no need to lease hornets.

they can do as the french do:

train pilots in the US on Goshawks following the US Navy training course, and, when they get out of training, they specialise on the aircraft they’ll use in service back in their country.

until they start getting thyeir F-35s, they can go back and fly with RAF aircraft (don’t know exactlky how the gonvernment will manage that)

in his book “flying through midnight” John T. Halliday talks about downing an Mi-8 over Laos during a candlestick mission by dropping a chain net on top of it from his C-123 (-actually his team in the rear dropped it on his orders)

As they weren’t supposed to be in Laos officially, and their aircraft were “unarmed”, the officials credited a Sandy (skyraider) with the kill (and officialy not in Laos, if my memory serves well)

@ppp

it’s never the fault of the ship, if you want to go that way. the ship is just an object. as for teh reason the illustrious had to go back:

human error

why CdG had to go back? human error

the basic reason is the same.. not necessarily on the same level (in one case, the sailors that don’t seem to read labels, and on another some mechanics or engineeres who don’t seem to read plans)

@ Grim901

he didn’t say “over their lifetime” but since the beginning of afghan conflict 😉

the basis of the carrier is made to be able to perform both types of operations (since it’s common to UK and french versions), it’s only the “high part”, with the deck, of the ship that will be different in tructure. For as long as that part isn’t made, it’s quite easy to switch to CATOBAR, may the need arise

i would like to temper the glee of a certain pro-rafale poster on this topic by suggesting that any complex system is prone to failure. My point about the harrier engine was partly that the French turned their back on VSTOl in the 60s and have never been convinced by it since.

So for example a Rafale approaching the deck suddenly losing control could fall into the same category… did Dassault say ” it is too dangerous to have an unstable aircraft run by computers try and land on an aircraft carrier” and opt for a simpler less complex design?

Simplistic i know, but i drive a car that has a drive by light control system and is practically one black box- which is no good for those who like a nice bit of greezee mechanics but has been the most reliable car i have owned. So i naturally tend to think that everything will be alright with the f35 lift system.

Criticism of the F35B lift system largely comes from cynics (born of experience i’m sure) like bazv, the anti f35 camp and those who don’t see the point of vertical flight.

Allow me boundless optimism at least:)

what you fail to say (on purpose I guess) is that all control systems (on the rafale as on any modern aircraft) are redundant, and one, or even two can fail while the aircraft still remains flyable (you can even have a complete failure on one engine and keep flying, unless that blows the other one away – purpose of having two engines = redundancy). on the other hand, a mecanic part like that shaft or any other bit of that assembly cannot be made “redundant”.. you have one, and if that breaks, your aircraft is history. like it or not, that’s the way it is

the “non parallel pylons” were necesary to counter vibrations the aircraft suffered with parallel ones… to modify them one would need to redesign other parts as well

materials have progeressed, but these rotors in wings occupy space and are dead weight once in flight.

when you look at a combat aircraft, it’s litterally crammed with all sorts of necessary equipments.. wasting a significant percentage of your available space for dead weight is not good by any standards…

and, what’s been demonstrated in the 60’s is that the more complex the system, the better chance of failure it stands.. and it does fail.

the only thign that became operational and did well what it was supposed to do was the gharrier, why?

simply because everything it used for vertical flight was also used for horizontal flight: there was no dead weight onboard.

when the F-35B, once in service, has its first crash because of that shaft that has to sustain the equivalent of some 28000hp, one has to wonder how long it will do before it starts cracking and one breaks down… probably in flight.

when that happens (because it WILL happen, sooner or later, between the clutch, shaft itself, reductor box, etc..), what then? ground all F-35Bs for examination, and potentially imagining a newer and safer system?

actually, after the F-35, the VARIOUS.. it seems that lockheed pulls out of the waste bin all VTOL projects that were tested and dismissed as impractical (to say the least) decades ago…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_XV-5_Vertifan