F-18 Ski-Jump Trials
I assume I am not the only one who can't see anything in ORAC's post?
Presumably it is PPRuNe's tw*tter aversion. Boeing twŁŁted a video of trial launch
https:_//_t.co/eBSaYF97sy (remove _s)
Story here amongst other places https://eurasiantimes.com/boeing-f-a-18-super-hornet-almost-ready-for-indian-navy-carriers-as-it-clears-ski-jump-test
Flight Global in February:
Can we have some please?
On a (slightly) serious note, might Growlers be a useful addition at a future date - are the QEs still fitted for but not with arrestor gear?
Presumably it is PPRuNe's tw*tter aversion. Boeing twŁŁted a video of trial launch
https:_//_t.co/eBSaYF97sy (remove _s)
Story here amongst other places https://eurasiantimes.com/boeing-f-a-18-super-hornet-almost-ready-for-indian-navy-carriers-as-it-clears-ski-jump-test
Flight Global in February:
Boeing has confirmed plans to conduct ski-jump take-off tests with the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet during the first quarter of 2020.
Jeff Shockey, vice-president global sales and marketing at Boeing Defense, Space & Security, says the trials are being driven by an Indian navy fighter requirement.
India’s only carrier, the INS Vikramaditya, is equipped with a ski-jump ramp to launch aircraft, as is a second carrier - the INS Vikrant - that has yet to enter service.
Jeff Shockey, vice-president global sales and marketing at Boeing Defense, Space & Security, says the trials are being driven by an Indian navy fighter requirement.
India’s only carrier, the INS Vikramaditya, is equipped with a ski-jump ramp to launch aircraft, as is a second carrier - the INS Vikrant - that has yet to enter service.
On a (slightly) serious note, might Growlers be a useful addition at a future date - are the QEs still fitted for but not with arrestor gear?
Last edited by SLXOwft; 21st Dec 2020 at 17:36.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,763
Received 2,750 Likes
on
1,171 Posts
I wonder if the F-18 has had any software updates to change to the angled launch as the software flies the aircraft off the Carrier.
Kudos to the Test Pilot
There can have been few flight test jobs as terrifying as sitting in a Jaguar on the deck of a carrier.
They must have drawn straws for that one.
I would have insisted the carrier run with engines at 150% to generate 40 knots of wind over the deck and waited for the Captain to point straight into a bloody strong gale before agreeing to strap a Jaguar to a catapult.
To be fair you could show me the ODM figures and I’d still need a hell of a lot of convincing that an F18 off a ski ramp is a good idea as well. Even with its high alpha capabilities that must be a scary gig.
BV
They must have drawn straws for that one.
I would have insisted the carrier run with engines at 150% to generate 40 knots of wind over the deck and waited for the Captain to point straight into a bloody strong gale before agreeing to strap a Jaguar to a catapult.
To be fair you could show me the ODM figures and I’d still need a hell of a lot of convincing that an F18 off a ski ramp is a good idea as well. Even with its high alpha capabilities that must be a scary gig.
BV
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
To be fair, if you need the curvature of the earth to be able to climb, flat ocean is probably a good place to start......
Perhaps of interest, a US study on ski jumps. Commented on the 1979 US Navy trials with F-14, F-18 and T-2C with the F/A-18 taking the ramp some 91 times, then goes into length about ground based use by USAF types. The F-4E was not suitable due to excessive forward stick requirements. I also seem to recall the E-2 Hawkeye was ruled out from ski jumps during US navy studies, maybe due to gear loading- can't quite recall?
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a237265.pdf
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a237265.pdf
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,763
Received 2,750 Likes
on
1,171 Posts
A Jag off a carrier would come fourth at the international birdman competition.
..
..
Last edited by NutLoose; 28th Dec 2020 at 18:03.
Technical question: I have now seen ORAC's original post in Chrome on my phone and on MS Edge on my laptop but still can't in my preferred browser Firefox, any IT techies able to explain?
Back to the subject - the cynic in me wondered about the length of roll and fuel load for the clean config. Bubba's video clip starts at the base of the ramp.
Anone know if the story that the evaluation report of the Jaguar M v the (single engined) Super Etendard marked the Jag down because of it's handling characteristics with one engine is true?
Back to the subject - the cynic in me wondered about the length of roll and fuel load for the clean config. Bubba's video clip starts at the base of the ramp.
Anone know if the story that the evaluation report of the Jaguar M v the (single engined) Super Etendard marked the Jag down because of it's handling characteristics with one engine is true?
It does seem that throttle response and poor single-engine performance (thrust was never a strong suite) was cited as a reason for not proceeding with the M, but my understanding the higher cost of the Jaguar M was a larger driver, meaning they could not afford the desired 100 airframes. The Super Entendard was pitched as a cheaper alternative so they could buy more airframes, quietly ignoring any single-engine worries. As it turned out, the SuE costs crept up and it was never bought in the numbers originally desired either. I also understand there was a desire to spread some work to Dassault (jobs). So sounds like a bit of politics, favoritism, under bidding and cost creep- a typical cycle!
I never understood why the French were involved with the Jaguar.
At the same time they were developing the Mirage F1 which is very similar to the Jag in terms of weight as well as thrust and wing loading.
Says a lot about why the Mirage F1 was the greatest fighter though!
What did a Jag do that the Mirage F1 could not?
The Super E was was few year behind but also broadly similar.
At the same time they were developing the Mirage F1 which is very similar to the Jag in terms of weight as well as thrust and wing loading.
Says a lot about why the Mirage F1 was the greatest fighter though!
What did a Jag do that the Mirage F1 could not?
The Super E was was few year behind but also broadly similar.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting back to the original post about FA-18s being trialled on ski jump. The Indian carrier apparently has no cat just like ours. AFAIK it is not bigger than QE or POW - so the question arises about using conventional aircraft flying off them too.
I never understood why the French were involved with the Jaguar.
At the same time they were developing the Mirage F1 which is very similar to the Jag in terms of weight as well as thrust and wing loading.
Says a lot about why the Mirage F1 was the greatest fighter though!
What did a Jag do that the Mirage F1 could not?
The Super E was was few year behind but also broadly similar.
At the same time they were developing the Mirage F1 which is very similar to the Jag in terms of weight as well as thrust and wing loading.
Says a lot about why the Mirage F1 was the greatest fighter though!
What did a Jag do that the Mirage F1 could not?
The Super E was was few year behind but also broadly similar.
Wasn't the Breguet 121 originally proposed as a NATO light-fighter replacement for all the Sabres and F84s rattling around? Competition eventually won by the Fiat G91. I can remember reading in 'Look and Learn' back in the 60s about the Jaguar being the replacement for the Gnat in AFTS service, too.