Sea Jet
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting article - although I don't know how he reconciles this bit:
with this bit:
Personally, I'm for the joint force.
Also, why does he say
? I didn't know Typhoon was STOVL?
Now the notion of a joint STOVL force - or even an Air Force-managed and - commanded force if you prefer - for both land-based and shipboard operations does indeed make a lot of sense. This is not simply in terms of simplified logistic support and other such measures to please the bean counters, but much more importantly in view of a far greater operational flexibility. The fact that the aircraft can be continuously redistributed between carrier decks and land bases according to the demands of the respective theatres, and indeed it is even possible to concentrate all available resources, either at sea or on land if the operational conditions allow, is a first-class force multiplier in an expeditionary environment. The validity of this concept was clearly demonstrated by the recent deployment of JFH aircraft to Afghanistan.
Further, this deployment flexibility also enables significant savings as regards the required numbers of aircraft. The current British plan for a total of 150 JCA is clearly predicated on the aircraft’s “swing” capability for land or sea basing, and should the programme be split into two separate requirements then a substantially larger total fleet would be needed.
Further, this deployment flexibility also enables significant savings as regards the required numbers of aircraft. The current British plan for a total of 150 JCA is clearly predicated on the aircraft’s “swing” capability for land or sea basing, and should the programme be split into two separate requirements then a substantially larger total fleet would be needed.
Be this as it may, what would arguably be the most logical solution, as well as the one providing better returns on taxpayer’s money - F-35A for the RAF and the AMI, F-35B for the Italian Navy, and F-35B or much better F-35C for the Fleet Air Arm
Also, why does he say
...RAF would maintain its current choice for an all-STOVL attack fleet
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
They've arrived...
The first carrier docks in Pompey, complete with F-35 (but which variant?)
Last edited by airborne_artist; 14th Sep 2009 at 21:39.
(but which variant?)
Last edited by NoHoverstop; 14th Sep 2009 at 21:24. Reason: comms faff
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave-Bs.... skijump.... (and you can see the lift fan cover on the one at the bow / pointy-front-end-bit-thing).
But I suspect that this will be as close as it ever gets to reality. Sorry!
S41
But I suspect that this will be as close as it ever gets to reality. Sorry!
S41
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
And all broken, otherwsie why would they still be stuck on board in harbour instead of having being flown on-shore before arrival.
So those cranes will be needed after all.....
So those cranes will be needed after all.....
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who lied?
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States will keep to itself sensitive software code that controls Lockheed Martin Corp ( LMT - news - people )'s new radar-evading F-35 fighter jet despite requests from co-development partners, a senior Pentagon program official said.
Access to the technology had been publicly sought by Britain, which had threatened to scrub plans to buy as many as 138 F-35s if it were unable to maintain and upgrade its fleet without U.S. involvement.
No U.S. partner is getting the so-called source code, the key to the plane's electronic brains, Jon Schreiber, who heads the program's international affairs, told Reuters in an interview Monday.
"That includes everybody," he said, acknowledging this was not entirely popular among core partners -- Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Norway.
The single-engine F-35 is in early stages of production. It is designed to escape radar detection and switch quickly between air-to-ground and air-to-air missions while still flying -- processes heavily dependent on its 8 million lines of onboard software code.
Schreiber said the United States had accommodated all of its partners' requirements, providing ways for them to upgrade projected F-35 purchases even without the keys to the software.
"Nobody's happy with it completely. but everybody's satisfied and understands," he said of withholding the code from partners and Israel, which also has sought the technology transfer as part of a possible purchase of up to 75 F-35s.
REPROGRAMMING FACILITY
Instead, the United States plans to set up a "reprogramming facility," probably at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, to further develop F-35-related software and distribute upgrades, Schreiber said.
Software changes will be integrated there "and new operational flight programs will be disseminated out to everybody who's flying the jet," he said.
Representatives of the British defense staff in Washington did not return telephone calls seeking comment. Britain has committed $2 billion to develop the F-35, the most of any U.S. partner.
In March 2006, Paul Drayson, then Britain's minister for defense procurement, told the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee that Britain might quit the program if the United States withheld such things as the software code.
The issue rose to the top. In May 2006, then-President George W. Bush and then-Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that both governments had agreed "that the UK will have the ability to successfully operate, upgrade, employ, and maintain the Joint Strike Fighter such that the UK retains operational sovereignty over the aircraft."
