Norway may no longer require drag chute

Design and construction
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

lamoey

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1011
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2004, 17:44
  • Location: 77006

Unread post30 Nov 2011, 16:08

The head of the Norwegian armed forces have recommended that all the F-35 acquired by Norway will be located at a base in southern Norway; hence the cost of integrating the drag chute, used while operating in winter or arctic conditions, may not be needed. The main reasoning is financial, need to defend oil fields in the North Sea and availability for NATO operations elsewhere in the world. The signal he is sending is that northern Norway is not worth defending. What he fails to mention, or realize, is that the majority of the North Sea oil fields are maturing fast, while all the new, worthwhile fields are found in mid to northern waters, and not to mention a common border with Russia in the north. And then there is the increased discussion between Russia, Canada, USA, Denmark and Norway about who will rule in the arctic waters.
Former Flight Control Technican - We keep'em flying
Offline

strykerxo

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 394
  • Joined: 21 Mar 2008, 04:40

Unread post30 Nov 2011, 21:25

lamoey wrote:The head of the Norwegian armed forces have recommended that all the F-35 acquired by Norway will be located at a base in southern Norway; hence the cost of integrating the drag chute, used while operating in winter or arctic conditions, may not be needed. The main reasoning is financial, need to defend oil fields in the North Sea and availability for NATO operations elsewhere in the world. The signal he is sending is that northern Norway is not worth defending. What he fails to mention, or realize, is that the majority of the North Sea oil fields are maturing fast, while all the new, worthwhile fields are found in mid to northern waters, and not to mention a common border with Russia in the north. And then there is the increased discussion between Russia, Canada, USA, Denmark and Norway about who will rule in the arctic waters.


From what I've heard trolls patrol northern Norway. :lol:
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post30 Nov 2011, 23:42

strykerxo wrote:
lamoey wrote:The head of the Norwegian armed forces have recommended that all the F-35 acquired by Norway will be located at a base in southern Norway; hence the cost of integrating the drag chute, used while operating in winter or arctic conditions, may not be needed. The main reasoning is financial, need to defend oil fields in the North Sea and availability for NATO operations elsewhere in the world. The signal he is sending is that northern Norway is not worth defending. What he fails to mention, or realize, is that the majority of the North Sea oil fields are maturing fast, while all the new, worthwhile fields are found in mid to northern waters, and not to mention a common border with Russia in the north. And then there is the increased discussion between Russia, Canada, USA, Denmark and Norway about who will rule in the arctic waters.


From what I've heard trolls patrol northern Norway. :lol:


But they can only operate half the year without turning into stone. :lmao:
The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
Offline

madrat

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1683
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post01 Dec 2011, 06:29

That's only if they get exposed to flash bulbs. Some skip the whole turning to stone and simply explode when they get injected with a shot of vitamin D.

No worries about trolls up north, that's why they have all those power lines.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1740707/
Offline

haavarla

Banned

  • Posts: 873
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 19:36

Unread post01 Dec 2011, 08:47

The head of the Norwegian armed forces have recommended that all the F-35 acquired by Norway will be located at a base in southern Norway; hence the cost of integrating the drag chute, used while operating in winter or arctic conditions, may not be needed. The main reasoning is financial, need to defend oil fields in the North Sea and availability for NATO operations elsewhere in the world. The signal he is sending is that northern Norway is not worth defending. What he fails to mention, or realize, is that the majority of the North Sea oil fields are maturing fast, while all the new, worthwhile fields are found in mid to northern waters, and not to mention a common border with Russia in the north. And then there is the increased discussion between Russia, Canada, USA, Denmark and Norway about who will rule in the arctic waters.


It doesn't matter where in Norway you land an F-35A.
You will still need Parachute for snow and ice condition. Even if it will be only one Air base for F-35, they will have to use other airfields at exercises further north.
Hense, Parashute is still a requirement.
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2030
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post01 Dec 2011, 19:07

Salute!

