• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
One percent

F35 grounded

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, The Masked Tulip said:

Invite them over here.

They are a bit too well known (not famous) but in the circles that they move in. Unafraid now to be seen as pro brexit though. Quite a road to Damascus moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Errol said:

Should have spent the money we spent on carriers on missile technology (hypersonic) and really cheap and numerous launch platforms. Much better value for money and more effective.

Totally agree. Was really just pointing out its all a waste of money all of it has been. Not that we need an aircraft carrier like that but could have had one or a few and not had a number of years even without a carrier at all xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Masked Tulip said:

2 down, 17 million to go.

They are probably quite influential. They checked out a day early today as with the incoming weather they were afraid they may miss a dinner date with their own MP who is rather good friends with a rather splendid chap who represents our own constituency. They also live next door to the latter's mother. Yet as I say previously they were strong remainers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, man o' the year said:

They are probably quite influential. They checked out a day early today as with the incoming weather they were afraid they may miss a dinner date with their own MP who is rather good friends with a rather splendid chap who represents our own constituency. They also live next door to the latter's mother. Yet as I say previously they were strong remainers.

Ask them to buy you an M&S burqa for Christmas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, SirGaz said:

If I recall correctly when the mod issued the specs that became the harrier, Rolls Royce wanted to use a lift engine and a thrust engine. Bristol Siddeley went down the vectored thrust  route as they predicted that a plane in flight mode would essentially be carrying a useless lump of an engine all the time, reducing range and efficiency and making the aircraft very heavy. The Bristol proposal was chosen which put a few noses

out of joint at RR, they obviously never forgot the snub so the F35 has a lift engine and a thrust engine, it seems to be proving the Bristol Siddeley engineers were correct.

not quite, lift fan is driven off main engine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_LiftSystem

f35 a lot easier to fly than harrier, lever to go forward/back and one to go up/down

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The two carriers being ordered was one of Gordon Brown's last acts as he thrashed about before being thrown from office.

A voter bribe, but also a fuck you to the government saddled with the cost of his hubris/fit of pique. After all he'd only been a key player in the 2008 meltdown.

How many billions has this imbecile cost the nation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Alonso Quijano said:

The two carriers being ordered was one of Gordon Brown's last acts as he thrashed about before being thrown from office.

A voter bribe, but also a fuck you to the government saddled with the cost of his hubris/fit of pique. After all he'd only been a key player in the 2008 meltdown.

How many billions trillions has this imbecile cost the nation?

1

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, man o' the year said:

Off topic of thread but I have just heard from a couple of confirmed Remainers who have some political contacts and friendships. They have just returned from visiting the European Parliament in Strasbourg and described the incredible amount of trough feeding on expenses and corruption to an extent that they have returned as strong pro Brexiters.

This is one of my main reasons for voting BREXIT - the corruption and troughing I saw at the EC and EU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, SirGaz said:

If I recall correctly when the mod issued the specs that became the harrier, Rolls Royce wanted to use a lift engine and a thrust engine. Bristol Siddeley went down the vectored thrust  route as they predicted that a plane in flight mode would essentially be carrying a useless lump of an engine all the time, reducing range and efficiency and making the aircraft very heavy. The Bristol proposal was chosen which put a few noses

out of joint at RR, they obviously never forgot the snub so the F35 has a lift engine and a thrust engine, it seems to be proving the Bristol Siddeley engineers were correct.

I have to correct you there. The VTOL version has the addition of a lift fan just behind the cockpit driven by the same single engine as the other versions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, NTB said:

 

Appears to land a with a little more grace than the harrier. Not a fan of the dustbin lid design, ruins the sleek design xD. Didn't see one VTOL take off, is it actually only STOVL?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Admiral Pepe said:

Appears to land a with a little more grace than the harrier. Not a fan of the dustbin lid design, ruins the sleek design xD. Didn't see one VTOL take off, is it actually only STOVL?

Is that the flap sticking out behind the cockpit?  What is it for? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, One percent said:

Is that the flap sticking out behind the cockpit?  What is it for? 

Without looking into it just from the footage looked like it was the vertical fan cover, which probably doubles up as a flap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Admiral Pepe said:

Appears to land a with a little more grace than the harrier. Not a fan of the dustbin lid design, ruins the sleek design xD. Didn't see one VTOL take off, is it actually only STOVL?

