Ozairer, that “evolution “resulted in a new aircraft that has pretty much zero commonality with the previous model (except the name and approximate overall shape)
There is little commonality in hardware but aircrew can convert to the SH from the classic in just 5 rides. That shows there remains significant systems and flight handling simalarities.
OzairNow that Trump was told the SH can do 80% of the F35 mission, it sounds logic for Trump to cut down the number of f35c.
That will allow to also to cut the cost down. That can also impact the A version.
Ha, 80% of the mission in a permissable environment.
Trump doesn’t control the order quantity. He can try and cut back all he wants and congress will just add them back. Either way, any cut back on the Cee has little inpact on the A.
OzairI don’t think the threat has gone away entirely. Russia still maintains a sizable force of bombers including those same cruise missile armed Tu-22Ms which were such a threat back in the day. The F-14D at least was clearly better suited for interception over the F/A-18E or F/A-18F. Yet that final variant was only built in small numbers.
Would you have preferred I said the threat had largely disappeared? Threat is the addition of capability and intent. Russia may have retained a semblance of the capability but for much of the 90/00s had little to no intent.
A lot of the maintenance and accident troubles can be attributed to the F-14A which was cursed with an inadequate engine, the newer F-14s were certainly much better in those regards. By no means was the Super Hornet ultimately a bad choice, but the new Super Tomcats had all of the right stuff to serve well into the future had the Navy gone that route instead.
Sure I agree although losses still occurred with B and D models which had the GE110. There were only ever 55 F-14Ds, 37 new build and 18 re-manufactured and 86 F-14Bs, 38 new build and 48 re-manufactured. Re-engineering a lot of F-14s into Super Tomcats still wouldn’t have rationalised the naval airwing as was one of the primary purposes of going SH.
OzairMaybe because to use C you would need a carrier equipped with catapults?
The C has always had the least export potential and was always the variant that was most under a cloud given the USN has a current tactical fighter in production.
In a certain sense the C is also the more extreme A2G oriented one of the whole lot: greater wings and more fuel for an even greater range at the expense of other flight characteristics.
Add that the USN is just now a service heavily oriented on strike missions with not any real successor of the F-14 in sight.
As for handling characteristics, the C is similar to the SH in being 7.5G high AoA aircraft but does so with a longer range, stealth, better sensors and is easier to recover to the carrier.
The F-14 had one sole advantage over the Hornets which was the AIM-54 for long range interception but that threat left in the middle 90s and still hasn’t re-emerged. In that time USN surface based defences have improved. The F-14 was in no way a better WVR aircraft than either Hornet and is debatable for long range interception over the SH. It was a difficult aircraft to maintain and had a high accident rate for a carrier aircraft.
I was instead quizzed by the fact thatthe UK i.e. the second partner and one of the largest buyer it’s interested uniquely in the B version.
No substitute for Tornado?
The UK Tornado mission roles will transfer to a combination of F-35B and Eurofighter with Storm Shadow. This is where an F-35A may be appealing to the UK but it would take significant political movement to either add the F-35A model or reduce F-35B orders for F-35A, especially now T1 Eurofighter will stay around in RAF service for longer than expected.
OzairHow likely is it that the f35 will be cancelled for the fa18
There is a zero percent chance this will happen.
OzairYes there are some profiles with light lauch : scramble and on the opposite very heavy but buddy to buddy refueling at start of the mission.
Some profiles and you name an invalid one and then a very heavy one?
For starters scramble is not a mission profile. If you’re talking DCA then I see no valid reason to light launch an aircraft with either no weapons or minimum weapons and an essentially useless fuel fraction. Remember, oscillations occurred because the F-35Cs were light loaded with fuel and had no internal or external weapons or pylons, with the sole purpose of flying a circuit and back in to land.
