• Monday, January 27, 2020

New British jets can’t land on aircraft carriers

Discussion in 'Military Forum' started by praveen007, Jan 17, 2012.

  1. praveen007

    praveen007 FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    927
    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Ratings:
    +0 / 998 / -0
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    New British jets can’t land on aircraft carriers | idrw.org
    ++
    [​IMG]
    .
    .
    Fifty new fighter jets bought by Britain from US at a cost of five billion pounds (over USD 7 billion) cannot land on aircraft carriers because of a faulty hook that snags the war planes.The 50 Joint Strike Fighter jets were bought by the Royal Navy from US defence contractor Lockheed Martin, The Sun reported.
    The jets have a hook underneath which catches a wire on the ship’s deck to stop them when they land.
    But papers leaked from the Pentagon said the hook was too close to the jet’s wheels to work.
    Eight simulated landings have been carried out, and they all reportedly failed.

    The aircraft would now need a major redesigning or could even be scrapped.
    The daily said the defence ministry’s aircraft carrier replacement programme has been rocked by catastrophes.
    The National Audit Office said the cost of two ships could reach 10 billion pounds.
    The HMS Queen Elizabeth will not enter service till 2020, while the HMS Prince of Wales is scheduled to enter a year later.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  2. Black Widow

    Black Widow BANNED

    Messages:
    6,130
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2011
    Ratings:
    +0 / 5,054 / -17


    lol! they made small hook... :rofl:
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  3. jagjitnatt

    jagjitnatt SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    2,136
    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Ratings:
    +0 / 2,238 / -0
    how the hell can they make such mistakes. Didn't they simulate landings in the design phase???

    I don't believe this. They can't be that stupid. I mean they've been building planes since so many decades now.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  4. Mosamania

    Mosamania ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    10,171
    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Ratings:
    +5 / 14,275 / -0
    Country:
    Saudi Arabia
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia
    That's what happens when Media that knows nothing of military stuff makes news like these. We all know they are talking about the F-35 they are getting from the US. Last time I checked the Naval variant had Vertical Take Off capability.

    And also another info to keep in mind the British carrier can only operate VTOL Aircrafts hence the Harrier so this news is utter BS.
     
  5. Black Widow

    Black Widow BANNED

    Messages:
    6,130
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2011
    Ratings:
    +0 / 5,054 / -17
    But I heard that they (Brits) chose CATOBAR configuration for there supercarrier and they are not looking for VTOL F35B.. Infact due to price constrain they opted for Catapult and Asserted recovery F35.

    Please clear the cloud over it.. :)
    F-35A, conventional take off and landing (CTOL) variant.
    F-35B, short-take off and vertical-landing (STOVL) variant. VTOL
    F-35C, carrier-based CATOBAR (CV) variant.

    I think UK is going for F35C now (Cheaper than F35B)
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  6. Zarvan

    Zarvan ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    47,918
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Ratings:
    +84 / 49,871 / -13
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Which Planes nobody has mentioned the planes ?
     
  7. member.exe

    member.exe SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    6,745
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Ratings:
    +2 / 6,398 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    ^^^ The article clearly says Joint Strike Fighter
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  8. OrionHunter

    OrionHunter ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    13,820
    Joined:
    May 28, 2011
    Ratings:
    +15 / 23,075 / -19
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    This is a funny report! Firstly, the F-35 would be rolling out only by 2016. So the Brits haven't received any as yet. There's plenty of time for trials and modifications. The following screw-ups have been noticed in the F-35:

    The Helmet mounted display system does not work properly.
    The fuel dump subsystem poses a fire hazard.
    The Integrated Power Package is unreliable and difficult to service.
    The F-35Cs arresting hook does not work.
    There are classified "survivability issues", which have been speculated to be about stealth.
    The wing buffet is worse than previously reported.
    The airframe is unlikely to last through the required lifespan.
    The flight test program has yet to explore the most challenging areas.
    The software development is behind schedule.
    The aircraft is in danger of going overweight or, for the F-35B, too nose-heavy for VTOL operations.
    There are multiple thermal management problems. The air conditioner fails to keep the pilot and controls cool enough.
    The roll posts on the F-35B overheat, and using the afterburner damages the aircraft.
    The automated logistics system does not work properly.
    And the lightning protection on the F-35 Lightning II is uncertified.

    Secondly, Britain would have ordered the F-35C, carrier-based CATOBAR (CV) variant which has VTOL capabilities that doesn't require an arresting hook always. This would be used only as a back-up system. Here's a video...



    Bottom line: The Brits are dumb to go in for this fancy toy. At US$150M (avg. cost, 2011) for the F-35B, and US$139.5M for the F-35C, that's mind bogglingly expensive for its projected capabilities. And by the way, stealth doesn't mean that the aircraft disappears. It does only at certain angles. So all this hullabaloo about its 'fantastic' stealth capabilities is all hogwash!

    Cheers! [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 5, 2013
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  9. Mosamania

    Mosamania ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    10,171
    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Ratings:
    +5 / 14,275 / -0
    Country:
    Saudi Arabia
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia
    I was under the impression that they are going for the F-35B because their carriers are small and they want something that will continue on the Harrier's legacy. But I guess yeah they are going for the F-35C I wasn't aware of this development. In that case this news might still hold some credibility.

