Also the way your article is written it states a 20 yard limit from the STO line?. Is your clip actuallly saying dont stand within 20 yards of the reheat jetblast of a fighter taking off?. While thats clearly good advice I’m not sure that its a reg that would need all that frequent enforcement!.
Actually, it says 75 feet… 25 yardss behind an F-35B that is ready to take off.
Seems logical to me, and that’s only directly behind it… you park the helos & extra F-35B on the starboard side of the flight deck and all is good.
In terms of the structural issues the bulkhead cracking is clearly serious, but, is identified and quantified at the 1000hr mark….more than 3 years uninterrupted normal service in US projected flight hours!. The presumption would have to be that some level of maintenace will be performed through those years in service to keep a track on this and whatever the stiffener solution is introduced?.
Actually, the bulkhead weakness had been identified in individual component fatigue testing some time earlier, and by the time of the grounding new F-35s of all types rolling off the line had the new, stronger (and heavier) bulkhead.
This is to be retro-fitted (along with many other changes) to any of the early LRIP airframes that are scheduled to be assigned to regular or training squadrons once testing is completed.
Link doesn’t go to the story.
This one does (for now).
Hi all,
It was printed in 1941, although there doesn’t seem to be any reference to any armed service.
Thanks,
Tim
Not to any specific military service, no… 😀
So just a collection of images and desciptions for the troops to let them know what to expect when invading England.
As well as to let fliers know what to expect when shot down… 😉
Any bets on one last 15,000,000,000 ruble* “transfer fee”?
* 507,065,094.61 USD / 25,916,097,294.77 INR
Typical Bill Sweetman article… no mention of the USMC’s operation of over 200 second-generation Harriers… including from ships (the whole focus of the article).
Italy, Spain and India remain the sole operators of first or second-generation Harrier Stovl fighter-bombers, with Thailand having no longer a real operational capability.
The S. designation was naval. The RAF chose not to redesignate theirs.
The Tornado followed the Jaguar (which had the same strike attack role) with its GR designation, and echoed the Phantom which had a fighter/strike attack role – hence FGR.
And the Harrier GR.1 (1967) as well.
Hunter FGA.9 (1963) [later FG.9]
Phantom FG.1 (1964);
Phantom FGR.2 (1965);
Jaguar GR.1 (1970);
etc.
From what I gather, “S” for strike is for anti-ship and/or precision-weapon aircraft, while “G” for ground attack is for unguided weapon and/or ground attack aircraft.
The “R” is for reconnaissance.
The real question is as to why Jaguar and Tornado weren’t B or B(I)!
Because neither were high-altitude bombers, nor were they high-altitude bombers modified for interdiction (which refers to blocking access, such as destroying roads, rails, airfields, and ports… rather than attacking equipment or personnel).
Hopefully a low speed taxi incident???
Not quite resting on its side though? Journalists…..
In the first post in this thread:
A PILOT walked away uninjured after the front undercarriage of his historic jet fighter collapsed on landing at Bournemouth Airport.
The Sea Vixen, the only flying example in the world, and a star of the Bournemouth Air Festival, came down around 4pm on Thursday.
An instructor from Bournemouth Flying Club (BFC) said the plane did a 50ft high pass shortly before landing so the control tower could inspect the undercarriage.
Firefighters sprayed the plane with foam and it was removed around 5.40pm.
Bournemouth Airport said the pilot was unhurt and that the next passenger flight, the 11.35pm Ryanair from Fuerteventura, would not be affected,
Dorset Police said the undercarriage collapsed on landing and that the Air Accident Investigations Branch was investigating.
How do you get a taxi accident from this?
BTW is SRVL still on the development shedule, i know we got the bill for it prior to us switching to the F-35C, but the USMC are only interested in conventional or Vertical landing at present. Until its been programmed in, tested and certified we have no idea how much bring back load we can claw back.
Another wrong thing you know.
Most of the funding for the SRVL development contracts was provided by the USN, on behalf of the RN… and it was not a loan, it was a grant.
BTW whats with the 2 Carrier cobblers, we will have two carriers delivered but only one will be fully operational, we have not got the funding or the manpower to operate both. One will be in service whilst the other is in reserve.
So just who is manning Illustrious & Ocean?
As you apparently haven’t read the specs, CVF requires the same ship crew as an Invincible… so when Illustrious decommissioned her crew will trot on over to the “about ready to start builder’s trials” QE, and when PoW is ready for trials QE’s crew will switch there and Ocean’s crew will move to QE.
Forgot that they are to replace Ocean as well as Illustrious, didn’t you?
Note that in that link there is mention of over 20,000 Liberty engines being produced by 1919 (some of which were still flying in 1941 in privately-owned surplus aircraft), and of an inverted Liberty being in production to 1926… and of the production of a version of the Liberty to power tanks in WW2.
So there could be many possible different sources for that piston.
See this pre-existing thread:
You mean… something like this?
French anti-air version
The anti-air version is dubbed FREDA (“Frégates de défense aériennes”, “Air defence frigate”). Following the cancellation of the third and fourth Horizon class frigates, the French Navy has started studies for an anti-air version of the FREMM, called FREDA.
The FREDA could carry up to 32 Aster 30 & Aster 15 and a more powerful version of the Herakles radar. They would also have the standard armament of one 76 mm gun, two 20 mm guns and 8 Exocet missiles and torpedoes. This version also offer improvement of the SETIS combat system for the air defense role
The USA scrapped 24 carriers, & preserved one, between 1960 & 1992. It has decommissioned eight since then, one of which it’s sunk, one of which is currently scheduled for dismantling, two of which are “awaiting disposal” & two “on donation hold” – which I think means donation of spares for active ships.
One issue with scrapping them is, where? The US worries about other countries getting a look at the innards of its carriers.
Donation hold actually means waiting for a group to scrape together the money to buy the ship as a museum I think.
Grim901 you are mostly correct. “Donation hold” does indeed refer to “donation for museum”, but the groups do not actually buy the ship… it will remain the property of the USN, just as do almost all current museum ships*.
CV-61 USS Ranger and CV-67 John F. Kennedy are both subjects of “preservation as museum” efforts.
Both organizations have had their Phase I applications approved, and are preparing their Phase II applications. There are 3 phases to the process.
Swerve, your numbers are off.
27 carriers decommissioned 1960-1992 (24 Essex, 3 Midway), 5 preserved (Yorktown, Hornet, Intrepid, Lexington, Midway).
Additionally, those carriers to be scrapped will be scrapped within the US.
Jan 26, 2012 3:27 pm The Naval Sea Systems Command intends to solicit for the towing and complete dismantlement of multiple CV-59/CV-63 Class Aircraft Carriers in the United States, removal and disposal of hazardous materials in accordance with applicable Federal, State and local laws and regulations, and processing and sale of scrap metals and reusable items. Ownership of the vessels remains with the United States. Towing will be required from the carriers’ locations in Philadelphia, PA and Bremerton, WA to the Contractors’ facilities in accordance with the U.S. Navy Tow Manual. The contract(s) will be five-year Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts awarded on a firm fixed-price basis at the net cost to the government, considering the estimated value to the Contractor of the resulting scrap metals and reusable items….
* The only exceptions that come to mind immediately are USS Texas BB-35 (now the property of the State of Texas) and LST-325 (purchased outright from the Greek government {who had bought it outright from the USN}, repaired, sailed back to the US, and restored as a “traveling museum”).
I am sure there are others… all smaller vessels.
Or an Osprey without the complexity of twisty engines, and driveshafts that cross folding wings.
The Osprey’s wing does not fold… the whole wing rotates 90 degrees to lie parallel to the fuselage.

Of course the conversion cost covers a lot of voices, not just catapults themselves and the work for fitting them, but this, really, makes little difference.
1.8 billion or 2 billions is an amount i hoped would get BOTH carriers converted to catapults.
This not being the case, it becomes a cost unacceptable.
Really.
What is the current estimate of the purchase cost difference between F-35B and F-35C?
Current LRIP5 costs:
— F-35A: $172 million per aircraft;
— F-35B: $291.7 million per aircraft;
— F-35C: $235.8 million per aircraft.
So that’s ~$55.9 million… or ~£35 million.
So buying 50 F-35B would, if this differential holds, cost £1.76 billion more.
Boy that number seems familiar… isn’t that the upper end of the estimate to convert POW to “cat & trap”?
So by the time the UK buys 100 F-35C they will have saved enough to convert QE as well.
If they buy any more, then it is all pure savings.
Then there is the lower operating costs of F-35C compared to F-35B… that would pay for the operational & maintenance costs of EMALS & AAG.
Therefore, the long-term cost is a complete equality… the only difference is the capabilities of the different versions!