View Full Version : Whats this new plane to replace the harrier all about then?
I'm a tad confused!
It says the americans are gonna buy a shed-load. Isn;t it making the F-22 which seems to be a fairly similar aircraft? (infact the thing looks quite like a raptor to me)....it surely isn;t the same thing?
Erm, what happened to the Typhoon? Or is this new plane to play a different role?
info, please?
IJ
I thought the news was going on about the F22 and that the UK will be investing a Billion into it's development. Then what the hell are we doing with the Euro Fighter, the new plane that we can't even afford to fit with Machine Guns. Bloody modern technology who needs it?? I think we should all go back to the days of the Sopwith Camel and pilots called Ginger. What ho.
Feathers
17-01-2001, 21:24
<sigh> its obvious that neither of you are aircraft boffs :E
The Typhoon is out next front line aircraft to come into service right. The Harrier is getting a bit old, so the MoD need a new fighter to try to fill its role.
Well Labour in there usual fantastic anti military way decided that the supersonic harrier project which began shortly after the harrier we all know and love was a waste of time, yeah course, harriers like soo crap init, whyever did Mcdonnall Douglass buy the design, sheesh, bloody polititions. Same with the TSR fighter too......
You have probably seen the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) which looks like a podgy version of the F22. Its a STOL aircraft which is supposed to be able to opperate in the same sort of conditions as the harrier, still hasnt got the magic V at the start of that lovely appreviation as it cant take of vertically.
Thats one of the reasons that the MoD are planning to scrap the three helicopter carriers that they laughably call aircraft carriers which are in service with the navy, and build two supercarriers :E
So to answer your questions, to my knowledge the MoD are not planning to purchase F22's but are planning to purchase the JSF as a short take off and landing aircraft. Over to you JJ etc :E
Wraith Ed
17-01-2001, 21:30
I happen to have contacts within the research side of the defense industry and I can tell you this much about this new aircraft.
It is currently known as the JSF
This stands for joint strike fighter
It is intended to the modern replacement to the now ageing harrier.
It is to have the same VSTOL capabilities as the harrier
Performance information is classified I expect, but from looking at the design, Id say its safe to say that it will have a high degree of manueverability, and from the sleek airframe I wouldnt be surprised by some sort of stealthy nature.
The design is said to be far in advance of that of the Eurofighter and F22
It has already been in developement for some years and was common knowledge in the defense industry. This is a simple press release
There are already 2 flying prototypes for testing use Hope this answers some of ur questions IJ.
ty both of u,
whos this inside contact wraith ed? The BBC news, :wink:
so USA gonna buy some....they allowed our technology but we aint allowed theirs, hmmmmmmmmmmmm.
IJ
Wraith Ed
17-01-2001, 22:25
Oop, yeah. I checked me facts and this ol babey is a STOL not VSTOL. :homer: DOH!
'Bat*21'
17-01-2001, 22:27
get reading those books
Feathers
17-01-2001, 23:09
Originally posted by Wraith Ed
Oop, yeah. I checked me facts and this ol babey is a STOL not VSTOL. :homer: DOH!
<puts on thick rimmed glasses> :dork:
'Johnnie' Johnson
17-01-2001, 23:22
Originally posted by Fallout
I thought the news was going on about the F22 and that the UK will be investing a Billion into it's development. Then what the hell are we doing with the Euro Fighter, the new plane that we can't even afford to fit with Machine Guns. Bloody modern technology who needs it?? I think we should all go back to the days of the Sopwith Camel and pilots called Ginger. What ho.
http://www.awgnet.com/shownews/00farn3/airfrm12.htm
"RAF Eurofighter 2000s are unlikely to be delivered minus their 27 mm Mauser cannon, as widely reported (and deplored) in the media a few months ago."
I make a habit of not believing anything the media say until I've seen some background evidence, or at least some coroborative stories from different sources. So after further checking I found this site, which has the Select Committee on Defence Minutes of Evidence.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmdfence/528/0052303.htm
"24. Under no circumstances at all could you see a need to have a gun on the Eurofighter Typhoon?
(Vice-Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) As is well known, we have decided that we do not require a gun on the Typhoon. There are several reasons for it. Firstly, because it provides an additional training and support mode, and indeed fatigue rate on the aircraft, which we judge is not necessary. Secondly, because the gun itself, because of the shock it produces, causes some risk to some of the avionics. In those circumstances we have concluded that the gun does not give us any advantage over the missiles which we have already procured."
As you can see, it isn't some Lefty politician who was saying a gun wasn't necessary, but a high ranking military officer.
He goes on to say "In point of fact the decision not to use the gun, apart from having no operational impact in my view, will save some £2.5 million a year in the other areas I have already mentioned"
I rather liked the final comment.
Chairman: If an enemy aircraft is that close, a prayer book would be more desirable.
It makes for interesting reading and might change a few assumptions about the course of events.
[Edited by 'Johnnie' Johnson on 17-01-2001 at 10:34 PM]
JJ, I think its true.
Its not because of the cost of the cannons themselves, its because of the ground equipment needed for the maintanance/loading of the cannon that they wanna cut back on the cost of. :(
Silly if U ask me.
I still don't forgive labour for the TSR2 cancelation.
Any1 remmember that? It was certainly before I was born!
Me m8 @ BAesystems syas they still got bits of it lying around at work!
There are too many people in here that know too much that it's simply worrying to be surrounded by them. On the other side of the coin there's those who don't know enough either..... think I'll grab my coat and exit out of the side door now.
'Johnnie' Johnson
17-01-2001, 23:48
Originally posted by Wraith Ed
Oop, yeah. I checked me facts and this ol babey is a STOL not VSTOL. :homer: DOH!
I thought it was a STOVL.
Which is exactly how the Harrier gets used at present.
Just as a point of interest, I gather the US Marine variant of the JSF won't have an internal cannon. Shock horror, damn Commies in the White House eh?
[Edited by 'Johnnie' Johnson on 17-01-2001 at 10:50 PM]
Its deff. STOVL.
It may not be workin' too those capabilities yet, but the final one will.
Wraith Ed
18-01-2001, 10:16
Baaah abbreviations :mad:
Right so we are assuming in laymans terms that this thing doesnt have the ability to take off vertically (this burns up a huge amount of your fuel for the mission anyway) but has the ability to LAND vertically since on the return you are dealing with a much lighter aicraft, and if uve made it home already, presumably fuel isnt an issue.
Still, I reckon it makes a nice change to be developing sommit with the US, rather than the back-stabbing French or the wannabe deserter Germans and the Top-Gun lovin spanish who want the bloody Typhoon fitted with 2 seats. Its a one man aircraft u fools! It doesnt take 2 of u to operate the controls u goddam flyin :dance: s !!!
Rant over.
Yeah m8, I think thats it.
Although the Harrier is badged as A VTOL A/C, its not really practical.
It can take off in a short distance, but once U put a decent load of bombs, fuel, etc. it hasn't got anysort of range/take off performance.
lol @ Spanish Rant.
We'll prolly have 2-seat conversion trainers too, surely?
http://www.jast.mil/
The US isnt buying them from the Brits, if the two concept planes are being built by Boeing and Lockheed is it?? :P I think u will find it a joint development program, with the US developing, and the Brits helping with funds :E so kiss my yankie ass IJ!!! :)
btw, JSF is meant to replace the F-16, F/A-18 and Harrier, I think. the F-22 is the replacement for the F-15.
[Edited by Marg on 18-01-2001 at 11:23 AM]
Typical American eh Marg. Does it actually say or imply anywhere above that the US is buying them from the us? nope.
Last information I saw was that...
"The gun system for both the Boeing and Lockheed Martin JSF will be the Advanced 27 mm Cannon being developed by a team led by Boeing, with Mauser-Werke of Germany and Primex Technologies and Western Design of USA. The cannon is a single barrel, gas-operated lightweight revolver gun that fires electrically-primed ammunition at 1800 shots per minute."
Two other points:
Yup, replaces F16 not F15 and F22 replaces F15
JSF is looks to be moderately stealthy, but perhaps not as good as F22 in that respect (its gonna be cheaper to produce so something has to give).
Purplegoat
18-01-2001, 13:39
Marg is bang on here and right with the replacements.
Right time to put on Anorak! :)
Typhoon will still go ahead, although my fear as with many here,is that it could become another TSR2. This was the forerunner to the Tornado and would have been the worlds most advanced strike bomber of its day. (How quickly people forget the last Labour Dynasty!) :(
As with most things, envy rears its ugly head here! The Harrier was designed by Hawker Sidley Aviation here and eventually McDonnell Douglas took the design under licence and built their version of the Harrier, which subsequently became our GR5 and GR7 varients. This gaulled the Americans at having to buy someone elses design and so began the JSF programme with Boeing and Lockheed.
As there is not a cat in hells chance that "New Labour" will invest in a Harrier replacement, the only viable option is to buy into the US programme. Although I have to say, very little thought gets given to the poor old Rusky's who for decades have built fantastic airframes (Mig29,33 and Sukoi 27) that with a bit of help from BAE systems, i am sure we could build a Kick ass strike fighter at a lot less cost.
As to the Typhoon, I can only say this. History guides us as to the rights and wrongs and hopefully we learn from this. However :angry:
How the hell can we have an Air superiority Fighter (Typhoon) and not give it canons. Its just not an option to dismiss. If history can teach us us that much then you just have to look at the F4 Phantom in Vietnam. In korea planes had cannon, by Vietnam, it was considered that Cannon were not neccessary and missiles would be enough. So, what happened?
The Phantom jockeys had one option, once they had used most of their missiles, and had one left, they had to go head to head and if they did not get the enemy with a missile shot, then they had to hit the burners and run like hell!
This Vietnamese learned this and simply put more Mig 15 and 17's up to simply waste US missiles and then get in amongst them with Cannon. Hence US ratio went comepletely to pot, TOP GUN was created in the states and a Retro fit Cannon was applied to the Phantom as an Underbelly pod!
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! DONT LET THESE LEMMINGS DO THE SAME WITH THE TYPHOON! :angry:
Billions being wasted on every scrounger from the World seeking free meals and a roof over their head, coming into the country. We are the worlds laughing stock at the moment and biggest gravy train going. Yet we cannot even commit ourselves to a proper military defence force that can do the job.
Anyone who states that there will not be another major conflict of sorts in the future that may threaten this country or its interest is a complete and utter Arrrseee!
I think all politicians, no matter which party, should be forced to go to some form of University type institution to study World politics and Economics for at least 5 years gaining a qualification in that discipline, before they are allowed to become an MP in any way shape or form. Then and only then, we will have people governing the country who have some form of knowledge base from which to make critical decisions! Our bloody lives depend on it! :(
I am sick of listening to PR gurus, Former writers, lawyers, Housewives, who are all now MP's and making decisions that affect our very well being. I dont much care for any political party at this moment in time, for the very reason that I have no respect for any of them.
Experience gains respect and that will never change no matter how many people try to convince you otherwise.
Sorry ladies and gents, IJ especially for ranting on his post! :E but my Goat really does get got! when it comes to the general defence and well being of our country.
Regards all
Purplegoat[WILDCARDS]
I wouldn't worry too much about the lack of a cannon. Yes it needs one, yes its stupid not to have one. But... you'll notice there is a nice little space designed for fitting one.
The Navy has been playing this game for years... "designed for but not with" meaning that on new purchases its hard to get things through procurement and politicians but on upgrades and retrofits its a lot easier.
Agree with most of the rest of the rant, state of our military is an utter disgrace. Never mind, they can always spend some more money on single mothers or offer the bloody EU some more to give to french farmers.
EU, what a disgraceful con that is. Sold to the public as a 'common market' (free trade zone), then changed to an EEC (Econmonic Community) and finally to EU (union of states under one government). Scandalous how they never told the british public during the referrendum of 1960whatever that they would be giving up currency, soveriegnty and defence.
so USA gonna buy some....they allowed our technology but we aint allowed theirs, hmmmmmmmmmmmm.
to me, that implies that JSF is british, and USA is buying.
GET YER HEAD OUTA YER ASS MEBES !!!!!111123434
(damn, i cant do the piccy here.)
NE1 read any pilot accounts of dogfights in Vietnam when they got kills? They all were @ close range, fuballing their F4s around the sky. If they'd had a cannon, they would of got more kills, quicker.
Sure, missile technology is gettin' better, but they can still be jammed/spoofed/outmanuvered in some cases.
U can't dodge cannon shells.
I just read sumit in an old book:
The Eurofighter will be in service in frontline squadrons in 1996
hehehehe :E
problem with nationaly run defence companies, is u cant penalise the ****ers when theyre late.
I didn't think modern air combat tactics allowed much for cannon. The plan is usually to launch radar-guided missiles as far away as possible and avoid even coming into visual contact if possible, isn't it?
If leaving the cannon out of the Typhoon will save a lot of money and effort, surely it's worth it. I don't think the gun would be of much practical use nowadays.
As for the JSF, sounds like a nice idea, but if Britain really is buying into it, it would be good to have some British technology in there somewhere. I also agree with the comment made above about Russian airframes, I think we could save cash if we didn't automatically 'buy American'.
The Harrier is well past needing replacement. Yes, it was a great British design, but the fuel issue has always hampered it and it is starting to show its age.
I think the armed forces are needing to become much more flexible. 'Defence of the Realm' is not really their primary mission anymore, as the fashion for rapid reaction forces shows. The forces are being scaled down because a huge standing army, etc. is no longer required in this day and age. The government has other things (OK, not all of them good) that it needs to spend money on.
With the threat of all-out nuclear war, and even conventional world war, somewhat decreased, it is always going to happen.
By the way, anyone know when the army's Apaches and Army/Navy Merlins are entering service? It seems they are going the same way as the Typhoon at the moment!
The Lockheed Martin JSF team includes Northrop Grumman, Pratt and Whitney, Rolls-Royce and BAE Systems.
Boeing's team includes: Raytheon, Pratt &Whitney, Rolls Royce, Messier-Dowty, BAE Systems and Flight Refuelling Ltd.
Clever how RR & BAe managed to get on both consortium.
Given that the UK is looking to buy some 60 aircraft compared to somewhere in the region of 2500ish for US use then realistically we aint gonna get much of the work from it.
Originally posted by Smudger
By the way, anyone know when the army's Apaches and Army/Navy Merlins are entering service? It seems they are going the same way as the Typhoon at the moment!
Merlin (is partially in service):
The first Merlin, designated HM Mk 1, entered service with the UK Royal Navy in December 1998, at Royal Naval Air Station Culdrose. In September 2000, Merlin began operational trials on Type 23 frigate HMS Lancaster. 44 Merlins are to be delivered by November 2001
Apache:
The WAH-64 will enter service in 2002. 67 are on order for the British Army.
'Johnnie' Johnson
18-01-2001, 18:46
Originally posted by Purplegoat
As there is not a cat in hells chance that "New Labour" will invest in a Harrier replacement, the only viable option is to buy into the US programme.
...
As to the Typhoon, I can only say this. History guides us as to the rights and wrongs and hopefully we learn from this. However :angry:
How the hell can we have an Air superiority Fighter (Typhoon) and not give it canons. Its just not an option to dismiss. If history can teach us us that much then you just have to look at the F4 Phantom in Vietnam. In korea planes had cannon, by Vietnam, it was considered that Cannon were not neccessary and missiles would be enough. So, what happened?
...
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! DONT LET THESE LEMMINGS DO THE SAME WITH THE TYPHOON! :angry:
...
I think all politicians, no matter which party, should be forced to go to some form of University type institution to study World politics and Economics for at least 5 years gaining a qualification in that discipline, before they are allowed to become an MP in any way shape or form. Then and only then, we will have people governing the country who have some form of knowledge base from which to make critical decisions! Our bloody lives depend on it! :(
I am sick of listening to PR gurus, Former writers, lawyers, Housewives, who are all now MP's and making decisions that affect our very well being. I dont much care for any political party at this moment in time, for the very reason that I have no respect for any of them.
Regards all
Purplegoat[WILDCARDS]
Britain started involvement with JSF in 1995, and started funding in 1996. You might recall that there was a Conservative government at the time.
I was as surprised as you to see the story about no cannon in the Typhoon, and initially gave it no credence. But you seem to have missed the info I discovered, in that it was the military who were advising the politicians that a cannon isn't required. It wasn't a PR guru or a housewife who gave evidence to the Select Committee, it was a Vice Admiral.
Wraith Ed
18-01-2001, 19:32
I have to say, that in fighter variants at least, a cannon really is necessary. Just something to back you up. Not for primary use.
Lets face it, missles fail, they miss, radar can go wrong, signals can be jammed, all electronics have the potential to fail. However, no matter what kind of fancy technolgy and countermeasures there are, there is nothing u can d to stop the flight of a cannon shell. Simple fact.
With the battle field of tommorrow being more electronic than technologic, the fact is, when their backs are to the walls, ull find that the ol cannon wont let ye down.
Though in ground attack these things are really superflous and unessecary, and where the Typhoon takes over from the Jaguar, a lack of cannon would be acceptable, I believe that not fitting the frontline Typhoon squadrons due to replace the Tornado F3 would be a grave mistake. Grave being the operative word.
FYI:
-The Harrier GR7 isnt fitted with a cannon either
-U ever notice in the final dogfight in TopGun, that tho they had been trained to use guns all those weeks, the Tomcats didnt fire a single round?
i dont know about cannons.. i think that if ure electronics/missles/radar have failed, u better damn well hope theirs have failed to if u ever get the suicidal notion of trying to close to gun range.
HotGalaxy3000
18-01-2001, 19:52
you'll all be crawling to me when i create the worlds smallest aircraft!! muwhahaa....
'Johnnie' Johnson
18-01-2001, 20:49
Originally posted by Wraith Ed
Lets face it, missles fail, they miss, radar can go wrong, signals can be jammed, all electronics have the potential to fail. However, no matter what kind of fancy technolgy and countermeasures there are, there is nothing u can d to stop the flight of a cannon shell. Simple fact.
True. One thing to take into account though when making comparisons with Vietnam and missile failure rates there, is the difference in quality. Let's face it, Vietnam was transistor period technology. The radar missiles needed the target to be painted all the way in, the heatseekers had short range and weren't any use outside a 15 degree cone to the rear of the target.
The quality of missile electronics now is several quantum leaps ahead. It may well be that the counter-measures are better, but they are dealing with true fire and forget long range missiles, and all-angle dogfighting heatseekers.
That's the head talking. The heart is still concerned!
Originally posted by Wraith Ed
U ever notice in the final dogfight in TopGun, that tho they had been trained to use guns all those weeks, the Tomcats didnt fire a single round?
FFS Wraith m8! Can we leave Top Gun out of this for one post! :E
Its an american film (i.e. complete ficion) in which a couple of Turkey like aircraft take on the whole russian airforce and win, despite the fact that the russians are flying american built T33s! :)
Its also (and I quote from the film guide in my TV listings guide;) "The ultimate gay film" !
Don't ask me! Its what Barry Norman or some1 said!
anyway back 2 the subject.....
Did U know that RAF Gr1 Jaguars were ordered to drop their bombs on target, then get the hell out?
Did they?
Did they ****!
Some went guns guns guns and started strafing Iraqi trenches.
Hmmm, I suppose thats a reason NOT to put a cannon in it! :P
Feathers
19-01-2001, 01:37
Originally posted by Purplegoat
Marg is bang on here and right with the replacements.
Right time to put on Anorak! :)
Typhoon will still go ahead, although my fear as with many here,is that it could become another TSR2. This was the forerunner to the Tornado and would have been the worlds most advanced strike bomber of its day. (How quickly people forget the last Labour Dynasty!) :(
As with most things, envy rears its ugly head here! The Harrier was designed by Hawker Sidley Aviation here and eventually McDonnell Douglas took the design under licence and built their version of the Harrier, which subsequently became our GR5 and GR7 varients. This gaulled the Americans at having to buy someone elses design and so began the JSF programme with Boeing and Lockheed.
As there is not a cat in hells chance that "New Labour" will invest in a Harrier replacement, the only viable option is to buy into the US programme. Although I have to say, very little thought gets given to the poor old Rusky's who for decades have built fantastic airframes (Mig29,33 and Sukoi 27) that with a bit of help from BAE systems, i am sure we could build a Kick ass strike fighter at a lot less cost.
As to the Typhoon, I can only say this. History guides us as to the rights and wrongs and hopefully we learn from this. However :angry:
How the hell can we have an Air superiority Fighter (Typhoon) and not give it canons. Its just not an option to dismiss. If history can teach us us that much then you just have to look at the F4 Phantom in Vietnam. In korea planes had cannon, by Vietnam, it was considered that Cannon were not neccessary and missiles would be enough. So, what happened?
The Phantom jockeys had one option, once they had used most of their missiles, and had one left, they had to go head to head and if they did not get the enemy with a missile shot, then they had to hit the burners and run like hell!
This Vietnamese learned this and simply put more Mig 15 and 17's up to simply waste US missiles and then get in amongst them with Cannon. Hence US ratio went comepletely to pot, TOP GUN was created in the states and a Retro fit Cannon was applied to the Phantom as an Underbelly pod!
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! DONT LET THESE LEMMINGS DO THE SAME WITH THE TYPHOON! :angry:
Billions being wasted on every scrounger from the World seeking free meals and a roof over their head, coming into the country. We are the worlds laughing stock at the moment and biggest gravy train going. Yet we cannot even commit ourselves to a proper military defence force that can do the job.
Anyone who states that there will not be another major conflict of sorts in the future that may threaten this country or its interest is a complete and utter Arrrseee!
I think all politicians, no matter which party, should be forced to go to some form of University type institution to study World politics and Economics for at least 5 years gaining a qualification in that discipline, before they are allowed to become an MP in any way shape or form. Then and only then, we will have people governing the country who have some form of knowledge base from which to make critical decisions! Our bloody lives depend on it! :(
I am sick of listening to PR gurus, Former writers, lawyers, Housewives, who are all now MP's and making decisions that affect our very well being. I dont much care for any political party at this moment in time, for the very reason that I have no respect for any of them.
Experience gains respect and that will never change no matter how many people try to convince you otherwise.
Sorry ladies and gents, IJ especially for ranting on his post! :E but my Goat really does get got! when it comes to the general defence and well being of our country.
Regards all
Purplegoat[WILDCARDS]
I have to agree with goat, you must have a cannon if your going into the air superiority role. Vietnam taught us (well, the US) that lesson, and its a simple truth, you have to have a backup.
Although the point about the Navy's game about being able to upgrade later is a good idea :)
Yes missile technology is years ahead than in Nam, but you can only carry a limited number of them, they could go wrong / miss / be vulnerable to countermeasures. Now take the cannon, close range yes (but whats the matter? dont you trust the dogfighting capabilities of your airframe?) a large calibre canon round, no countermeasures against it, is damn fast, and theres 200+ of them, each with the potential to cause a lot of damage (bearing in mind a cannon round is an explosive shell).
A cannon is still as viable a weapon as any other that you can put onto an aircraft.
I dont want to see the Labour government cock another defence project up to save a couple of quid, its happenned too many bloody times in the past.
I'm sorry but in the position that I am in, as potential RAF aircrew of the future, I feel very strongly about this point.
'Johnnie' Johnson
19-01-2001, 08:57
Originally posted by ReKKa
[B
Did U know that RAF Gr1 Jaguars were ordered to drop their bombs on target, then get the hell out?
Did they?
Did they ****!
Some went guns guns guns and started strafing Iraqi trenches.
Hmmm, I suppose thats a reason NOT to put a cannon in it! :P [/B]
Could you post sources for this?
According to that Select Committee report the RAF haven't used their cannon in 20 years IIRC. Always interesting to see if expert witnesses have got it wrong.
'Johnnie' Johnson
19-01-2001, 09:52
Originally posted by Feathers
I dont want to see the Labour government cheese another defence project up to save a couple of quid, its happenned too many bloody times in the past.
I'm sorry but in the position that I am in, as potential RAF aircrew of the future, I feel very strongly about this point.
Here goes again.
The military (that's the ones in uniforms) advised the government (that's the ones in suits) that a cannon wasn't required.
So everybody makes a fuss and blames the government. Now like all the rest of us Armchair Generals (or should that be Air Marshalls) that advice worries me. I too think in terms of "lessons of Vietnam", "backup systems", "no countermeasures". But wouldn't it be interesting to look into the reasons as to why the military offered that advice.
Or is it just easier and more convenient to blame the government of the day than to actually put some effort into getting to the bottom of this story.
And let's not forget, but according to the sources I've been able to find so far the RAF version of the Typhoon will have a cannon, and that's not just the first 55. Based on the usual pattern I'm amazed people aren't howling for blood because the military advice looks as though it's being ignored!
two sides to the cannon argument
1 ef2000 has 10 aam points and should have over shoulder aiming etc. so can engage at close quarters with missiles. also modern elcetronics should allow acurate target id beyong cannon range.
2. modern electronics can be degraded by counter measures, weather and, as in vietnam, by politics. its no good having the best id system in the world if politics require you to visually id the target first. also fighters are not always required to get the kill, its very hard to fire a warning shot with an anram !. also missiles miss, or have failures, shells generaly go where you point them , when you want them and give a snap shot capability which no missile can match.
JSF should be interesting but it makes you wonder why we need it when we're now committed to building super carriers as the russians have proved that if you put a ski jump on the front of a large carrier, you can launch an su35 / mig 29 without the aid of a cat launch. basically this is common sense, any sensible fighter should have a better than unity power to weight ratio at sea level so all you need to do is provide a nose up attitude and enough airspeed at that time for controls to be effective. i seem to recall a study the us did in launching f15s this way.
logically the ef2000 (shouldn't it now be ef200?) with its cannards should be able to stay in control at very low air speeds and im sure when it was unveiled it was stated that it would be fitted at a future date with vectored thrust a la f22 which would also enable it to operate even more effectively at high alpha angles. therefore should the navy be investigating the use of a navalised version of the ef2000?
a good all round book on these things is "designed for the kill" which covers fighter design from the f14 to the f22 and includes a bit on the JSF.
almost forgot the specs for the supersonic harrier called for plenum chamber burning to achieve this performance.
this was one of the main reasons it was droped as it is a spectacularly inefficient way of producing power as basically consists of squirting fuel into a high speed compressed air stream and lighting it. note that unlike after burning, you are using air which has been drawn in through the compressor blades and then diverted from the engine. therefore it is not already lit and so you have to ensure a reliable igntion source. you can imagine the effect of the rear nossles being at full afterburner if the front nossles failed to light when you openned the throttles in the hover! also unlike the harrier it would also have to contend with hot exhaust fumes being expelled from the front nossels and the consequent risk of engine damage from hot air ingestion.
btw how the hell do you spell nossles / nozzles / nossles
'Johnnie' Johnson
19-01-2001, 18:44
Nozzles
'Johnnie' Johnson
19-01-2001, 18:51
Originally posted by tinvek
logically the ef2000 (shouldn't it now be ef200?) with its cannards should be able to stay in control at very low air speeds and im sure when it was unveiled it was stated that it would be fitted at a future date with vectored thrust a la f22 which would also enable it to operate even more effectively at high alpha angles. therefore should the navy be investigating the use of a navalised version of the ef2000?
Considering the amount of money already put into the JSF can you imagine the aggro if the project was dropped.
It's a good point though. Does anybody know if the EF lends itself to a naval conversion? I know that the fly-by-wire stuff should mean the EF can be handled at low speeds, but I know one of the drawbacks of delta wings used to be a high landing speed. Not a good choice on a carrier.
The other thing of course is that the EF doesn't have Vertical Landing capability unlike the JSF. In effect that would mean a return to big carriers. If you don't want to put all your eggs in one basket you need more than one big carrier, and they don't come cheap.
JJ m8ty, my source:
'Take off Magazine' Issue 5. 1993 :)
Pilot account of the Gulf war in Jags (by SqL Mike Rondot- Flight commander of 6 squadron, seconded to No. 41 (F) Sqdrn).
Enjoy! :E
"Rules:
....If you can't get them (the bombs) off in on the target, dump them in the desert. You don't strage targets using the guns. Of course, in the heat of the moment, we broke them all. I once flew in a mission where we had all four aircraft flying reattacks, and the boss himself did it. I saw HUD film after HUD film of pilots going down the dive below 10,000ft, below 9,000ft, below 8,000. I had bombs hang up and then didn't jettison them until I found a target of opportunity. People went crazy and started strafing trenches. We fired more than 9,000 rounds of 30-mm ammunition.
At first we didn't really know how effective we were. There were some good hits and some digging of sandpits in the desert, but the difficulty was that you could come back with brilliant gunsight film,.................."
Sounds like a good scrap then :P
oh yeah JJ m8, whilst your on about carriers, I read today an idea about building an aircraft carrier out of Wood pulp and ICE in WW2. The idea was put forward, but not taken up.
I jest U not!
Ne info on it ne1?
Can U imagine it? We've been hit by a torpedo! We're melting! abandon ship!
I repeat, NOT TAKING THE PISS! I read this in some NASA document.
GibsonXXI
20-01-2001, 05:28
The US aren't going to scrap the F/A 18 hornet just yet. In jet fighter terms its a new aircraft, the F14 is over 25 years old but still in frontline service.
in addition the F/A 18 program recently underwent a modification to the new "SuperHornet" variant (F/A 18E) which is twice as big as the original plane. It doubles as a Air Superiority fighter and a supersonic bomber all in one, a truely remarkable plane.
Yeah?
But does it have the ability to maintain a turning fight?
I read that the F/A-18, although agile, doesn't have the power to keep up such high-G manuvers.
The F14 is a turkey as far as I'm concerned :E although the F-14D 'Bombcat seems quite nifty if used in a GR4Tornado style role, looks like the USN arn't that hot anymore with the cancelation of the the A-12 Invader (is that what it was called? Sumit along those lines anyway, the proposed (and then denied) replacement for the A-6 Intruder.- any1 got piccies/concept artwork?).
Conscript
20-01-2001, 12:11
Originally posted by ij
ty both of u,
whos this inside contact wraith ed? The BBC news, :wink:
so USA gonna buy some....they allowed our technology but we aint allowed theirs, hmmmmmmmmmmmm.
IJ
I aint read all this thread, but I just stumbled upon this...Ij, the reason we dont have their technology is 'cos we dont need it. They have F15s and F16s, but we have Tornadoes, Harriers and Jaguars to fill the roles. If we didnt have something in the same vein as the American fighters, we would have hteir F15/16s.
So much for American superiority, eh?
Originally posted by 'Johnnie' Johnson
It's a good point though. Does anybody know if the EF lends itself to a naval conversion? I know that the fly-by-wire stuff should mean the EF can be handled at low speeds, but I know one of the drawbacks of delta wings used to be a high landing speed. Not a good choice on a carrier.
This is true of course, but the French are planning to use the Dassault Rafale onboard their carrier, the De Gaul. The Rafale has cannards and a big delta.
But the Rafale or course is somewhat lighter than the EFA. Mind U, U know what the French are like :P
Purplegoat
20-01-2001, 16:53
JJ Hi:
Your bang on about the colour of the politicians coat, as I have said, they are all much of a muchness.
However, two things;
1: The military source calling for no cannon, was .......
An Admiral....need I say more, I would however be interested to know the thoughts of the other joint chiefs of staff.
2: For decades governemental policy has been decided by the famous "grey suits" in the civil service. (hmmmmm grey :alien: connection? ) :E
Unfortunately, the Heads of the Navy, Army and RAF are faced with a god awful task of trying to make the best of a really crappy hand! The grey suits of the civil service are not only the true corridors of power that advise government irrelevant of party, but are also the ones that bring the "good" news to the military heads. I theory quote;
"er yes General...you want how many challenger tanks?....200.....hmmmmmmm <shaking of head> ...nope...cant really do that.....how about 10 Challenger tanks....and 100 camels covered in Scrim netting and piloted by some fine Army personnel.......Providing of course that out of the 100 personnel you have a suitable quota of Coloured, Gay, Disabled and Female within that 100."
Now, I know this is not exactly true, but it does have some frightening rings of authenticity to it. Essentially, even in the Forces at top brass level now (AND THIS COMES FROM FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE) If you do not sing the right tune, you end up on your ass. A-la Sir Charles Gutherie.
When it comes to defence, there are issues being introduced into the debate that have no place being there as they jeopardise the structure of any defence plan. Until this changes, we will always now face a dwindling Armed forces rate, through lack of motivation, etc, etc.
When I was a combat signalman in the TA, my life expectancy in a Cold War European Theatre of combat was just 20 minutes! Even with our scrambling technology, the Russians had the ability to launch a CBNM (Close Battlefield Nuclear Missile) that would have taken out a 5 sqaure mile area. Not even Linford Christie could have legged it out of range with all our kit at that time. Ahhh those were the days, as we used an SLR as opposed to the SA80 and we knew that if we had to shoot someone, they would go down. The joys of a 7.62 round over a 5.58!
Anyway, regression over, I take your points and I only hope the Typhoon does infact carry cannon, as many have also not realised, if a Combat Air Patrol is within range of our own ground troops who are getting a pasting, if there is no other air support in the vacinity, they will be directed to "Straffe" either officially or as Rekka pointed out, Unofficially. Without Cannon, they could only hope to either fly low enough to take heads off or roast them with the After burner! :E not particularly pratical either way!
Regards All, this has been a great thread, very informative.
Purplegoat[WILDCARDS]
GibsonXXI
20-01-2001, 18:55
Considering it was designed as a bomber m8, it does admirably well.
Most multi-role aircraft have some disadvantages, ok it may not be as good as say an F16/F22 in the Dogfighting stakes, but that's not the role it was designed to perform, the fact it's also a capable dogfighter is credit to it's design.
Regards,
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.