The Ship Model Forum

What? Enduring the misery of low Earth orbit for extended periods? Being banished to an uncomfortable place is the essence of being Russian.

Where the real work of space is done, from Mars to the Heliopause, the USA is where it's at.

Take away the library of planetary and telescopic science done by NASA, and the body of knowledge gained via the efforts of Russia and Europe in the last half-century would fit on a single shelf.

_________________
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)

Oops...

I guess things are not so good in the Russian rocket business now that all their German Scientists are dead.

_________________
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)

I think the RN will operate F/A-18E/F or Rafael. The problem with multimission fighters is that they jacks of all trades and master at none. Harriers in USMC service have proven to be very expensive. The USMC has made many demands of the F-35B because of experience with the Harrier. The F/A-18 in USMC service is far less expensive to operate, a drastically lower accident rate and loss to attrition. The RN might get tired of waiting for the F-35K and buy Super-Hornets or Rafels instead.

_________________
╔═════╗
║ Seasick║
╚═════╝

I would not be surprised to see a slightly de-contented F/A-18F offered for a substantially lower unit cost than the USN pays. The RN would be well-advised to buy the newer, more versatile Rafale, though.

Interestingly, the F/A-18E is under open fire in this month's US Naval Institute Proceedings as being the product of a "Space Shuttle" mentality and methods, leading to critical dangers for the pilot and mission.

As I have suspected for years, the US Naval aviation community has little confidence in the procurement process and the equipment it provides. The F/A-18, with it's short legs and lower standards in everything the pilot counts on (except maintenance costs per flight hour, a spreadsheet victory for the paymaster) is no exception.

Now that the F-14 has been ground up, the stories are coming out about what a white-knuckle ride it was for even the best pilots. Earlier, CNO Admiral Holloway called the Cutlass he flew "a disaster", and was only too happy to get a Skyhawk. In these days of single procurement, who is to say what is a "disaster", and what isn't?

_________________
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)

I think the problems with the F/A-18E are overstated in the article. Rafale has issues of its own, also in the years to come it is more likely to fall behind technologically. Dassault was able to get France to pull out of Eurofighter to protect its position. Dassault in the early 1980s got the French government to buy the Super-Entendard over the F/A-18, not a good deal.

_________________
╔═════╗
║ Seasick║
╚═════╝

The UK would never buy the Rafael on political grounds.
The UK's 1st choice is the F-35B.
It that falls through then her back up is the F-35C and she then retro fits both CVF's with catapults and angled decks (which they have built in in their original design and build).
If both of the above fail then its likely she will either get BAE to produce some sort of Harrier III or develop a navalised Eurofighter.

I personally would always favour an aircraft with twin engines, so my preference would be a firstly a 'beefed up' eurofighter.
If thats a non-starter then it would have to be some sort of Super Hornet with Rolls Royce engines and British avonics.

I think the best thing would be to navalize the F-22, taking advantage of twenty years of the Air Force's investment. Of course, this would not address the STO/VL function the Marines need, but it would get something effective airborne this century. It also would not address the F-22's fabulous cost: three F-22s can buy a Burke-class destroyer.

I think the F-35 design is proof enough the F-22 could be navalized. I also think a large block of F-22N could be purchased for around $100 million a unit because of the Air Force's sunk costs.

Based on prior experience, an aircraft project which begins today will bear fruit around 2040.

_________________
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)

The same would apply to the Typhoon also which I think has consumed around £5billion for RnD and been in the pipeline since the 1970s.

Here are some of the novel design concepts the RN & BAE have considered if we are forced to ditch the F-35 and go for a navalised Typhoon, undoubtively ramping up the costs of operating such better twin engined aircraft:

This is the moment when an extra 50 or 100 feet of flight deck is worth it's weight in gold bullion.

_________________
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)

The three main UK Royal Naval bases need major modifications just to support the present 65,000ton ships.
Only one will actually have them and be used to support these carriers which will be Portsmouth I believe.
Thus any bigger and even more infrastructure costs would have to be incurred into the project.
Also the 1998 Defence Review worked out what our ideal sized carrier and airwing should be.
The CVF design as is currently meets those requirements.
It's just the airwing composition which is open to debate not the size of the ships anymore.
I think also the idea of Merlins or Sea Kings for AEW to be another poor mans folly!
Why does the RAF get AWACS and the FAA gets something inadequate?

I have always said they need to design ships to be ships and not for the purpose of carrying a specific battery of weapons. If you build the ship you can more quickly provide it with useful weapons. Designing a carrier around a plane which has not yet flown is a bureaucrat's folly.

_________________
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)

The CVF's were never designed around the F-35 or any other aircraft for that matter.
They were designed around tthe 1998 Defence Review White Paper which stated the need for a certain sized airwing; which could deliver a set figure in payload terms; in the number of sorties so desired; in either surge or sustained operations.
The RN could potentially put any one of 10 aircraft either in service or not on the present 65,000ton sized ships.
Only the USN and not the RN needs carriers of 80,000tons, largely because it has the defence expenditure to operate them and also as its % of GDP spent on defence is much much higher than the UK's.

An unfortunate turn of phrase. The USN is the only service which can afford large flight decks based on the necessity of politics. Obviously, nearly every maritime service covets large flight decks; only Russia, France and now Britain have had the political will to even try for a minimal CTOL carrier.

Europe seems to have turned it's back to the regional conflicts that were spawned by centuries of European colonialism, relying on "Uncle Sam" to sort it out. Poor Australia, on the fringe of several future conflicts is seen as America's "lap dog", when in fact they are all too aware of the global "realpolitik".

If the USA would give up it's self-determined role as global peacemaker, we could cut our expenditures accordingly. Of course, there would be a sudden spike in wars abroad, but that's your lookout.

By the way, the worldwide GDP dedicated to the military is at a historical low, (US included), as it should be.

_________________
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)

In the long term the Rafael suffers from the fact that there will be a much smaller number of aircraft produced than for other types. This results in higher operating cost as the aircraft ages. The Eurofighter would need some serious redesign to be made acceptable for naval service. The air intakes are in a bad location and the forward landing gear would need to be redesigned completely. The airframe and landing gear strengthening needed for arrested landings would require a near total redesign.

The only options to replace the F-35K are an RN F-35C variant, a RN F/A-18F variant, or a newer version of the Harrier.

Mofifying an aircraft for carrier operations is a very complex process. It makes aircraft put on weight and cost more. A fighter making a carrier landing puts far more stress on the aircraft than a land based aircraft may take in years of operation.

_________________
╔═════╗
║ Seasick║
╚═════╝

The F-35 process teaches us that modern finite-element analysis will tell the manufacturer exactly what parts need strengthening to make a land-based aircraft suitable for a carrier. Clearly, based on the F-35 the number of changes amount to less than 35% of the structure of a modern combat plane. Most of these changes consist of slightly thicker structures or bulkheads and do not influence the design or manufacturing process in any meaningful way.

_________________
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)

It can if you suddenly bulk up the forward fuselage it'll throw your weight & balance off, which *may* result in weight being added aft to balance out, if things can't be shifted around. Lower air scoops such as that found on the Typhoon and F-16 very bad for carrier-bound aircraft, especially with the landing gear forces being transmitted through such a structure.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

Once again, modern computer methods will fix many of the ills you describe. They won't fix the intake location, but the Russians have shown ingenuity in this area by creating auxiliary inputs over the top of the wing, which open for take off and landing.

We live in a new era, when an airplane like the 777 can take to the skies years before the first aluminum panel is cut, or a Tyrannosaur can run again, 75 million years after her death.

The governing laws of physics are immutable; modern computers give us opportunities to succeed or fail without risk. It is a "brave new world".

_________________
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)

They will make it quicker to rework things, but they cannot overcome fundemental design elements that make an airframe unsuitable for carrier ops. The Typhoon's inlet makes it completely unsuitable for carrier ops and it's fuselage and wing design preclude relocating the inlet without a near-total redesign.

It would have been interesting to see how the Boeing design would have fared; other than the STOVL problems I think it was a much better program.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

What about the F-8 and A-7? Their inlets were certainly in the same class. Pilots who flew the F-8 had a high regard for it....

_________________
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)

The F-8 and A-7 had the intake infront of the cockpit. The F-16 and Typhoon both have at behind the cockpit.

Werner:
Once again, modern computer methods will fix many of the ills you describe.

The methods you mention prevent the problem in the initial design process. The computer can't change the laws of physics. The carrier modifications for the F-16 would raise the takeoff weight of the aircraft, and the location of the landing gear made it vulnerable to dammage. The F-8 and A-7 are similar looking to the F-16 at first glance but are very different. The Typhoon has the same problems.

_________________
╔═════╗
║ Seasick║
╚═════╝