|
aeropilot
7,073 posts
97 months
|
Bedazzled said: Ginetta G15 Girl said: Bedazzled said: I would have thought the F35 STOVL version might be more useful to defend somewhere like the Falklands. Why? MPA has an 8500ft runway and a permanent Det of 4 x Typhoons (1435 Flt) with Tanker support (1312 Flt). I was thinking more of the new carrier's vulnerability in a scenario where we had already lost control of the islands; if the carrier was lost or damaged the F35s could be recovered on other ships and perhaps even operated from Illustrious? Otherwise they would have to ditch in the sea. They might provide better air support for our troops too, if they could refuel and rearm at temporary bases. F-35B isn't a Harrier. It's LO fit means it's simply too delicate to operate in a forward enviroment like the Harrier could, and is not a small aeroplane either, eing about the size of a Phantom, so you can forget the landing on other ships as well. It's a pointless and chuffin expensive aircraft with limitations. It's still by no means certain that the Yanks will go ahead with either, despite the USMC wanting it. If we go back to the B, and the Yanks dump it, we won't have a Plan B, and the carriers will really be an enormous pair of white elephants then. At least, by going the cat n trap route, and proposed F-35C buy, if the F-35C gets binned by the USA on cost grounds (still also a possibility) we would still still have a Plan B option of F-18 SuperBug or Rafale and maybe even a Sea Gripen to operate of the carriers.
|
|
|
Bedazzled
4,306 posts
91 months
|
Just curious, what's 'LO fit'?
The F35 is 50' long, same as a Lynx heli, I expect they could drop it on the pad in an emergency. Politics aside I think the STOVL version is more flexible and the small difference in performance is immaterial. If it's 'too delicate' then it's bl**dy useless; too many eyes on the Middle East when speccing these things, imho.
|
|
|
MartG
2,794 posts
74 months
|
Bedazzled said: Just curious, what's 'LO fit'?
If it's 'too delicate' then it's bl**dy useless; too many eyes on the Middle East when speccing these things, imho. LO = Low Observable i.e. stealth. The materials used to give the F-35 and F-22 their low observable characteristics have been found to be prone to corrosion - exactly what you DON'T want in a carrier borne aircraft. The F-22 has already cost the USAF $millions to rectify corrosion problems, so how long we;'d be able to afford to keep F-35s flying is a moot point
|
|
|
aeropilot
7,073 posts
97 months
|
Bedazzled said: I expect they could drop it on the pad in an emergency. Most unlikely, given the issues with the damage potential from the exhaust. Bedazzled said: Politics aside I think the STOVL version is more flexible It's not though. You are also going to be paying a hell of a lot more for something that can't do as much. Bedazzled said: If it's 'too delicate' then it's bl**dy useless Correct on that point 
|
|
|
Ian Lancs
578 posts
36 months
|
aeropilot said: Bedazzled said: I expect they could drop it on the pad in an emergency. Most unlikely, given the issues with the damage potential from the exhaust. If it can (could) take a Harrier, it can take a JSF. (Although I doubt a heli pad could take a Harrier?)
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
davepoth
20,186 posts
69 months
|
Bedazzled said: Just curious, what's 'LO fit'?
The F35 is 50' long, same as a Lynx heli, I expect they could drop it on the pad in an emergency. Politics aside I think the STOVL version is more flexible and the small difference in performance is immaterial. If it's 'too delicate' then it's bl**dy useless; too many eyes on the Middle East when speccing these things, imho. It's not more flexible though. The choice of lift power they've made (fan in the front) means that in forward flight the -C is lofting half a jet engine that doesn't do anything. That much weight and space taken up in a jet fighter severely reduces its capability.
|
|
|
rhinochopig
16,139 posts
68 months
|
davepoth said: Bedazzled said: Just curious, what's 'LO fit'?
The F35 is 50' long, same as a Lynx heli, I expect they could drop it on the pad in an emergency. Politics aside I think the STOVL version is more flexible and the small difference in performance is immaterial. If it's 'too delicate' then it's bl**dy useless; too many eyes on the Middle East when speccing these things, imho. It's not more flexible though. The choice of lift power they've made (fan in the front) means that in forward flight the -C is lofting half a jet engine that doesn't do anything. That much weight and space taken up in a jet fighter severely reduces its capability. It is an utterly absurd design to lug around so much parasitic weight. I don't understand why they didn't do a twin engined harrier type set-up with the aft side nozzles replaced by vectored thrust nozzles as per various Sus and Migs.
|
|
|
MartG
2,794 posts
74 months
|
|
|
Bedazzled
4,306 posts
91 months
|
davepoth said: It's not more flexible though. The choice of lift power they've made (fan in the front) means that in forward flight the -C is lofting half a jet engine that doesn't do anything. That much weight and space taken up in a jet fighter severely reduces its capability. Well it's more flexible in that it can take off and land in places the other one can't, which gives you more options. I think that feature is more important than outright performance when you consider what it's likely to go up against; as demonstrated by the Harrier. I can understand people not liking the design though, not very elegant for sure.
|
|
|
Scuffers
10,503 posts
144 months
|
rhinochopig said: davepoth said: Bedazzled said: Just curious, what's 'LO fit'?
The F35 is 50' long, same as a Lynx heli, I expect they could drop it on the pad in an emergency. Politics aside I think the STOVL version is more flexible and the small difference in performance is immaterial. If it's 'too delicate' then it's bl**dy useless; too many eyes on the Middle East when speccing these things, imho. It's not more flexible though. The choice of lift power they've made (fan in the front) means that in forward flight the -C is lofting half a jet engine that doesn't do anything. That much weight and space taken up in a jet fighter severely reduces its capability. It is an utterly absurd design to lug around so much parasitic weight. I don't understand why they didn't do a twin engined harrier type set-up with the aft side nozzles replaced by vectored thrust nozzles as per various Sus and Migs. err.. no it's not, the ducted lift fan is the best lightest most efficient solution, Boeing tried the other route and failed. the only real issue (and it's the same for any STOVL) is a question of weight, as in what the max vertical take off weight is, Harriers had this problem, hence the ski-jump carriers. the lift fan solution is actually very elegant, it's only issue in use is the space it takes up that could otherwise carry more fuel etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z3glzZuY14http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki86x1WKPmE
|
|
|
Bedazzled
4,306 posts
91 months
|
How about a British Aerospace Skyhook for F-35B's? 
|
|
|
Bedazzled
4,306 posts
91 months
|
Scuffers said: Boeing tried the other route and failed. Ewww... I don't fancy yours much, as they say. 
|
|
|
rhinochopig
16,139 posts
68 months
|
Scuffers said: rhinochopig said: davepoth said: Bedazzled said: Just curious, what's 'LO fit'?
The F35 is 50' long, same as a Lynx heli, I expect they could drop it on the pad in an emergency. Politics aside I think the STOVL version is more flexible and the small difference in performance is immaterial. If it's 'too delicate' then it's bl**dy useless; too many eyes on the Middle East when speccing these things, imho. It's not more flexible though. The choice of lift power they've made (fan in the front) means that in forward flight the -C is lofting half a jet engine that doesn't do anything. That much weight and space taken up in a jet fighter severely reduces its capability. It is an utterly absurd design to lug around so much parasitic weight. I don't understand why they didn't do a twin engined harrier type set-up with the aft side nozzles replaced by vectored thrust nozzles as per various Sus and Migs. err.. no it's not, the ducted lift fan is the best lightest most efficient solution, Boeing tried the other route and failed. the only real issue (and it's the same for any STOVL) is a question of weight, as in what the max vertical take off weight is, Harriers had this problem, hence the ski-jump carriers. the lift fan solution is actually very elegant, it's only issue in use is the space it takes up that could otherwise carry more fuel etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z3glzZuY14http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki86x1WKPmE If you're talking about the x-32, that too used a lift-fan but powered by the main engine. The big issue with X-32 was the wing design. A lift fan is certainly not an elegant solution. It serves no purpose beyond being used for small percentage of the flight envelope and yet has a big penalty in terms of weight and space 100% of the time.
|
|
|
Scuffers
10,503 posts
144 months
|
rhinochopig said: If you're talking about the x-32, that too used a lift-fan but powered by the main engine. The big issue with X-32 was the wing design.
A lift fan is certainly not an elegant solution. It serves no purpose beyond being used for small percentage of the flight envelope and yet has a big penalty in terms of weight and space 100% of the time. sorry, the X-32 did not have a lift fan, it used the engines thrust alone (like the Harrier) hence the engine being well forward in the design (I assume your trying to suggest that the inlet 'fan' of the engine is a lift fan?) point is that the lift fan solution means that the design is less compromised by having the engine in a better place for normal flight, if you remember, the X-32 never achieved supersonic flight and was grossly over-weight to the point when it did achieve vertical takeoff, it had to have some 2,000Kg's of stuff stripped off it. this is worth watching: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WnQROVmik4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukbr2UtzH3Y
|
|
|
davepoth
20,186 posts
69 months
|
 Diagram. the difference from the Harrier is that the X-32 seems to blow hot from all nozzles - the Harrier used cold air at the front and hot at the back which allowed the engine to be further back in the plane than it is in the X-32. Both teams seemed hellbent on "reinventing the wheel" for VSTOL, but neither of these ideas match up to the genius of some blokes in a shed somewhere in Britain - we got there first, and it's still the best way of doing it.
|
|
|
Scuffers
10,503 posts
144 months
|
davepoth said: Both teams seemed hellbent on "reinventing the wheel" for VSTOL, but neither of these ideas match up to the genius of some blokes in a shed somewhere in Britain - we got there first, and it's still the best way of doing it. that's overly simplistic though the Harrier great as it is, is un-scalable to the size required.
|
|
|
davepoth
20,186 posts
69 months
|
Scuffers said: that's overly simplistic though
the Harrier great as it is, is un-scalable to the size required. How so? The Pegasus with Plenum Chamber Burning went past 33,000lbs thrust in the 60s and is 3 inches smaller in diameter than the F135. Scaled up a little it would have given the power needed for VTOL, especially since it wouldn't be trying to heft a big lift fan too. I'm guessing stealth may have been the issue.
|
|
|
MartG
2,794 posts
74 months
|
davepoth said: Scuffers said: that's overly simplistic though
the Harrier great as it is, is un-scalable to the size required. How so? The Pegasus with Plenum Chamber Burning went past 33,000lbs thrust in the 60s and is 3 inches smaller in diameter than the F135. Scaled up a little it would have given the power needed for VTOL, especially since it wouldn't be trying to heft a big lift fan too. I'm guessing stealth may have been the issue. As I said earlier, have a look at the P1154 which was cancelled in 1965 ( along with just about everything else ) by the Wilson Government. Apart from the stealth aspect, an udated version would do just about everything an F-35 will do and more
|
|
|
Odie
3,702 posts
52 months
|
apasrt from the harriers age, what were the disadvantages of it as a carrier borne aircraft?
|
|
|
MartG
2,794 posts
74 months
|
Odie said: apasrt from the harriers age, what were the disadvantages of it as a carrier borne aircraft? The USMC don't seem to think it has any issues, as they are quite happy to continue operating it from their carriers ( and buying our old ones for spares ).
|
|
