Did someone use a buzz phrase generator in writing that piece?

Is there a precis of that in English, by any chance?

I shouldn't think so. Written by a Major, on behalf of a Bird Colonel and bucking for Lt Colonel him/her self?



Hmm, must have my cynical hat on today. Normally works well though.

With a specification written like that I am surprised that anyone doesn't end up with a train or a coal mine or some such

"trade space refinement activity"

Jesus.




Future career: sorted.

Will somebody please remind LM just how long (quickly!) Ed Heinemann took to design, build and fly the Douglas A4?

Nearly 3,000 were later made and proves (at least to me) the merits of KISS. (keeping it simple, stupid!)

Seems like a lot of people have forgotten this..........would 2,000 cheaper and simple ac be better able to do the jobs required of them than the 100 or so we will eventually receive? At least all our eggs whould not be in one or two baskets and we would be able to deploy them much more flexibly.

MB

I know a lot of folks here are considering the F-18, should we lose the F-35, but going back to a 1950s jet?

CourtneyMil:

By '1950s jet' do you mean the A-4?

The only real 'advantage' I can see to the F-35 is that Day One penetration of hostile airspace could be manned. Arguably, that's not necessary even with the current generation of smart(er) weapons.

If we went F-18, we could arguably be a Day Two operator (which we are already anyway). But F-18 with the appropriate stand-off weaponry is a (much less expensive?) Day One proposition.

It might not satisfy some people's shiny toy obsessions but it's pragmatic. And if by Day Two all (or most) of the really nasty stuff has been taken care of, a larger fleet of F-18s is going to be able to put a lot more stuff in a lot more places at the same time.

More and more, F-35 looks like a dud. And - dare I say it - the chariot of choice for medal-hunters.

Maybe not the F18 but why not go for the typhoon and develop it to its full potential.
Contrary to the F35, it seems like they got the basics right, the aircraft itself is very decent with tons of growth potential.
Apart from the baked in stealth it basically is an F22 performance wise, it has the potential of having a top of the line radar, has good MMI and Helmet and the towed decoy(DaSS), Pirate, ESM-ECM,etc... all of witch can be upgraded over time.



For those that want to work on technologies which are on the cutting edge, maybe a bit of a stretch for now but the following could very well be already in the pipeline;

Forget about Stealth, the longterm research (DARPA) of the US DoD are also putting their emphasis on acitve defence systems iso of relying on Stealth for protection.

This basically frees up a lot of constrictions on the design mandated by stealth.
With the Germans as partners (Rheinmetall) they have a similar technology available putting it right on the edge again.

Rheinmetall Successfully Tests 10-kW Laser Weapons | Defense Update - Military Technology & Defense News
http://defense-update.com/wp-content...1/130594_1.jpg
DARPA is working on derivatives of this project to build an active "shield" for their aircraft;
High Energy Liquid Laser Area Defense System (HELLADS) Programme - Airforce Technology

kbrockman,

...but you won't get Typhoon off a carrier.

I agree that Typhoon fully kitted out should be a way to go but we'd still need something for the QEII and PoW, surely?

Edited to add: on the non-structural stealth front, I seem to recall speculation (it must be over a decade back, now...) that the Russians were exploring plasma generators to confound radar, rather than limiting an airframe aerodynamically by shaping it to guarantee low signatures.

Are we, once again, doggedly continuing to hammer on the front door instead of checking whether the side door or back door are open?

For those saying that the industry has to learn to develop aircraft in less than 20-25 years: What we have to do is forget how to take 20-25 years, which is strictly a post-1980 phenomenon.

The F-4, F-15 and F-16 went through life-cycles that looked like this: 2-3 years from contract to first flight; another 3 years or so to IOC; major upgrades 5-6 years after IOC. The F-4 was produced for about 20 years after first flight and is still in service. The F-16 and F-15 have not been replaced, although they would probabably have been superseded in production a long time ago had not the main source of funds been pre-empted by F-22 (20 years from prototype contract to IOC) and F-35 (probably 23-24 years).

One trouble with taking more than 7 years or so from serious money to IOC is that electronics change vastly over that time. (The first BlackBerry smartphone was released in 2003.) Another is that it is impossible to maintain design expertise or an industrial base.

I beg to disagree. Anything with wheels can roll off the edge. Getting it on is another matter though.

Who says you have to get it back on...? :ok:

CAM ship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John Farley - yup, fair point!

Biggus - but that we could afford to throw them away like super-annuated Hurricanes.

:}

The fleet numbers we're looking at with F-35 means we'll barely be able to afford to look at them in a funny way, much less send them anywhere nasty.

:(

" 2. The next generation is essential to keep the design teams together, even of not put into mass production. In fact a strong recommendation is to keep designing prototypes and buying 1-2 Sqns of each for exactly that purposes, so the skill is there when you need it."

This what the RAF did 1919-1936 - not sure it worked all that well in practise

Didn't France pull out of the Typhoon programme because of the lack of carrier capability?...and then went on to win that nice big Indian order?

Hindsight is of course, a wonderful thing.

As the Super Hornet already has, not to mention significant extra growth potential.

I think they pulled out because fundamentally they wanted a lighter aircraft, although the carrier requirement probably didn't help.

The Indian MMRCA is not for their carriers AFAIK.

I realize that the VTOL concept has some big advantages but as an alternative, STOBAR is still a possible (intermediate to full CATOBAR maybe) option, no?
According to the Indians and the people at Eurofighter, the changes needed would be minimal and it could go off deck @ MTOW with minimal wind over deck ,heck even the Russians can launch their Su33's at 0-wind with a 190m weighing 38.000kg (4 tons over the max for the US Navy boats IIRC)

From a Chinese forum;
So I don't see why they couldn't use the EF ,which has a better T/W ratio and lower wingload than both the 33T SU33 and optional 38T version.
Certainly if they(EF) would install the stronger engines (up to 26KLbs) and TVC system.
They would need ,at worst, about 550ft feet of runway at 0 wind and MTOW, much less even when doing missions that don't need the AC be loaded till MTOW (BARCAP or FORCAP).


The biggest challenge doesn't seem to be the technical side but rather the contract negotiations which would need to be done with cost in mind ,like not giving the supplier a blank development check and time frame.
I'm not holding my breath on that one.


PS Purely hypothetical a STOBAR carrier could even be equipped with something like a Do228 type of VSTOL-AEW platform or Transport with some extra beef-up to strengthen the frame to allow for more powerful engines, a bit of extra fuel and the hook.

I agree but I was giving an example of an option (the Typhoon) which wasn't based on a 70's design like somebody pointed out a few posts before.