You are correct about the ice and slick runways, haav. On the other hand....

Our Norwegian friends were surprised about the drag chute once home from our cadre training.

Trouble was a crosswind. Let's face it, the jet didn't want to quit flying until below 90 knots or so. The thing would weathervane into the wind and it took lottsa rudder until down to 60 knots or so, then nosewheel steering. And even then a low coefficient of friction on the ice was a problem.

The F-35 is heavier, and prolly has better braking effectiveness due to basic physics because of that weight. The Viper was too light.

Could be that RCS and system complexity has more to do with getting rid of the chute.

respectfully,

Gums sends...
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19387
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post14 Jan 2012, 18:39

Fight over fighter jet location 2012-Jan-13

http://www.barentsobserver.com/fight-ov ... 58932.html

"Norway will invest €7 billion on 56 new F35 fighter jets. With new planes, the head of the armed forces recommends to move the mainbase from Bodø above the Arctic Circle to a more southern location. That triggers intense political debate about Norway's High North security policy.

In the future Norway might have no fighter jets stationed in the northern part of the country, if the recommendations from chief of Norwegian defence, General Harald Sunde, are heard.

The Norwegian F16 fighter jet base is today located in Bodø in northern Norway and in Ørlandet in southern Norway. When the €7 billion F35 fighter jets investment is in operation around 2020, General Sunde recommends locating all of them at Ørlandet outside Trondheim in mid Norway....

...A third location
However, the disagreements does not stop here, because a second location in northern Norway has been launched. Evenes airfield outside Harstad in Troms County is suggested as a third possibility and the county board of Troms supports this location.This has triggered a debate between the two North Norway counties of Nordland and Troms...."

Photo is manipulated + Ump at the More...
http://img3.custompublish.com/getfile.p ... 035458.jpg
Attachments
5007962_1035458.jpg
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

hcobb

Banned

  • Posts: 221
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2009, 15:31
  • Location: North California

Unread post14 Jan 2012, 22:24

Go F-35C and use portable traps to land them.
Offline

handyman

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 104
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2011, 05:41
  • Location: SFO

Unread post14 Jan 2012, 23:32

Or go F35C and use the lower landing speed.
Offline

battleshipagincourt

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 332
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2011, 00:30

Unread post15 Jan 2012, 00:45

Or go with the F-35A and use traps to land them. Given as it's not going to be at tremendous speeds and constantly, the A's arrestor hook should work well enough. The C would be overkill.
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2299
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post15 Jan 2012, 01:02

haavarla wrote:You will still need Parachute for snow and ice condition.... Hense, Parashute is still a requirement.

Yeah we all know you need chutes to use jet fighters when there is snow and ice.

Look at all the F-22 Raptors and F-16 Vipers used by the USAF in Alaska......

they...

well, bad example, that's only one snow/ice location.

Canada has lots of 'cold' bases and winter operations,and their CF-118 Hornets have

well, speed-brakes like everyone else.

Okay so maybe chutes aren't that important?

:shrug:
TEG
[Airplanes are] near perfect, all they lack is the ability to forgive.
— Richard Collins
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 6938
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post15 Jan 2012, 01:05

No problem if they go STOVL hehe.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19387
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post15 Jan 2012, 01:17

PoPcoRn but you know the slush problem with F-35Bs will be tremendous - even if the concrete don't melt! :D
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2299
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post15 Jan 2012, 03:29

Maybe the F135-PW-600 would be beneficial in a cold environment?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAes7fFpgeY

TEG
[Airplanes are] near perfect, all they lack is the ability to forgive.
— Richard Collins
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19387
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post15 Jan 2012, 03:39

While the F-35B can be flown to any (reasonable) location for a bit of SnowClearing - but can the F-35B make SNOW ANGELS! :twisted:

http://thepilver.files.wordpress.com/20 ... -angel.jpg
Attachments
snow-angel.jpg
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Next

Return to F-35 Design & Construction

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests