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

No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?

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.

No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?

Old 28th Jun 2012, 06:45
  #1281 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sussex
Posts: 76
... and we taught you how to regularly get a Vought Corsair onto a ship, if we're going down the baiting route.

[Note I have bad teeth. Standard British dentistry...]
ColdCollation is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2012, 07:04
  #1282 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back of beyond!
Posts: 131
and we also invented..... oh yes, America!

Please drop a note of thanks for your gene pool.
ICBM is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2012, 07:12
  #1283 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 55
Posts: 4,244
Do you really want to take credit for THAT gene pool ?
500N is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2012, 09:35
  #1284 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NSW
Age: 60
Posts: 150
Ski-jumps, fixed wing VTOL and STOVL...all British. Even the Americans are moving that way slowly...maybe it's the French (and Americans) who are not keeping up with developments?

Last edited by DBTW; 28th Jun 2012 at 09:37.
DBTW is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2012, 10:31
  #1285 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Neverland
Posts: 59
Disclaimer: I'm just a bloke with an interest in military aircraft.

Could some of the learned chap (esses) here provide an explanation to the following, i admit very laymans terms, conundrum:

If each opposing aircraft has kit that 1) provides excellent situational awareness and 2) has attributes that prevent other platforms from detecting and engaging the aircraft at any sort of range beyond very close, how will any air to air, be they offensive or defensive, engagements not come down to "traditional" close manouvering?

The commentary and arguments put forward to date re the effectiveness of both the sensor suite and the stealth attributes seem very similar to the arguments put forward re the missile equipped fighter designs of the 1950's.

Thanks in advance for reasoned explanations as to why what seems an evident elephant to me is in fact not a concern.

Last edited by Snafu351; 28th Jun 2012 at 13:17. Reason: Rubbish enhglish
Snafu351 is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2012, 19:24
  #1286 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back of beyond!
Posts: 131
If each opposing aircraft has kit that 1) provides excellent situational awareness and 2) has attributes that prevent other platforms from detecting and engaging the aircraft at any sort of range beyond very close, how will any air to air, be they offensive or defensive, engagements not come down to "traditional" close manouvering?
Our is betterer! When it isn't, we hope we've procured, or are procuring, the 'next generation' beyond this one.

So continues the cycle of military invention.
ICBM is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2012, 19:45
  #1287 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,549
Snafu - No, that's an important point.

For stealth to be completely decisive in an air-to-air engagement, the stealth aircraft has to have the first sight and the first kill, preferably concluding the engagement before the target has even fired.

If one looks at the Su-35S or any other modern conventional fighter versus the F-35/AMRAAM combo, the F-35 may get first sight. However, missile warning will declare the first shot at which point the conventional fighter will evade. What this does is reduce the effective range of AMRAAM, so although the F-35 may see the adversary, its pilot want to get closer before firing.

The $390 billion question is whether "closer" in the above means that detection (by radar, IRST, ESM or the nifty white wingtip vortex trails that the F-35 leaves behind it like snail tracks) is mutual before anyone gets a shot off. If so, then stealth is a diminishing factor.

Last edited by LowObservable; 28th Jun 2012 at 19:48.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2012, 11:55
  #1288 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 44
Posts: 1,016
which brings us back to why the **** have we wasted soo much time and money on it?

I know what we could have should have wouold have etc but really.....

I publicly declare that IF we have a sqn able to put more than 6 a/c on the Boooat and operate them in a meaningful way, (i.e blow **** up/down etc) and can sail said boooat to somehere meaningful to do stuff to the enemy. All this before 2022

Then I shall put an INDEX LINKED £100 into RBL...

I really think my money is safe.
cornish-stormrider is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2012, 14:40
  #1289 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,549
There is a plan (or at least the desire) to put Meteor on the F-35B, which would be helpful. Engines might know whether the B can carry four internal AMRAAMs or Meteors, with the outboard internal bays being shorter than those on the A/C.

However, another snag with the ideal stealth air combat engagement is if the RoEs call for identification and by what means. Euro and USAF philosophy is not always aligned on that issue.

C-S - I would not bet against that schedule.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2012, 18:05
  #1290 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 789
Guys,

I know that the baseline AIM-120 internal load was four (2 per bay), but I have seen some info suggesting that LM and the DoD have been working on three per bay. I think that was linked to a 'compressed carriage' version. No difference between the variants on AIM-120 capacity as far as I know.

MBDA showed a clipped fin version of the Meteor in 2010 that was being designed to allow two to go in each bay. I'm not sighted on how far the UK have got with getting Meteor into the F-35 weapons integration programme.

