alpine_saint Posted 15 January, 2012 Share Posted 15 January, 2012 (edited) Time to get out of that money black hole of project and navalise the Typhoon, or buy F18s or *gulp* buy Rafales from the French... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2086974/Royal-Navy-spends-50bn-new-fighter-jets-land-aircraft-carriers.html Edited 15 January, 2012 by alpine_saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huffton Posted 15 January, 2012 Share Posted 15 January, 2012 Think thats a bit of a non story really. According to that there is 11ft difference in the position of the hooks between the JSF and the current type. Surely the pilots will just get used to landing slightly further back up the deck.nAlso it doesn't say what percentage of simulated landings failed, just the amount. They could have done 100 sucessful ones to those 8 misses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 15 January, 2012 Share Posted 15 January, 2012 I'm sure the responsibility will lie with the sellers, not the buyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 15 January, 2012 Share Posted 15 January, 2012 (edited) When a article like this contains at least two serious factual errors it hardly inspires much confidence. 1- This is not just a navy programme, the F-35C will be operated by a joint RAF/RN force, with a 60/40 split between RAF and RN aircrew. 2 - We certainly have not spent anything like '£5bn' as yet on this type. If memory serves UK spending is c £1bn on our share of JSF development costs so far, but we've yet to place a main production contract. Leaving aside a sloppily written article, it is disappointing however that a glitch as potentially serious as this has not been identified during this aircrafts protracted development phase. One can only hope the 'fix' is relatively straightforward and quick. Edited 15 January, 2012 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 15 January, 2012 Share Posted 15 January, 2012 One can only hope the 'fix' is relatively straightforward and quick. The fix is longer aircraft carriers. Seems simple enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 15 January, 2012 Author Share Posted 15 January, 2012 The fix is longer aircraft carriers. Seems simple enough. You tell the Government and BAE Systems to make Queen Elizabeth longer then. They'll love you when another billion is slapped on the price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 15 January, 2012 Author Share Posted 15 January, 2012 When a article like this contains at least two serious factual errors it hardly inspires much confidence. 1- This is not just a navy programme, the F-35C will be operated by a joint RAF/RN force, with a 60/40 split between RAF and RN aircrew. 2 - We certainly have not spent anything like '£5bn' as yet on this type. If memory serves UK spending is c £1bn on our share of JSF development costs so far, but we've yet to place a main production contract. Leaving aside a sloppily written article, it is disappointing however that a glitch as potentially serious as this has not been identified during this aircrafts protracted development phase. One can only hope the 'fix' is relatively straightforward and quick. Both of your points are totally irrelevant to the plane design flaw. If the plane cannot land on the carriers they are intended for (and the article makes it clear that the simulations undertaken have failed), then they are useless. Time to start shopping for cheaper alternatives. Maybe then we can have both carriers in service at the same time. The F-35 program is a joke. The "B" VSTOL version is cr*p. Instead of using a Harrier-like VTOL system, it uses dedicated turbofans which are then dead weight reducing performance during flight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 15 January, 2012 Share Posted 15 January, 2012 You tell the Government and BAE Systems to make Queen Elizabeth longer then. They'll love you when another billion is slapped on the price. Okat then, how about buffers at the end of the runway? Or inflatable ejector seats? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huffton Posted 15 January, 2012 Share Posted 15 January, 2012 (edited) OK. '8 simulated landings have failed'. Brilliant. Assuming the guys testing it are American Navy pilots (probably F14/F18 ), how many times in their operational careers have they missed a wire? They will have done hundreds upon hundreds of landings in their respective aircraft, and will be used to landing it right on a certain spot on the deck. Suddenly they are testing a new aircraft (albeit in the sim) and miss a few wires. Big deal. How many 'misses' are there a day on an operational carrier? More than 8 I reckon, theres a reason why pilots give it full afterburner as the wheels hit. Its a new aircraft, it will take time to learn, thats what 2 seat trainers and conversion courses are for. Edited 15 January, 2012 by Huffton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 15 January, 2012 Share Posted 15 January, 2012 Or don't buy any planes and just not bother having any wars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huffton Posted 15 January, 2012 Share Posted 15 January, 2012 If anyones interested heres whats going on with it, from people who know what they're talking about, unlike those at the times. http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/473481-more-delays-f-35-a-1.html Plenty of support for your F18 idea Alps, personally I don't see why we couldn't have stuck with the Harrier for a bit longer:rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
latter day saint Posted 15 January, 2012 Share Posted 15 January, 2012 Or don't buy any planes and just not bother having any wars? welcome to lala land Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 15 January, 2012 Author Share Posted 15 January, 2012 OK. '8 simulated landings have failed'. Brilliant. Assuming the guys testing it are American Navy pilots (probably F14/F18 ), how many times in their operational careers have they missed a wire? They will have done hundreds upon hundreds of landings in their respective aircraft, and will be used to landing it right on a certain spot on the deck. Suddenly they are testing a new aircraft (albeit in the sim) and miss a few wires. Big deal. How many 'misses' are there a day on an operational carrier? More than 8 I reckon, theres a reason why pilots give it full afterburner as the wheels hit. Its a new aircraft, it will take time to learn, thats what 2 seat trainers and conversion courses are for. If the Pentagon are issuing reports saying there is a major design flaw and this variant may need to be scrapped, isnt it safe to assume that here is an institution who knows a wee bit more about it than your bystander speculation and observations provide ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 15 January, 2012 Author Share Posted 15 January, 2012 If anyones interested heres whats going on with it, from people who know what they're talking about, unlike those at the times. http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/473481-more-delays-f-35-a-1.html Plenty of support for your F18 idea Alps, personally I don't see why we couldn't have stuck with the Harrier for a bit longer:rolleyes: No argument from me about that one; as have been proven, they would have saved us a fortune on the recent intervention in Libya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now