TinWingIf we were building Cavour-type light carriers, or BPE-type dual-purpose ships, the F-35B would be logical. But I don’t see why we’re sticking to it with big carriers.
Hasn’t the 25% displacement growth of the French CVF/PA2 taught us the lesson that adding steam catapults to a gas turbine powered ship is far more expensive and complex than the RN would have you believe?
TinWingHello Ting Wing!
Thanks a lot for this drawing. It helps to solve some questions I had (and perhaps others) about this design. If have seen this drawing various times but in a sligtly worse condition. Perhaps others like to join the interpretation?
The ships has three arrestor wires and a crash barrier. One lift is in front of the bridge the second somewhere abaft the bridge. On the angled deck is one catapult. What is new to me is the position of the other catapult. It is on the starbord side with the beginning between the Hawkeye and the Hornet – yellow circle (not in front of the Hornets as I thought previously). A mystery to me is the position of the second aircraft lift.
On the deckview I have the impression that the red circle is the Position, on the side view I would prefere the blue circle- Any thoughts?
The blue circle identifies the aft elevator on the side profile, at least that’s the way I see it.
The position of the forward catapult is also very interesting. It looks as if the jet blast deflector is adjacent to the forward elevator, but nothing is clear.
Overall, the side profile looks like other contemporary Bazan drawings. You can be certain that Bazan also produced a deck plan, but I have no idea how to find it.
TinWingThey havent been undereported at all , one just needs to look for them . Boeing has on 5-6 occassions this year come out with warnings on Weight and Supply issues , they increase the weight of the wings on the 787 due to lightining issues and came out and said that the MOW ( not OEW) was 2-3% over what they want eventually . They as recently as Last month came out with a warning in which they allocated 600 million dollars over 2 years to deal with Weight issues and help some suppliers catch up aswell as make arrangements to temp. produce certain components in house incase some suppliers fall back ( the 600 million includes 250 million for the 747-8 program as the I version has been slightly increased due to Customer request) . According to the SEC boeing cannot hide any information pretaining to delays etc and they will undergo an investigation if delays are seen and it is found that boeing knew about them but didnt report them . It is for this exact reason that boeing has come out through media , through Warnings during earning reportings etc and tabled the concerns all in all also stating the fact that the 787’s weight issue is within traditional levels for boeing programs ( in other words it is at the scale where traditional programs are at at this stage of their development) . Boeing is also on record of claiming as latest as TODAY that they will deliver the 787 on time , infact they just released April 28th as the day for ANA’s first delivery – why in the world would they make such a stupid descision to actually paint a date if they were seeing tremendous delays ? Boeing has a good recent record of delivering on time and as promised so the odds are in favour of them doing it yet again.
The 787’s delivery schedule will be on time….until it isn’t.
Boeing last major all-new product launch was the 777, and it is very clear that the 787 has been marketed with tremendous determination, but it is far from clear that the program will be on time.
But CFRP usage, production techniques have been used for many years by boeing for various programs.
Indeed, but it has never been used for a widebody fuselage.
There are no troubles with the 787’s composite issues , and no one is blaming the Pentagon or anyone else , it is how buisness is run and affairs are conducted. Boeing are for one not blaming anyone , through the course they have gotten many usefull patents while working on the dreamliner program.
Just how many attempts has Boeing made at making a defect free fuselage section?
If there is something on the horizon then none will be risk adverse. Look at some of the things Airbus has brought to commercial aviation as FIRSTS (like FBW etc) . Boeing is bringing All CFRP fues. , bleedless engines , Mood lighting , Higher humidity , etc etc into the frame with just one family . Boeing actually has a better reason to take slight risk now because it is because the DREAMLINER is so damn eff. (because it includes the newer more demanding engines , lighter CFRP materials,bleedless engines etc) that they have managed to get the BEST WIDEBODY LAUNCH IN HISTORY OF COMMERCIAL AVIATION with 455 orders with 34 customers till date and over 200 options on the table and we are still close to 1.5 years from EIS.