Hope this helps,

Best regards as ever to those working the programme,

Engines

Last edited by Engines; 29th Jun 2012 at 18:07. Reason: Adding variant information
Engines is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2012, 18:57
  #1291 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
500n...yes the optical "MEATBALL" for landing...very good...but none of the british ships even have that now, right?

and COLD: if I am not mistaken it was an American named ELY who showed the world that airplanes could take off and land from a ship in the first place.

I'm just saying...What the FRICK is wrong with a nation that has such a proud naval tradition...and your sailors even salute RIGHT compared to the other armed forces (big grin)...and you don't even have real carrier.

maybe take Kathreines clothing allowance down a pence and get a real carrier.
sevenstrokeroll is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2012, 19:57
  #1292 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,458
sevenstrokeroll

We are in a complete mess. Whether the carrier is "real" or not is less of an issue than that of having aircraft to embark, and having the skillsets needed. I think that this may be one possible advantage of a STOVL future - the training and skills issues will be less than for CTOL.

I have talked of my failiure to understand the current situation here.

Originally Posted by WEBF
Maybe I am a simple thicko, but surely the situation is that we currently have no STOVL aircraft, having binned them and having been told that CTOL is the future. Our Pilots are now mostly flying CTOL aircraft (Hornet/Super Hornet) stateside, at cost of HM Government. The US wish that we still had a carrier capability. We currently have a carrier capable of STOVL fixed wing operations, which will be true most of this decade. Other European nations are in possession of Harriers - despite current economic woes. RN fixed wing pilot numbers declined in recent years, which is now something the RN is trying to correct (what will these people fly when not stateside?)
Originally Posted by WEBF
Presumably it will be easier to prepare future CVF crews with the skills needed for STOVL operations than for CTOL ones? Add to that the very real possibility of embarking Harriers aboard Illustrious/Queen Elizabeth? Why can we not embark foreign Harriers?

Borrowing a few AV8Bs from Spain or Italy (particularly the former as they may be needing the UK to chip in to the bailout fund) would give us aircraft to train with, and a real capability. Alternatively (and since the US want us to have a carrier capability) lease a few AV8Bs (with support Memorandum of Understanding).
HM Government could make this into a sucess story (with the political advantages that would bring) - but at the moment they just seem determined to make us all look like idiots.
WE Branch Fanatic is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2012, 22:04
  #1293 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: northofwhereiusedtobe
Posts: 1,291
I'm just saying...What the FRICK is wrong with a nation that has such a proud naval tradition...and your sailors even salute RIGHT compared to the other armed forces (big grin)...and you don't even have real carrier.
We are a mere shadow of our former self
It is a good but very complicated question I reckon,some possible reasons...

(1).We can afford real carriers but we choose (or our guvmints choose !) to waste taxpayers money on other things such as the EU and paying layabouts to do SFA !

(2).The RAF do not want the Navy to have REAL carriers with REAL a/c on them,historically they have told big porkies to ensure the RN do not gain control of naval aviation.

(3).Unfortunately/fortunately stovl got us out of the crap during the falklands war and so is seen as a winner - when of course it was our lads (dark and light blue together) making the best of what they had to operate with (as usual)!

(4).As others have said before...if we had 2 REAL carriers in 1982 the argies would never have taken us on...

(5).Then of course we have our one and only large defence contractor with fingers in ALL of our defence pies...which sometimes muddies the waters LOL...you really could not make it up !!

I have worked with both the RAF and the Navy and do not have any axes to grind but I honestly believe that the F35 is just a political a/c...The way people talk about Cats and traps on here is astounding...like it is rocket science for deck crews to learn how to cope with cats and arrester wires etc.
It seems bizarre to waste such a large carrier on this 'cul de sac' aircraft,never mind the weapons systems...I would be more worried about more basic stuff like structural integrity and systems reliability.

rgds LR

Last edited by longer ron; 29th Jun 2012 at 22:40.
longer ron is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2012, 23:46
  #1294 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Politics And Fighter Planes

Listen my dear friends across the SEA. The history of the Royal Navy and flying is an important one. Ours here in the USA too.

Remembert the F111A/B? Our politicians thought ONE plane could do the job for both the USAF and the USN. BIG MISTAKE. Whille the F4 phantom was such a plane, it started with the NAVY and just happened to be great (in its own way) and later came to the USAF.

The F22 is a heckuva plane...but our moron in chief (obama) is happy to cut them back (ok sure they have a few bugs...but new planes have teething problems) and go with the F35. And it turns out the F35 is damn expensive too.

A couple of years ago, obama said the F22 was too slow. OF course he doesn't understand that if you have stealthy air intakes, the plane goes slower...what would you rather have , a plane that goes 1800mph, but shows up on RADAR or one that goes 1400mph and can sneak up on the enemy?

ALL I mean is that it is a damn shame to have people that know NOTHING aboutp planes or military history making airplane purchasing decisions.


IF OBAMA were president in the days just before WW2, we would have a fleet of B18 BOLO bombers instead of the B17 Flying Fortress...and you couldn't reach Berlin with a bolo!

Time for those who know planes, to straighten things out.

hands across the sea!
sevenstrokeroll is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2012, 01:22
  #1295 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,179
So the F-22 killing the pilots is a teething problem?
Cancelling a budgetary disaster makes o'Bama a moron?
Pointing out that an air defence fighter isn't fast enough to catch incoming aircraft is wrong?
Milo Minderbinder is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2012, 02:18
  #1296 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,541
Originally Posted by sevenstrokeroll
The F22 is a heckuva plane...but our moron in chief (obama) is happy to cut them back
Sigh.

I voted for McCain, but I have to admit that it was not the Democrats, nor even Obama, that is responsible for the F-22 production cap.

Lets try to speak truth, instead of political lies, shall we?

It was the administration of George W. Bush (#43) that capped production of F-22 at 187 aircraft!
All Obama did was carry out this decision.

The biggest cuts to the F-22 program came during the Clinton administration where it was cut from 650+ aircraft to 438 in 1994, and then cut again in 1997 to 339 aircraft.
Due to a CONGRESSIONAL “cost cap” the procurement was reduced to 277 aircraft in 2003.
In 2004, the air force reduced the procurement to the 180+ in order to implement a multi-year procurement plan to allow for the possibility of future orders beyond the 180+ aircraft.
Every budget since then, until the 2010 budget was passed with provisions to shut down the F-22 line permanently, included requests for additional F-22s.
However, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld refused to support any further F-22 procurement... even the 4-aircraft buy that brought numbers from 183 to 187 was opposed by this Bush Cabinet member.
When Robert Gates became SecDef, he continued this policy!
In January 2008, the Pentagon announced that it would ask Congress to fund additional F-22s.
24 Sept 2008, congress passed a defense spending bill authorizing additional F-22s. However, this was to be funded in the FY2010 budget, and it was it that budget that production was instead ordered finished and the line closed.

More detailed info on specifics of the production number reductions can be found here: F-22 Raptor Cost


Note the date of this article... just a couple of weeks after Obama took office... but note the names of "who killed the F-22 production":
16 February 2009!
Numbers Matter: Strategic Consequences of F-22 Termination
The Bush Administration’s SecDef Donald Rumsfeld arbitrarily chopped the F-22 program down to 180 aircraft.
I hate to use this organization as a citation (due to their habit of wild-eyed ranting), but the transitory nature of the internet has seen articles deleted to make room for new ones, and others edited by those with an interest in distorting history to suit their agendas, and so sources I have linked to in the past to show who chopped down the F-22 program are no longer available.

Last edited by GreenKnight121; 30th Jun 2012 at 02:33.
GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2012, 02:19
  #1297 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
dear milo

every new technology plane has problems...many new planes have been called: ''widowmaker".

speed isn't everything in a dogfight

yes, he's still a moron...you must have voted for someone just like yourself


and if speed were everything, we would be flying F12a's, B70's and the like...but we don't.

and economic disasters? you must be talking about the obama fiscal policy of everything!

OH GREEN KNIGHT...obama was asked to continue the F22 program but didn't, and it was his staff saying the plane waasn't very fast (see above comments about the F12A and B70...which were very fast). His staff also said the F35 was just fine...oh yeah.
and obama isn't fighting to stop the defense cuts even though HIS secretary of Defense has warned PUBLICLY that this is a mistake.

Last edited by sevenstrokeroll; 30th Jun 2012 at 02:23.
sevenstrokeroll is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2012, 07:29
  #1298 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back of beyond!
Posts: 131
Gents,

I suggest you PM each other if you insist on discussing US policy on F-22 and the like. One post on Elephants vs Donkeys is of curious interest; 3 or more is deadly boring. Sevenstroke, whatever you think you can add to the debate here; namely UK carriers no longer 'Cats and Traps' then please do but stay on thread old boy.
ICBM is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2012, 09:17
  #1299 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,520
Interesting article from March concerning the planned UK weapons for the F-35, especially on ASRAAM. Replace the underscores in bl_gsp_t with the letter o

http://ukarmedforcescommentary.bl_gsp_t.co.uk/2012/03/f35b-f35c-rethinks-weaponry-costs-and.html

Last edited by ORAC; 30th Jun 2012 at 10:23.
ORAC is online now  
Old 30th Jun 2012, 09:27
  #1300 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sussex
Posts: 76
Link doesn't work, Orac...
ColdCollation 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.