Jump to content

UK F-35 down in Med. Pilot rescued and safe


bentwaters81tfw

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, Paul J said:

If that is a genuine piece of footage  my question is why was the 'barn door' behind the cockpit  open during a standard  take off run up the ramp???

That's how STOVL works. You translate some of the fan thrust to the lift vector to compensate for the loss of lift coming from the wings at low airspeed. The Harrier used exactly the same technique with nozzles tilted downwards for short takeoff.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paul J said:

Sounds a stupid way of taking off with things sticking up and sticking out and pointing downwards affecting airflow over the airframe to assist conventional take off!!! To me it seems to do the opposite to normal take off procedures. Crazy. Bring back proper  Sea Harriers.

Its all to do with transision from Jet borne to wing borne flight....and er SHAR has had its day although Id wager Blue vixen could still compete....but technology moves on 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FatFlyHalf said:

So can anyone tell me how many Sea harriers £100 million would have bought?

 

Even improved ones.

 

 

in today's money or back then?

 

Last Sea Harries FA.2s were build in the early 1990s

 

"In 1990, the Navy ordered 18 new-build FA2s,[18] at a unit cost of around £12 million"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Aerospace_Sea_Harrier#Variants

 

but consider this being late 80s technology! you would not want to fight around with them anylonger!

 

today probably 2, max 3 of them...

 

another story of course would be upgrading the GR.9s with a radar, as were the US/ Spanish/ Italian AV-8Bs to PLUS configuration....

but those were Harrier IIs, not Harrier Is!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, FatFlyHalf said:

So can anyone tell me how many Sea harriers £100 million would have bought?

I expect people back in the 1930s were complaining at the cost of Spitfires. "What's wrong with Hawker Furies? They're more manoeuvrable!"

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alan P said:

I expect people back in the 1930s were complaining at the cost of Spitfires. "What's wrong with Hawker Furies? They're more manoeuvrable!"

Yup. I agree.

But there comes a point where the equation of cost and effectiveness is important. 

And a fundamental question is; are these aircraft any more cost effective than a developed Harrier ? 

And the UK is no longer the power it once was.

So historical comparisons are somewhat inconsequential to my fundamental question.

Could he UK have more aircraft that if we bought there American machines and the loss of one have less of an impact on our air force ?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, FatFlyHalf said:

And a fundamental question is; are these aircraft any more cost effective than a developed Harrier ? 

That is very, very far from being a fundamental question. There is simply no question at all, in any modern consideration, where that could be a realistic value judgement in capability or cost-effectiveness. I'm not being dismissive, it's just that comparison with the FA2 Sea Harrier (or the A-10, or any of the other frequent comparisons) is pitifully far behind any true assessment of the F-35's capabilities. To argue comparative capabilities of legacy Gen 3/4 airframes vs maturing Gen 5 on the basis of cost is like asking why a Mars bar is cheaper than a Ferrari. They're just not comparable.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, FatFlyHalf said:

So can anyone tell me how many Sea harriers £100 million would have bought?

 

Even improved ones.

 

 

The biggest problem with the SHAR was that it was limited by its dimensions....you could get a pegasus 106*in the hole but that was it later incarnations of the donkey fitted to GRs and AV8B wouldnt fit .Oh yeah and it was a sixties airframe with 70/80 avionics and next to sod all in the form of sensors other than the active radar and couldnt carry a particularly useful load.

For all its issues F35 is a different beast.

Edited by junglierating
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, exdraken said:

 

The "barn doors" are up because this is Short Take Off mode  using the not fully tilted main nozzle and the lift fan together in order to achieve max take off performance

Thinking  a bit more about the barn door:

As soon that there is forward speed, this door also shoves air into the lift fan... so it is not onky sticking out but should add to its efficiency.... 

Drag vs increased fan airflow .....

Anyone doing the maths part please?! ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sea Harrier vs F-35B

 

Two factors (there are many others) are range and payload

 

Sea Harrier

288 miles and 8000 pounds

 

F-35B

1,000 miles and 18,000 pounds

 

Basically, to use the harrier in a strike role you would have to sit the carrier in the back yard of the country that you are attacking.

 

P.S. I’m no expert, just ripped these numbers off wiki.

 

Cheers,

 

Nigel

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nheather said:

Sea Harrier vs F-35B

 

Two factors (there are many others) are range and payload

 

Sea Harrier

288 miles and 8000 pounds

 

F-35B

1,000 miles and 18,000 pounds

 

Basically, to use the harrier in a strike role you would have to sit the carrier in the back yard of the country that you are attacking.

 

Cheers,

 

Nigel

8000 ibs you'll be lucky....no chance

Apologies I've succumbed to thread drift😑

Edited by junglierating
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's this thread, if you want to keep discussing general F-35 questions/myths/irrelevant comparisons...(spoiler alert... we've been having the same circular discussions for years)

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2021 at 6:43 AM, nheather said:

 

 

F-35B

1,000 miles and 18,000 pounds

 

Basically, to use the harrier in a strike role you would have to sit the carrier in the back yard of the country that you are attacking.

 

P.S. I’m no expert, just ripped these numbers off wiki.

 

Neither am I, but can I just point out that the launch radius of a Tu-22 with the updated AS4 Kitchen is now up to 600 miles (doubled)! The carrier(s) we have still look mighty vulnerable..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, FalkeEins said:

Neither am I, but can I just point out that the launch radius of a Tu-22 with the updated AS4 Kitchen is now up to 600 miles (doubled)! The carrier(s) we have still look mighty vulnerable..

Carrier group ECM and anti-missile defence is more than equal to anything in the current Russian inventory.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Alan P said:

Carrier group ECM and anti-missile defence is more than equal to anything in the current Russian inventory.

I guess that at least is what one would hope...

 

but as we all know,. no system is perfect... nowbody will want to try...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...