 years (delivered 1973).
JF - "Usually reliability gets better as you avoid complexity."
So true. Thank goodness that the F-35B is a nice, simple system with two propulsion units, a clutch, 90-degree 20MW reduction gears, four thrust nozzles, a blocker valve, a set of cascades and nine cover doors.
Actually, I tend to agree with Engines that making all this work is a miracle of engineering. I do worry that it will always be a bit of a bear from the maintenance aspect.
So true. Thank goodness that the F-35B is a nice, simple system with two propulsion units, a clutch, 90-degree 20MW reduction gears, four thrust nozzles, a blocker valve, a set of cascades and nine cover doors.
Actually, I tend to agree with Engines that making all this work is a miracle of engineering. I do worry that it will always be a bit of a bear from the maintenance aspect.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Code:
I do worry that it will always be a bit of a bear from the maintenance aspect
Can that make sense??? If its true, and typical, the possibility of a screw-up in maintenance must be considerable
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Milo,
The aircraft with a hatch with 20 plus different lengths of screws is - Typhoon. That aircraft had an equally massive (but unreported) weight problem during development. Actually, most combat aircraft have a weight problem at some time. STOVL brings it into sharper focus as the weight vs. thrust equation is fairly black and white.
I can tell you that every panel on JSF was carefully looked at to get weight out, and the teams doing this had a lot of input from highly skilled and experienced maintainers.
The best solution from a maintenance aspect would be one size of fastener over the whole aircraft. Not practicable, so the next best choice is one size in one panel. If you can't bear that weight, things are more complicated and you end up trading fastener size and length - neither the best choice.
On one JSF panel I remember we ended up going for two different fastener sizes, far enough apart to make it harder to use the wrong tool. JSF has lots of panels (good for access) so lots of fastener issues to address.
As far as the multiplicity of nozzles, hatches and covers go, well that's what you get when you ask an LO supersonic aircraft to have a minimum flying speed of zero. I have to admit to getting ever so slightly miffed when people get sarcastic over that truth.
I suppose what I'm trying to put over is that the JSF team have done their level best to cover all the angles and meet the specs. The most onerous specs were in the areas of logistics and maintenance and they have spent a shedload of time and money to get to the best answers they can. They have also used highly talented people. Have they got everything just hunky dory? No. Have they done damn well? Hell, yes.
Best Regards as ever
Engines
The aircraft with a hatch with 20 plus different lengths of screws is - Typhoon. That aircraft had an equally massive (but unreported) weight problem during development. Actually, most combat aircraft have a weight problem at some time. STOVL brings it into sharper focus as the weight vs. thrust equation is fairly black and white.
I can tell you that every panel on JSF was carefully looked at to get weight out, and the teams doing this had a lot of input from highly skilled and experienced maintainers.
The best solution from a maintenance aspect would be one size of fastener over the whole aircraft. Not practicable, so the next best choice is one size in one panel. If you can't bear that weight, things are more complicated and you end up trading fastener size and length - neither the best choice.
On one JSF panel I remember we ended up going for two different fastener sizes, far enough apart to make it harder to use the wrong tool. JSF has lots of panels (good for access) so lots of fastener issues to address.
As far as the multiplicity of nozzles, hatches and covers go, well that's what you get when you ask an LO supersonic aircraft to have a minimum flying speed of zero. I have to admit to getting ever so slightly miffed when people get sarcastic over that truth.
I suppose what I'm trying to put over is that the JSF team have done their level best to cover all the angles and meet the specs. The most onerous specs were in the areas of logistics and maintenance and they have spent a shedload of time and money to get to the best answers they can. They have also used highly talented people. Have they got everything just hunky dory? No. Have they done damn well? Hell, yes.
Best Regards as ever
Engines
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why Major Acquisition Programs Fail | AVIATION WEEK
The link takes you to an Aviation Week item from a few weeks back. Not a technical piece but easy reading, and I could certainly recognise the traits discussed in military programmes I have observed over many years. It isn't F35-specific and it's short on answers, but then so are we all. While finances stay tighter than a duck's posterior, it's very important we do things different next time. If we are awash with cash then you just keep spending it until it does what you said it would, but it's hard to see when those days might return. I see the USAF have also recently said their budget for F35A will not increase, so if the price goes up, the units purchased will come down.
It's part of F35's woes that it is facing unprecedented (in recent times) global financial headwinds. In other times, it might have raised much grumbling but the bills would have been paid. Equally, there seems to have been some very optimistic assumptions. Over-confidence in CAD for instance, that has delayed the programme to the point where it has been caught in a financial storm it might otherwise just have sneaked in front of and missed the worst.