However the problem isnt risk but the basic one of BUISNESS model . Why would boeing invest precious money into a BWB now? They have a vastly succesfull 787 in design , a 747-8 in design ( thats 14 billion right there hedged on new programs) , moreover they have te 777-F on design and are selling 737NG’s at a record pace . For boeing it is more important now to work with the Engine folks and come up with a eff. engine for the Y1 ( remember Cruise gains through CFRP usage wont bring such great savings for a short range aircraft) and launch a program after all that is sorted out (EIS 2013-2015) . After the Y1 boeing will need to study the market and think if they need to replace the 777 with a Y3 or build a bigger Y3 (2win 777+ type with 400-500 genuine 10 Abreast) . These efforts will see them through 2020 to say the least and then it is time to make money !! I dont think the next cycle ( like the project Yellowstone) will come before 2030 at the earliest .
For Airbus there are A380 issues , 12 billion to spend on the A350XWB and then try to launch the A320RS so they are also in a tight spot .
It is too soon to refer to the 787 as the “BEST WIDEBODY LAUNCH IN HISTORY OF COMMERCIAL AVIATION.” Boeing has put together a substantial order book, but it is far easier to write a brochure than to delivery on time and up to the performance goals.
TinWingSince the Air Force chose the F-22 couldn’t have the Navy chose the YF-23A. It would offer a lot of the capabilities as the F-22 with its stealth design. As originally the ATF was created to develop an aircraft for possibly the AF and Navy. And the fact that the F-22 and the YF-23A had a lot similar features.
The YF-23A could have become a better Naval Fighterthan the F-22. With the addition of stronger landing gear and that the YF-23 has more ground clearance. The YF-23 would be better suited than the F-22 for absorbing hard carrier traps. As illustrated below.http://www.voodoo.cz/yf23/b/yf239.jpg
http://www.voodoo.cz/yf23/b/yf2318.jpgAlso the fact that the YF-23A V-shaped tail made it shorter than the F-22.
http://www.voodoo.cz/yf23/b/yf2320.jpg
And with having 2 bigger weapons bays than 3 smaller ones. It could have potentially been able to carry the mighty AIM-54C Pheonix and LGBs. as seen here with weapon bays doors open pic.
http://www.voodoo.cz/yf23/b/yf238.jpg
And I’m sure they could have redesigned the wings to fold for easier carrier storage or just left them as is like the french do for the Rafale.
If you want to get theses and more pics and info on YF-23 go to http://www.voodoo.cz/yf23/
Did the YF-23 have a suitably low approach speed for carrier operations? Can you be sure that wing folds were compatible with stealth and the peculiar wing planform/profile of the YF-23? Why do you think that the NATF and later A/FX were all variable geometry?
How could Northrop have become a prime contractor for a naval fighter?
More to the point, how could the Navy have afforded a direct F-14 replacement?
TinWing2 points here –
1) Both Airbus and Boeing have nothing really beneficial to challenge the status quo , specially when the market isnt screaming anything nor looks like doing anything radical .
Both Airbus and Boeing might be considered “risk adverse” after recent experiences. It goes without saying that delays have been disasterous for the A380, but the current and future issues with the 787 have been underreported
2) It isnt as simple as you think . Boeing’s expertise in Monolithic CFRP Fues. and structures was virtually negated when they couldnt use Time tested research that they did with Integrated Defence and Phantom Works dept. because the DOD did not allow this . This meant that BCA had to spend millions and billions of dollars to verify production techniques for fues. barrels,counter troubles of air bubbles ( even though they have been doing this for decades with ID) and work on blends etc .
Boeing defense experience has been of little value to the 787 program. I would somehow doubt that the “Phantom Works” has every produced a widebody composite fuselage, not even for the blackest of black programs.
It is convenient to blame the Department of Defense for the fundimental problems in the 787/”Dreamliner” program – especially when the Pentagon is completely innocent in this case.
TinWingToday a leading UK politicain has called for the banning of CBUs, due to the failure rate of the bomblets contained within and that these are “practically landmines”. This would be in contravention of the 1998 ottawa treaty if it was judged to be the case. Over to you guys and gals, am curious to see the diffrent points of view on the use of CBUs in all there forms on todays modern battlefields be that iraq, afghanistan or any other possible conflict.
Cluster bombs have gotten a largely undeserved bad reputation. Yes, there are unexploded munitions, but the same is true of every other weapons system. The bomblets in question also tend to be fairly visible, unlike land mines.
If unexploded cluster bomblets indeed were effective substitutes anti-personel mines, such a secondary capability might indeed be worthwhile in the area denial role.
Of course, the current hysteria regarding land mines is also entirely overblown. The is nothing wrong with maintaining well planned minefields in the Korean DMZ. The problem with land mines is that guerilla and militant groups tend to plant them indiscriminately in wartorn 3rd world countries.
