About the pictures;

That's not a Cutlass but a Skyray in photo number 2.
The Cutlass had also some tailhook problems but because it had a massively
high frontgear and a high AoA when landing combined with a redesigned hook that was considerably further away from the rear LG compared with the F35C
it eventually was able to land on the Carriers.

The F35C's hook is indeed too close to the rear gear, even closer than the
unmanned X-47, but it is not a showstopper in the longrun, a redesigned hook
(the actual catching part) is already being manufactured giving it a higher probability of trapping the wire, also a hook that pivots the other way around
is possible giving automatically a much greater distance without needing a major strenghtening of the frame while making it possible to make it fully covered by RAM plating better integrating it into the plane improving its Stealth characteristics also.

All this will still leave you with a weighty 7.5G plane that is very complicated
to maintain, won't have a lot of the promised features (Helmet, etc...) that made it so much better on paper, with reduced visibility from the cockpit (compared with all of its predecessors like the F16,F15,F18, AMX) which is worse in real dogfights, has a weaker cannon (vs 30mm on the EF) with a longer startup time, a big thirsty 43000lbs engine which is also very loud BTW

I sincerely hope that some of the customers come to their senses, certainly
the British who seem to be too willing to just give up on their ability to design a complete fighter from the ground up themselves.
The EF, contrary to what many people seem to believe, was and still is a very
good fighter which has its fundamentals right, their is also a lot of potential to improve upon it.
Stronger engines (up until 40% more power) and TVC, a potentially top of the line Radar (CAESAR) with a wide field of view, something missing on other AESA'S, and the continuing implementation of new and better systems.

Even the NaVAL Typhoon could have been a good thing, as it is it is already
very resistant against the saline environment and has a very strong frame needing only limited strenghtening (340kg latest assesments) in the frame, the landing gear and the arrestor hook and another 70kg if they would opt for the TVC on the engines.
It wouldn't need catapults to lift of at MTOW, only the originally designed ramp and the arrestor hooks, further decreasing costs for the new CVF's, while having a very high commonality with an already existing fleet of RAF Typhoons.
This would also mean that it can get airborne much faster while at the same time being the absolute top dog in A2A close combat with its TVC engines.

I just cannot understand you guys, have some proud in what you can achieve, don't just buy into the fairytale that LM advocates.
They have a questionable reputation anyway.
Originally the 5th generation(a term invented by their PR department btw) ATF they said the F22 would be
-1)easy to maintain by 1 mechanic and 2 enlisted men (like the SaaB philosophy)
-2)Have a high degree of reliability.
-3)would be fully integrated with all other systems in the USAF (link16 and such)
-4)could supercruise
-5)have a wide field AESA (with sidelobes)
-6)have all round LO layout.
-7)could use the latest weapons at full potential

It failed miserably on the first 3 and is left with an AESA with a narrow field of view while being unable to launch HOBS missiles and with an antiquated processor making future upgrades a challenge to say the least.

They royally F$%""#d us with the F104 and as things stand today, the same is gonna happen with the F35.

By their own admission (original standards of a 5th gen fighter) the F-35 is anything but a 5th generation fighter.
It won't be easy to maintain, it won't supercruise, it will only have limited LO characteristics mainly front views, it will not have the wunderhelmet but just a regular of the shelf model instead.
To top it all of, future upgrades and new weapon integration can only be done by the grace of LM (source code issues for anybody except the British I believe) for what will undoubtedly be a "nice" price.

All things suggest that the original fighter maffia was right all along, not surprising if you realize that they actually had hands on experiece.

Kbrock,

You are spot on that the Cutlass had severe problems - the extended nose gear was added to achieve reliable launch, the cockpit then had to be raised, and its controllability on approach was always marginal at best. I understand it was called the 'Ensign Killer' due to its poor safety record.

Your comments on the F-35C hook are spot on too - they will fix this, but they are running risks until the optimised hook shape and damper setup are proved.

