Nab/orca

RVL does indeed sound alarming. Can anything be done to improve it - arrestor wires parhaps? Lower speeds (compared to F35C) = easier and cheaper to arrest.

Edited on 11/2/07 to add the following:

1. An aircraft landing at 40 knots will have a lot less kinetic energy than one landing at 120 knots - a ninth to be exact.
2. The control system developed by Qinetiq should be able to place the landing aircraft in a fairly exact part of the deck.
3. A single wire, perhaps two, could be used to arrest the landing aircraft. Due to the lower speeds the wires and associated equipment would not need to be so heavy duty.
4. MacTaggart Scott would be glad of the work, which could be exported to other shipborne F35B operators.

LO

Surely the whole point of V/STOL aircraft is that they can operate from austere locations? Isn't this why the USMC wanted the F35B?

Who fu:mad: told you that ? :*

WEBF - partly for austere, although I tend to agree with LO on the desirability of operating complex stealth a/c from an austere field, but they also want to get their a/c on their Amphibs. Suspect they don't really care whether its stealthy or not, just whether it'll get airborne off a STOVL run. JSF was the only game in town at the time, hence they got aboard that program. God knows why we did though.

As for RVL the limiter is not the arrestment, it's the ability to go-around if it all goes tits. If the engine is having to spool down and you're nowhere near flying speed, then you're basically knackered. You might be able to keep more thrust on with some form of arrester, but then it would have to be strong, in which case why not go the whole hog, buy Dave Charlie and be open to REAL fallback options, eg F18E or in extremis R****e (there - I've said it), not to mention real MASC and options for real COD/AAR.

My understanding is that the USMC primarily wanted the B so it could continue to sustain shipboard operations from amphibs rather than CVs. Both belong to the Navy but culturally the Grunts feel they own the amphibs. It all goes back to Guadalcanal.

If you really wanted a V/STOL aircraft to operate from austere locations it would not look like an F-35, and I don't expect them to do a lot of that.

The ghost of Lord f:mad: Nelson, that's who. :E

Back again eh? Oh well..

Frou Frou: How dare you, you filthy weaselle!

Solider: Weasel? Hah! You're one to talk, aristo-waat-heug!

Frou Four: Warthog? Hah!

Jacko has his head up his ass. F-35B will come with wet pylons and external tanks. Takes ROA up to 600nm or so with internal payload.

F-22 has external tanks which can be jettisoned along with their pylons if needed.

For the record, UK Adm thingy said when Dave B was announced the winner, the factors were: cheaper carrier to buy & to run, available earlier, higher UK industrial content, more flexible deployment.

Ok morons if you want to spend a lot of £ on F-35 ,B or C Or F-18 E it is up to you.

I think, thanks, to your politicians, you won t get any carriers, for that i don t give a sh:mad: about you and you f:mad: country.

Neverless,do not forget about that : http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/732...tendardec8.jpg


You may have some surprise in a near futur.:ugh:

Shouldn't that picture be in the historic and vintage forum!! :ok:

Who was it who said:

". . . you know frankly, going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion. You just leave a lot of useless noisy baggage behind!"

Wonderful place, France. Great food, superb wine, terrific scenery...

Only one problem (apart from their $hite cars, of course).......

Any guesses?

A la votre!!

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Just for you guys with love.......


http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/9249/a4q3zf2.jpg

A-4 Q on board carrier "25 de Mayo"

Well we probably all guessed it wasn't a jet-des-grenouilles - because it's off to fly a war mission. So no real need for your explanation, petite-quequette!

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/9899/05qw2.jpg

3 more A-4Q on board "25 de Mayo"

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/9219/20ip9.jpg

A-4Q being catapulted from the "25 de Mayo"

Another one :mad:


http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/4699/150or4.jpg

Edmund: Vivre, indeed. Now, what I'm looking for, Mrs M, is a particular kind of frenchy -- namely, one who is transparently obsessed with Argentina but also short on brain cells......

Miggins: Ah, well, I've got just the fellow for you -- over there by the window: The Comte de Frou Frou.

[Shot of Frou Frou holding -- and looking oddly at -- a huge suspicious-looking sausage.]

Miggins: He's pretty down on his luck, and he's made that horse's willy last all morning.

Edmund: Oh, good. Baldrick, we have struck garlic!

Pick a side and stick with it! Are you rooting for the Portuguese, the French or the Argentinians?

Oh, wait, sorry, you're French........I forgot, it's just what you do......


And for the A-4 and 25 de Mayo photos, do you not understand the irony in your posts? Who made the A-4s? Who built the 25dM? Who built your much beloved Exocets? Don't think "Made in Argentina" is stamped on any of it!

Rduarte, you appear to have confused this with the Aviation History and Nostalgia forum, I'm sure they'd love all these old pictures you're digging up. Otherwise your posts are like pencils without lead.

Pencils without lead? Much like the French military! :E

You are very english, but never mind.

You need to buy the Rafale, it s better for France and Europe, not so good for the US,but excellent for the british tax payers.:ok:

rduarte... I've been this thread for a bit, and I think you're missing a ranther pertinent ponit:

NONE of the VdeM's A-4s ever got off the deck to attack the RN in '82. And given the state of VdeM now - see www.hazegray.org and you find a note that reads "Note: The carrier Veintecinco De Mayo has been scrapped.". :)

Oh dear. :hmm:

But on your broader point of whether the UK should follow the French Navy and make CVF, like PA2, a conventional carrier, the answer is clearly yes.

However, the airwing should then be Dave C and Hawkye 2000. Ooh, and maybe a C-2 as well.....

And yes, I have the highest regard for the professionalism of the French forces.

S41

25th May was barely operational in 1982, can you imagine what she would be like now?

The Argentines knew that she was a prime target for the RN and if they kept her at sea for any period of time, she would be sunk.

... But if the UK Has to deal with Brown tea-towel Holders like yourself then what do you think the chances are of the UK Buying them? Sorry but calling us Morons etc just wont do, Try showing some respect and you might get some in return.
...Merde! - I just Bit! :\

You need to buy the Rafale, it s better for France and Europe, not so good for the US,but excellent for the british tax payers - rduarte

If the new carriers were coming into service now, or a few years ago, then you would have a point, but since they won't be on the scene until sometime after 2012..........how long will the Rafale have been in service?

Compatibility with the French Navy is unlikely to be a major issue, nor is compatibility with the Americans. Compatibility with the RAF is the deciding factor, and they want a V/STOL aircraft after the Harrier, which means F35B.

By all means say you think we should get equipment from Thales, DCN, or even Dassault, but why are you so rude?

rduarte,

We do not want the Rafale operating off our carriers. It is too limited. If the F35 is unavailable then the Super Hornet would be the aircraft of choice.

Actually I don t care anymore,You will be those who will pay for.:ugh:

You are the west cubans,or if you prefer the US morons.:D

"You are the west cubans,or if you prefer the US morons."

Perhaps. But emphatically not cheese-eating surrender monkeys!

Casse-toi, emmerdeur!

Ah, yes, the French battle cry..............

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

rduarte

Is this a cover name for the French President?

Sounds like the sort of c**p he would come out with.

Anyone remember the final score at Agincourt?

Could I join this Brit bashing monolog Doudou?
 

I'm reading Jeanne d'Arc biography by Henri Guillemin.

Seems this Aircraft carrier battlefield has something in common with Orleans siege: godons were defeated by young girl leading civilians armed with knifes.


You'll win rduarte!

Perhaps we can get back to the issue?

The brouchure for this years Navy Days stated that CVF will enter service in 2012 and 2015. The same brouchure said twelve Type 45 Destroyers will be delivered......:rolleyes:

Future Navy was supposed to be a major theme this year. There was a series of displays dedicated to it. However, whilst the promise was there, I think actual content was lacking. Surprised? No!

There are a couple of interesting discussions going on the the RN board on Ezboard (note I am not a user so none of the contributions are mine):

801 and 800 NAS to share just 12 aircraft

Some AEW Questions

My spyware system flagged up some problems with that board when I accessed it!

Just thinking out loud here but...
The FAA have two flat tops they can deploy on - one of which is usually tied up alongside or acting as a Helicopter carrier when JHC require it. Why then do we requre at present 2 Squadrons of 9 Harriers? 12 aircraft is nearing the Max that you can put on one flat-top anyway so for the FAA to meet its RN commitments it has more than enough aircraft. Land deployment at present requires a presence of JFH in Afganastan. Surely this could be covered by Jaguar or RAF Harriers? The FAA Like the RAF have taken a real hit with respect to manpower and it will probably take longer to recover. However I do not see how they cannot meet the maritime committments at least. What may be open to debate is that if the FAA can meet all its commitments with a pool of 12 aircraft and presumably a comensurate drop in manpower then there will surely be questions asked as to why the RAF part of JFH cannot do the same?

But you're forgetting the big fact...... it's obviously the RAF's fault that the Navy can't pull it's weight and man two sqns;)

Some of us had these sort of suspicions when Joint Force 2000 (as it was back then) was announced - I felt concerned that a) the FAA would be taken over by the RAF and b) the needs of the RN for things like air defence and anti shipping strike would be forgotten about. :ugh: :ugh: :{

The loss of a third of CVS capable aircraft (ignoring helicopters) represented by the loss of the Sea Harrier MUST have had an effect on manning. Certainly I remember reading Navy News in the mid 90s when it stated the RN had about fifty Sea Harrier pilots (possibly including ones on other duties) so my question is what went wrong, and when? Failure to recruit? Failure to retain?

A few years ago it was reported/alleged that a third of Sea Harrier pilots had threatened to PVR over the move to Cott/Mitt. With the loss of the fighter role as well, how many did go outside? Does anyone have any statistics?

Perhaps that is all part of the plan.:eek: :*

Anyway, I draw your attention back to the issue of MASC with this posting "over there".

Most of the Sea Harrier pilots that left were going to do so anyway, either due to having done their time, or getting to the point that the move wasn't worth it for the few months they had left in the RN.
I don't think there's any masssive hidden plan for the RAF to take over the Fleet Air Finger, it was the RAF that gave up half of it's jets to the Navy. Unfortunately, it has been obvious for quite some time now that the Navy were going to be unable to man it's two "new" sqns.