HOLY GRAIL
The source code is "kind of the holy grail" for this, controlling everything from weapons integration to radar to flight dynamics, said Joel Johnson of TEAL Group, an aerospace consultancy in Fairfax, Virginia.
Lockheed Martin said all F-35 partners "recognize the complexity of the highly integrated F-35 software and the program plan to upgrade F-35 capabilities as an operational community."
"This enables the aircraft to remain at the cutting edge of combat capability while allowing the program to meet affordability objectives," John Kent, a company spokesman, said in an emailed statement.
Lockheed Martin, the Pentagon's No. 1 supplier by sales, projects it will sell up to 4,500 F-35s worldwide to replace its F-16 fighter and 12 other types of warplanes for 11 nations initially.
The United States eventually plans to spend roughly $300 billion over the next 25 years to buy a total of 2,443 F-35 models, its costliest arms acquisition.
EXCLUSIVE-US to withhold F-35 fighter software codes - Forbes.com
Access to the technology had been publicly sought by Britain, which had threatened to scrub plans to buy as many as 138 F-35s if it were unable to maintain and upgrade its fleet without U.S. involvement.
No U.S. partner is getting the so-called source code, the key to the plane's electronic brains, Jon Schreiber, who heads the program's international affairs, told Reuters in an interview Monday.
"That includes everybody," he said, acknowledging this was not entirely popular among core partners -- Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Norway.
The single-engine F-35 is in early stages of production. It is designed to escape radar detection and switch quickly between air-to-ground and air-to-air missions while still flying -- processes heavily dependent on its 8 million lines of onboard software code.
Schreiber said the United States had accommodated all of its partners' requirements, providing ways for them to upgrade projected F-35 purchases even without the keys to the software.
"Nobody's happy with it completely. but everybody's satisfied and understands," he said of withholding the code from partners and Israel, which also has sought the technology transfer as part of a possible purchase of up to 75 F-35s.
REPROGRAMMING FACILITY
Instead, the United States plans to set up a "reprogramming facility," probably at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, to further develop F-35-related software and distribute upgrades, Schreiber said.
Software changes will be integrated there "and new operational flight programs will be disseminated out to everybody who's flying the jet," he said.
Representatives of the British defense staff in Washington did not return telephone calls seeking comment. Britain has committed $2 billion to develop the F-35, the most of any U.S. partner.
In March 2006, Paul Drayson, then Britain's minister for defense procurement, told the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee that Britain might quit the program if the United States withheld such things as the software code.
The issue rose to the top. In May 2006, then-President George W. Bush and then-Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that both governments had agreed "that the UK will have the ability to successfully operate, upgrade, employ, and maintain the Joint Strike Fighter such that the UK retains operational sovereignty over the aircraft."
HOLY GRAIL
The source code is "kind of the holy grail" for this, controlling everything from weapons integration to radar to flight dynamics, said Joel Johnson of TEAL Group, an aerospace consultancy in Fairfax, Virginia.
Lockheed Martin said all F-35 partners "recognize the complexity of the highly integrated F-35 software and the program plan to upgrade F-35 capabilities as an operational community."
"This enables the aircraft to remain at the cutting edge of combat capability while allowing the program to meet affordability objectives," John Kent, a company spokesman, said in an emailed statement.
Lockheed Martin, the Pentagon's No. 1 supplier by sales, projects it will sell up to 4,500 F-35s worldwide to replace its F-16 fighter and 12 other types of warplanes for 11 nations initially.
The United States eventually plans to spend roughly $300 billion over the next 25 years to buy a total of 2,443 F-35 models, its costliest arms acquisition.
EXCLUSIVE-US to withhold F-35 fighter software codes - Forbes.com
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Firmly grounded, thankfully
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genius at Work
Went on to You Tube to watch the Art Nalls display at Langley. Nice to see the SHAR flying again but confess the whole rigmarole made me a little nervous! I'm sure our lot were more professional than that!
To see how it ought to be done, search for 'Sea Harrier RIAT 2002' - Schwabby and Nipper in their award-winning display that summer. I was there, but had seen them practising through the early summer at Yeovilton. It was truly an awesome sight (especially the hovering, those of you whom have tried it will understand) - the best bit being when people suddenly realised there was one SHAR at one end of the runway.......and another at the other.....facing each other. Crowd at Fairford were proper gob-smacked when they rolled.
