We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. If you continue to use this site, we'll assume you're happy with this. Alternatively, click here to find out how to manage these cookies

hide cookie message
Contact Forum Editor

Send an email to our Forum Editor:


PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the Forum Editor know who sent the message. Both your name and email address will not be used for any other purpose.

Speakers Corner


It's free to register, to post a question or to start / join a discussion


 

Aircraft Carriers


ams4127
Resolved

Likes # 0

In an article in yesterday's Sunday Times it was reported that the new F35c aircraft, which have been ordered by the MoD for the Navy's new carriers, will not be able to land on them due to a design flaw.

It seems that the distance between the main U/C and the arrester hook should be about 18 to 20 feet to enable the arresting line to be caught and stop the aircraft. Unfortunately, an error in the drawings means that the actual distance is 7 feet.

It seems that a total redesign is needed and this is going to cost many pennies, adding substantially to the overall cost which may stop the MoD from ordering any of the 'planes.

Words fail me!

Like this post
HondaMan

Likes # 1

I'm struggling to understand how we could contemplate ordering carrier-borne aircraft without first ensuring that they could actually operate from a carrier.

It is called gross incompetence and what idiots would de-commission our existing fleet without a replacement being ready? I think it's known as "knee-jerk government".

If he's right (and he sounded convincing) why didn't we go with these aircraft from the start?

Because "we always know best"

It is a sad fact of the British, I'm Cornish, that incompetent people have talked themselves into positionms of power when in reality they are complete idiots and should have been sent to the remedial classes at school. High academic qualifications does NOT equate to commonsense which sadly most of our lords and masters seem to lack.

Rant over!

Like this post
Woolwell

Likes # 0

When you are buying a brand new aircraft, that probably hasn't completed its early test flights, then you cannot "ensure" that it can actually operate off a carrier. The alternative is to buy a proven aircraft that will be an old design and need earlier replacement at probably greater cost.

The problem with the F35 is that they are trying to develop 3 variants including STOVL. Jack of all trades aircraft tend to be master of none (a bit of a generalisation that!).

Like this post
Covergirl

Likes # 0

Bring back the Harrier. How much do they cost these days? I'll have a couple myself LoL

Like this post
Woolwell

Likes # 0

Covergirl - A year ago you could get a Harrier for £69,999 ebay sale

Like this post
Bingalau

Likes # 0

I see the forces are enduring further cuts to manpower too. Now that "We are all in this together" maybe it would be prudent to cut the strength of parliament by about 30%. I like that word "prudent" it reminds me of a certain Chancellor of the Exchequer for some reason....

Like this post
john bunyan

Likes # 0

Bingalau. Yes, his "prudence" , added to the later banking crisis, caused the huge debt we now are trying to reduce. Also re the cuts, I hear that the future "requirement" for a potential future amphibious assault has been reduced from a brigade (3 Commando Brigade plus the additions and Naval Forces needed) to one Battle Group (One Commando or battalion equivalent plus reduced Naval assets) Together with the temporary lack of a Fleet Air Arm the potential to mount an operation such as "Corporate" seems impossible for the forseeable future. I honestly think the cuts are going too far - but an pleased they are reducing the top brass. Re MP numbers Westminster Parliament numbers should be reduced in line with the number of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland MP's.

Like this post
ams4127

Likes # 0

All these defence cuts, lack of carriers, lack of aircraft, and people wonder why the Argentinians are starting to rattle their sabres again. How on earth are we going to stop them this time?

Ideas anyone?!

Like this post
Quickbeam

Likes # 0

Nukes?

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

Covergirl

"I hesitate to say it FE, but your knowledgable friend may just be an "armchair expert" despite his apparently convincing knowledge and background in military software."

He is a senior software designer for one of the world's leading aerospace companies. I have little idea about the work he does because it's classified, but I know that it's related to missile guidance systems. I think his knowledge of fighter aircraft is a little above armchair expert level.

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

carver

"Theres not much point using an aircraft that can be picked up by radar when the latest designs are coming with stealth technology."

I take your point, but there's also not much point in using a carrier-based aircraft that can't land back on the carrier, can't fly at night, suffers from abnormally high buffet loads at speed, has major electrical component faults which could lead to complete electrical power loss in flight, can't fly near a thunderstorm, and has so many other faults that the Pentagon has started reducing its order quantities.

A team of U.S. and British weapons testers found "unsatisfactory progress" in developing and testing nearly all the important air combat roles in which the aircraft would be used.

Even an ignoramus like me can work out that it might be an idea to start looking around for an alternative.

Like this post

Reply to this topic

This thread has been locked.



IDG UK Sites

Nokia Lumia 930 review: The flagship Windows Phone 8.1 smartphone

IDG UK Sites

Live Blog: Apple financial results, record June quarter, 35.2m iPhones sold, $37.4b revenue

IDG UK Sites

Welcome to the upgrade cycle - you'll never leave

IDG UK Sites

Why smartphone screens are getting bigger