If by stating scramble you are thinking about getting as many aircraft off the carrier in the shortest possible time then fair enough but frankly that is a pretty unrealistic scenario. A Nimitz carrier can have as many as 90 jets (yes the current config for low intensity ops is far less than that). Launching at the maximum possible rate, which is one CAT launch every 20 seconds in an ideal scenario where every CAT is working and has no issues, it is going to require 20-30 minutes to launch all your fighter jets.
In a scramble scenario are all aircraft fuelled up, armed and on the deck ready to go? If not what does it matter how they are launched, oscillations or not? Without munitions and a valid fuel fraction the jet will do nothing other than hold in the area as it is not in a war fighting configuration when oscillation can occur.
OzairYes, but you wrote 2060…
Yes, receive last delivered aircraft in 2031, operate until 2060. Is that not clear?
Ozair41 years, really? I know how airplane design take a lot of time actually but such a lifespan seem me absurd, it would be like the MiG-15 or F-84 to be still in service (in their original service branches, not in some third world country) in the nineties.
It is true that actual 4gen fighters get an elongated life span but it was an exceptional situation due the end of Cold War, Soviet economy collapse and so called Peace Dividends in the West than a new standard.
The USN, as per the F-35 SAR, is due to receive their last F-35s in 2031 and that is before we consider that an upgraded/modified F-35C is an option for F/A-XX. The USN will operate SH until probably the mid 2030s, makeing 34 years since IOC.
OzairDo you have a hard number on that from a reputable source ? I don’t think they load jets up for certain training ops. But maybe they will load them up just to get rid of the problem. Thats a lot of extra work and dead wight to pack around for nothing.
Any statistics about loading on carrier take off? Because “likely” is a bit imprecise…
I don’t have launch weights available that can back up my claims, hence the use of the “likely”. What I will provide is F-18 NATOPS, which in Chapter 8 discusses launch weights and required power settings. https://info.publicintelligence.net/F18-EF-000.pdf
If we look at operational use of the aircraft though, the only example of a light launch would be an airframe test. Every other profile can be launched with suitable weight to reduce the opportunity for oscillation and even an airframe test is an additional opportunity for training on the jet.
Is there a single other mission profile that would result in a light launch?
As well as EM catapults being smoother (genuine question that one)?
Global Security has some good info on emals here, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/emals.htm but the pertinent paragraph is probably below.
Due to the inherent high level of elegant control of electronic equipment, it is possible to reduce the stresses imparted to the aircraft. The present steam catapult has relatively high peak-tomean acceleration profiles (nominally 1.25, with excursions up to 2.0). This results in high stresses in the airframe and generally poor performance. With an electromagnetic system it would be possible to correct for deviations in the acceleration profile in typically hundreds of milliseconds, which would result in low peak-tomeans. A simulation was conducted that analyzed the level of controllability of the proposed design. The acceleration profile is smooth and flat, compared with a typical steam catapult profile. The simulation shows that for various load conditions, the EMALS is capable of operating within the 1.05 max peak-to-mean acceleration requirement. The result of this reduced peak-to-mean is reduced stress on the airframe. To quantify the effects of a reduced peak-to-mean, a Fracture Mechanics analysis was conducted on the airframe [4] with both the steam catapult and EMALS peak-to-means. The results from this analysis show a peak airframe life extension of 31% due to the reduced stresses on the airframe. This is becoming more important as tight budgets are forcing the Navy to procure fewer aircraft. This also has the benefit of a safer operational environment, since when the EMALS experiences any unforeseen problems during a launch, it has the capability to quickly adjust and correct for them, even if a component fails during the launch.
Ok, but in the meanwhile? There are still 10 carriers using steam catapults no?
Of the 10 Nimitz class in service 5 were built before 1990 with the Nimitz approaching 50 years in 2025 with each subsequent vessel every 4-5 years after that. Given F-35C won’t hit the fleet until 2019 and will be operated by the USN till at least 2060 it will almost certainly see more work on Ford class carriers than Nimitz.