Needless to say one of the pilots got a little carried away with the trophy on Sunday night...............who'd give them a sword. And not weld it to something substantial!!!!!!
The shiny grey fanny magnet - sorely missed.
To see how it ought to be done, search for 'Sea Harrier RIAT 2002' - Schwabby and Nipper in their award-winning display that summer. I was there, but had seen them practising through the early summer at Yeovilton. It was truly an awesome sight (especially the hovering, those of you whom have tried it will understand) - the best bit being when people suddenly realised there was one SHAR at one end of the runway.......and another at the other.....facing each other. Crowd at Fairford were proper gob-smacked when they rolled.
Needless to say one of the pilots got a little carried away with the trophy on Sunday night...............who'd give them a sword. And not weld it to something substantial!!!!!!
The shiny grey fanny magnet - sorely missed.
This is the Sea Jet thread, so might I humbly suggest that comments about CVF or F35 would be better placed on other threads, such as the Future Carrier one or even US to withhold F-35 fighter software codes?
nunquamparatus
Well done for steering the thread back to Sea Harrier related topics. I find this trailer of a documentary being made about XZ439 particularly interesting - will the full documentary ever make it to this side of the Atlantic? There are of course other videos relating to XZ439. Perhaps (from my own point of view) one of the most interesting things about Art Nalls' activities is that he has found that the USMC AV8B simulator can be used to simulate the characteristics of the Sea Harrier?
I was also interested in your comments here:
On the more recent side 2 FA2 Sea Harriers were asked to intercept an airliner a week or so post 9/11 over Southern UK. They were on a training flight and London Mil asked if they could close said airliner. No dramas, get a position (suspect Lon Mil didn't have a Bullseye in force), find it on radar, close it....say, how close do you want us to get? "How close can you get?" Needless to say the pilots were a little surprised to see two pointy grey things appearing from under the nose!
Nice to see that the next day, the papers reported that 2 RAF Harriers had intercepted an airliner..........
I heard about this incident via the press, some of whom did manage to report that it was RN Sea Harriers. I think I made reference to it in a post on a Sea Harrier related thread sometime. I cannot help wondering if the lack of public and media awareness of the Sea Harrier (and other aspects of naval aviation, if not the RN in general) made it more vulnerable to cuts. Post Sea Harrier the profile of naval aviation has dropped even further.
I see that the Culdrose RNSFDO/ Dummy Deck Sea Harriers got a mention back in June on the UK Airshow Review board - see here. They were also mentioned (and listed) here in February.
nunquamparatus
Well done for steering the thread back to Sea Harrier related topics. I find this trailer of a documentary being made about XZ439 particularly interesting - will the full documentary ever make it to this side of the Atlantic? There are of course other videos relating to XZ439. Perhaps (from my own point of view) one of the most interesting things about Art Nalls' activities is that he has found that the USMC AV8B simulator can be used to simulate the characteristics of the Sea Harrier?
I was also interested in your comments here:
On the more recent side 2 FA2 Sea Harriers were asked to intercept an airliner a week or so post 9/11 over Southern UK. They were on a training flight and London Mil asked if they could close said airliner. No dramas, get a position (suspect Lon Mil didn't have a Bullseye in force), find it on radar, close it....say, how close do you want us to get? "How close can you get?" Needless to say the pilots were a little surprised to see two pointy grey things appearing from under the nose!
Nice to see that the next day, the papers reported that 2 RAF Harriers had intercepted an airliner..........
I heard about this incident via the press, some of whom did manage to report that it was RN Sea Harriers. I think I made reference to it in a post on a Sea Harrier related thread sometime. I cannot help wondering if the lack of public and media awareness of the Sea Harrier (and other aspects of naval aviation, if not the RN in general) made it more vulnerable to cuts. Post Sea Harrier the profile of naval aviation has dropped even further.
I see that the Culdrose RNSFDO/ Dummy Deck Sea Harriers got a mention back in June on the UK Airshow Review board - see here. They were also mentioned (and listed) here in February.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 16th May 2010 at 20:10.