On the other points you made:

1. The F-35 will get its new helmet, as it has to. With no HUD, the HMD has to work. They have just launched a parallel effort to look at a varient of the UK Typhoon helmet, which is a world beater.
2. Visibility from the cockpit on the A and C is actually extremely good. B only marginally less good.
3. F-35's cannon is a 25mm Gatling vs EF 27mm Mauser revolver with very similar muzzle velocity. The Mauser is the slightly better cannon (it was the original choice but removed after pressure from US companies) but the 25mm is not one I'd call 'weak'.
4. Longer startup time - the aircraft meets its startup time requirements. Yes, big engines take a longer time to get going, though.
5. I agree that it's a real shame that the Uk no longer has the cojones to go on and develop its own fighter aircraft, but proposing the Sea Typhoon as a replacement is not, in my view, an option. Here's why.
6. The 'Naval Typhoon' (not that it actually exists) is not resistant to saline environments. It has strong frame sure enough - for air to air combat, though, as that is what it was designed for. Not deck operations. The EF had a very aggressive weight reduction programme of its own in the late 90s and there is not a spare ounce left over.
7. Because of this, talk of 'only limited strengthening being needed' is about as credible as the LM claims you mentioned. 370kg is a dream, and doesn't match the actual results of doing the same exercise on T-45 or F-35. The problem is that for cat and trap ops, there are all new load paths that just don't exist on a land based aircraft. You need new metal in new places, not beefed up existing.
8. It can not (and I know what I'm talking about here) get off the deck at MTOW without a catapult, unless the definition of MTOW is changed. TVC won't help, and no one answered the question of how the flight controls would work at low launch speeds. (I saw one proposal for a rection control system like the Harrier, but no explanation of where the additional engine thrust was coming from to power it). Adding catapult capability would mean an all new front leg and tons (and I do mean tons) of extra structure to handle the loads.
9. Finally, and here's the crunch, the UK do not want the world's best A2A close combat aircraft (which, by the way, I agree that the EF very probably is) flying off the ships. They want a fully capable strike aircraft with 'day one' signature. That's why the USN are going for F-35C, and that's why we are too.

Best Regards as ever to all those actually doing the job

Engines

Sorry for the confusion but I was talking about the cannon start up time, the need for a stealth-door increases response time considerably, you're right about the weaker cannon remark though, that was maybe an unsubstantiated remark.

I somehow don't think that the "hypothetical" SEAPHOON would have too many issues in a saline environment seeing all the materials they used to begin with.

Granted I'm basing my assumptions on a presentation given by EF some time ago about building the Navalized Typhoon, weights, power, TVC and MTOW take off abilities where all based on a skyjump equipped carrier, all rather one sided sources ,I fully admit, but they must have at least some idea what they're talking about, its not as if we've got other reliable sources to base these assumptions on.
At least we should give the EF consortium the same benefit of the doubt like we're giving the likes of LM (not that any of them really seem to desreve it).

I sincerely hope that's what you guys get in the end but I remain sceptical, as it is the F35 is still horribly overweight, Stealth technology is a longtime Catch22 anyway not unlike the eternal competition between bullets and armor, in the end it will always be cheaper and quicker to build better radars or alternative sensors iso having to compromise an entire aircraft just to achieve something as tricky as stealth.

The F35 is on the verge of being your biggest enemies best allie, it will deplete funds so much that you have to cancel other necessary assets just to fund this one weapon which makes the dubious claim to be a one size fitts all, something promised before by other 'miracle' weapon systems but never delivered upon.

I just cannot forget a discussion I had with a US Army captain UH60 pilot who said that it seemed to him that the public are vastly overestimating the technological capabilities the US DoD really has while at the same time underestimating the level of training put into many of its soldiers.
The USAF (or NAVY, RAF, RAAF, .....) are not superior just because they have better weapons but also, mainly because we have better training and education methodology.
This blind willingness to poor vast amounts of resources into something like the F35 (and before the F22) which promises to rule from its technological level of supremacy is a potential disaster waiting to happen, it severely undermines other important parts of the military such as its ability to buy, train and maintain sufficient numbers of planes and people.
Like N Shwarzkopff (spelling?) once said "there's no quality like quantity".

Also what's gonna happen when one day we really get involved in a full scale conflict and the adversary has somebody with half a decent brain (think general Paul K. Van Riper-type )on him and decides to play not with the same rules like we do, just look at what happened the first days of exercise
Millennium Challenge 2002 and see how far the reliance on technology brought the blue forces.

