Aerospaceweb.org | Aircraft Museum - Joint Strike Fighter



Aerospaceweb.org | Aircraft Museum - F-35 Lightning II
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft...5_schem_02.jpg


X-32
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/%7Egpolloc...s/image068.jpg


MDD/NG/BAe entry
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b3...ft/BAE_001.jpg

Maybe this is because I do not know that much about the user side of aircraft but i'm going to point out one thing that struck me but im sure it has been said before.

"Theres no fighters that have been made into carrierborne fighters" and "rafale and E/FA-18C/D/E and Dave are the only carrierborne fighters"

-Both Mig 29K and Sukhoi 27K/33 were designed as land based aircraft then converted for Naval use.

By using a ski-jump for Typhoon (such as is able to be built into the new carriers) it does not need to be stressed for catapult launches. I really dont know if Typhoon is/could be powerful enough to launch like this but im guessing its more likely to be do-able than not (possibly bigger wing area?)

. The big difficulty then is to get the aircraft back on deck and it probably isnt as big a job to get the airframe strengthened for the arrested landing than for arrested landing and catapult takeoff. Strengthened gear is heavy as well so even less payload , and I really dont know if it can be done. (Getting the aircraft to the point where the hook is to be used is a different story, though more wing area and a lower stalling speed wouldn't hurt)

OK big downside is that there needs to be air-to-air refuelling before the aircraft can have any sort of range with payload so it is a non starter but it is a different way to look at the problem other than saying cat launches wont work.

A400 is needed as soon as is possible and in my opinion it is too important to be cancelled, will be late but will prove to be pretty decent in the long run.

MrDave...

Su-27 and Mig-29, whilst they do indeed get airborne from carriers, and doubtless are very feisty once they have, can also carry about as useful payload as a small flying fish in the process. Typhoon likewise would doubtless be able to get airborne from a carrier with a ski ramp, but a useful long range A-G payload sans catapult? Hmm.... as you say, only solution is to have AAR, which for UK PLC is going to mean buddy-buddy if you want a reliable form of carrier AAR, as the VC-10/Tristar/A-330 PFI are not always going to be avail. Buddy buddy means half the useful sortie rate, which is not ideal!

As for landing back on, it's not just as simple as re-jigging the gear to make it strong enough. Either you strengthen the whole airframe, or your fatigue life of the jet has just been hugely shortened.Even more so if you actually want to land back on with anything hanging under the wings.

Which raises the interesting question of how much one would have to mod the 'phoon in order to equal the stellar payoad/range performance of Dave B - 470 nm radius (high alt out, drop to LGB designation alt, high alt back) with 2 x 1000 lb bombs and two AMRAAMs? My guess (it's only that) is that the 'phoon could do that on internal fuel, and could readily do a STO at that weight.

So in one sense the response to the "nobody's ever modded a land-based fighter into a Navy fighter" is "well, Navy fighters aren't so hot either". In fact, if you look coldly at the Rhino, Dave B and their landbased contemporaries, you realize that the US Navy has allowed the performance gap between Navy and land-based fighters to widen to its greatest proportions since the days when the F4F Wildcat and the F2A Buffalo were the contemporaries of the Spitfire and Me109.

Another response is "nobody's tried since 1950". One thng we have learned since then is computer aided design, which actually makes it easier to build extra strength into the airframe without driving the weight through the roof or redesigning every part. We are also within spitting distance of routine carrier autoland.

Arrest is an issue... but if you look at the 'phoon it has a lower wing loading than the Rhino. The problem is that the delta likes to be more nose-up to get a higher CL and can't carry the Rhino's enormous flaps... but then, if a CEO can fly his Gulfstream into Jackson Hole on a filthy night using infrared, you'd think a steely-eyed fighter jock could do the same.

SeaPhoon? Risky, yes. Expensive, yes. More so than nine mission-critical doors and a 20-some MW clutch, driveshaft and bevel gears?

