|
...and. Even the latest US CVN designs have a crew size more than double that of a CVF. The MN is downsizing and could not crew a sip that size without chopping more its surface fleet.
|
I thought that the FN had decided that CDG was too small, hence interest in CVF. That said, I am not sure why using several submarine reactors is a bad thing - I think (can't be bothered to check!) that the early US CVNs (eg Enterprise) were powered by up to 8 submarine sized reactors. Might not be a bad idea as at least we could share development costs with the submarine programme (Vanguard and Astute replacements) and they would provide steam for the cats.
|
I was talking about this attitude in regard to aircraft carriers:
"I look at the Streetfighter concept and worry that we are saying, 'It's OK to lose ships,' " says Vice Adm. Michael Mullen, commander of the U.S. 2nd Fleet in Norfolk, Va." That's probably the flag rank USN's real attitude about their aircraft carriers: must keep the fleet in being, so keep the CVN's out of harm's way. Of course the RN would never think like that. Yes, I agree that the talk about littoral combat vessels lurking in coves before attacking and whatnot is too romantic and Hollywood-ish. |
(requiring a 24 hour nuclear watch system) |
The French do not have an equivalent to a Core H reactor hence the regular refueling schedule for for the C de G. Yes it is too small, even the MN recognise that and it has had various b its bolted on to remedy that. It does have some interesting features such as its anti-roll mechanism, but the bottom line is its still too small. A CVF offers much more flexibility.
|
hulahoop7: "It's a very big IF, but IF this project is managed well and comes in on budget the UK will have done very well thank you very much."
ORAC: "Indeed, especially if we can get Thor and the other aliens from Stargate SG1 to help run the programme." hulahoop7: "Now you're being bloody ridiculous!!" ORAC: "True, but you started it...." |
" other aliens from SG-1 " -
For christ's sake not the gou'ld - I've already met them, they disguise themselves as accountants. |
I thought they were the Wraith? :suspect:
|
CVF through life cost is much less than a CVN to the extent that some questions were being asked in US about why not have x CVFs instead of 1 CVN. You would get more capability and more flexibility.
Now govt bungling has made it worse but CVF is still much cheaper than CVN. Some aspects will even be better (later design so newer technology which cannot always be easily retro-fitted), CDG doesn't meet a lot of reqts and as said French are moving towards CVF concept. |
SSSETOWTF
Informative reply. Although I'm surprised that there's a significant difference between the RN and Marine "standard day". Other things being equal, US and UK ships all operate at sea level, and we're pretty much in agreement about where the world's trouble spots are likely to be (and they tend to be warmer than Scunthorpe in October). Also, I'm sure that a Typhoon in full burner is just as loud as a JSF - but the difference is that it doesn't hang around making that kind of noise. |
JSF Office Makes Buyers an Offer They Cannot Refuse
Aug 1, 2008 Bill Sweetman ( A year or so ago, Mr. Sweetman said in his Aviation Week blog that he reads PPrune. So hi there, Bill. -- Elmo ) Within a year, Lockheed Martin’s Joint Strike Fighter team expects to make firm offers to its eight partner nations: the U.K., Italy, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark and Turkey. In exchange for a commitment by all eight to aircraft numbers and delivery dates, they will get a firm price, several years before that would normally be possible under U.S. procurement rules. Commonality has diminished during the development of JSF. The F-35C has a takeoff weight of 70,000 lb.—almost as heavy as an F-14D—and a 668-sq.-ft. wing.Credit: LOCKHEED MARTIN CONCEPT .. Those commitments will be backed up by sanctions. “Partners who do not buy according to the program of record will cover the costs incurred by other partners,” says the Program Office director, Maj. Gen. Charles Davis. Davis says the final price is the subject of intense discussions within the team, but numbers in the $58-63-million realm—flyaway prices in current dollars—have been mentioned. Given that total acquisition unit costs in export sales tend to be about twice the flyaway cost, this places the JSF unit cost close to that of Typhoon. The partners should be clear about what they are getting for the money. At the inception of the JSF program, in 1995, then-project director George Muellner described the aircraft as “70% air-to-ground, 30% air-to-air.” The F-35 is