SteveOIt was interesting to read that the Brimstone can be directly targeted with the Head Up Display and TIALD pod, maybe it can be used with a Helmet Mounted Sight and radar too?
I’d like to see Brimstone fitted on the RN’s Lynx helicopters, it would be a lot more useful than the Sea Skua missile.
Does anyone know if the British Army’s Apache’s will be fitted with Brimstone?
SteveOThe cats are far longer than they need to be – apart from anything else, the length of cat run can be even shorter with EMALS (since it has a constant acceleration, unlike steam driven cats). The main problem with that parking arrangement is that it is not comparative – neither shows a realistic launch event. If they actually showed a genuine launch layout, then it would be clear how many more aircraft can be parked on a CTOL carrier in the launch phase.
Maybe EMALS will be shorter (do you have any info?) but what you don’t seem to realise is that a STOVL aircraft can adjust it’s take off run to it’s weight, short run for light loads and long run for heavy loads.
For a landing event, you may indeed need more plane manglers, but that is not really much of an issue – you just park planes on the bow and in the hangar – that is where they need to go anyway. Remember, in a STOVL carrier, for launches, you cannot park anything on the bow, but in a CTOL carrier, you can pack the bow with planes.
Yes you can, there is a deck park next to the ski-jump.
(The graphic for the CTOL carrier shows one bow and one waist cat, which is unusual – if going for two cats, you would normally make both waist cats).
Name me a two catapult carrier that has both on the waist, why would you put another catapult on the angled deck? it would prevent you from using one of your cats during landings!
SteveOAs for aircraft hovering over the deck waiting for landing, that is not actually true with the F-35B, which actually makes a short landing run, rather than a true vertical landing. Also, it takes a lot of fuel to hold in the landing – you are running at full thrust (not afterburner) just to stay airborne.
This is incorrect, the F-35B will land vertically at normal weights, the short rolling landing was suggested for higher bring back weights.
It also takes a lot of fuel if a conventional aircraft misses the wire and has to go around again for another go, the JSF will not spend long in the hover anyway, why do you think it will?
SteveOAs for the deck layout, I would not use MOD-source graphics… (Remember also that more of the bow can be used in a CTOL carrier)
Why not?
It looks like an accurate comparison of the STOVL and conventional CVF to me, why do you have a problem with it?
Is it because the 2 catapults clearly take up the same amount of deck space as the full length STO lane?
Or is it because the angled deck clearly takes up two thirds of the length of the ship?
SteveOStill seems weird seeing the Tornado equipped with such a short-range Hellfire-derived weapon. It’s a natural fit for Harrier and Apache, but it brings back the ‘staring down the barrel’ memories of Tornado/JP233. (For the GR4, does it come with additional cockpit flak curtains and a change of underwear ?!)
I think you will find that Brimstone has a pretty good stand off range and will no doubt match or exceed the range of the Maverick.
Brimstone (estimate) 32km (17nm) http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/common/AG/brimstone.html
Maverick 27 km (12nm) http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-65.htm
Ah, the Wasp. For a couple of years in the early ’80s, I remember 12 (?) round Wasp pods appearing on every NATO aircraft schematic before the program folded. The days of the Fulda gap…
It is surprising that many weapons now entering service were first conceived in the 80’s.
SteveOSteveOwhats the point in making a UCAV that can take of from anywhere if it dosnt have to becouse its endurance enables it to hit all the targets it needs to operating from conventiional established airbases?
What’s the point of conventional carriers with long range JSFs if all the targets that a STOVL JSF can’t reach can be attacked by long range land based UCAVs then???? 😉
SteveOI do not dismiss everything you say, but I do say you are incorrect in some of your assumptions. There is no real justification for the argument that STOVL aircraft will be able to launch and land faster – the takeoff of the STOVL aircraft takes up more deck space, and timewise, takes just as long. With CTOL, you can have aircraft readying for launch, immediately behind an aircraft being catapulted. With STOVL, the launch phase takes too much space to allow aircraft to ‘form up’ for launch.
The ‘limitations’ of the cats and arrestor gear are simply not relevant – F-35Bs will actually take much longer to get aboard, since they have to stop above the ship, and slowly descend, rather than simply come in to land.
I’m sorry, but that’s just not true. How can a single take off lane take up more space than 2-4 catapult lanes? I agree that catapults can launch 2-4 aircraft faster, but the next 2-4 need to be hooked up and made ready for launch while all a STOVL aircraft has to do is taxi into position and launch.
As for landing your even more wrong, multiple STOVL aircraft can land at the same time along the entire carrier deck while the next aircraft are hovering in line to land as soon as they taxi out the way. On a conventional carrier you need the entire angled deck clear to land one aircraft at a time and there is no guarantee it will catch the wire and if the aircraft that just landed doesn’t get out of the way in time or if there is a problem with the cable the next aircraft must be waved off, so you might end up with several failed landings that will delay planned operations.
Wind over deck and sea state conditions also effect conventional carrier ops more than STOVL ops.
The cost difference between a UCAV and a STOVL UCAV would be massive, truly massive. A normal UCAV could have a unit cost as low as $15-25m, but a STOVL UCAV of equivalent capability (weapons load and combat radius) would come in at around $40-60m, and that is a conservative estimate.
That’s just a matter of opinion and we will have to agree to disagree 😉
Pic comparing V/STOL CVF with conventional CVF. (notice that there is lots more usable space on the STOVL version 🙂 )
SteveOPrevious thread on Pumpjets here http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=47978
SteveOThis is a popular myth – the control systems for a UCAV actually take up a similar volume to that of a pilot. Notably, you need to install a satcomms system, which actually takes up a lot of volume, ironically, a similar shape to a cockpit! As for shape, combat aircraft are the shape they are because it is the most efficient, not because of the need to have a pilot, so removing the pilot actually changes very little in design terms. As for size, the need to carry a given warload dictates a given size, as they have discovered with the X-45 and X-47, which have grown dramatically for this very reason.
Again, this is a popular myth. The amount of time taken to cat a fighter is actually minimal, and takes a lot less deck length than a STO, thus allowing more deck space for deck movements. As Sealord said, the real restrictions on sortie numbers are the ability of the aircraft to fly (which is a maintenance problem, which the more complex STOVL aircraft is worse for), and the ability to refuel and rearm aircraft. The reality is that CTOL aircraft are actually more efficient, and you can launch them somewhat faster (two or three cats allow a whole alpha strike to be put up in under fifteen minutes, which is shorter than the time required for STOVL).
Is everything I say going to be dismissed as a ”popular myth” ? 🙂
I basically disagree with everything you say about UCAVs and think you need to look at this site http://www.darpa.mil/j-ucas/ to see my point of view.
As for the sortie rate issue STOVL aircraft will always be able to launch and land more quickly than aircraft that need catapults and arrestor gear to get on and off the carrier.
SteveOBecouse the vast majoruty of UCAV’s are desighned to be able to conduct long endurance operations anyway.
I don’t understand how long endurance would make STOVL capability pointless, please explain.
SteveOAs I said before a STOVL UCAV would be pointless and expensive, a special airframe would have to be desighned to accomodate the F-35B’s engine along with new flight control systems. Not to mention the fact that a STOVL UCAV is realy uncharted territory. And all for one customer who will likely only order limited numbers becouse they should have built their carrier with catapults in the first place.
What’s pointless about a high performance UCAV that can operate from almost anywhere?
SteveOThe idea that STOLV increases sortie rates for carriers is again an area which is more myth than reality, STOLV aircraft wiil alomst always take-off conventionaly taking the same time and space as a CTOL aircraft. Landings require a large area of the deck to be cleared if they are to be vertical and the aircraft still needs to be moved, ultimately the limiting factor on sorty rate is likely to be refuel and rearming times.
In your opinion it’s a myth, in reality it’s a fact 😉
SteveOI know it’s an annoying habit to answer questions with another question 😉 but: If it was easy to build such an airframe, why didn’t they give the F-35B those capabilities from the outset?
Because the whole point of the JSF program was to produce a CTOL, CV and STOVL fighter with the same airframe and engine. The F-35B can never match the performance of the A and C because of all of the extra STOVL equipment it needs to have.
Due to the STOVL penality the UCAV would need to be larger and heavier than the F-35B (a pretty complex design with ambitious performance goals itself). Like EdLaw said, an even more powerful engine than the current F-35 powerplant (already the strongest fighter engine to date, AFAIK) would be required. All this would make for a rather expensive aircraft, something most UCAV programmes hope to avoid.
I disagree, UCAVs don’t have cockpits and they don’t need to be the same shape or size as piloted aircraft so they can be built much lighter and smaller to match the range and payload performance of piloted aircraft.
Why would a STOVL UCAV need a more powerful engine than the F-35B to improve on the it’s performance?
SteveOBecause the development costs of a UCAV are not that much lower than the costs of a manned aircraft. The unit cost of such an aircraft would be very high as well. Remember, you would actually need a more powerful engine than that of the F-35B to give the performance of the F-35C.
I disagree, a STOVL UCAV would only need the F-35B’s engine and lift-fan in a new cockpitless and tailless airframe to achieve the performance of the F-35C.
Sign In
