Vlamgat9 Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere... Daily Telegraph linky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The wooksta V2.0 Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Do they never learn? Cheaper short term, yes, but British jobs get axed, tax revenue lost and more importantly, we lose the manufacturing skills and thus become ever more reliant on the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlamgat9 Posted August 6, 2009 Author Share Posted August 6, 2009 Do they never learn? Cheaper short term, yes, but British jobs get axed, tax revenue lost and more importantly, we lose the manufacturing skills and thus become ever more reliant on the US. I am not sure it is cheaper - there is the issue of the cost of training for catapault launch and arrested recovery. The FAA hasn't had this cost for 35 years. More to the point it has had no experience of all this for 35 years - presumably we will have to outsource this to the US in the same way that the French do. Again more reliant on the US. Also in the absence of quick progression on electro magnetic catapaults I am not clear how the CVFs can generate enough steam for catapaults. That said the -35C is clearly a more capable aircraft than the -35B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigsty Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Why would we need to out-source expertise or worry about losing our knowledge base? Both the steam catapult and the Pegasus engine were invented in the UK, from a base of roughly zero knowledge. Should we ever need to do it again, or something similar, we'd be able to. Worry not! (or at least a little less) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitnut617 Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 That's strange, I've just read in the latest Combat Aircraft magazine that Britain has commited to the deal by signing an agreement for the first three F-35's in March. It goes on to say the opposition will cancel the carriers if and when they get to power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyT Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Actually they are having problems with the jump jet version performing, it apparently or so I was told be a current test pilot needs something like a 1/4 of its total fuel load to do a go around if it misses the deck on the first attempt in the landing config, there were also issues with its performance as it transits from over water to over ship and the steepness of the approach. Might be something to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
entlim Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 no doubt it all goes back to the good ol' reliable Harrier................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham T Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 no doubt it all goes back to the good ol' reliable Harrier................... It really is extraordinary that here in 2009, nearly 50 years after the P1127, the Harrier type configuration (single vectored thrust turbofan) is STILL the only one that really seems to work as advertised! Why haven't a/c designers stuck with this winning formula instead of b*ggering about with separate lift & thrust engines? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyT Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 It really is extraordinary that here in 2009, nearly 50 years after the P1127, the Harrier type configuration (single vectored thrust turbofan) is STILL the only one that really seems to work as advertised! Why haven't a/c designers stuck with this winning formula instead of b*ggering about with separate lift & thrust engines? Because getting a pegasus and a harrier supersonic is a difficult thing, they tried plenum burning reheat in the early days but ditched it. Remember all a Pegasus basically is, is the Orpheus ( Spelling) out of the Gnat with a fan nailed to the front driving the front nozzles and some nozzles to the back doing the hot end... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
entlim Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 oddly enough, engine tech has moved on too................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg B Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 So people are surprised and disappointed that potentially, the FAA will get something that is more capable, carries a greater useful payload and has a greater range, oh and is cheaper than the original choice? Or we could still ensure the FAA are paralleling their experiences at the beginning of the Second World War when what the FAA wanted was something like a Spitfire but what they got was a Skua...... I know what I would rather see the FAA get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thx6667 Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 It really is extraordinary that here in 2009, nearly 50 years after the P1127, the Harrier type configuration (single vectored thrust turbofan) is STILL the only one that really seems to work as advertised! Why haven't a/c designers stuck with this winning formula instead of b*ggering about with separate lift & thrust engines? To me the VTOL element of the JSF looks like engineering worthy of Heath-Robinson and a throwback to the various experiments from over forty years ago. The beauty of the Harrier's VTOL design was, relatively speaking, so simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange Poodle Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 (edited) Agreed, F35C is a better bet all round compared to the F35B once in the air OP Edited August 6, 2009 by Orange Poodle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 I'm not trying to start an arguement, but do we need a Harrier type aircraft these days? If I understand correctly the concept behind the Harrier was that it could opperate from clearings rather than from prepared airstrips, but when was the last time we needed to do that? Even when the Harrier has been deployed lately it has operated from traditional airfields (ie, with a runway) hasn't it? Personally I agree with the MOD's decision on this one New aircraft usually go over bugdet and the money that still could be needed to make the 'B version work effectivily really could be better spent elsewhere. Danny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlamgat9 Posted August 6, 2009 Author Share Posted August 6, 2009 I'm not trying to start an arguement, but do we need a Harrier type aircraft these days? The infrastructure (training, ship equipment etc) for V/STOL carrier operations is much less than for catapault lauch / arrested recovery. This has been one reason why the FAA has been so keen on V/STOL since it first got its hands on the Sea Harrier - and why the Spanish, Italians, Thais etc like it. If the UK pulls out of the F-35B then I think it will struggle to survive at all - even more so if the reason is the performance defects alluded to above. This is going to create a big problem for the likes of Italy and Spain. Not to mention the US Marines! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keefr22 Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Why would we need to out-source expertise or worry about losing our knowledge base? Both the steam catapult and the Pegasus engine were invented in the UK, from a base of roughly zero knowledge. Should we ever need to do it again, or something similar, we'd be able to. Worry not! (or at least a little less) Except in those days we still had an industrial economy - not one based on financial & leisure services. That economy had a heritage of excellent engineering practice - even if the management was often sadly lacking (no change there then - just look at the current management of the country!) We also had Universities producing thousands of engineers & scientists every year. Now they're all taking law or business studies. The knowledge base in industry is dwindling rapidly - almost as fast as our industrial sector as a whole is. Give it five to ten years & I think it will be just about impossible for us to regain any credible expertise or knowledge base in engineering and manufacturing. I'd worry, I'd seriously worry.......(I actually do!) Keef Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gengriz Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 The infrastructure (training, ship equipment etc) for V/STOL carrier operations is much less than for catapault lauch / arrested recovery. This has been one reason why the FAA has been so keen on V/STOL since it first got its hands on the Sea Harrier - and why the Spanish, Italians, Thais etc like it.If the UK pulls out of the F-35B then I think it will struggle to survive at all - even more so if the reason is the performance defects alluded to above. This is going to create a big problem for the likes of Italy and Spain. Not to mention the US Marines! Whilst I agree with a lot of what you say, it is not the whole story. STOVL certainly has its advantages, in terms of weather, ship maneoverability and comparative simplicity when flying from a deck, but the obsession with buying STOVL JSF's actually comes from the RAF - at present JFH is a joint organisation, dominated by the RAF; STOVL perpetuates that situation. Without STOVL the RN JSFs will have to be committed to the carriers and the RAF will probably lose its 2 ex-Harrier squadrons (but no doubt will get to keep its Typhoons). If true (its the Telegraph after all, so they may be reporting what they hope will happen) then this is probably good news for the RN, possibly bad news for the RAF (standfast Typhoon, which could be good news in the long run), but I suspect, under the current circumstances, good news for UK PLC, if we are actually buying enough of both aircaft to make a difference. Possibly bad news for Rolls Royce though, but if the UK were to insist on the F136 engine for our JSFs and order more Typhoons, then Rolls could also come up in the green out of all of this. The real loser would be the USMC, who need the RN STOVL order to make their's cost effective. I'm sure they could live with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smuts Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 So people are surprised and disappointed that potentially, the FAA will get something that is more capable, carries a greater useful payload and has a greater range, oh and is cheaper than the original choice? Or we could still ensure the FAA are paralleling their experiences at the beginning of the Second World War when what the FAA wanted was something like a Spitfire but what they got was a Skua......I know what I would rather see the FAA get. I agree, but then I'd still prefer a carrier born Typhoon or the rhino. Andy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plastic Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Well, speaking as a man who worked in the company that made catapult gear in Scotland, I would love to see them coming back!! Now, if they do make a re-appearance, why not navalise Typhoons? THEN the carriers would be a very potent force no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHREAK Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Well, it's obvious to me. The British government must insist on a insist on a Rolls-Royce engine for the C variant ....wait, I've got a good idea, lets call it.............. a Phantom III. What am I saying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XV107 Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 With regard to Rolls Royce, the journalist has made the schoolboy error of confusing the lift fan on the F-35B with the F136. The F136 largely depends upon Congress stopping the DoD from binning it as the second engine, and the government here deciding to change from the STOVL to the CV JSF variant has no obvious effect on the survival of the F136. Even if we do cancel the B-model, there are still at present going to be something like 420 USMC F-35Bs plus the Italian (and probably Spanish) navy F-35s, which is hardly going to leave RR destitute when it comes to building lift fans. As far as I know from chatting a short while back to some reasonably informed chaps (more informed that Thomas Harding to put it mildly) while there is a debate over obtaining the F-35C (and there are those in the RAF who would rather have it as the GR4 replacement rather than the F-35B), a decision of the sort the Torygraph claims hasn't been made yet, and is unlikely to be for a while. Furthermore, since there's an SDR coming up, why choose now? The government could make a firm decision only for that to be overturned as a result of the SDR process before 2010 is out, so it would be a bit daft burning bridges on the matter now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angels49 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 (edited) Do they never learn? No! Cheaper short term, yes, but British jobs get axed, Big business tax revenue lost and more importantly, we lose the manufacturing skills and thus become ever more reliant on the US. They'll say that's progress.....I thought progress was supposed to go forward not freakin backwards... It really is extraordinary that here in 2009, nearly 50 years after the P1127, the Harrier type configuration (single vectored thrust turbofan) is STILL the only one that really seems to work as advertised! 'aven't you learned yet, that these blokes are going to improve upon perfection.....they can do it too, look what their predecessors 'ave done to the earth. Edited August 7, 2009 by Angels49 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pielstick Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Mark my words chaps... We will only get one carrier and it will only have a handful of the naffest (and most expensive) version of the F-35. Defence procurement is not driven by what the guys at the sharp end need. It is driven by politics and bean counters. Instead of getting the right kit at a sensible price we get crap that is late and overpriced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHREAK Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Mark my words chaps...We will only get one carrier and it will only have a handful of the naffest (and most expensive) version of the F-35. Defence procurement is not driven by what the guys at the sharp end need. It is driven by politics and bean counters. Instead of getting the right kit at a sensible price we get crap that is late and overpriced. Word from the inside suggests that the bean counters are trying very, very hard to axe the one carrier, leave alone the F-35. Can't tell you the source as I'd have to eliminate you I'm afraid. 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