A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Harrier vs. JSF-35



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #32  
Old December 14th 04, 11:31 PM
Paul J. Adam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"Merlin" wrote in message
roups.com...
An element of the story of 'Red Storm Rising' changed N.A.T.O. thinking
at the time.


Bullpoopie. Clancy's book did NOT "change NATO thinking". If you think it
did, please provide som proof beyond your personal claims...


I do recall reading a comment in "International Defence Review" of
1988ish that the security of Iceland was taken more seriously then than
it had been previously, with a throwaway mention of Clancy. (One of the
real-world issues being the willingness of the Icelanders themselves to
accept additional security...)

Of course, that is not a reflection of actual NATO doctrine. (One NATO
nation, pressed for its comments on a particular Experimental Tactic,
protested "But we haven't had time to study it yet, we can't possibly
respond in these unrealistically short timescales!" After all, that
EXTAC was only promulgated in 1974...)


But I can see how it could be misinterpreted as such.

"NATO thinking", "thinking of individual NATO nations", and "thinking of
groups of nations within NATO" are not interchangeable.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
  #33  
Old December 15th 04, 01:42 AM
Thomas Schoene
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Merlin wrote:
Why did the Lockheed X-35 beat the Boeing X-32 in the JSF competition
? Cheaper bid or better systems ?

Simpler design ?


Better performance. The lift fan gave the X-35 significantly better STOVL
up-and-away performance than the X-32. Even the Boeing team leader
acknowledged that they were sunk once LM demonstrated that the clutched lift
fan actually worked.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872




  #34  
Old December 15th 04, 02:07 AM
Guy Alcala
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thomas Schoene wrote:

Merlin wrote:
Why did the Lockheed X-35 beat the Boeing X-32 in the JSF competition
? Cheaper bid or better systems ?

Simpler design ?


Better performance. The lift fan gave the X-35 significantly better STOVL
up-and-away performance than the X-32. Even the Boeing team leader
acknowledged that they were sunk once LM demonstrated that the clutched lift
fan actually worked.


The question (or worry) has always been whether it would work reliably when
needed, as well as all the doors that also need to work. The Harrier design
using the Pegasus was never as efficient as using separate lift and
cruise/maneuver engines, but it had the advantage of simplicity and reliability,
and given thetechnology of the day none of the lift + cruise-engined beasts were
any better, and most a lot worse. The F-35 is something of a halfway step to a
separate lift engine, without that complication but relying on a highly loaded
shaft and gearbox. When it works, it works great. The remaining question is
will it work often enough and inexpensively enough, in squadron service. DoD is
convinced it will, and we'll just have to wait and see.

Guy

  #35  
Old December 15th 04, 04:37 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:21:46 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message ,
writes
Oh, and a jet that's shut down poses no danger; you can still raise a
fine knot on your head walking into a still prop! :-)


Been there, done that, luckily no scar to show for it...

Like I say, most flight deck personnel I've ever known say they don't
really like prop aircraft on a carrier deck. Whodda ever thunk you
might ever hear wisdom from an Aviation Boatswain?!?!?!?!?! :-)


Ya know, this idea of asking the folks who actually do the hard work
might catch on.


On my first "fly off" I was riding shotgun with my regular aircraft
commander. It was a really lousy North Atlantic day in early spring.
The gale was strong enough that we had to steam downwind to spread the
blades on the helos. We had intermittant white water over the bow.
We were about #5 for launch when our yellow shirt (taxi director), on
my side, caught a gust and was being slowly blown into our prop arc.
I hit the CAPC in th arm and pointed and he said, "be ready to punch
the feather button as I pull the mixture" (hitting him with the flat
of the blade would knock him silly but likely not kill him; it would
also end our participation in the fly off).

The yellow shirt first squatted down to break his wind profile but
continued moving. About the time the CAPC put his hand on the mixture
he rolled over and caught an eye-pad in the deck and stopped his
movement.

He hesitated a second, got to his feet, and returned to his proper
place to continue to direct us. I often wonder if anyone else even
noticed. We launched uneventfully.

It does take some balls to dance in that ballet.

Bill Kambic

  #38  
Old December 17th 04, 10:12 AM
Grantland
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The Aussies need strike eagle. Now. The Brits need Wasp. Only the
hatred of Bushstink stops it.

Grantland
  #39  
Old December 23rd 04, 01:04 AM
Bryan Ashcraft
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

As I recall there was a small issue of the Boeing design being a little
overweight, and the chin fairing had to be removed to save weight for the
vertical testing phase of the flyoff against the X-35. (About 1-1,500 pounds
as I recall)

Then as covered elsewhere there was the issue of Boeing were going to change
the design after the flyoff to include tailplanes, and clip the delta wings
in another effort to save weight.

I'm not sure a chin inlet was the way to go personally on a carrier deck for
CTOL. Weren't there issues with the A-7 with ingestion of FOD and crew?

But yeah, that Boeing design was ugly........ lol

Bry


"Yeff" wrote in message
...
On 14 Dec 2004 06:18:47 -0800, Merlin wrote:

Why did the Lockheed X-35 beat the Boeing X-32 in the JSF competition ?
Cheaper bid or better systems ?



  #40  
Old December 23rd 04, 09:24 AM
Grantland
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Bryan Ashcraft" wrote:

As I recall there was a small issue of the Boeing design being a little
overweight, and the chin fairing had to be removed to save weight for the
vertical testing phase of the flyoff against the X-35. (About 1-1,500 pounds
as I recall)

Then as covered elsewhere there was the issue of Boeing were going to change
the design after the flyoff to include tailplanes, and clip the delta wings
in another effort to save weight.

I'm not sure a chin inlet was the way to go personally on a carrier deck for
CTOL. Weren't there issues with the A-7 with ingestion of FOD and crew?

But yeah, that Boeing design was ugly........ lol

Bry

F/A-32 MONICA!

"Yeff" wrote in message
...
On 14 Dec 2004 06:18:47 -0800, Merlin wrote:

Why did the Lockheed X-35 beat the Boeing X-32 in the JSF competition ?
Cheaper bid or better systems ?



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The demise of the Sea Harrier Henry J Cobb Naval Aviation 39 April 25th 04 07:27 PM
Malaysian MiG-29s got trounced by RN Sea Harrier F/A2s in Exercise Flying Fish KDR Military Aviation 29 October 7th 03 06:30 PM
Malaysian MiG-29s got trounced by RN Sea Harrier F/A2s in Exercise Flying Fish KDR Naval Aviation 20 September 16th 03 09:01 PM
Harrier thrust vectoring in air-to-air combat? Alexandre Le-Kouby Military Aviation 11 September 3rd 03 01:47 AM
Osprey vs. Harrier Stephen D. Poe Military Aviation 58 August 18th 03 03:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.