JSF first flight
Guest
Posts: n/a
JF
MUCHO respect to you for all your epic work on SHAR. For the Falklands alone, it was worth having. (Though we now have an airfield there!). And SHAR 2/AMRAAM is indisputably a great bit of kit if you don't need to go far, bringback in hot weather etc. But name me one place apart from the Falklands in 1982 where we actually needed a carrier. I really believe that if you can't get basing rights nearby, the op probably would be a no-hoper politically anyway. Certainly there's never been an Op where the UK had no option apart from a carrier. And don't get us started on Sierra Leone!
I'm not running carriers down - they were a must have in the Cold War and the Falklands, it's just I can't see them as any more than a 'nice-to-have' today. I'm probably wrong. Only a know-nothing journo, after all!
PS: Best wishes to you and Adele, hope the floods didn't get you!
(And how unfair is that, when you don't know who the hell Jackonicko is!?)
MUCHO respect to you for all your epic work on SHAR. For the Falklands alone, it was worth having. (Though we now have an airfield there!). And SHAR 2/AMRAAM is indisputably a great bit of kit if you don't need to go far, bringback in hot weather etc. But name me one place apart from the Falklands in 1982 where we actually needed a carrier. I really believe that if you can't get basing rights nearby, the op probably would be a no-hoper politically anyway. Certainly there's never been an Op where the UK had no option apart from a carrier. And don't get us started on Sierra Leone!
I'm not running carriers down - they were a must have in the Cold War and the Falklands, it's just I can't see them as any more than a 'nice-to-have' today. I'm probably wrong. Only a know-nothing journo, after all!
PS: Best wishes to you and Adele, hope the floods didn't get you!
(And how unfair is that, when you don't know who the hell Jackonicko is!?)
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have been reading with much interest the arguments presented so far, however would not like this forum to end on what appears to have been an uneven keel.
Why we need Carrier aviation:
It was not that long ago when aircraft, based in Italy, were unable to get airborne due to fog. What happens when countries don't want to have your aircraft based there? What do you think will happen if Slobodan gets a little restless in the elections coming up?
But, as has been said, the luxury of having your own carrier does not come cheap.
So, where should we be going for FCBA? A CTOL version would undoubtedly push up the cost of not only the ship but what about the training and support structure; the UK has not done proper carrier ops for some time. But it can't be ruled out especially if the VSTOL variants of JSF have so much to prove technically speaking. The other important factor is if we don't have a VSTOL FCBA then where the hell are we heading with JF2000? No doubt the GR7 community pray that we don't see a VSTOL FCBA so that the future guys won't be going to sea. Before we get started on that rather political topic I'll finish. Fine words by the way from JF.
And finally great effort from Boeing!
Why we need Carrier aviation:
It was not that long ago when aircraft, based in Italy, were unable to get airborne due to fog. What happens when countries don't want to have your aircraft based there? What do you think will happen if Slobodan gets a little restless in the elections coming up?
But, as has been said, the luxury of having your own carrier does not come cheap.
So, where should we be going for FCBA? A CTOL version would undoubtedly push up the cost of not only the ship but what about the training and support structure; the UK has not done proper carrier ops for some time. But it can't be ruled out especially if the VSTOL variants of JSF have so much to prove technically speaking. The other important factor is if we don't have a VSTOL FCBA then where the hell are we heading with JF2000? No doubt the GR7 community pray that we don't see a VSTOL FCBA so that the future guys won't be going to sea. Before we get started on that rather political topic I'll finish. Fine words by the way from JF.
And finally great effort from Boeing!
Guest
Posts: n/a
The all vertical Marine aviation was driven by the previous Commandant of the Marine Corps, he even had a vision to replace the -130J with a higher perfromance four engine tilt rotor.
Part of this was the roles and missions fight between the services and how badly NAVAIR screwed procurement. Witness the A-12 fiasco, what became of -18E/F, etc.
With all of the USAF bashing I, and lots of others, do they are the best of the U.S. services on procurement.
Without taking an official poll I would be willing to bet that most Marine aviators are not in favor of strictly vertical fixed wing aviation.
That said, either JSF should be an improvement on Harrier in most areas.
To parphrase Murphy, "If it's ugly and it works it ain't ugly!".
Part of this was the roles and missions fight between the services and how badly NAVAIR screwed procurement. Witness the A-12 fiasco, what became of -18E/F, etc.
With all of the USAF bashing I, and lots of others, do they are the best of the U.S. services on procurement.
Without taking an official poll I would be willing to bet that most Marine aviators are not in favor of strictly vertical fixed wing aviation.
That said, either JSF should be an improvement on Harrier in most areas.
To parphrase Murphy, "If it's ugly and it works it ain't ugly!".
Guest
Posts: n/a
Denial of the use of carriers, whether through host nation decision or tactical circumstance, has happened. Coral Sea.
But, we are getting off the point of the thread. We already have this argument taking place elsewhere.
I wait to see how the flight trials go with the VSTOL version, when it eventually flies.
(- I should point out that bring back is not just a VSTOL/CTOL debate. One of the main selling points of the F18E/F is the far superior bring back capability v that of the C/D)
[This message has been edited by ORAC (edited 22 September 2000).]
But, we are getting off the point of the thread. We already have this argument taking place elsewhere.
I wait to see how the flight trials go with the VSTOL version, when it eventually flies.
(- I should point out that bring back is not just a VSTOL/CTOL debate. One of the main selling points of the F18E/F is the far superior bring back capability v that of the C/D)
[This message has been edited by ORAC (edited 22 September 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I should have stayed talking to you all about things that matter. Taggart was cr@p
Orac
Thanks for your kind remarks. Sorry I don’t have the script of the 70’s RN do. (If its very important I NEVER write it down because if you do then somebody with more stripes than you is just going to want it changed to something that is no longer true. Also if you use a script it comes out like you don’t mean it, and finally, what you say and how you say it should depend on what’s happening to the audiences faces as you tell the tale. Easy to wind me up eh?)
At the start I seem to remember excluding the STOVL capability of our current fleet from my remarks that the aircraft have been well kept up to date with kit. The engine story (not buying the big donk like the USMC) has been a sorry one and quite a few people should be ashamed about how they have let the operators down in that regard. The more the FCBA buy moves right the worse will be the eventual situation. Do you think the current delays in respect to JSF (and doubtless there will be plenty more) should be seen as an opportunity to buy some more contingency donks and also fly one behind the FA2 intake? It would make a lot of sense to me.
Sitting on the beach without Pprune would really suck.
JN
If you are a know-nothing journo then I reckon that makes me a failed PPL
Don’t get me started on why STOL is no answer to operating site flexibility or I will make you read WHY VL all over again. Just because you know how to wind me up doesn’t mean there will be no pain in it for you.
Noz Lee
Interesting moniker. Have faith because JF2000 (hey – I like it written like that) is not going to go away as the idea is too sound to give up. Only a dyed in the wool single service guy can argue against the concept that the UK is best served by putting soldiers, sailors and airmen. together in one package and moving them out in one lump. If they paid them ALL 10% more while they bobbed about on the water (for having to put up with each other’s customs) then there would soon be enough guys who WANTED to do it. It also would be an incentive for the politicians to bring em back sooner rather than later. Retention problems are the easiest ones to solve.
JF
Orac
Thanks for your kind remarks. Sorry I don’t have the script of the 70’s RN do. (If its very important I NEVER write it down because if you do then somebody with more stripes than you is just going to want it changed to something that is no longer true. Also if you use a script it comes out like you don’t mean it, and finally, what you say and how you say it should depend on what’s happening to the audiences faces as you tell the tale. Easy to wind me up eh?)