I have no doubt that lots of people are now shedding blood sweat and tears - and then some more - to try and get it back on track. The cost is now out of the window and it's too late for it to be anything other than really ugly (not that it's the first military procurement to suffer from that). The acid tests now will be that the output matches or exceeds the input ie it meets the KPP's, and that it is still relevant when we get there. I wish the people charged with the responsibility for the first bit the luck to match their efforts. The second bit, I just wish all the users waiting for it all the luck in the world too.
The link takes you to an Aviation Week item from a few weeks back. Not a technical piece but easy reading, and I could certainly recognise the traits discussed in military programmes I have observed over many years. It isn't F35-specific and it's short on answers, but then so are we all. While finances stay tighter than a duck's posterior, it's very important we do things different next time. If we are awash with cash then you just keep spending it until it does what you said it would, but it's hard to see when those days might return. I see the USAF have also recently said their budget for F35A will not increase, so if the price goes up, the units purchased will come down.
It's part of F35's woes that it is facing unprecedented (in recent times) global financial headwinds. In other times, it might have raised much grumbling but the bills would have been paid. Equally, there seems to have been some very optimistic assumptions. Over-confidence in CAD for instance, that has delayed the programme to the point where it has been caught in a financial storm it might otherwise just have sneaked in front of and missed the worst.
I have no doubt that lots of people are now shedding blood sweat and tears - and then some more - to try and get it back on track. The cost is now out of the window and it's too late for it to be anything other than really ugly (not that it's the first military procurement to suffer from that). The acid tests now will be that the output matches or exceeds the input ie it meets the KPP's, and that it is still relevant when we get there. I wish the people charged with the responsibility for the first bit the luck to match their efforts. The second bit, I just wish all the users waiting for it all the luck in the world too.
Last edited by Lowe Flieger; 23rd Mar 2012 at 19:23. Reason: Correcting grammar!
Thread Starter
Engines, nice post - as was your call to celebrate the uk engineering contribution to JSF earlier.
Was the typhoon panel you mention the avionics bay panel? Wasn't this also structural? Were the bolts captive?
Was the typhoon panel you mention the avionics bay panel? Wasn't this also structural? Were the bolts captive?
"That's what you get when you ask an LO supersonic aircraft to have a minimum flying speed of zero."
Very true. I don't think anyone could have done much better, except perhaps the Macs design with a main-engine blocker and pop-out nozzles and a lift engine.
But nobody said in 1995: "Errrmmm... it's taken 30 years and the testing of all kinds of weird-looking aircraft to get where we can think of supersonic STOVL - and now we want LO as well?"
Or, quite possibly they did, and were told: "Don't bother your head about it, sonny, because it all has to do with stealth, and all you're cleared to know about that is Oooh-ee Oooh-ha-ha Ping Pang Walla Walla Wing Wang. Now
off."
Very true. I don't think anyone could have done much better, except perhaps the Macs design with a main-engine blocker and pop-out nozzles and a lift engine.
But nobody said in 1995: "Errrmmm... it's taken 30 years and the testing of all kinds of weird-looking aircraft to get where we can think of supersonic STOVL - and now we want LO as well?"
Or, quite possibly they did, and were told: "Don't bother your head about it, sonny, because it all has to do with stealth, and all you're cleared to know about that is Oooh-ee Oooh-ha-ha Ping Pang Walla Walla Wing Wang. Now
off."
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southampton
Age: 54
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft carrier costs will be half what you think, US tells ministers - Telegraph
The septics are stepping in to the argument to tell us to stop messing around!
The septics are stepping in to the argument to tell us to stop messing around!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well that changes everything!
if the US are willing to GUARANTEE the cost will only be £ 400 miilion its an easy decision (tho the rip-off merchants building the crarriers will have to find another way of charging squillions for their bottom line)
if the US are saying their best estimate is £ 400mm then I think we'd look at their own record of forecasting costs on the B-2, F-22 and F-35.....................
if the US are willing to GUARANTEE the cost will only be £ 400 miilion its an easy decision (tho the rip-off merchants building the crarriers will have to find another way of charging squillions for their bottom line)
if the US are saying their best estimate is £ 400mm then I think we'd look at their own record of forecasting costs on the B-2, F-22 and F-35.....................
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Referring to the spirilling cost of conversion a few days ago, Not_a_Boffin noted:
After today's revelation in the Telegraph, it looks like he may be correct and the programme office are finally stepping away from the "Conspiracy of Optimism" that has underpriced this, and many other projects, for the last few years.
From what I've seen, this isn't the shipbuilder. The contract to do the detailed conversion design and estimate was only let in Oct 2011, so I doubt they have any real numbers to hand.
This smells like a programme office risk-on-risk forecast or worse a MB estimate but including all the other things people can think of adding on. You'd almost think some people wanted to go back to the B for some reason......