They can take off vertically but as far as I know, not with much of a useful payload. The carrier operations are going to be STOVL.

 

6 minutes ago, One percent said:

Is that the flap sticking out behind the cockpit?  What is it for? 

Yes, that's the lift fan cover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, One percent said:

Is that the flap sticking out behind the cockpit?  What is it for? 

But then thinking about it, I can't see how that would generate any lift, only drag. Who the hell knows. It's downright ugly though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Admiral Pepe said:

But then thinking about it, I can't see how that would generate any lift, only drag. Who the hell knows. It's downright ugly though

You should see what we would have got if the Boeing effort won the contest.

Boeing X32

 

 

USAF_X32B_250.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NTB said:

They can take off vertically but as far as I know, not with much of a useful payload. The carrier operations are going to be STOVL.

 

 

tbf the harrier had fairly strict weight limit/restrictions for VTOL itself if I recall rightly. Not surprising really given the weight of some of the ordinance 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting the balance of requirements right in weapon systems is really difficult. For example tanks need to have enough armour for survivability on the battlefield, a good enough gun to take out their opponents, sufficient manoeuvrability to get around the battlefield, be reliable enough not to break down on on the way to combat and to be sufficiently maintainable for easy repair. Britain has been involved in tank development since its inception but nearly all the tanks produced in this country have suffered from serious flaws with many being simply terrible. Only one British tank can be classed as genuinely great and that is the Centurion which has seen service with different armies round the globe over many decades, has proven itself in numerous combat engagements  and is possibly the best all round tank ever designed which is why after 70 years it was still in service in some parts of the world.

Given that aircraft battlefield requirements are much more complex than armoured vehicles it is not surprising that so many of them are riddled with problems. One suspects the major issue with the F35 is that it is being expected to fulfil too many different combat requirements and that these are forcing compromises that are killing its reliability and performance.

By the way I agree with the comments about appearance being important. Good weapons nearly always look right. Moreover, good design nearly always allows them to be enhanced to meet new challenges. The Spitfire was not only beautiful but it got enough right to be able to be upgraded throughout the whole of the Second World War. The Centurion just looks like a great tank. By contrast the F35 does not look right and the VTOL version is just pug ugly so you know it is almost certainly going to be a dog.

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/01/f-35-problems-late-iote-f-35a-gun-inaccurate-f-35b-tires-threat-data-cyber/

Certainly,  if it's stealth capability is compromised it is inferior in performance and capability to some of its much cheaper competitors. Of course, the proof will be when it is asked to perform in anger which unfortunately may be too late. 

Edited by Virgil Caine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Errol said:

Should have spent the money we spent on carriers on missile technology (hypersonic) and really cheap and numerous launch platforms. Much better value for money and more effective.

Hilux! Yeah!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Chewing Grass said:

The Yanks supply overpriced wank aircraft and the French supply overpriced, over budget, years behind schedule and probably wank (not got one running) Nuclear Power Stations.

we could have got some of these cheap from the French

carrier would have needed a catapult to use them though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Chewing Grass said:

The Yanks supply overpriced wank aircraft and the French supply overpriced, over budget, years behind schedule and probably wank (not got one running) Nuclear Power Stations.

To think we used to be quite good at those things! Sad. How the mighty have fallen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Masked Tulip said:

Seems it is a dodgy fuel pipe - aircraft should be up and running within 48 hours as they replacd the pipes. They think it is a dodgy pipe.

How on earth they get dodgy fuel pipes on the world's most expensive brand new fighters is something to ponder. 

Fighters have to be light and agile,  with structure pared down to the nth degree. The idea is to have a flimsy aircraft agile enough not to get hit, rather than have something robust that survives a hit. Adding strength to a fighter plane can add weight, and that eats into the range and munitions payload it can carry.

So they are built to be strong enough for the job - just.

Sometimes it goes wrong and a component desighn fails, so it is redesigned and beefed up. This is normal in the development of a military aircraft. They have apparently  identified the problem, and can fix it quickly enough.

Edited by Happy Renting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the spec appears to be a Stealthy, Payload heavy, Long-range, Vertical take-off, Close Air Support, Intercept, Electronic Warfare .Carrier/Forward Operating Joint Strike-Fighter that you can also drive to the shops it is hardly surprising the designers and engineers are struggling a bit on delivery.

Edited by Virgil Caine

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.