I cannot help wondering if the lack of public and media awareness of the Sea Harrier (and other aspects of naval aviation, if not the RN in general) made it more vulnerable to cuts.
We can usually trust the media to talk about Army helicopters, RAF planes and Navy boats - they're not all experts!
Suspicion breeds confidence
This is the Sea Jet thread, so why not something about Sea Harriers.
Interesting vid on you tube showing INS Vikrant operating Shars sans ski jump.
YouTube - INS Vikrant
Interesting vid on you tube showing INS Vikrant operating Shars sans ski jump.
YouTube - INS Vikrant
VAAC Autoland
I couldn't find this link on the forum with a quick search and I though it utterly fascinating - it's the VAAC Harrier landing automatically. Pictures from inside also show the software planning a route for the aircraft and flying the approach:
YouTube - VAAC Harrier Completes First Auto STOVL Landing
YouTube - VAAC Harrier Completes First Auto STOVL Landing
Here is another Sea Harrier related YouTube link: Navy Pilots - Fleet Air Arm - Episode 1
Note that the pilot explains the fleet defence role as defending our ships, not just the carriers as the narrator suggests. There are also links to other programmes in the series.
As with virtually everything on YouTube, it has attracted a number of retarded comments - I particularly like the one suggesting the Sea Jets at "Cauldrose" are at 24 hour readiness - no problems with regenerating the aircraft, or finding and training pilots and maintainers!
However, one part of our anti air warfare capability is better than it was - Seawolf is being upgraded, and improved sensors will increase the range at which a target can be engaged.
Note that the pilot explains the fleet defence role as defending our ships, not just the carriers as the narrator suggests. There are also links to other programmes in the series.
As with virtually everything on YouTube, it has attracted a number of retarded comments - I particularly like the one suggesting the Sea Jets at "Cauldrose" are at 24 hour readiness - no problems with regenerating the aircraft, or finding and training pilots and maintainers!
However, one part of our anti air warfare capability is better than it was - Seawolf is being upgraded, and improved sensors will increase the range at which a target can be engaged.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 25th May 2010 at 13:30.
Suspicion breeds confidence
I see Ark Royal is at sea with a healthy compliment of 12 Harriers, although sadly not ours!
News : AURIGA : Global Operations : Operations and Support : Royal Navy
Where is the Naval Strike Wing? This should be very valuable training.
News : AURIGA : Global Operations : Operations and Support : Royal Navy
Where is the Naval Strike Wing? This should be very valuable training.
Suspicion breeds confidence
I see Ark Royal is at sea with a healthy compliment of 12 Harriers, although sadly not ours!
News : AURIGA : Global Operations : Operations and Support : Royal Navy
Where is the Naval Strike Wing? This should be very valuable training.
Or should We just call it 800NAS as 801 seems to have disappeared without trace.
News : AURIGA : Global Operations : Operations and Support : Royal Navy
Where is the Naval Strike Wing? This should be very valuable training.
Or should We just call it 800NAS as 801 seems to have disappeared without trace.
Previously comprising elements of both 800 and 801 Squadrons, Naval Strike Wing (NSW) was formed on 9th March 2007. Effectively organised as a single unit hence making best use of available manpower and resources and as part of Joint Force Harrier based at RAF Cottesmore in Rutland, NSW became the single entity of 800 Naval Air Squadron on 1 April 2010 operating Harrier GR9 and GR9a aircraft in the close air support (CAS) role and is the Royal Navy’s only front line fast jet squadron at this time
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southampton
Age: 54
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not worried about 801 vanishing. It disappearred from 1970 to 1981 last time and came back when it was needed. I expect those NSW personnell who wear 801 badges instead of 800 currently will probably continue to do so... 800 NAS also disappeared from 1972 to 1980 and returned ready for action! In 1979 the FAA had no FJ frontline sqns at all and just one second line sqn (700A) and nobody believed the FAA would die out then!
My point is, last time around when the SHAR FRS1 entered service, it did not re equip existing sqns, old ones were reformed as required, and I believe the same will happen with F-35.
My point is, last time around when the SHAR FRS1 entered service, it did not re equip existing sqns, old ones were reformed as required, and I believe the same will happen with F-35.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Onboard Mother
Age: 48
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sea harrier Vs harrier II plus
Hi, a big hello to the mighty Sea Jet forum. I am new to the forum and am a true Sea Harrier fan. i have always wondered what is the difference in handling charactersitics between Sea harrier FRS1, FA-2 and the much in news AV 8B Plus.
