Bager1968And where is the law of physics that limits UCAVs to subsonic speeds?
My example was to take any modern manned supersonic fighter and replace the pilot and the equipment his presence makes necessary with a fuel tank (90+% of the avionics needed to make it a UCAV is already aboard most modern manned fighters).
That UCAV will still have the same airframe performance characteristics… but the UCAV will be able to sustain higher-G maneuvers because the weakest part of the structure (the pilot) has been removed.
Don’t get me wrong… I see a lot of problems that can crop up with a UCAV that are addressed by leaving that pilot in the aircraft, but your example seems more than a little “rigged”.
Bager1968Suffering from NIH-syndrome, Bager? McDonnell-Douglas was so impressed by the Br941 that they tried to market the design as their own. Ever heard of the MDD 188?
There was significant practical interest for the 941 from the USAF, although the direct need for it went away when they took over the Army’s C-7s in 1967 and still later the AF realised how little it wants to do with mud and dirt.
You’re funny… in a pathetic way.
Yes, there was “interest”… but note that no one but the French Air Force actually bought any? And the ALA only bought 4… just enough to shut up the pressure on them to buy the thing?
When people began actually looking at the cost vs payload, and maintenance workload & costs, and comparing that to how few times they would actually use the “special capabilities”, they realized it wouldn’t be sensible to buy it for so few actual operations.
Then, heavy-lift helicopters were really starting to hit their stride, and they could do even better at the short/no field, crowded conditions flights. They found that using cheaper standard transports to connect with the shorter-ranged helicopters did the job just fine, so there was no need for such an aircraft.
That’s why, despite all the protestations of “capability” and “interest”, no one other than the ALA bought it … and the ALA just got a handfull, and retired them after only 7 years operational service (1967-74)!
Face it… it just wasn’t that super an aircraft.
Bager1968these designs are also predicted to have much greater ranges than any manned aircraft (don’t really know why),
Take any single-seat fighter design.
Remove the pilot (~200 lb), ejection seat (300+ lb), all cockpit instrumentation, controls, displays, etc (500+ lb), oxygen/compressed air supply equipment (100+ lb), cockpit armor (over 100 lb, even if it is just a Kevlar blanket around the sides and under the seat).
You save well over 1,000 lb and the interior volume of the cockpit area… now you can put in a fuel bladder with at least 1,000 lb of fuel (6.4 -6.8 lb/US gallon), which gives you at least 150 gallons more fuel… thus longer range.
Bager1968The Breguet 941 was not a prototype, it was a serie production aircraft, in service in the French air force.
1 BR940 prototype, and 1 BR941 prototype.
4… yes FOUR “production” examples built… to go along with the prototypes.
Such a successful aircraft! All of 6 built… the French Air Force must have been overwhelmed by so many being delivered!
Bager1968If you mean test aircraft, here is an AV-8C in NASA colors outside the wind tunnel (upgraded AV-8A with improved flight control system, etc).
http://www.airliners.net/photo/1505068/
TAV-8A: http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/nasa-tav-8a-harrier/view/?service=1
P.1127: http://www.highgallery.com/TestPilot/NASA./Hawker/Siddeley_P.1127.html
AV-8B: http://community.webshots.com/photo/fullsize/1150603068040346401JgAfEx
There are hundreds of photos on-line of the AV-8A, AV-8C, and AV-8B Harriers that served (and still serve) in the USMC.
Bager1968No doubt the UH-72 will function as an perfect Medivac/Light Utility Helicopter(LUH) over there.
But do any one know if they are beefed up with any armament?
No armament, no armor, and an airframe NOT certified as combat-damage resistant. The lack of these items was cited as part of its “non-combat only” purpose, and was a major reason for the low cost of the purchase.
When this was first announced 4 years ago, I (and many others) said “BS… it WILL be in combat, and sooner rather than later”… and we were right!
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1056042&postcount=32
Bager1968Which was a mistake… the later problems the RAAF had with the Atar engine showed that spending a little more money up-front would have been the better idea, as it would have saved aircraft in the long run… as well as saving fuel, as the Avon used less fuel than the Atar to produce the same thrust.
Considering that the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation of Australia had been producing 100-series Avon engines for its Sabres & Canberras for years, they should have been able to shift to the 300-series engine for the Mirage III with little problem.
Yes, CAC did produce the Atar engines for the Aussie Mirages, the Avon was by far the better choice.
RB146 Avon 67 RA.29 (mk301): 12,100 lbs thrust (15,715 lbs w/reheat); SFC .932 (1.85 w/reheat)
SNECMA Atar 9C: 9,430lbs thrust (13,670lbs w/reheat); SFC 1.01 (2.03 w/reheat)
Bager1968The USN has had some type of automated carrier landing system for decades.
http://www.navalhistory.org/2010/08/12/first-automatic-carrier-landing-system-tests-12-august-1957/
First Automatic Carrier Landing System Tests, 12 August 1957
An F3D Skynight, piloted by LCdr. Don Walker, landed on board Antietam (CVS 36) off NAS Pensacola, Fla., utilizing an AN/SPN-10 Automatic Carrier Landing System on 12 August 1957. This was the first shipboard test of the “hands off” landing system designed to bring aircraft on board during all weather conditions without help from pilots, which subsequently evolved into the AN/SPN46(V) Precision Approach Landing System in use today.
Here is a link to a manual: http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation/14030/css/14030_205.htm
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/11/can-killer-drones-land-on-carriers-like-human-top-guns/
Autonomous landing on a carrier is nothing new, though so far there’s always a pilot sitting in the airplane to take over when the system is pushed to the limit. Carrier based aircraft have used auto land capabilities since the late 1950s when the automatic carrier landing system (ACLS) was developed. The ACLS uses an aircraft’s autopilot, coupled to the instruments a pilot would normally use to land on a carrier to guide an airplane to the carrier deck. ACLS can take an aircraft all the way to touchdown, though most pilots prefer to make the landing themselves.
The system has recently been upgraded with the development of JPALS, which uses GPS to augment ALCS:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/jpals.htm
Bager1968it might even start USN and US shipbuilders start thinking about lower personing levels.
:rolleyes:
The USN already has “lowered personnel levels” well in hand.
CVN-77 Bush – Ship’s company 3,200; Air wing 2,480 [total 5,680]
CVN-78 Ford – Ship’s company 2,180; Air wing 2,480 [total 4,660]
DDG-51 class – Ship’s company ~275
DDG-1000 class – Ship’s company 148
Bager1968There are many internal components (structurally) that keep a B from becoming a C. Not sure how far along they are.
What LRIP were they part of?
Like the entire main wing… the fuselage areas around the landing gear and tailhook attachment points… and so on.
The F-35C has the least commonality with the others of any variant.
Bager19684 years ago the CVF design allowed weight & space for 2 more MT30 gas turbine/alternator sets in addition to the two needed for propulsion. This was after the final GT/diesel layout was chosen, so these would be “add later if needed” items, not replacements for the diesels.
I don’t know for sure that this has been preserved, but if even space/weight for only one has been reserved, then that’s an additional 36MW available for whatever gets installed, as well as a reserve in case some of the other generators quit working.
Bager1968Fair enough… but your wording made it seem you were saying that the Mk7 is what the UK would be putting in CVF.
Since the Mk7 gear isn’t being made anymore, it is the AAG that would be installed in CVF if “the American system” is chosen.
So the only meaningful comparison in this discussion of CVF is between just DAX II (improved) and AAG.
Bager1968F/A-18s for what?
The first UK carrier that could operate them will commission in 2020… right when the UK is supposed to get its first F-35C.
If the UK needs to keep airframe numbers up, then they will just not retire as many Tornado GR.4s.
A decision to delay purchase of F-35C MIGHT open a door for lease of early-model Hornets (if there are any available with airframe life left, as airframes have been being pulled from the boneyards and returned to service to keep up numbers)… but that decision won’t come until 2015 or later.
And then only the worst-condition Hornets would be available, as F-35C production will take quite a few years to completely replace Hornet.
The end of Super Hornet production is scheduled for 2013 unless a sizable foreign order comes in before then… and then it will be extended by a year for every 30 or so aircraft. This means that if the UK decided in 2015 that it wants to borrow Super Hornets they would have to come from USN squadrons… which is not likely at all.
To me, it sounds like the kind of wishful thinking (and refusal to let a “pet idea” go) that we see around here all the time. Just because he is in the MOD doesn’t mean he is immune to that condition.
Bager1968RE: Hawkeye purchase.
I think that there is more chance that they might recycle all the Searchwater 2000’s they have spare from the Nimrod MRA4 programme on a new plane, as obviously MASC called for Merlin’s with Searchwater 2000 and the Cerberus system.
Personally I love a reprieve for Coastal Command, and for RN Harrier pilots to join a joint RAF/RN Squadron based on 20ish SLEPed S-3B’s equipped with Searchwater 2000, and FLIR. While the S-3B’s might have about half the range of MRA4, less sensors and be less capable at the ISTAR role of a MRA4 they are still decent ASW platforms and if equipped with Cerberus and Searchwater 2000 better MASC platform than a Merlin. Plus you could deploy the S-3B’s on the QE or PoW in the future.
I know it is a very unlikely pipe dream but I still think it would be a good solution to a number of problems on a tight budget.
The S-3B has a very good surface search radar, so the ASW/SAR mission is covered… but the addition of a volume-area-air search radar would indeed be required if you want to have it act as an AEW aircraft.
The S-3 already has a FLIR… but since it is a late-1970s (updated in the mid-1980s) design, replacing it wouldn’t hurt anything but Treasury’s feelings.
Bager1968a single variant of JSF? does this mean the RAF will also switch from F-35A to C?
No… the plan was always for BOTH RAF and RN to get F-35B… in fact, RAF was insisting on it.
The RAF was to use F-35B to replace Harrier GR.9 (as well as Tornado GR.4), so that they could retain the “austere/improvised field” capability Harrier gave.
RAF seems to be willing to give that up in favor of the reduced operating costs of running the same type as RN.
But that brings me to the “journo exaggeration” part… the Australians had NO plans to buy F-35B… only F-35A, so the change in the UK plans shouldn’t make any difference in the price of the RAAF’s F-35As.
RAF = Royal Air Force (United Kingdom [Britain])
RN = Royal Navy (United Kingdom [Britain])
RAAF = Royal Australian Air Force (Australia)
Sign In