    On the other hand the thing that really caught my attention is the Price Tag. Damn this is one expensive ******.
     
  10. member.exe

    member.exe SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    6,745
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Ratings:
    +2 / 6,398 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Queen Elizabeth class carriers are big boats. They can carry more than Jump jets
     
  11. forumstalker

    forumstalker FULL MEMBER

    New Recruit

    Messages:
    40
    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2011
    Ratings:
    +0 / 13 / -0
    Very annoying as a concerned Brit reading this. Switching to the CTOL naval variant (F-35C) from the VTOL variant (the B) seemed to make sense in terms of through-life maintenance (C's I think is less than the B's), the better range of the C...

    The QE class a large enough to take both easily (unless F35B melts the deck!). The current govt will probably stay the course with the current decision, as the inter-operability with the US and France it offers.
    Hefty price tag for a jet, yes. Not entirely stealthy, true. But it would be a major step up in strike capability (which our politicians seem at times too trigger-happy to use), although a navalised Taranis/Taranis successor would surpass this I believe.

    Just frustrating that the government is not sure what we want to logically do with the planes and carriers, let alone the whole navy and armed forces!
     
  12. Birbal

    Birbal FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,145
    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Ratings:
    +0 / 1,024 / -0
    To clarify:

    The standard variant is the F-35A. This is what the USAF plans to buy. The VTOL variant is the F-35B, which the Marine Corps plan to by. The carrier variant is the F-35C, which the navy plans to buy.

    Last year, the F-35B was decoupled from the other two aircraft because of major delays in its development. AFAIK, they will be doing more testing and look into what modifications are necessary.

    Now, we see that the much more important carrier based F-35C is in need of a major redesign (they can't simply modify the tailhook without displacing other things, so the structure itself needs to be changed).

    In essence, the F-35 is going to be the biggest money pit in military history. Things are even worse than most of us expected. Thank goodness the somewhat U.S. friendly Indian government didn't go for the F-35 rather than the PAK FA.
     
  13. PERSIAN GOD KING

    PERSIAN GOD KING BANNED

    Messages:
    4,361
    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Ratings:
    +0 / 4,966 / -0
    This plane is used to fool the arabs into pouring money in usa military industries by buying these, I love the JSF since its just a waste of money.
     
  14. Ziggy1977

    Ziggy1977 FULL MEMBER

    New Recruit

    Messages:
    38
    Joined:
    May 3, 2019
    Ratings:
    +0 / 12 / -0
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    the UK is going with the F35Bs. they already have brought 20 of them. but the real issue is would be the QE CV has no catapults.

    Queen Elizabeth (QE), has no catapults or arrestor wires, and is instead designed to operate V/STOL aircraft. so this article is ether false or doesn't understand how ship like this work. that you would have put the QE back into dry dock and tear it's deck up and rebuild the inside to connect it to the ships generators. as it powered by steam.

    the QE and it sister Prince of Wales (PoW) 65,000T/950ft are small compared to:

    US CVNs
    Ford 100,00T/1,106ft 1 in serve, 1 sea trials, 1 under construction, 2 more ordered and paid for. and 5 more planned
    Nimitz 100,000T to 104,000T/1092ft 10 in serve
    Type 003A 107,000T/????ft 1 planned China

    CV
    Type 002A 85,000T/???ft 1 under construction China

    but large compared

    CV
    Kuznetsov 54,000T/1001ft 2 in serve (Russia & China), 1 in sea trials
    Kiev 45,000T/896ft 1 in serve India, 2 retired
    Vikrant 40,000T/860ft 1 under construction in India
    Vishal 65,000T/???ft 1 ordered India
    Garbaldi 14,000T/591ft 1 in serve Italy
    Cavour 28,000T/800ft 1 in serve with Italy
    Naruebet 11,000T/599ft 1 in serve with Thailand

    CVN
    De Gaulle 42,000T/858ft 1 serve with france

    LHA/LHD/LPH
    America 44,000T/884ft 1 in serve, 1 sea trails, 1 under construction, 2 ordered and paid for and 6 more planned.
    Wasp 41,000T/843ft 8 in serve
    Tarawa 40,000T/834ft 3 in ready reserve, 2 fully retired
    Carlos/Canberra 27,000T/757ft 2 in serve in RAN, 1 in serve with Spain, 1 planned by Turkey
    Ocean 21,000T/667ft 1 in serve with Brazil
    Mistral 20,000T/653ft 3 in serve with france and 2 in serve with Egypt
    Dardo 19,000T/653ft 1 in serve and 1 under construction with the ROKN
    Izumo 27,000T/814ft 2 in serve with Japan
    Hyuga 18,000T/646ft 2 in serve with Japan
    Triste 33,000T/805ft 1 in sea trials with Italy
    Type 075 37,000T/764ft 1 in sea trials, 1 under construction, 1 ordered in serve with China
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2019
  15. Hamartia Antidote

    Hamartia Antidote ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    18,105
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2013
    Ratings:
    +25 / 13,397 / -5
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1