A recent browse of the jobs advertised on Budgie News's web site revealed a German firm looking for engineers to work on the 'Conceptual' design of the cargo floor and aerial delivery system for the A400M. Isn't it a bit late in the day to be working on a concept for what should be the heart of a Tactical Transport Aircraft.
What's the prototype got as a floor then?

Don't forgot, no prototype is ever intended to actually do the job. They are flying test-beds full of clever geekery to measure everything so that future frames can be perfected. I suspect the prototype has a floor that is not stressed for load carrying but is used solely for test equipment and will never see a landrover or pallet.

The floor really isn't the problem though. Unless the engines are sorted out, it doesn't matter what payload you've got on board :ugh::ugh:

Interesting how the same words can mean different things to different people

I took 'Conceptual design of the cargo floor and aerial delivery system for the A400M' as relating to the detail design of the fittings associated with different loads, tie downs, delivery systems even powered loading systems ie the whole load handling package

I know for a fact that the A400M has already had at last two designs of cargo handling system (WZ662 is admiting to being involved with the project) and the prototypes have been built to accept one of them, hence my horror at the word conceptual in a job advert only posted this week. My fear is that things have changed yet again. :mad:

Defense-Aerospace.Com's Press Releases, 17 Oct 2008...

Norwegian Industry Wants Sweden's Gripen Jets- Report
(Source: Nordic News Digest; issued Oct. 16, 2008)

The best decision for the Norwegian industry would be the purchase of Swedish JAS 39 Gripen fighter jets and not US F-35 Lightning II, a common report by two industry organisations and a labour union showed on Wednesday.

The Norwegian Defence and Security Industries Association (FSi), trade union Landsorganisasjonen (LO) and Norwegian Society of Engineers (NITO), with a total one million members, recommended in the report the authorities to invest in 48 new JAS 39 Gripen jets instead of in US F-35 Lightning II, know as Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), made by Lockheed Martin Corp. Gripen is manufactured by Swedish defence and aerospace group Saab AB.

Gripen is the best alternative from the industrial perspective, FSi administrative director Torbjorn Svensgard told Norwegian daily Dagsavisen today.

Gripen has already identified much more projects in Norway, to take part in, compared with JSF, and these projects are spread across the whole country. A JSF choice will have negative consequences for the expansion and further development of the Norwegian defence industry, according to the report.

If Norway chooses Gripen, this will enable large production, as well as research and development, and more work places, FSi said.

Although the report is important, the LO union has not taken a final position in the discussion yet, LO's leader Roar Flathen said.

Norway's government is due to make a decision about the fighters before Christmas.

Once there was a silly old ram
Thought he'd butt a hole in a dam...

Wouldn't have expected this a couple years ago, would you?

wz662.

You must be a bit ahead of me in the information chain (also admits to A400M involvement, although thankfully not linked to designing the beast)

We must compare notes some time.:ok:

So are we looking good for the hotly rumoured 12/24 month delay to delivery of the A400M then?

Has Snoopy actually flown any of the 50 hour engine flight test schedule?

Does it have ESF/Fuel Tank inerting and the latest DAS for all 25 airframes?

Does it have a usable cargo floor?

Have we sorted out para and air despatch/re-supply yet?

41 months until the last remaining C130K's are retired and counting:{

Truckkie, you ask about A-400M
If it's any help the DEC (Director of Equipment Capability) who covered the A-400M from Apr 2005 to Apr 2008, Brig Hamish McNinch, gave evidence on oath about this at the Hercules Inquest.

He confirmed that the RAF will have 25 A-400Ms (and 24 C-130Js and 6 C-17s), and the coroner asked him
The Brigadier answered unequivocally, "yes".

However, earlier he had said that the funding had not yet been made available for the whole OBIGGS fit for the A-400M. They had instead funded fitting the pipework, with a view to using the 'Pro-Fit' system which he said can be fitted as required in a matter of hours.

The question of DAS did not come up directly in this part of the Inquest, but the scuttlebutt has it that fewer than half of the 25 aircraft have had funding approved for DAS.

airsound

Only ‘cretins’ jeer forces, says John Hutton - Times Online

Hutton is surprisingly frank about the shortage of money, making it clear he plans to axe one or more big procurement projects.

He won’t be drawn on detail, but insiders believe his comments spell the end of the £9 billion joint strike fighter (JSF) jump-jet project. Plans for 25 transport aircraft for the RAF are also likely to be at risk. Some other big projects, however, such as the Eurofighter and the Astute submarine, are just too costly – both politically and financially – to abandon at this stage.

“There’s precious little point in cancelling a contract if it ends up costing more as a result. I’d rather have the kit than the liability,” Hutton says.

If you cancel JSF what are you going to put on the two bl--dy great Carriers?

"[Hutton] won’t be drawn on detail, but insiders believe his comments spell the end of the £9 billion joint strike fighter (JSF) jump-jet project. Plans for 25 transport aircraft for the RAF are also likely to be at risk."

Can someone tell me what is an insider? Surely an insider with direct access to these programmes or procurement decisions at ministerial level would not "believe", they would know. Sounds to me like a journalist guessing by looking around at various programmes that could be cancelled/reduced (following on from previous Times' articles on cancellation/reductions of Eurofighter tranche three and the cancellation of Future Lynx) knowing that some cuts are inevitable somewhere.

When did the Times ever predict the death of Tranche 3 and how would that save any money? It wouldnt. Try to forget JSF, you arent going to get it.

Well you can start with an article from 2007 entitled MoD seeks a way out of Typhoon contract - Times Online which directly mentioned cancellation and reduction adding to other speculation like the cancellation of the Future Lynx.

As for saying the UK won't get the JSF, on what basis? The original Times article that this new one draws on actually mentioned consideration, pretty much like most of the major projects are undergoing at the moment. No JSFs for the UK? Tell that to the JSF Programme Office and the companies working on it and have been working on the thing so it can operate on board the CVFs. Because they still think they are.

Well I guess I made a rod for my own back there by allowing your original mistake in talking loosely about the Times. The two JSF refs are from the Sunday Times which shares a website but is completely different from the Times, and that article in the Times - rather than the Sunday Times - was by a business correspondent who didnt bother mentioning that unless all the main countries agree to a reduction they are all bound to pay for every aircraft they originally ordered whether or not they want them. Oddly, given the lock-in was designed by us to keep them in the deal, while slapping them about the head repeatedly for daring to think twice, the Germans seem very reluctant to let us off the hook on that one.

Whether or not the guys on the ground know anything, JSF is for the chop. The defence chiefs persuaded Des to take a plan to chop it to Gordon and he turned it down flat because he didnt want any public defence cuts. Hutton has obviously taken the job on the basis that the whole business side of the MoD needs sorting and has clearly persuaded Gordon to bite the bullet. Hutton was very clear, one or more big procurement projects will have to go. That is finally someone in government or at the top of the MoD actually admitting that there is just a small cash problem.

It can't be Typhoon because of the lock-in deal. It won't be the carriers themselves because that would mean major loss of face not to mention major loss of jobs in Gordon's constituency. It can't be the T45s, we are just too far down the line on those. Future Lynx is an option but that would put Westlands down the tubes, the Italians would pull out straight away and Labour constituencies in the south-west would be effected, and anyway we have a dire shortage of helicopters. It can't be Astute because we are too far down the line there and anyway we need the seven attack subs and the four nuclear subs to keep the UK submarine industry going. Given that Hutton is MP for Barrow, I dont really see messing that up as an option. You could argue that all the latest armoured vehicles the army has make FRES irrelevant but we still need new armoured reconnaissance vehicles, Scimitar is dead on its feet. The A400 is a distinct possibility - cancelling it will be cheap - but won't on its own save enough money.

JSF on the other had just got 25 per cent more expensive thanks to the financial crash, working out how much that extra cost will be is an interesting one given that the dollar price is going up month on month and no-one at Lockheed can tell you how much it will actually cost when it is finally built, and there's that little matter of those numbskulls on the hill who think we Brits are dangerous lefties who cant be trusted with the technical secrets of an aircraft we're supposed to be building together.

Then add in BAE Systems being asked to work out whether some of our Eurofighters can't be marinised and surprise, surprise coming up with the bullish answer: "Oh yes". I'm afraid it doesnt really matter what the sceptics on pprune think, or indeed how much more experience and know-how they have in landing on carriers than anyone making a decision. This is only going to go one way.

As I said, forget JSF, it's already gone.

Hutton has just been on 'The Politics Show' and when pushed asked with an unequivocal yes to the question would CVF be built.

In addition he gave the impression that at least part of the JSF order was safe stating that carriers without aircraft would be pointless. And here's the link to the politics show, interview on the BBC website:BBC NEWS | Programmes | Politics Show | Hutton: We could be there for decades.

Interesting and well put points Mick, however buying carriers and nothing to put on them will also lose a lot of face, and this marinised Typhoon rubbish would also cost a fortune and probably fail.
F18 anyone?

Well, I remain sceptical that the UK will abandon the JSF and won't hold my breath for such an announcement saying as much to emerge. Buying alternative Super Hornets, Rafales or navalising Typhoons is still going to cost money. A reduction in the numbers of the planned procurement of 138 F-35Bs sounds more realistic depending on what Lockheed Martin eventually charges complete with support costs, etc and how the current financial crisis pans out. As Hutton acknowledges, it would be pointless building the carriers with no aircraft to operate off them after the Harrier is retired.

As for tranche three Typhoon, it appears that contract will be split into two batches with one ordered in 2009 and the remainder at a later date, according to recent interviews in the specialist aviation media with Eurofighter's Aloysius Rauen.

Hutton
 

...but you'll note that he restricted his answer on the politics show. He said that the carriers would be equiped with 'capable aircraft' - and didn't specifically name JSF. There was also a lot of 'eyes left' when he was given those questions. A body language person might suggest that he was hitting a grey area at that point.

.. and the horrendous maths that some might be doing:

tranche 3 - circa £9bn
JSF - £9 - 12bn
Total £20bn

Marinised tranche 3 circa £14bn = £6bn saved.

So if the 25 A400Ms are cancelled what will fill the AT shortfall?

The remaining C130Ks will just about last until 2012, the C130Js are racking up fatigue life with outer wing replacements already talked about in 2012 for the fleet leaders.

Which platform will take over the DSF commitment - the C130J programme is only designed as a interim measure until the future SF (A400M?) platform!

Have we not realised that AT is a priority? Lessons learned from 7 of years operations?

We will always need AT, both strategic and tactical as force projectors and multipliers - cancelling A400M would be a stupid move that will leave UK PLC poorly placed for ongoing and future operations.

Hulahoop7,

Super Hornet is a capable aircraft......

Truckkie,

As far as I know, there's nothing to fill the role, hence the A400M was born in the first place.

I believe LM are looking into a fatter-albert, but that is even further away than the A400M is.

C17 is a good strat AT, but too big for the smaller partner nations who only ordered 1 or 2 aircraft. ~(South Africa, Belgium etc), also not suited to the majority of Euro tac work due to its size.

I agree it would be daft to cancel it, but then again, since when has anyone in power listened to the coalface.

If anyone can remember the start of the C17 project, that was nealry cancelled a few times, and only after massive investment did it work.

Hopefully the partners involved here will bite the bullet and finish what was started.

That's before you take into account that a couple of months ago £1 got you $2. Now it's down to just over $1.52 and the forecast is below $1.40.

That's means the original £9B,reputedly now up to around £15B, will turn into £12B-£20B.

Surely a lot, if not all, of that is offset by the fact that we are one of the manufacturers, and thus get paid in dollars also?
We are buying very few, and yet are getting a substantial part of the build.

Sounds good, if you could guarantee the BAE portion of the JSF build was done in UK. But BAE have extensive facilities in the USA, (Wiki):

Where do we go from here?
 

Quite agree with Mick Smith's post: of all the options, considering there ARE going to be cuts, JSF is the most plausible: way too man unknowns, way too expensive, and the only program hich can be efficiently replaced. But with what?
- Forget about Typhoon. No matter how fantastically superior it is to everybody else. It is not possible to navalise it and it will not be: airframe strength, nosewheel under the intakes, no deck visibility due to the canards, high approach speed, low payload,etc.... Tried it with the Jaguar, binned it, tried it with the Mirage 2000, binned it, it required 80% of modifications on the acft.

Only sensible option is to grind the ski jump and put some F/A-18 (they will be damn old by 2015) or Rafales. I understand RN would rather chew their own hats rather than buying Rafales and re-learning to cat&trap 30 years after Ark Royal (the real one), however it makes sense...:ugh:

this is an interesting sentence;

A REDUCTION in the number of F-35s procured to as few as 85 aircraft would allow the RAF to maintain its current fast jet combat aircraft inventory levels WHILE AT THE SAME TIME INCREASING the capability and flexibility of the force.


Anyone explain to me how that would work ?

Or am I thick

Rafale
 

Guys I think the Hornet is a good aircraft. But what with Europe getting closer together and also the fact our carriers and those of the French Navy wil be very much the same as I understand it there should be only one logical aircraft:- The Rafale!
If we buy American there always seem to be so many strings attached to what we can and cannot do with the plane!
Plus the Royal Navy could have its own Rafale fleet the RAF can have its Typhoons end of story. No longer will RAF pilots have to spend time at sea. How many Rafales would we need? About 100 maybe? Atlast we will have a proper Navy with real planes and real carriers! We could even then buy Hawkeye from the Americans.

To save money the best thing would be to cancel the carriers. Keep typhoon and jsf. No more c17 ,buy B747 freighters/combi can carry 100 tons direct to most current operational areas.

100 tons????
 

I can see the old "ships-are-useless-because-with-our-mighty-planes-we-can-go-anywhere" rant coming on...

100 tons per aircraft i hear, so how many of those will you need to carry 40 JSF (20 odd tons each) plus a couple of AEW (I'm talking E2C, not the old bag), plus weapons, plus the engineers, plus supplies, plus beds and food for the whole lot....? I would say at least... one carrier...

Not to mention that before landing somewhere, you need the clearance, etc...Want an example? air force started working in a'stan 4 months after carriers were already launching strikes.

4 months after carrier ops..........

Not entirely true for all Air Force assets:ok:

And who says you need clearance?

Flight Global has just published latest A400M slippages.

Cue the Big Top music: "Rit dit diddle diddle...etc"

EADS slows down A400M production due to engine flight-test delays


On a serious note, is our AT requirement not heavily or utterly relient on this platform? I hear the J needs rewinged in circa 2012 and is knocking up an eyewatering FI. The Tristar is having the guts ripped out of it's cockpit imminently. Are we at risk of a dreadful shortfall of airlift for the guys who so desperately need it in theatre?

We MUST get more C17s. No question. Perhaps 10 all together?

That's about right:-

12 very tired C130Ks reduce to 9 next year - just enough to maintain support to DSF and UK standbys. OSD 2012
C130Js racking up FI - first outer wing due replacing on fleet leaders in 2012. SF upgrade programme due to start 2010 through to 2012/13 - removing line airframes for modernisation.
Tristars OSD now 2014 - cockipit/avionic upgrades and fuel system overhaul permitting - cue Marshalls delays:mad:
VC10 - very, very tired.
C17 - brilliant but not enough airframes or crews - full fleet not operating until 2011/2012
A400M - original ISD 2010/2011 now slipping right at a vast rate of knots.
FSTA - 2009/10 - are you having a laugh?

2012 is being called the 'perfect storm' in the AT world when the airframe situation becomes critical.

Couple this with the move of Lyneham to Brize and the upheaval of the infastructure of the entire C130 fleet plus the continuing demands of operations and something called the Olympics!!

We will not have enough AT to support current ops, never mind anything else:mad:

Whilst the Herc fleet is getting tired and is overused I still think a lot more could be done to ensure longevity of both fleets.

That said, for the type of ops we're involved in we should buying a bunch of these fellas:

12T payload, 60 odd troops, bags of performance. So obvious it hurts :ugh: