UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

outlaw162

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1238
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2008, 02:33

Unread post20 Aug 2011, 23:04

Harrier burns roughly 200#/minute in jetborne flight.


:shock:
Offline

dragorv

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 03:47
  • Location: East Coast, USA

Unread post21 Aug 2011, 04:09

For those of us who are tired and not knowledgeable about such things... is that a :shock: for "wow that's a lot" or "wow that's not much"?
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22957
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post21 Aug 2011, 04:35

Lockheed: Many F-35B landings won’t be vertical
From this thread: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-15671.html

A Skyhawk Pilots Guide to Sea Harrier by LCDR Dave Ramsay RAN 1983
“...The undercarriage arrangement of centreline mainwheels and wingtip outriggers is necessitated by the engine and nozzle positions....
...Our normal criteria is to land from a hover when the fuel low level warning flashes (at 500 lb) and to aim to be downwind with a minimum of 1,000 lbs so all pilots are used to flying with low fuel levels – and you don’t bolter in this aircraft....
...The way it works is this:- you drive on around the circuit and point at your landing pad at 165Kts, gear and flap down and 40° nozzles selected. Power will be about 65% and the hoons amongst us will drive on in like this until the very last possible moment, then use full braking stop to decelerate. I myself sedately take the hover stop at about 0.8Nm. So now all the thrust points down and the slick aerodynamic qualities of the Harrier manifest themselves as a marked deceleration. This in turn means wing lift is decreasing (attitude is held constant at 8 units AOA) so you increase power to keep the ground at bay. It is a fact of life that as you decellerate through 90Kts the lack of wing lift and the trim change induced control inputs require an engine power and therefore JPT that is pretty well just what you will have in a nice steady hover....”
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22957
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post21 Aug 2011, 05:51

AV-8 TACTICAL MANUAL NWP 3-22.5-AV8B
VOLUME I | A1-AV8BB-TAC-000 AUG 2002

"Reserve of 800 pounds JP-5 and 245 pounds of water."

For each tactical profile: Reserve Fuel 800lbs with 245lbs of water
Attachments
AV-8BcapMissionProfileNATOPS.gif
SACharrierAV-8A1972.gif
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

outlaw162

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1238
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2008, 02:33

Unread post21 Aug 2011, 16:20

dragorv wrote:For those of us who are tired and not knowledgeable about such things... is that a :shock: for "wow that's a lot" or "wow that's not much"?


Sorry.

That's pretty much a "guzzle".

I think a clean Viper would probably be thru the Mach at 12,000 pph fuel flow somewhere between 10 & 20,000 feet, maybe lower depending on the day.

OL

(old, I think, is worse than tired and not knowledgeable)
Offline

LMAggie

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 579
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2007, 07:43

Unread post21 Aug 2011, 17:52

I've said this before, but I think the UK politicians acted in haste and failed to realize the implications of the switch. I was astonished when they announced the switch. The fact that they are realizing this now is amusing.
“Its not the critic who counts..The credit belongs to the man who does actually strive to do the deeds..”
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22957
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post21 Aug 2011, 20:41

LMAggie, agree. But in a sad way. I weep for the RN FAA these days. Poor bastards. :D
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

Prinz_Eugn

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 952
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2008, 03:35

Unread post21 Aug 2011, 21:30

LMAggie wrote:I've said this before, but I think the UK politicians acted in haste and failed to realize the implications of the switch. I was astonished when they announced the switch. The fact that they are realizing this now is amusing.


I know, right? Before they announced it, I thought the idea was too bad/ridiculous to be real.
"A visitor from Mars could easily pick out the civilized nations. They have the best implements of war."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22957
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post21 Aug 2011, 21:50

I believe the UK MoD is capable of all kinds of 'surprises'. It could get worse - not better.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2580
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post22 Aug 2011, 00:26

outlaw162 wrote:
dragorv wrote:For those of us who are tired and not knowledgeable about such things... is that a :shock: for "wow that's a lot" or "wow that's not much"?


Sorry.

That's pretty much a "guzzle".

I think a clean Viper would probably be thru the Mach at 12,000 pph fuel flow somewhere between 10 & 20,000 feet, maybe lower depending on the day.

OL

(old, I think, is worse than tired and not knowledgeable)



'Jetborne' as opposed to 'wingborne' means flying essentially on propulsion system lift alone (e.g. in the hover).

Not sure how well a Viper hovers at any fuel burn rate but it will burn well in excess of 200#/min in max AB. :wink:
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2580
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post22 Aug 2011, 00:27

outlaw162 wrote:
dragorv wrote:For those of us who are tired and not knowledgeable about such things... is that a :shock: for "wow that's a lot" or "wow that's not much"?


Sorry.

That's pretty much a "guzzle".

I think a clean Viper would probably be thru the Mach at 12,000 pph fuel flow somewhere between 10 & 20,000 feet, maybe lower depending on the day.

OL

(old, I think, is worse than tired and not knowledgeable)



'Jetborne' as opposed to 'wingborne' means flying essentially on propulsion system lift alone (e.g. in the hover).

Not sure how well a Viper hovers at any fuel burn rate but it will burn well in excess of 200#/min in max AB. :wink:
Offline

geogen

Banned

  • Posts: 3123
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post22 Aug 2011, 01:11

OL -

You are hardly deficient in your elder age, sir. One's old age, as intelligent and witty as you were born with, will only get even with the know it all youngsters in the world... so I say let's just call it even and have a cold one together ;) Time is too short on space-ship Earth imho.
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline

johnwill

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2104
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
  • Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Unread post22 Aug 2011, 03:48

Geogen,
May another old guy join you and OL for that cold one? I not sure what might be 45 km offshore New England (Nantucket?), but I'm a refugee from the Texas heat for the rest of the summer in Rockland, ME. Let me know if you are in the area.
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2885
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post22 Aug 2011, 04:32

spazsinbad wrote:.. the UK MoD is capable of all kinds of ...
Totally agree! Another thought; the UK now, will have two similar carriers the Q.E. with CATOBAR. The P.W. (or both) should be upgraded to include the results from the Wasp test this fall. One (Q.E.) supporting the longer range F-35C "Sea" and the other (P.W.) could launch and recover the F-35B "Bee". The Q.E. is even discussed in joint opperations supporting the French Rafael. In a dire time when both carriers are required at sea, the UK may be asking to borrow/ loan of the "Bees"; that common parts thing, etc. LM claims that they both fly the same except for the STO and the VL (landing button). Sounds like a "Sea" chap could get qualified in the "Bee" rather quickly....just a thought! :!: :idea: :wink:
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22957
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post23 Aug 2011, 04:15

Neptune, All along F-35 pilots of all persuasions have been saying how easy it is to 'Vertically Land' the F-35B. The F-35C will be more demanding however. Frankly the sort of news report below will be repeated for the next four years in all kinds of 'black is white' variations and all shades of grey inbetween... Any MoD decision is never final until the fat lady sings...

Ministers reconsider mothballing carrier By Michael Powell 22 August 2011

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/ ... _1_2987052

"THE government aims to reverse its controversial decision to mothball the first of the Royal Navy’s new aircraft carriers, The News can reveal.

Last year’s Strategic Defence and Security Review decided HMS Queen Elizabeth – the first of two new 65,000-tonne supercarriers being built for the navy – would be put into storage in Portsmouth to save cash when she arrives in 2016.

But defence minister Gerald Howarth hinted at a U-turn in the next defence review in 2015 – one year before the ship comes into service with the navy.

He told The News: ‘The SDSR concluded we needed one carrier but clearly that has its own limitations in availability and clearly the 2015 defence review gives us an opportunity to look again in the prevailing economic conditions and see where we go from there.

‘Clearly, all of us would like two aircraft carriers because that gives us the continuous at-sea capability.

‘We’ve had to take some pretty tough decisions but we’re hoping to be in a position to recover that one in 2015.’

Mr Howarth, who is the Minister for International Security Strategy, was speaking at Govan shipyard in Glasgow which – like Portsmouth – is one of six sites across the UK building the new carriers.

Paying tribute to the British shipbuilding industry, he said: ‘This carrier is stunning engineering.

‘It’s about time the UK woke up to the fact that we do have immense engineering skills in Britain and that the companies with those skills are world class – indeed they operate across the globe – and Britain’s future prosperity will not be found simply on the back of financial services.’

But the project to build the aircraft carriers has been branded ‘a shambles’ by Portsmouth MP Mike Hancock.

As previously reported, HMS Queen Elizabeth will not be kitted out to fly the navy’s latest jets when it comes into service.

Those building the carrier say it was ‘too late’ to alter the design to accommodate the type of plane the government wants for the new warships.

This means the £2.6bn ship will be left as a four-acre helicopter landing vessel when it comes into service.

The government will then have to stump up an estimated £1bn tearing the ship apart to fit catapult and arrestor gear – known as ‘cats and traps’ – to enable F-35C jets to fly from her flight deck.

Mr Hancock, who sits on the House of Commons Defence Select Committee, said: ‘If the first one does not have cats and traps then why are we building it?

‘It’s a complete shambles. Why are we spending more than £2bn for a helicopter landing ship?’

Originally, both carriers were going to have F-35B jump jets which, like the old Harrier jets they are replacing, are designed to take off and land vertically. :bang: [BRILL-YANT!] :roll:

But the government decided in the SSDR that Britain would instead buy cheaper F-35C jets, which require electro-magnetic cats and traps to be fitted for taking off and landing.

Last year’s decision was taken without knowing how much it would cost to change the design of the ships, which is now the subject of the 18-month cats and traps study that began in June.

While work on the second ship, HMS Prince of Wales, is at an early stage, construction of HMS Queen Elizabeth is past the point when cats and traps could be installed before her in-service date in 2016.


A recent report by the National Audit Office said fitting them to one of the carriers will increase the overall cost of the £5.2bn project by £1bn. Some analysts warn it will cost more.

A MoD spokesman confirmed: ‘Our current planning assumption is to convert HMS Prince of Wales in build but no firm decisions will be taken until late 2012.’


GOVERNMENT’S STRATEGY IS TO ‘MUDDLE ALONG’
DEFENCE experts have again criticised the plan to leave one of the Royal Navy’s new aircraft carriers unable to launch jets.

Rear Admiral Chris Parry, from Drayton, in Portsmouth who is a respected defence analyst, said: ‘There are a lot of random decisions going on.

‘It seems to me that the current government’s strategy is to just muddle along whether it is with Libya, the new carriers or anything else.

‘This is another example of a lack of coherence in long-term planning that was introduced by the Strategic Defence and Security Review.’

Admiral Sir Jonathon Band called the current situation ‘untidy at best’.

He added: ‘It is a consequence of the government’s decision to change the type of aircraft.’

However, the former First Sea Lord argued the government’s plan has a silver lining.

He said: ‘This will allow the Queen Elizabeth to be commissioned, do all the deck trials and platform trials and make sure the design is fine.

‘Then when HMS Prince of Wales is built we can go straight in with flying trials.’"
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests