JSF first flight
Guest
Posts: n/a
JSF first flight
For anyone’s who remotely interested, Boeing's X-32 JSF aircraft flew yesterday (Sept 18). Palmdale to Edwards, 20-odd minutes, all went well.
Those of you who saw that butt-ugly mockup at farnborough and said it would never fly were wrong!
X-35 due at Edwards soon but USAF stressing there will be no fly-off. What a pity!
(Edited to head off the pedants and say that I do know that the ACTUAL mockup at Farnborough wouldn't fly anyway – but you know what I mean)
[This message has been edited by Red Snow (edited 19 September 2000).]
Those of you who saw that butt-ugly mockup at farnborough and said it would never fly were wrong!
X-35 due at Edwards soon but USAF stressing there will be no fly-off. What a pity!
(Edited to head off the pedants and say that I do know that the ACTUAL mockup at Farnborough wouldn't fly anyway – but you know what I mean)
[This message has been edited by Red Snow (edited 19 September 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
if you don't believe it there's pix on www.boeing.com
Won't it just look lovely with a big Winged One on the intake sides (NOT)
Won't it just look lovely with a big Winged One on the intake sides (NOT)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Once it's flying it's supposed to be CHEAP!
And that's the main driver. Many believe that the CTOL version will be much, much less useful than a Block 70 F-16 and certainly no match for EF or Rafale, and probably inferior in some respects to JAS 39.
And once the USMC have been persuaded that they don't need the STOVL variant, what is the point? Anyone know, cos it beats me!
And that's the main driver. Many believe that the CTOL version will be much, much less useful than a Block 70 F-16 and certainly no match for EF or Rafale, and probably inferior in some respects to JAS 39.
And once the USMC have been persuaded that they don't need the STOVL variant, what is the point? Anyone know, cos it beats me!
Guest
Posts: n/a
God - its ugly
God - that wing looks perfect for high alpha
God - if I was a jet engine I’d die to breathe through that inlet
God - the cockpit layout looks the best yet
God – just imagine what VIFFing that much gross thrust would do (yes gross not net)
God – the servicing access under that wing will be so easy in sun or rain
God – the F-22 sensor package looks middle aged already
God – I’d like to get my hands on it
God – its beautiful
God - that wing looks perfect for high alpha
God - if I was a jet engine I’d die to breathe through that inlet
God - the cockpit layout looks the best yet
God – just imagine what VIFFing that much gross thrust would do (yes gross not net)
God – the servicing access under that wing will be so easy in sun or rain
God – the F-22 sensor package looks middle aged already
God – I’d like to get my hands on it
God – its beautiful
Guest
Posts: n/a
You are right, Spectre, but is the one that is being 'pushed' the most by the PR/CC machine. With every day that goes by the VTOL JSF looks a little less likely (LM have just 'fessed up to problems with theirs and have had to put the X-35C first flight date back to late '01).
With the size of carrier envisaged for CV UK the US Navy’s CTOL JSF would be adequate, but so would Eurofighter and it seems like a straight fight between the two, unless of course HMG decides to scrap the whole carrier idea anyway. I guess F/A-18E/F is another possibility if you want something cheap and crap but proven. There have been many postings on this forum regarding CV Eurofighter – makes quite a lot of sense to me.
With the size of carrier envisaged for CV UK the US Navy’s CTOL JSF would be adequate, but so would Eurofighter and it seems like a straight fight between the two, unless of course HMG decides to scrap the whole carrier idea anyway. I guess F/A-18E/F is another possibility if you want something cheap and crap but proven. There have been many postings on this forum regarding CV Eurofighter – makes quite a lot of sense to me.
Guest
Posts: n/a
At least Boeing are doing something original and not just chopping an F22 in half. Personally, I hope Boeing wins, not only do I like the design but there'll be much less BAE Cisterns (formerly British WasteofSpace) content than in the LockMart effort, so it might actually come in on time/cost, and work. Come to think of it, Boeing are a few weeks ahead of LockMart, even at this stage.
------------------
S. Potter, Esq
"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here! This is the WAR ROOM!"
------------------
S. Potter, Esq
"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here! This is the WAR ROOM!"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Maybe, maybe.
There is an old saying, looks right, flys right.
All based on experience and eye of course, but it worked so far.
And I never saw an ugly bird in flight.
Let it fly, maybe it it will grow on people.
Maybe computers now rule supreme.
But, no matter how good, it is UGLY.
We have had BUFF and SLUFF (which the users loved), maybe we need FLUFF (Future Light Ugly Fat F*****r ) for this bird.
(PS, No one ever said the A-10 was pretty, but as far as fighting wars are concerned I see it as one of the best combat machines of the second half of the twentieth century.
[This message has been edited by ORAC (edited 20 September 2000).]
There is an old saying, looks right, flys right.
All based on experience and eye of course, but it worked so far.
And I never saw an ugly bird in flight.
Let it fly, maybe it it will grow on people.
Maybe computers now rule supreme.
But, no matter how good, it is UGLY.
We have had BUFF and SLUFF (which the users loved), maybe we need FLUFF (Future Light Ugly Fat F*****r ) for this bird.
(PS, No one ever said the A-10 was pretty, but as far as fighting wars are concerned I see it as one of the best combat machines of the second half of the twentieth century.
[This message has been edited by ORAC (edited 20 September 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
JF
You are aboslutely right, of course. A case of heart ruling head when you're first confronted with the brute. Any opinions you'd care to share on the X-35?
From what little one can glean, it seems that Boeing have really seized the initiative on this one (first out of the trap, agressive test schedule etc) – traditionally a Lockheed/GD virtue if F-16/F-17 and F-22/F-23 comps were anything to go by. Would also value some views on whether there is anything to be gained from actually flying the two against each other.
ORAC
Absolutely agreed about A-10. But if it wasn't for the Gulf it would probably have been killed off permaturely.
Its somewhat ironic, given its genesis, that the Hog (as OA-10) ended up being categorised as an HVA, worthy of special protection.
(PS I think FLUF has already gone to the Boeing 737-500 – Fat Little etc)
S.Potter
Glad to see you hold the fortunes of a few thousand workers so close to your heart. You'd make a good MP!!!
[This message has been edited by Red Snow (edited 20 September 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Red Snow (edited 20 September 2000).]
You are aboslutely right, of course. A case of heart ruling head when you're first confronted with the brute. Any opinions you'd care to share on the X-35?
From what little one can glean, it seems that Boeing have really seized the initiative on this one (first out of the trap, agressive test schedule etc) – traditionally a Lockheed/GD virtue if F-16/F-17 and F-22/F-23 comps were anything to go by. Would also value some views on whether there is anything to be gained from actually flying the two against each other.
ORAC
Absolutely agreed about A-10. But if it wasn't for the Gulf it would probably have been killed off permaturely.
Its somewhat ironic, given its genesis, that the Hog (as OA-10) ended up being categorised as an HVA, worthy of special protection.
(PS I think FLUF has already gone to the Boeing 737-500 – Fat Little etc)
S.Potter
Glad to see you hold the fortunes of a few thousand workers so close to your heart. You'd make a good MP!!!
[This message has been edited by Red Snow (edited 20 September 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Red Snow (edited 20 September 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Red Snow
My understanding (you may know better) is that the current UK MOD Plan A is to buy some STOVL variants of which ever JSF contender wins. I know nothing about the X-32 programme and very little about the X-35.
It seems to me that when politicians have big hopes for their military influence, but at the same time are not able to afford massive forces to exert that influence, then operating site flexibility becomes particularly important. So, I believe the UK should always have some top quality operational aeroplanes that can also do STOVL.
The operational capability (as opposed to the STOVL performance) of our current STOVL aeroplanes has been well preserved. The current clearance for all RAF GR7 mates to operate visually at low level in the dark using totally synthetic vision aids is a remarkable capability that few nations share. Likewise, for many years now, the RN FA2 has led the way in European air arms as the most effective BVR interceptor thanks to its AMRAAM capability.
But what about the STOVL bit?. The KISS Pegasus way of providing that has to be getting ever closer to its sell buy date. There are many reasons for this, but probably top of the heap is that it can never be used as an efficient supersonic powerplant – no matter how many corners you squirt fire from..
The X-32/35 ways of providing STOVL are very different. Both appear to have particular but different strengths and weaknesses.
Weaknesses first.
Boeing have to generate enough thrust in the hover to meet the bring back needs. But critically they must also keep the hot air out of the intake. Whether they will succeed in that remains to be seen.
Lockmart have not taken any chances with that and are using nice cold fan air to hold the front up. Driving that fan without wasting weight is a very demanding mechanical engineering task. But it is only mechanical engineering and do we seriously think that the clutch and gearbox issues are insoluble? Surely not? However, since the fan intake could never allow the fan to breathe at high forward speed, the fan cannot be used to help ACM. If the only thrust you can vector in ACM is at the back you are more limited.
The advantages?
Boeing can vector all of their installed thrust in ACM. That could provide some quite awesome tactics for the driver.
The Lockmart fan has to be a very efficient and calm way to generate hover capability. This will really help bring back capability and operating site issues. The drive may also be suitable to power specialised bits of combat kit that need massive bursts of power.
Bottom lines?
IMHO if the Boeing STOVL version is made to work it will be top dog in combat, but Lockmart seem to have an easier task on their hands so far as doing STOVL is concerned. If they both fail then UK needs a Harrier III. But who considers failure?
JF
PS Sorry, forgot your point about flying them against each other. Do you mean the current overall competition or a special flyoff? I see these as two X programmes to validate two different concepts. So don't think it right to fly one against the other and say the better one in the sky goes ahead. There are too many other factors to consider surely?
JF
[This message has been edited by John Farley (edited 21 September 2000).]
My understanding (you may know better) is that the current UK MOD Plan A is to buy some STOVL variants of which ever JSF contender wins. I know nothing about the X-32 programme and very little about the X-35.
It seems to me that when politicians have big hopes for their military influence, but at the same time are not able to afford massive forces to exert that influence, then operating site flexibility becomes particularly important. So, I believe the UK should always have some top quality operational aeroplanes that can also do STOVL.
The operational capability (as opposed to the STOVL performance) of our current STOVL aeroplanes has been well preserved. The current clearance for all RAF GR7 mates to operate visually at low level in the dark using totally synthetic vision aids is a remarkable capability that few nations share. Likewise, for many years now, the RN FA2 has led the way in European air arms as the most effective BVR interceptor thanks to its AMRAAM capability.
But what about the STOVL bit?. The KISS Pegasus way of providing that has to be getting ever closer to its sell buy date. There are many reasons for this, but probably top of the heap is that it can never be used as an efficient supersonic powerplant – no matter how many corners you squirt fire from..
The X-32/35 ways of providing STOVL are very different. Both appear to have particular but different strengths and weaknesses.
Weaknesses first.
Boeing have to generate enough thrust in the hover to meet the bring back needs. But critically they must also keep the hot air out of the intake. Whether they will succeed in that remains to be seen.
Lockmart have not taken any chances with that and are using nice cold fan air to hold the front up. Driving that fan without wasting weight is a very demanding mechanical engineering task. But it is only mechanical engineering and do we seriously think that the clutch and gearbox issues are insoluble? Surely not? However, since the fan intake could never allow the fan to breathe at high forward speed, the fan cannot be used to help ACM. If the only thrust you can vector in ACM is at the back you are more limited.
The advantages?
Boeing can vector all of their installed thrust in ACM. That could provide some quite awesome tactics for the driver.
The Lockmart fan has to be a very efficient and calm way to generate hover capability. This will really help bring back capability and operating site issues. The drive may also be suitable to power specialised bits of combat kit that need massive bursts of power.
Bottom lines?
IMHO if the Boeing STOVL version is made to work it will be top dog in combat, but Lockmart seem to have an easier task on their hands so far as doing STOVL is concerned. If they both fail then UK needs a Harrier III. But who considers failure?
JF
PS Sorry, forgot your point about flying them against each other. Do you mean the current overall competition or a special flyoff? I see these as two X programmes to validate two different concepts. So don't think it right to fly one against the other and say the better one in the sky goes ahead. There are too many other factors to consider surely?
JF
[This message has been edited by John Farley (edited 21 September 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
JF,
I ask you, as the nearest thing Prune has to an air power 'thinker' the following questions?
1) Does operating site flexibility necessarily mean CV (F)? Do we need FCBA and/or a carrier? Can we afford to support squadron-sized deployments with a CV, SSN, oilers, guardships, radar pickets, and 2,000 + seamen, or should we just send a Harrier/Tornado/Jag squadron with 180 blokes?
2) What happens to UK FCBA if the USMC are persuaded to drop their STOVL JSF?
3) Do you still think STOVL (as opposed to rough field+STOL is STILL relevant for land-based air power? Should FOAS be STOVL, perhaps? Should JSF be FCBA AND FOAS?
JN
I ask you, as the nearest thing Prune has to an air power 'thinker' the following questions?
1) Does operating site flexibility necessarily mean CV (F)? Do we need FCBA and/or a carrier? Can we afford to support squadron-sized deployments with a CV, SSN, oilers, guardships, radar pickets, and 2,000 + seamen, or should we just send a Harrier/Tornado/Jag squadron with 180 blokes?
2) What happens to UK FCBA if the USMC are persuaded to drop their STOVL JSF?
3) Do you still think STOVL (as opposed to rough field+STOL is STILL relevant for land-based air power? Should FOAS be STOVL, perhaps? Should JSF be FCBA AND FOAS?
JN
Guest
Posts: n/a
JF
Appreciate the insight. I share your opinions about the benefits of STOVL, especially as it appears to be available at less engineering/aerodynamic 'cost' these days. Unfortunately, in this case the extra financial cost is being seen by some in the US as being too much to pay, no matter what the benefits may be. Where a cancellation would leave the Marines is another matter.
Appreciate the insight. I share your opinions about the benefits of STOVL, especially as it appears to be available at less engineering/aerodynamic 'cost' these days. Unfortunately, in this case the extra financial cost is being seen by some in the US as being too much to pay, no matter what the benefits may be. Where a cancellation would leave the Marines is another matter.
Guest
Posts: n/a
JN
Hey - I’m just a retired buff sitting on the beach!.
I don’t even know what some of those acronyms mean
I do know that by operating site flexibility I mean the ability to hover if necessary. Nothing more nothing less.
If you have the control and performance (albeit with limited bring back) to hover, then high weight STOL should come free and may well be the normal operating mode on land. At sea only VL gives true flexibility re ship or weather, as well as being a very relaxed and safe way of coming aboard. Hooks or SL must mean a big ship – and that to me is not operating site flexibility, it is just full blown carrier aviation which has a big price tag.
If you commit to carrier aviation how many ships is enough to guarantee the capability in even one theatre? It seems to me that carrier aviation cannot be entered into gradually to suit your purse. There is a minimum cost and that is not small. Indeed it is so not small I don’t see how the UK could seriously afford it. Does it not also mean that with all your eggs in two or maybe three baskets you don’t like to risk them much? Therefore you also stump up for their protection force. Then the whole lot needs replenishing. Does the UK ever want to risk say 3000 chaps and half their aeroplanes to one hit?
A carrier task force is a wonderful political/military option to behold – but is certainly not what I mean by operating site flexibility.
Should the UK have something bigger than the Invincible class – yes. Should it go for full blown carrier aviation – no (unless they find gold under the dome when they sweep up)
If neither JSF can be made to do the STOVL bit this time around then the USMC (like the RN in my view) need a Harrier III. Nobody has yet done the definitive subsonic jumpjet – which IMHO should only need your right hand to land it (like VAAC in its one and a half inceptor mode), would do .95M clean on the deck and only need replenishing, not servicing, at least until it had done a weeks work. Now that would be a useful bit of kit for anyone. Not sexy but useful.
JF
PS are we boring everyone?
Hey - I’m just a retired buff sitting on the beach!.
I don’t even know what some of those acronyms mean
I do know that by operating site flexibility I mean the ability to hover if necessary. Nothing more nothing less.
If you have the control and performance (albeit with limited bring back) to hover, then high weight STOL should come free and may well be the normal operating mode on land. At sea only VL gives true flexibility re ship or weather, as well as being a very relaxed and safe way of coming aboard. Hooks or SL must mean a big ship – and that to me is not operating site flexibility, it is just full blown carrier aviation which has a big price tag.
If you commit to carrier aviation how many ships is enough to guarantee the capability in even one theatre? It seems to me that carrier aviation cannot be entered into gradually to suit your purse. There is a minimum cost and that is not small. Indeed it is so not small I don’t see how the UK could seriously afford it. Does it not also mean that with all your eggs in two or maybe three baskets you don’t like to risk them much? Therefore you also stump up for their protection force. Then the whole lot needs replenishing. Does the UK ever want to risk say 3000 chaps and half their aeroplanes to one hit?
A carrier task force is a wonderful political/military option to behold – but is certainly not what I mean by operating site flexibility.
Should the UK have something bigger than the Invincible class – yes. Should it go for full blown carrier aviation – no (unless they find gold under the dome when they sweep up)
If neither JSF can be made to do the STOVL bit this time around then the USMC (like the RN in my view) need a Harrier III. Nobody has yet done the definitive subsonic jumpjet – which IMHO should only need your right hand to land it (like VAAC in its one and a half inceptor mode), would do .95M clean on the deck and only need replenishing, not servicing, at least until it had done a weeks work. Now that would be a useful bit of kit for anyone. Not sexy but useful.
JF
PS are we boring everyone?
Guest
Posts: n/a
When you said:
"It seems to me that carrier aviation cannot be entered into gradually to suit your purse. There is a minimum cost and that is not small. Indeed it is so not small I don’t see how the UK could seriously afford it. Does it not also mean that with all your eggs in two or maybe three baskets you don’t like to risk them much? Therefore you also stump up for their protection force. Then the whole lot needs replenishing. Does the UK ever want to risk say 3000 chaps and half their aeroplanes to one hit?
A carrier task force is a wonderful political/military option to behold – but is certainly not what I mean by operating site flexibility."
I read it with enormous interest. Was the great JF going to pronounce carrier aviation a thing of the past?
Then you disappointed me and said what I'd have expected - that we need something bigger than the Invincibles.
But I don't understand (dumbo, I'm afraid) why these cogent arguments don't apply equally to the Invincible-class or similar sized ships. OK, sink an Invincible and you don't kill 3,000 people, but it's still a massively expensive and hugely vulnerable investment, isn't it?
Why do you think we still need these? Where would you use them? Where could you not equally well use land-based aviation?
Acronym alphabetti-spaghetti de-code:
CV (F) Carrier (vessel) future - UK requirement
FCBA Future Carrier Borne Aircraft (UK Requirement)
FOAS Future Offensive Aircraft System
HVA High Value Asset
SSN Nuclear sub
JN (Nacko Jacko!)
"It seems to me that carrier aviation cannot be entered into gradually to suit your purse. There is a minimum cost and that is not small. Indeed it is so not small I don’t see how the UK could seriously afford it. Does it not also mean that with all your eggs in two or maybe three baskets you don’t like to risk them much? Therefore you also stump up for their protection force. Then the whole lot needs replenishing. Does the UK ever want to risk say 3000 chaps and half their aeroplanes to one hit?
A carrier task force is a wonderful political/military option to behold – but is certainly not what I mean by operating site flexibility."
I read it with enormous interest. Was the great JF going to pronounce carrier aviation a thing of the past?
Then you disappointed me and said what I'd have expected - that we need something bigger than the Invincibles.
But I don't understand (dumbo, I'm afraid) why these cogent arguments don't apply equally to the Invincible-class or similar sized ships. OK, sink an Invincible and you don't kill 3,000 people, but it's still a massively expensive and hugely vulnerable investment, isn't it?
Why do you think we still need these? Where would you use them? Where could you not equally well use land-based aviation?
Acronym alphabetti-spaghetti de-code:
CV (F) Carrier (vessel) future - UK requirement
FCBA Future Carrier Borne Aircraft (UK Requirement)
FOAS Future Offensive Aircraft System
HVA High Value Asset
SSN Nuclear sub
JN (Nacko Jacko!)
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think you hit the nail on the head when mentioning carry back. If you always intend to throw everything at the enemy, fine. But if you want to carry AMRAAM, TIALD, recce, brimstone etc back you need a proper deck to do a run on landing or you have to throw it all over the side before landing. A bloody expensive way of patrolling a no-fly zone from a carrier for example!
Nobody has that kind of vertical capability, not even JSF. So if you need a proper deck to bring it all back, why do you need STOVL in the first place?
But you are now back to bigger carriers, support etc.....
JF, as you say, nice, but who can afford it?
Nobody has that kind of vertical capability, not even JSF. So if you need a proper deck to bring it all back, why do you need STOVL in the first place?
But you are now back to bigger carriers, support etc.....
JF, as you say, nice, but who can afford it?
Guest
Posts: n/a
JN and ORAC
My brain hurts, we have drifted from a few remarks about JSF to arguments about major elements of UK defence strategy in less than a couple of pages of A4. Something not right there.
I’m know you guys appreciate that the issues you are raising are just are not amenable to simple one page answers but I suppose you will just go away thinking you have got it all sewn up if I don’t try…...so here’s a one line answer:
Its all about having some capability rather than none.
Back in the late 70’s I faced a howling mob of Ark Royal /Phantom/Bucc mates (just about to lose their ship) who kept saying that only the F4/Bucc could do the job and so Harrier was a total waste of time. I told them then that they had to come to terms with the fact that Harrier/Through deck cruiser was all they were going to be allowed to have. Period. So they might as well listen to what it could offer as some things might just surprise them.
Over 20 years later not much has changed. The Invincible class (plus Hermes) have been used a lot and many would say the UK would have been in the dwang without them. Today the FA2 plus AMRAAM is one lot of interceptor for the money.
Where would you use the replacement ships? Why not the same places - ie anywhere you had to. As to the size of them, a few feet here and there would do wonders for what you could fit in, I’m not suggesting twice as big. I’d sooner make ‘em smaller and have more of them than go huge. Do they all have to be independent beasts? With VL you can use a pretty simple flat deck as your mother ship’s wingman.
Bring back. It’s the same answer. Of course you can’t bring back as much to a ship as you can to a runway (and that applies to trapping as well, don’t kid yourself otherwise) but you may not have a runway - or be allowed the use of someone else’s – so what then? Just say sorry can’t come? No, you have to work within your bring back limits, just like any other limits.
BTW I remember we had to fire Martel in the 70’s to show a big firework would not snuff the donk and then do several VLs with just one – at over 1500lb not a bad asymm bring back for those days - before they would commit to the original Sea Harrier contract which called for Sea Eagle air launch capability.
Final important point. If you can VL it changes all your thoughts re go around following a bad approach. You just adjust your final position in the hover. Landing with two minutes fuel remaining is perfectly safe. Do you remember how bored you were watching a Harrier that just hovered for one minute without doing anything – let alone two minutes. Such safe low fuel landings really do help the bring back bit - anywhere.
This is worse than the old days. I’m off to watch Taggart.
My brain hurts, we have drifted from a few remarks about JSF to arguments about major elements of UK defence strategy in less than a couple of pages of A4. Something not right there.
I’m know you guys appreciate that the issues you are raising are just are not amenable to simple one page answers but I suppose you will just go away thinking you have got it all sewn up if I don’t try…...so here’s a one line answer:
Its all about having some capability rather than none.
Back in the late 70’s I faced a howling mob of Ark Royal /Phantom/Bucc mates (just about to lose their ship) who kept saying that only the F4/Bucc could do the job and so Harrier was a total waste of time. I told them then that they had to come to terms with the fact that Harrier/Through deck cruiser was all they were going to be allowed to have. Period. So they might as well listen to what it could offer as some things might just surprise them.
Over 20 years later not much has changed. The Invincible class (plus Hermes) have been used a lot and many would say the UK would have been in the dwang without them. Today the FA2 plus AMRAAM is one lot of interceptor for the money.
Where would you use the replacement ships? Why not the same places - ie anywhere you had to. As to the size of them, a few feet here and there would do wonders for what you could fit in, I’m not suggesting twice as big. I’d sooner make ‘em smaller and have more of them than go huge. Do they all have to be independent beasts? With VL you can use a pretty simple flat deck as your mother ship’s wingman.
Bring back. It’s the same answer. Of course you can’t bring back as much to a ship as you can to a runway (and that applies to trapping as well, don’t kid yourself otherwise) but you may not have a runway - or be allowed the use of someone else’s – so what then? Just say sorry can’t come? No, you have to work within your bring back limits, just like any other limits.
BTW I remember we had to fire Martel in the 70’s to show a big firework would not snuff the donk and then do several VLs with just one – at over 1500lb not a bad asymm bring back for those days - before they would commit to the original Sea Harrier contract which called for Sea Eagle air launch capability.
Final important point. If you can VL it changes all your thoughts re go around following a bad approach. You just adjust your final position in the hover. Landing with two minutes fuel remaining is perfectly safe. Do you remember how bored you were watching a Harrier that just hovered for one minute without doing anything – let alone two minutes. Such safe low fuel landings really do help the bring back bit - anywhere.
This is worse than the old days. I’m off to watch Taggart.
Guest
Posts: n/a
JF,
Sorry if it hurts - but the problems have not gone away. If you want to join the new fight, Welcome! If you want to watch to TV and have a good retirement, you earned it!
Carry back of of AIM-9 was OK, carry back of AMRAAM is marginal. All this was OK as part of the ASW screen around a US carrier group to "hack the shad". If you are talking about carry back of all the ECM/Ew/Recce/weapons for a fully integrated/independant force, then your mates in the 70s were bloody right!!
You can have a SHAR limited BVR AD capability, and that is it. Tell them exactly what you told them then. Do you still have the original brief/speech?? Nothing, but nothing, has changed.
(Sub-titled - why do you think things have changed while you have been away - you were right in the first place!!)
[This message has been edited by ORAC (edited 21 September 2000).]
Sorry if it hurts - but the problems have not gone away. If you want to join the new fight, Welcome! If you want to watch to TV and have a good retirement, you earned it!
Carry back of of AIM-9 was OK, carry back of AMRAAM is marginal. All this was OK as part of the ASW screen around a US carrier group to "hack the shad". If you are talking about carry back of all the ECM/Ew/Recce/weapons for a fully integrated/independant force, then your mates in the 70s were bloody right!!
You can have a SHAR limited BVR AD capability, and that is it. Tell them exactly what you told them then. Do you still have the original brief/speech?? Nothing, but nothing, has changed.
(Sub-titled - why do you think things have changed while you have been away - you were right in the first place!!)
[This message has been edited by ORAC (edited 21 September 2000).]