OzairI see people dismissed the notion of A-12 Avenger being a better share plan with the UK government. The A-12 probably would have actually finished development. Conservatively it had about a 5,000-pound payload for a 1500 km combat range. Typical of projects of its era, performance stats were very conservative. Not terrible, especially if it had received modernization like EODAS or MAWS, EOTS, DIRCM, AESA radar, etc. Plus it was actually designed to fire AMRAAM, even if only a pair. And it was every bit the stealth LGB dropper as F-117A. And it was a two-seater. No telling what kind of performance from a single-seater, but modernization probably eliminated need for a second man. The GE motors in the A-12 were supposed to be much larger front stages than the ones used on the F-117A, giving it about 3,000 pounds more thrust and better economy. The A-12 also had nearly double the wing area of the F-117A. The F-117A had a better penetration velocity and maximum ceiling, but it also had higher takeoff and landing speeds to match. The MTOW of A-12 was approximately 33% heavier than F-117A. The A-12 was an A-6E replacement, much more ambitious than the F-117A. More than likely A-12 would have been something special by the time it went into production. But we’ll never know because Rumsfeld was dead-set on Super Hornet and cancelled everything even remotely in competition with it.
It was Cheney, not Rumsfeld and as for the A-12 being a better option, given it never flew it is ambitious to suggest it would reach the capability you suggest. It was also cancelled long before the 96 offer of F-117 to the UK so wasn’t really an option.
OzairI wonder if RAF or MOD leadership researched the 117?
It would have been easy for them to go to California…but I know at least one example visited Bentwaters before the type was made public.
Thatcher had been briefed on the F-117 in Dec 85 according to this, http://www.f-117a.com/Timeline1.html. Presumably the US did not sit the UK Prime Minister in a room and tell her about their new stealth aircraft without at least a couple of high ranking Air Staff members being present.
OzairTime for some internet myth busting…
From the mid-1980s through early 90s, Lockheed Aeronautics leadership was hedging their bets of winning ATF by pushing advanced versions of F-117. After winning ATF, Lockheed leadership lost interest in F-117 and stopped internal funding of advanced versions.
But USAF continued to fund targeted maintenance enhancements in the 1990s and the RAM strip and re-coat program was one. The strip and re-coat program reduced total maintenance man hours per flight hour from 50+ to less than 8, similar to F-15 and less than F-111.
F-117 was the first aircraft to meet MIL-F-8785C for aircraft flying qualities, something even F/A-18 couldn’t do at the time. F-117 handling was similar to A-7D which is why special A-7Ds, outfitted with F-117 cockpit instruments and controls, were used as pilot trainers. In short, F-117 was not difficult to fly, but did have a high take off and touch down speed.
There are two offers being discussed, the offer to Thatcher in 86 and the 95 offer for an F-117C. In 86 when Thatcher was offered participation in F-117 it certainly wasn’t MIL-8785C certified, had none of the maintenance advancements and the production order had been reduced to 57 airframes.
OzairNerves at buying into a project which they couldnt talk about or reveal in order to replace known and visible types?
Perhaps although the UK joining the program may have necessitated an earlier release of F-117 info to the public. I’d say the RAF correctly identified that the F-117 wasn’t an easy aircraft to fly, was somewhat of a maintenance hog, was expensive to acquire and had a limited production run. The UK ended up having an exchange pilot fly the aircraft in 1988 anyway.
Ozairthe oscillation is a bit more than tailhook
Except it isn’t more. The oscillation occurs for light loaded aircraft only. On operations how frequently will we see light loaded airframes take off from a carrier? The answer for you given your preference to dodge actually answering a question is that we won’t. Light loaded airframes likely comprise less than 2% of all cat launches and to get around the issue there is the really easy fix of just loading the jet a bit heavier…
I also expect this will be a non issue for EM catapults given the acceleration profile will be a lot smoother and F-35C will likely be launched from a lot more EM catapults over its life that steam.
OzairWe’ve been thru this crap long time ago with Beesley.. No LM employee is a credible source for me.. Ever..
Great, clear bias established.
Nice edit by the way!
Sign In