This smells like a programme office risk-on-risk forecast or worse a MB estimate but including all the other things people can think of adding on. You'd almost think some people wanted to go back to the B for some reason......
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft carrier costs will be half what you think, US tells ministers - Telegraph
The septics are stepping in to the argument to tell us to stop messing around!
The septics are stepping in to the argument to tell us to stop messing around!
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, well, well. I wouldn't have put 'Spreadsheet Phil' down as a natural proponent of the Hokey Cokey. Perhaps he will give us a verse or two when he comes to make his announcement to the House Of Commons. Well done, Not_a_Boffin. Seems you got there before the USN did.
Meantime, Norway is gagging for F35 (helps if you have one of the few remaining strong economies in the West, underpinned by buckets of oil) Norway May Speed F-35 Buy | Defense News | defensenews.com, and Mr Kopp and Mr Sweetman, well-known F35 antagonists, would have it that the 'injuns' are already lying in wait in the rocks above the pass, armed with new bows and arrows and waiting for the coyboys to arrive. Fighters, Missiles For Countering Stealth | AVIATION WEEK
Meantime, Norway is gagging for F35 (helps if you have one of the few remaining strong economies in the West, underpinned by buckets of oil) Norway May Speed F-35 Buy | Defense News | defensenews.com, and Mr Kopp and Mr Sweetman, well-known F35 antagonists, would have it that the 'injuns' are already lying in wait in the rocks above the pass, armed with new bows and arrows and waiting for the coyboys to arrive. Fighters, Missiles For Countering Stealth | AVIATION WEEK
Aircraft carrier costs will be half what you think, US tells ministers - Telegraph
Another interesting development reported in the Telegraph. Who knows perhaps good ol' American common sense will prevail and prevent the UK Government from another supreme act of folly?!
FB
Another interesting development reported in the Telegraph. Who knows perhaps good ol' American common sense will prevail and prevent the UK Government from another supreme act of folly?!
FB
LF - Some wacky translation in that Noggy WP. Generally speaking, "speed" (v.) does not mean "delay by four to six years versus the program of record", to wit:
http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documen...ate_4_2010.PDF (page 88)
The PSFD memo is old, of course, but there have been no official changes communicated to the US since then. This may explain why the Norwegian defense minister was characterized as "weasely" by US government people dealing with JSF (thank you Wikileaks).
The UK's "better pull a quick 360 and get the hell outta here" maneuver follows some interesting comings and goings - let's just say that there's more involved than USN pilots looking forward to exchanges on ships with more beverage options than Coke - and the Torygraph echoes the Standard's story cited a couple of pages back.
And may I echo the fact that Mr Boffin was right as usual. The horrors of SRVL may be avoided, and (for Mr Boffin) the even greater horrors consequent on the adoption of SRVL as routine procedure, on account of rash commitments made on these pages by said Boffin, recede into the dark corners of nightmare.
http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documen...ate_4_2010.PDF (page 88)
The PSFD memo is old, of course, but there have been no official changes communicated to the US since then. This may explain why the Norwegian defense minister was characterized as "weasely" by US government people dealing with JSF (thank you Wikileaks).
The UK's "better pull a quick 360 and get the hell outta here" maneuver follows some interesting comings and goings - let's just say that there's more involved than USN pilots looking forward to exchanges on ships with more beverage options than Coke - and the Torygraph echoes the Standard's story cited a couple of pages back.
And may I echo the fact that Mr Boffin was right as usual. The horrors of SRVL may be avoided, and (for Mr Boffin) the even greater horrors consequent on the adoption of SRVL as routine procedure, on account of rash commitments made on these pages by said Boffin, recede into the dark corners of nightmare.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't shoot the messenger
Somebody told me that mixed up in this whole sorry B/C story is that the power supplies of the boat will have to be changed (whichever type of cat) and there is some concern about the modest top speed of the class as well.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the power supplies do have to be replaced, does that not negate the argument, put forward by the manufacturers, that the ships are easily convertible into one configuration or another? I should think, getting power supplies out of a ship, once it's already been built, is a potentially prohibitive operation...though I have absolutely no clue what I'm talking about here.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, sorry about the 'wacky' language LO. I got a bit carried away by a beautiful spring morning and I have now had my medication. Anyway, Lockheed Martin started it by calling the F35 'Lightning'.
I am now totally confused as to what is or is not going to be announced, if anything, about carriers, cats, Bs or Cs.
I am now totally confused as to what is or is not going to be announced, if anything, about carriers, cats, Bs or Cs.
- The cost of a catapult is prohibitive... or not
- The B is cheaper....or not
- The US is going to cancel the B...or not
- The QEC engines can take it....or not
- We can afford it - well that's not or not either way
- We are going to buy the more capable C...or not.