At the start I seem to remember excluding the STOVL capability of our current fleet from my remarks that the aircraft have been well kept up to date with kit. The engine story (not buying the big donk like the USMC) has been a sorry one and quite a few people should be ashamed about how they have let the operators down in that regard. The more the FCBA buy moves right the worse will be the eventual situation. Do you think the current delays in respect to JSF (and doubtless there will be plenty more) should be seen as an opportunity to buy some more contingency donks and also fly one behind the FA2 intake? It would make a lot of sense to me.
Sitting on the beach without Pprune would really suck.
JN
If you are a know-nothing journo then I reckon that makes me a failed PPL
Don’t get me started on why STOL is no answer to operating site flexibility or I will make you read WHY VL all over again. Just because you know how to wind me up doesn’t mean there will be no pain in it for you.
Noz Lee
Interesting moniker. Have faith because JF2000 (hey – I like it written like that) is not going to go away as the idea is too sound to give up. Only a dyed in the wool single service guy can argue against the concept that the UK is best served by putting soldiers, sailors and airmen. together in one package and moving them out in one lump. If they paid them ALL 10% more while they bobbed about on the water (for having to put up with each other’s customs) then there would soon be enough guys who WANTED to do it. It also would be an incentive for the politicians to bring em back sooner rather than later. Retention problems are the easiest ones to solve.
JF
Guest
Posts: n/a
JF
I too believe that as a concept JF2000 is a sound idea although the joining of 2 fleets of Harriers is not a seemless one. I am sure you are aware of the differences. I am not convinced with your argument for retention though. I have heard that the Harrier is no longer the aircraft which everyone coming out of AFTS wish to fly. The poor ill informed youth prefer the 'mighty' Jaguar. If only they could have a trip on a warm day with a short runway. However their sights must be set on EF I guess?
There must be a deeper problem behind the lack lustre of the young guys to not want to fly the most challenging aircraft in the world from the most challenging environment - carriers. One reason I would offer is that the average age of the first tourist is now nearly 30, by which stage they have ankle biters tied on and probably a working wife and some sort of mortgage.
I feel I have veered off from the subject somewhat.
Have a good weekend!
I too believe that as a concept JF2000 is a sound idea although the joining of 2 fleets of Harriers is not a seemless one. I am sure you are aware of the differences. I am not convinced with your argument for retention though. I have heard that the Harrier is no longer the aircraft which everyone coming out of AFTS wish to fly. The poor ill informed youth prefer the 'mighty' Jaguar. If only they could have a trip on a warm day with a short runway. However their sights must be set on EF I guess?
There must be a deeper problem behind the lack lustre of the young guys to not want to fly the most challenging aircraft in the world from the most challenging environment - carriers. One reason I would offer is that the average age of the first tourist is now nearly 30, by which stage they have ankle biters tied on and probably a working wife and some sort of mortgage.
I feel I have veered off from the subject somewhat.
Have a good weekend!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Had a look at the UC on the Boeing on the front of this weeks Flight. Looks very lightweight!!
I know a few Marines who believe in "arrivals"where the earth flares, cos the aircraft won't!
I know the trial versions are always changed/ tweaked as they go on as the production versions are finalised but one thing I can guarantee, the gear is going to gain a couple of hundred pounds!!
I know a few Marines who believe in "arrivals"where the earth flares, cos the aircraft won't!
I know the trial versions are always changed/ tweaked as they go on as the production versions are finalised but one thing I can guarantee, the gear is going to gain a couple of hundred pounds!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Had to join in this one. After years with Harriers, watching the US at close quarters and some links with the JSF, my thoughts (and as will almost everybody much respect to John Farley):
Yes the Boeing JSF is ugly as sin. However, I can't help but feel that the direct lift idea passes the KISS test. Some real challenges there though. All I'd observe is that the aircraft is at a VERY early stage in it's development, as is the engine. Don't forget the GE alternative with more power and lots of lovely RR involvement to please the politicos.
CV or not CV? JF hits the nail square on the head when he says we have to go for what we can afford. Full up conventional carriers are HUMUNGUOUSLY expensive (ask the French) and with aircraft at around JSF weight the case for 50,000 ton or less conventional ship is dodgy to say the least. STOVL allows useful air from around 35,000 tons and up.
Navalised Eurofighter was, I believe never a goer. EF is a great BVR AD aircraft. It's a very poor cat and trap candidate, too weak, not enough range.
Let's get real. Whatever JSF we go for, we're buying into a 4th generation stealth design with avionics at least 5 years on from the F-22. What's not to like?
Yes the Boeing JSF is ugly as sin. However, I can't help but feel that the direct lift idea passes the KISS test. Some real challenges there though. All I'd observe is that the aircraft is at a VERY early stage in it's development, as is the engine. Don't forget the GE alternative with more power and lots of lovely RR involvement to please the politicos.
CV or not CV? JF hits the nail square on the head when he says we have to go for what we can afford. Full up conventional carriers are HUMUNGUOUSLY expensive (ask the French) and with aircraft at around JSF weight the case for 50,000 ton or less conventional ship is dodgy to say the least. STOVL allows useful air from around 35,000 tons and up.
Navalised Eurofighter was, I believe never a goer. EF is a great BVR AD aircraft. It's a very poor cat and trap candidate, too weak, not enough range.
Let's get real. Whatever JSF we go for, we're buying into a 4th generation stealth design with avionics at least 5 years on from the F-22. What's not to like?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Grodge,
Just nervous that so many of its domestic customers have expresssed such willingness to scrap it, "if only we could have more F-22/F-14 Quickstrike/F/A-18E/F/F-15E, etc.)"
Is it fatally compromised by being so driven by cost? Is it poorer than a Block 70 F-16C, avionics wise? What will we do if the USMC are persuaded that they don't need the STOVL one? Those are the questions/allegations - where are the answers?
Just nervous that so many of its domestic customers have expresssed such willingness to scrap it, "if only we could have more F-22/F-14 Quickstrike/F/A-18E/F/F-15E, etc.)"
Is it fatally compromised by being so driven by cost? Is it poorer than a Block 70 F-16C, avionics wise? What will we do if the USMC are persuaded that they don't need the STOVL one? Those are the questions/allegations - where are the answers?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Grodge,
1. Was? What do you know about the nval versions of the EF that we do not? BAe just offered the choice of 2 different versions to the Italian Navy. Too weak, short range, same question - what do you know of the versions on offer, conformal tanks etc.
2. Assuming the same size air wing, C2 system, SAW, crew size, why is 50Kt so much more expensive than 40Kt? And why do you need 50Kt to operate a modern high thrust CV wing? The CDG fully loaded with a Rafale M wing is 36Kt, smaller than we plan. And the Italian carrier is even smaller and BAe obviously are guaranteeing that the EF can operate from it!!
3. As asked, what is your fallback if the VSTOL version of JSF is cancelled? Why not plan to be able to operate STOVL and/or STOL. It gives you flexibility anyway.
4. At some stage the RAF will need to replace the GR7 part of JF2000. Do you plan on the RAF buying JSF as well as EF and operating a 3 ac type FJ force? I assure this will cost more than the difference between a 40Kt to 50Kt CV!! If not, a CV/STOL version of EF is probably the only way ahead, at least as far as the RAF is concerned. A mixed wing of RN JSF (maybe CV) and RAF EF (M) seems to offer a good mix of capabilities and to reduce procurement/operating costs.
[This message has been edited by ORAC (edited 28 September 2000).]
1. Was? What do you know about the nval versions of the EF that we do not? BAe just offered the choice of 2 different versions to the Italian Navy. Too weak, short range, same question - what do you know of the versions on offer, conformal tanks etc.