The reality is that with the advent of the American WCMD, or Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser, there is a growing role for air dropped cluster munitions. If you can wipe out a large number of terrorists in an open area with a single pass from 20,000 feet, you have a worthwhile capability.
Even older cluster munitions have a place. In a future sustained conflict, after the RAF had depleted its minimal stockpile of Brimstone missiles it would be vital to fall back on BL.755 cluster bombs – at least as long as the Tornado GR.4 and Harrier GR.9 are still in service.
TinWingI agree that unless the RAN starts long lead design work for the Collins replacement the skills and capabilities will be lost.
It will hard to gain substantial funding any time soon for replacement for the Collins class replacments when the in service date for such vessels would be in the 2025-2030 timeframe. In the next two decades, it will be hard to justify the continued employment of a design and engineering staff, or even to preserve basic shipyard facilities.
ASC has won the contract to build the three Hobart class Air Warfare Destroyers, but the skills required are quite different.
Indeed, and unfortunately the “Air Warfare Destroyers” will undoubtable come in just as overbudget, with just as many early “bugs” as the Collins class. This is what happens when you attempt to build an entirely new class of ship, especially when a navy is too small to justify a continuing production run.
In the end, Australia’s new destroyers will probably not represent any cost saving over any DDG-51 class ships built in US shipyards. They might very well represent a lesser capabilty at a greater cost to Australian taxpayers.
Taiwan apparently approached Australian Submarine Corporation to build Collins class for them, but nothing came of it (nor was it likely to).
Unicorn
Export orders were always unlikely, but Taiwan represents an especially problematic customer. Chinese objections to a proposed submarine sale are largely secondary in importance to the fact that Taiwan just doesn’t seem to be able to fund a large 6-8 unit submarine purchase.
TinWingDo I really need to point out that Japan will continue submarine production in the decades to come, and Australia’s Collins class building program terminated with the 6th and final example?
In essence, other than the long term support of the existing half dozen submarines, Australia’s expensively purchase “submarine building industrial base” is effectively dormant.
TinWingForget the Mig-29K’s and pass them on to the Indian Air Force. Instead replace them with N-LCA’s or a western type like the Rafale, Super Hornet, or Lightning II. With China buying Advance Su-33’s India will need a much more capable Naval Fighter. :rolleyes:
The IN apparently did prefer a small initial buy of as few a 8 Rafale M fighters. Historically, the IN also purchased its Sea Harriers in small batches.
Sadly, Russia tied the transfer of the ex-Gorshkov to the sale of the MiG-29K. What a deal, buy a batch of unproven variants of an out of production figher, pay for a refit in a Russian shipyard, and receive a free aircraft carrier.
In reality, a fair deal for the Indian taxpayers would have a involved the transfer of the ex-Gorskov for its true worth – scrap value.
India should have had the right to refit the Gorshkov in a third party country’s shipyard. For instance, ex-Gorshkov could have been towed to South Korea for an extensive survey, and if the hull was deemed fit for further economical service, Russian firms could have provided boilers, turbines, and electronics as subcontractors.
Does anyone believe the the refit of ex-Gorskov in a Russian shipyard aids the indidgenous ADS program? Does restarting an inactive assembly line in Russia to build the unproven MiG-29K benefit the development of an indigenous Naval LCA?
TinWingNot to mention the post cold war Russias idea of storage- tie it up somewhere and let it rust. 😮
I do have to wonder if the Russian spent the money on dehumidification and properly securing the ex-Gorshkov with a caretaker crew – rare honest individuals who didn’t steal?
If even active Russian ships were virtually stripped bare by corrupt officers and crewmen in the post-Soviet period, it is hard to imagine that the ex-Gorshkov was uniquely protected.
TinWingI’d rather say personnel and maintenanance practices :diablo:
We all know what a single bad commanding officer managed to do to a certain aircraft carrier belonging to a certain superpower.
TinWingIn addition, the missile magazines that used to fill her bow have been replaced with holds for other stores, making her capable of sustaining combat operations far longer than when she was Adm. Gorskov? This is why her hangar was not enlarged.
Nonsense.
The ex-Gorshkov will retain her pitifully small hangar because the current refit is only minimal in terms of structural modifications.
It would take the removal of everything down to the floor of the hangar deck, followed by a complete rebuilding, to change the fundimental size of the hangar.
Vikramaditya is getting the equivilant (or better) of the USN Service Life Extension Program overhaul after only 7 years of service (1987-1994) and 10 years of storage… a 4-5 year full modernization and conversion!
The USN put far more money into its carrier SLEP refits than the Indians are willing to pay the Russian to make the ex-Gorshkov servicable.
Of course, the ex-Gorskov’s very troubled service history makes me wonder about the soundness of the basic design and original shipbuilding practices.
TinWingAdvantage offer– require a smaller carrier unlike conventional CV which requires huge operating cost and manpower.
Around 8000 tons to 14000 tons capable of housing 22 UCAV,capable of offering long range,deep strike abilitites. While the carrier itself must offer strong ADS as it can’t rely on UCAV to conduct Air defence.
Possible for such idea to be endorse in future by any countries? 😀
Don’t kid yourself into dreaming that a naval UCAV will be small or STOVL capable.
The USN wants a conventional catapult launched/arrested landing UCAV that has the same 75,000lb MTOW as the old F-14.
You can forget about a purpose designed, fast jet STOVL UCAV that could operate from small carriers.
Of course, it seems possible that the F-35B could eventually be operated as a UCAV – albeit with the same endurance and platform limitation of the manned aircraft.
TinWingThere is this question that puzzles my mind.
The F35 is a mere compromise. It had to be stealth, vtol and cheap.
To meet all these, the aircraft was never meant to have all the potential performance, a 4rth or 5fth gen fighter could accomplish.
The idea was that being stealth, ultimate performances were of second priority.
And to keep the cost even lower, stealth capability was mostly limited to only when the AC carries a “rather small internal payload”.
No problem with that too. During the first days of a conflict the F35 carrying only small ordinances, but in full stealth, would knock out enemy air defenses, radars missiles, AAA etc, to open the gates for a second attack wave, this time fully loaded. Right???The concept so far seams logical and the compromises rather acceptable.
Except for a small detail.
The development of the UNMANNED COMBAT AIR VEHICLEs…An UCAV can be much stealthier simply by being much smaller.
It should avoid air combat but even the F35 would only carry a pair of amraams, but not sidewiders.
And what is the best way to make that first ultra-high-risk air raids? UCAVs.Of course the absent of a pilot will degrade the versatility of the weapon.
But not much. UAVs are flown by computer auto-pilots, whistle at the same time, decision making, navigation and target picking is still possible to be done by ground based humans through sat or relay type communications.To reach a conclusion I personally believe that a combination of a “Non Stealth but Best performance” a/c like the F-16/EF2000 with a small UCAV like the Boeing X-45A or the Dassault Neuron, pose much more potential than the F-35 lightening. And with less cost and less risk too.
greg
After 4 years of just reading, I m back……
The big problem with you theory is that the USAF and USN aren’t intererested in procuring small UCAVs the size of the X-45A demonstrator. The Navy wants a 30+ ton UCAV and the Air Force wants something that under 50 tons MTOW.
The UCAV is rapidly becoming a surrogate for a strategic ranged bomber, albeit one with far greater loiter time than any manned platform.
As a manned tactical attack platform, the F-35 represents an unparalleled capability, not a “compromise.” In the absence of any real aerial threat, a greater investment in fighter performance is only a waste of resources.
TinWingRussia went bankrupt in 1998. Does it show now? Things don’t last forever.
Rising oil production and rising oil prices saved Russia. The Russian economy is still dangerously dependant on energy exports.
Sadly, increasing levels of state involvement in enegy production and distribution has lead to growing inefficiency.
Argentinas economy is enjoying its 4th year in succession of 9% growth. Export prices are through the roof, exports booming (China is buying all the beef, maize, soya, wool, etc Argentina can sell), money flooding in, & tax revenues way, way up. Government spending rose 11% more than inflation in 2005, & the government surplus still went up. And it’s carried on like that this year. Debt is being repaid & foreign reserves are still rising.
The government hasn’t been keen on letting the armed forces have much money so far, but that could change.
You failed to mention the extent of the economic failure that occured before the current recovery.
Argentina remains an economic wreck. Labor productivity is poor, taxation is high and even the key agricultural sector is in terrible shape.
What does it tell you when Argentina has to limit domestic consumption of beef to meet exports?
Sign In