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
leopord leader
The differences between the two SHAR's handling and the AV8B/GR5 onwards series is down to the wings.
Both SHARs had the 201 sq ft metal wing and all the AV8B/GR5s and onwards had the 230 sq ft graphite epoxy wing. As you might expect at high IMN the thin metal wig was superior giving less drag and negligible trim changes at high mach. The thicker wing had much more drag and very large trim changes in all three axes above .9 in a dive. So much so that on being asked by MACAIR (those were the days) to investigate the high mach handling in dives over Edwards in 1982 using FSD ship 2 (which aircraft had the latest intake/engine combination to reduce the proclivity to surge and so was being used to clear the aero envelope of the rest of the FSD fleet at Pax River) I likened the behaviour to that of a Vampire. As a result of this poor handling the aircraft entered service with a high mach limit unlike the FRS1 whch could be taken to 1.3 in a vertical dive at full chat. (If you got the starting height and pull through profile right - if not you only got about 1.2)
However the much more important handling difference between the two wings was at mid transition speeds. The metal wing had a very high rolling moment due to sideslip so at mid transition speed if you did not keep the vane in the middle you would roll uncontrollably and could even die in the process. I was well aware of this issue so on the first look at this characteristic on the new wing on the YAV8B (Aug 79) I eased the vane out very cautiously at 120kt and 8ADD. Imagine my surprise when I reached full rudder with no discernible roll and had to let go of the stick to see if I was carrying any aileron. Later on the proper B model when drooped ailerons were used to improve the STO heavyweight performance some rolling moment with sideslip did emerge but it was not serious needing less than 1/4 aileron at full rudder.
I don't know what you include in your 'handling' term but the metal wing was very inferior so far as turn performance at low or medium speeds went. This is not surprising given the combination of extra area, thicker section and addition of LERX. At high speeds of course both wings were g limited.
Hope that gives you a feel. Don't ask me about a radar comparison between the FA2 and the B+ 'cos I never flew either radar. However my mates would suggest that the B+ was better than the FRS1 but not as good as the FA2.
JF
The differences between the two SHAR's handling and the AV8B/GR5 onwards series is down to the wings.
Both SHARs had the 201 sq ft metal wing and all the AV8B/GR5s and onwards had the 230 sq ft graphite epoxy wing. As you might expect at high IMN the thin metal wig was superior giving less drag and negligible trim changes at high mach. The thicker wing had much more drag and very large trim changes in all three axes above .9 in a dive. So much so that on being asked by MACAIR (those were the days) to investigate the high mach handling in dives over Edwards in 1982 using FSD ship 2 (which aircraft had the latest intake/engine combination to reduce the proclivity to surge and so was being used to clear the aero envelope of the rest of the FSD fleet at Pax River) I likened the behaviour to that of a Vampire. As a result of this poor handling the aircraft entered service with a high mach limit unlike the FRS1 whch could be taken to 1.3 in a vertical dive at full chat. (If you got the starting height and pull through profile right - if not you only got about 1.2)
However the much more important handling difference between the two wings was at mid transition speeds. The metal wing had a very high rolling moment due to sideslip so at mid transition speed if you did not keep the vane in the middle you would roll uncontrollably and could even die in the process. I was well aware of this issue so on the first look at this characteristic on the new wing on the YAV8B (Aug 79) I eased the vane out very cautiously at 120kt and 8ADD. Imagine my surprise when I reached full rudder with no discernible roll and had to let go of the stick to see if I was carrying any aileron. Later on the proper B model when drooped ailerons were used to improve the STO heavyweight performance some rolling moment with sideslip did emerge but it was not serious needing less than 1/4 aileron at full rudder.
I don't know what you include in your 'handling' term but the metal wing was very inferior so far as turn performance at low or medium speeds went. This is not surprising given the combination of extra area, thicker section and addition of LERX. At high speeds of course both wings were g limited.
Hope that gives you a feel. Don't ask me about a radar comparison between the FA2 and the B+ 'cos I never flew either radar. However my mates would suggest that the B+ was better than the FRS1 but not as good as the FA2.
JF