not optimized for air-to-air combat. JSF is neither fast nor agile enough to choose whether to shoot or scoot against an adversary like the Su-30. It either carries a maximum of four AIM-120 missiles—the capability is little publicized, although Davis confirms that it will be part of the systems development and demonstration program—or operates with compromised stealth. (A reduced-signature pylon for the outboard wing stations, designed to carry AIM-9X or Asraam missiles, is being developed.) Success in air combat depends on stealth, but although the F-35 should detect targets at long range before being detected, it will have to close to shorter distances to achieve an acceptable kill probability with the AIM-120C7, particularly against an agile target using jamming and decoys. The U.S. acknowledged this by developing the AIM-120D, designed to be compatible with new active electronically scanned array radars, but it will not be available for export in the foreseeable future. Moreover, there is no longer any serious doubt that not all F-35s will be equal in stealth. Asked earlier this year to confirm that all would have the same signatures, George Standridge, Lockheed Martin’s vice president for business development, responded: “That is a matter for the U.S. government. I cannot and will not answer that question.” ... Doors, serrated and edge-treated to maintain stealth, open so the F-35B’s powered lift system can operate.Credit: LOCKHEED MARTIN Third, U.S. numbers are shaky. Senior Air Force officers have stated that the service can afford only 48 JSFs per year rather than the 80 that the current program envisions, unless it gets more topline funding in the defense budget. The Navy and Marine Corps told the Government Accountability Office that they expect to buy 35 JSFs per year, versus 50 in the current plan. Davis says the JSF office “is waiting for the POM (program objective memorandum) process to see those numbers get adjusted.” ... More important, though, is the Stovl (short takeoff and vertical landing) testing of the F-35B, which is, by Davis’s count, three months behind schedule. In the first quarter of 2009, the F-35B will start a series of 20 sorties at Fort Worth, Tex., in which the jet progressively slows down, leading to a slow landing. BF-1 will then be ferried to the Navy’s flight-test center at Patuxent River, Md., for tests leading to a vertical landing. The time*scale for that is not certain, but a vertical landing doesn’t look likely until well into the second quarter. The U.K. has voiced concerns about vertical landings. Added to F-35B testing under a U.K. initiative is a new flight mode, shipboard rolling vertical landing (SRVL), in which the aircraft approaches the ship with about 60 kt. airspeed and 25 kt. wind-over-deck—the maximum design speed of the Royal Navy’s new carriers (see story, p. 51)—for a 35-kt. relative deck speed. Davis characterizes SRVL as a means to improve hot-day performance. The U.K. National Audit Office, in a November 2007 report, linked the move to SRVL to “weight challenges and propulsion integration issues.” (( WWII Essex class CV's claimed 33 knots max. -- Elmo ) SRVL trials were carried out in May 2007, using the fly-by-wire Harrier operated by Qinetiq on the French carrier Charles de Gaulle. Challenges include the fact that the aircraft has to stop using wheelbrakes alone—37,000 lb. of aircraft at 35 kt. represents a lot of energy—on a deck that will likely be wet. A classic “bolter” will not be possible because power has to be reduced on touchdown to put the airplane’s weight on its wheels. Vertical landing tests depend on the successful resolution of problems with the low-pressure turbine of the F135 engine, whose unusually large blades are designed to deliver power to the lift fan. A number of changes have been implemented, and tests continue to pin down the exact combination of circumstances where failures occur. Two milestones are coming up: further analysis should lead to a limited clearance of the existing engine for inflight vectoring in October; and a modified, fully cleared engine should be ready to fly by late 2008. JSF Office Makes Buyers an Offer They Cannot Refuse | AVIATION WEEK e%20Makes%20Buyers%20an%20Offer%20They%20Cannot%20Refuse |
Elmo,
For my part thanks, that is an informative & illuminating post. The RVL at 60kts + full ship speed is interesting, if depressing, but then again the Harrier / P1127 could barely lift itself with a stripped airframe in early days... Anything which can carry 4 x AMRAAM on day 1, then precision A-G + A-A weapons on day 2, sounds good to me. The big question is, WHEN ?! DZ |
JSF
So, in essence then.