2. Assuming the same size air wing, C2 system, SAW, crew size, why is 50Kt so much more expensive than 40Kt? And why do you need 50Kt to operate a modern high thrust CV wing? The CDG fully loaded with a Rafale M wing is 36Kt, smaller than we plan. And the Italian carrier is even smaller and BAe obviously are guaranteeing that the EF can operate from it!!
3. As asked, what is your fallback if the VSTOL version of JSF is cancelled? Why not plan to be able to operate STOVL and/or STOL. It gives you flexibility anyway.
4. At some stage the RAF will need to replace the GR7 part of JF2000. Do you plan on the RAF buying JSF as well as EF and operating a 3 ac type FJ force? I assure this will cost more than the difference between a 40Kt to 50Kt CV!! If not, a CV/STOL version of EF is probably the only way ahead, at least as far as the RAF is concerned. A mixed wing of RN JSF (maybe CV) and RAF EF (M) seems to offer a good mix of capabilities and to reduce procurement/operating costs.
[This message has been edited by ORAC (edited 28 September 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
If STOVL (or CTOL) JSF ends up being chosen for FCBA, then I suppose the USAF version of JSF could be FOAS. EF could be marinated into FCBA, for sure. But the capability of the ac would be massively compromised. As for EF doing FOAS (though not before 2018-ish), hmmmm. Although the EF airframe has had bits added to improve air-to-ground capability, its in no way designed to be a FOAS-type ac. Some people still talk about conformal tanks, (even Industry concept engineering folks) but the designers who would have do the work ruled out conformal tanks 10 years ago.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jacko, I said RAF 3 type FJ fleet. If we get JSF we will have JSF + EF + GR4. Plus we will only have a single 3 sqn wing to fulfill all the RAF tasks plus provide the RAF element of the JF2000 carrier force. I do not see it being very popular! if you want to be able to expand the wings on 2 carriers in a crisis either by upping the airframes or the crew ratio plus continue training, offer roulement etc you need more than a single wing back in the UK.
If the decision is JSF it, as you suggest, begs the question of whether FOAS can logically be anything else.
Still does not answer the questions of why we need VSTOL as opposed to it just being desirable?
If the decision is JSF it, as you suggest, begs the question of whether FOAS can logically be anything else.
Still does not answer the questions of why we need VSTOL as opposed to it just being desirable?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Excuse my ignorance but if we all believe that JF2000 is the way ahead thaen why do we need 2 separate services to provide Logs,admin etc? Surely a rationalisation of the force under a single service banner would create a better understanding of methods of operation. Them upstairs would just have to swallow their pride and accept that theirs isn't the only way to run an air force/navy.
Off to shove two pencils up my nose......
[This message has been edited by Edmund Blackadder (edited 28 September 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Edmund Blackadder (edited 28 September 2000).]
Off to shove two pencils up my nose......
[This message has been edited by Edmund Blackadder (edited 28 September 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Edmund Blackadder (edited 28 September 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dear mr Black Adder,
If the only war we are going to fight is at sea, you make a sensible case for amalgamating everything under a dark blue service.
If you think everything will take on land, you make a cogent case for amalgamating everything under a light blue service.
If you believe air power will only be used in the support of the army, you make a sensible case for amalgamating everything under a brown service.
If you believe, in peace time when we do not know when the next threat is coming from, that any one of the three is able or willing to present a totally balanced view....
May I suggest you go stand in the corner and stick two pencils up your nose.
(Lordy, where do they come from, if it was that easy, no one would ever lose a war!!)
If the only war we are going to fight is at sea, you make a sensible case for amalgamating everything under a dark blue service.
If you think everything will take on land, you make a cogent case for amalgamating everything under a light blue service.
If you believe air power will only be used in the support of the army, you make a sensible case for amalgamating everything under a brown service.
If you believe, in peace time when we do not know when the next threat is coming from, that any one of the three is able or willing to present a totally balanced view....
May I suggest you go stand in the corner and stick two pencils up your nose.
(Lordy, where do they come from, if it was that easy, no one would ever lose a war!!)