¨[RANT OFF]¨

Even if NF2000 was capable of ramp t/o (and as Engines suggests it's some way off that), the STOBAR method is an incredibly inefficient way of operating a deck. It's the worst of both worlds - large launch area (cf catapult) and large recovery area (cf STOVL). You end up with the lowest safe parking area for a given size of ship compared to the alternatives.

On a more ironic note, have just dug out the Aircraft Carrier Reference Data Manual and although the specific geometries are not included, it does cover all the considerations and references the relevant MIL std (18717C if you must know). Interestingly, two specific technical references to work on both arrester cable depression by wheel impact and hook bounce are included, both from RAE Farnborough and dating from the early 50's!

What an excellent debate and every single piece of footage I have seen of the SU-33 taking off on the ski slope of the Russian carrier gives the impression that its take off weight is severely restricting the amount of ordinance it can carry. Reading literature is one thing but reality may well be something completely different.

Talking about Naval versions of Air Force aircraft
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...x2iW0k6JGNuOSg
(I'm guessing Photoshopped) :)

I have no idea where all our money has gone but after the Sea Vixen and Buccaneer did we then start looking across the ocean instead of designing our own aircraft? (thinking F-4 Phantom) Sea Harrier was an excellent example of what we could achieve but we are talking aircraft for conventional or proper aircraft carriers.

I still keep asking myself 'Was it just a joy ride when our First Sea Lord was granted the opportunity of going up in an F-18?'

Is there a chance that the F-35 might be the equivalent of our Nimrod modernization program? (question and NOT a sarcastic quip)

Stealth door on the gun?

I thought the gun was only internal on the A and was a centreline pod on the C? The space being used for the refuelling probe?

Have we seen this image? Not the best of shots because of angles which can be very misleading

http://www.f-16.net/attachments/f_35...enshot_246.jpg

A good link Glojo. Actually the most useful thing there is the link that says This graphic (which I cannot link to - sorry - just scroll down from the following link) on the page http://www.f-16.net/news_article4494.html as it very clearly shows the MLG to Hook show distances. Even the T-45 (a Hawk) has twice the distance of F-35C.

Mrs C has just remarked that surely the designers should have known about that. I can't help agreeing with her. Would I dare not?

Courtney

Is that so?
I was assuming ,with commonality in mind, that they all had the same gun in
the same place.

I assumed similar layout than F35B for the probe.

Found a few more

https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/f35c%...jpg?w=80347991
https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/f35tc.jpg?w=a452bbd8

This is an image of the file Courtney very kindly located.. Typing with both dinner on chest AND the keyboard is quite a challenge.. who knows?? I will have to try and resolve this problem next... Signed Captain Hook :)

https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/hookl...jpg?w=49353793



This image is extracted from a file that is not classified

https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/35C%2...jpg?w=95968375

Interesting. The refuelling vid looks like the probe is very close to the fuselage (and on the wrong side AGAIN) so the drogue gets a fairly big push from the airflow around the nose.

Main debrief point: he's sitting too low in contact. Sort it out next time.

C

Wiki: The F-35A includes a GAU-22/A, a four-barrel version of the GAU-12 Equalizer 25 mm cannon.[140] The cannon is mounted internally with 182 rounds for the F-35A or in an external pod with 220 rounds for the F-35B and F-35C.[141][142]

http://media.defenseindustrydaily.co...ariants_lg.jpg

Thx for the explanation ORAC, learned something new today.
I fail to see however why the Gun isn't integrated in the C version like in the A,
the Refuelling probe obviously isn't the problem, maybe something wrt weight ?

So when on CAP with a Stealth need, it will only carry 4 AAM's internally and no gun (probably not stealthy this gunpod ??) , seems very meager to say the least.



edit;spelling, spelling , spelling

Guys,

The gun did not get integrated into the B for weight and fuel space reasons. On the C, simpler reason - just no requirement - USN have carried guns around for years on the Hornet and apparently hardly ever used.

Kbrock, your point on the gun is well made - my fault for misunderstanding you. Yes, the revolver Mauser cannon has its full rate of fire from trigger press, while the Gatling takes around .75 seconds to spool up. That is actually an issue with all gatlings, and usually coped with by simply opening fire early and 'swiping' the gun aiming point across the target. However, not an efficient use of bullets.

F-35C (and A) can carry 6 AAM internally not 4.

Best Regards as ever

Engines

Engines,

As ever, a concise and well made point. Question though about the Gatling. I don't recall the Vulcan cannon taking that long to fire. Of course, I now recall that the flywheel was spun up electrically as soon as we put power on the station. F-15 was the same. I am getting to the point slowly, I promise. Is this installation a 'fire from cold' gun? That would take some spinning up, but I don't know how it works in F35.

Could this maybe be the block5 you're talking about?
If so, I'm not entirely certain that the extra iternal hard point is also meant to carry an extra AAM, it was originally meant for extra A2G weaponry, I believe.


Also as an aside,
There are rumours flying around that the B has some serious weight and GoG issues (too far forward) preventing it from being able to lift up from the deck of the smaller carriers, certainly those without skijump (eg, Japanese and Korean)
with its full weaponsload (MTOW).

Anything other than the big US LHD's, the Cavour maybe and the new CVF's won't
be able to use it with sufficient weapons and fuel, that must be a concern to all those nations that dreamed of performing fixed wing ops from their small carriers.

Dave-B
 

Presumably the bigger concern for all of those looking to replace various breeds of Harrier is that Dave-B has to be an early candidate for chopping in the DC defense cuts to be revealed at the end next month. (Too expensive, no requirement for STOVL-and-stealth on the same platform, gives away too much in payload/range because of the STOVL thing. Sorry USMC!)

S41

Would it not be smart to Fit the A model with a probe fuel system as well as the boom? The F-105 had both. ++

In these coalition war days having access to both types of tankers would be advantageous methinks...

*The Canadian CF-35 will differ from the American F-35A through the addition of a drag chute and an F-35B/C style refueling probe.

++This aircraft is a 21st Century F-105 if you compare the basic specs..

Courtney,

My apologies for not being clearer. Right, guns stuff...

A Gatling fires almost right away, flywheels or not. But it starts at a low rate of fire. The flywheel was there because the motor has to accelerate not only the gun barrel group and all the breeches and bolts, but also the whole ammunition train. The flywheel reduces peak loads and the size of the motor and gearbox, but at the cost of a constant power drain. What all that means is that it's usually about 0.75 seconds before the Gatling gets to full rate of fire.

What that means is that if you fire the gatling in short bursts (and you normally have to on a fighter as you don't have unlimited bullets) you get an average rate of fire that can be around half that on the box. What that means, in turn, is that you have less chance of hitting or killing the target, especially in air to air where the firing opportunity is usually a fraction of a second.

Gatlings are also high volume and high weight, as they have four/five/six barrels, use more ammunition (more volume and weight) and also use more power. None of these are great on a small and crowded aircraft like the F-35.

Revolver cannons fire at full rate straight away and stay at that rate for the full burst. That increases kill probability. They are less volume, lighter (especially the amazing Russian/Czech designs) and use less power. So, it's a slam dunk for revolvers? Not quite.

Gatlings have, thanks to excellent work by the US designers, very good ammunition feed systems, usually linkless, which is great for aircraft when you don't want spent links banging into the LO skin. Revolver guns are more difficult to feed, because they accelerate so fast, and Mauser were trying for some time to develop a linkless feed system for Typhoon as well as JSF. Don't know if they ever succeeded. Finally, because the rate of fire is spread over a number of barrels the issue of barrel wear is less of an issue. Revolvers are also more complex than gatlings and require more servicing.

In recent years, the issue of guns has changed, but most users haven't noticed. New radars that work at very short ranges, accurate EO sensors and computers that perform ballistic calculations 100 times a second instead of once a second all mean that the hit probability in air to air gun combat has shot up - but most air staffs don't really grasp that. Add in the possibility of taking 'off boresight' shots by using thrust vectoring and/or clever flying controls and the effectiveness of guns shoots up again.

Sorry to be a bit of a nerd, but i spent a few happy years in my youth buying guns. Niche job, but great.

So, as ever in any engineering decision, it's a balance and all depends on requirements, timing and often politics as well. The Gatling for the 35 looks a good solution, but in my view should stay in a pod as per the B and C - I don't think that the A really has the space and weight margin for an internal fit.

Hope this informs and helps

Best Regards

Engines