The JSF is stealthy, unless you want aircombat capability, or can get the 120D missile, (not for export). It's carrier capable, unless you want to land back on. Things are a little heavier than everybody had hoped. And even the U.S. is growing a little cool towards it. Third, U.S. numbers are shaky. Senior Air Force officers have stated that the service can afford only 48 JSFs per year rather than the 80 that the current program envisions, unless it gets more topline funding in the defense budget. The Navy and Marine Corps told the Government Accountability Office that they expect to buy 35 JSFs per year, versus 50 in the current plan. Davis says the JSF office “is waiting for the POM (program objective memorandum) process to see those numbers get adjusted.” But aside from that, the program's going well. |
The US military is NOT "growing cool" towards the F-35, it is that they are trying to lay the groundwork in the politician's minds (such as they are) that the program is still affordable, so that if Obama is elected president, and the Democrats still control both houses of Congress, there won't be an outright cancellation of the program as being "unnecessary" (the F/A-18E, and F-15/16 & small numbers of F-22 are good enough for "purely defensive purposes", and the Demos won't venture into hostile territory for any non-UN reason).
The F-35 is needed in numbers for "offensive" missions, the thought of which sends convulsions of horror through the likely budget-masters, so the services are beginning their campaign to preserve some F-35 acquisitions right now. |
Is it time to dust off the P.1154 plans yet?
|
The Helpful Stacker,
It didn't work then and it wouldn't work now. Plenum chamber afterburner? No way hosay.......... |
Hosay?
José, surely, Shirley? |
Jackonicko,
I've told you before, don't call me Shirley. :ok: |
Jetex Jim,
I don't know whether to be exasperated or amused by the way you've interpreted Bill Sweetman's article. Are you saying that an aircraft that can stealthily approach enemy fighters and put 4 AIM-120C7s into them doesn't have an air combat capability??? Can I have some of what you're smoking? I'm sure the enemy pilot's last words won't be 'well if you didn't kill me with an AIM-120D, it doesn't count'. What part of being able to take-off and land from a carrier makes it not carrier capable??? If you apply the more demanding UK criteria of what a 'hot day' is, then you might have to do an SRVL to bring aboard your full warload and several thousand lb of fuel. So it's not an issue for training, it's not an issue in high-intensity ops when you're expending your ordnance, and you only have to SRVL on a really hot, really low pressure day if you want/need to hold a load of diversion fuel. So what's your beef with the carrier capability? Sounds as good as an F-18C or AV-8B, if not significantly better, to me. The jet may be a bit heavier than we hoped, but I can assure you that people at Lockheed haven't just thrown their hands up in the air and given up on finding ways to trim the last few pounds of excess off the airframe. And if you think that the US only being able to afford to buy 83 a year for their Forces, for the next 25+ years to build up a fleet of 2500 airframes is 'going a little cool', I can't tell you how much I wish the UK would 'go a little cool' on it. If you compare the JSF programme to our most recent success, the Typhoon, there are a couple of points to make. Two years ago the first flight for BF-1 was set as May/June 08. It made that deadline and is running about 3 months behind due to the engine snag. Well, compared to Typhoon, that means we've got another 51 months of slip before we match them. Typhoon costs went from £7 billion to £20billion to £'we can't tell you how many for commercial sensitivity' billion. JSF has an extremely long way to go to match that kind of inflation. And probably most important of all is that when you get your first Sqn of Block III F-35s, they'll be full-up air-air and air-ground aircraft. You won't have to wait 5 years post-delivery for one of them to drop one bomb that's being spiked by another aircraft type to declare themselves multi-role. Sales pitch off now. Regards, Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly |
Plenum Chamber Burning
Proone,
While I agree the P1154 seems a dodgy bet in retrospect, I believe the Plenum Chamber Burning ( I presume you mention 'afterburner' as a sort of crude analogy ) BS100 engine was successfully run; as was the PCB modified Pegasus in a test-rig mounted Harrier airframe. When I sent photo's of both to an enquiring engine apprentice with the Navy, who'd asked if PCB had ever been tried, even his instructors were stunned & had never heard of the projects ! The rather potent looking Yak 141 'Freestyle' had it too, and I've heard from an American Test Pilot who got to fly the simulator - he didn't expand on how the occasion arose, but did say he liked it a lot and his report was ' of interest to the intelligence community '...Interestingly, that had F-35 style 2-lever operation - stick & throttle, no nozzle lever - and it seems a shame ( or a relief ) that the project failed through funding as the Soviet Union caved in. The big problem with PCB is / was the terrific heat & erosion to whatever surface the aircraft was operating from. The P1154 is long gone, but the Kingston design office had some very attractive proposals for the late 1980's P1216 - see the website by Michael Pryce, who has researched very deeply & thoroughly into past, present & above all else FUTURE VSTOL - dial in the name of a present VSTOL aircraft beginning with 'H' on google. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:52. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.