Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Read up on the EF-35C Ferret.

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Sure. But, where they're going to put the lift fan to accommodate the backseat EW officer?

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

I remember having heated discussions, getting on for ten years ago, on why UK should have gone cats and traps and F18 Super Hornet for the new carriers. That were always, supposedly, designed for relatively easy conversion from VSTOL to conventional carriers.

Sadly the RAF was 100% behind F35B -since they believe it will allow pilots to operate from carriers with relatively little training and/or seatime- and, sadly, so was a good deal of the Royal Navy, although back then the idea was a smooth transition from VSTOL Harrier to VSTOL F35B. Of course now UK has had a carrier gap, all be it with air and deck crews working with the USN to retain skills.

I don't doubt F35B will be better than Sea Harrier, since it is a much more modern aircraft. although it worries me that something like pilot ejecting safety, that, obviously has little or nothing whatever to do with computer codes, and a great deal to do with air frame design and aerodynamics is in issue after 15 years of design and testing work...

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

The more complicated a system is the more teething problems it's going to have. Long gone are the days of wooden frames, fabric surfaces, and 80 hp radial engines you could fix with a pair of pliers and a screwdriver.

Look back on the original F-4 Phantom ... it didn't have MGs/Cannon ... a rather glaring oversight in a fighter wouldn't you say?

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Well it didn't until the F-4E came along in the fall of 1967. It carried a M61A1 VULCAN six barreled 20mm internal nose mounted cannon. Due to it's initial design mission as a long range radar interceptor it was felt the plane didn't need it. That would change with the lessons learned from the Vietnam War.

To be fair actually the F-4C did eventually carry either the SUU-16/A or SUU-23/A gun pods however they caused drag issues compared to just carrying extra fuel tanks or ordnance. These issues would part of the reason as stated above, for an internal mounted weapons system.

Seems like we just had this discussion within the last couple of years!?!

Anyway...
http://www.aviation-history.com/mcdonnell/f4.html
http://www.airforce-technology.com/p...ighter-bomber/
https://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/f-4_phantom_ii.pl


I saw some discussion on the next so here's a "where are they now" update.
https://theaviationist.com/2016/08/3...aesh-in-libya/

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Well yes and no. That was about technology seemingly overcoming physics and common sense: Missiles get more kills, more certainly, so who needs guns, except when you run out of missiles and/or the enemy is right up your rear and he has a cannon and you do not.

The pilot escaping a shot down aircraft, is, surely, a fairly basic thing to get right? Or is it overcoming physics and common sense again: Vastly expensive aircraft, the aircraft is so expensive it should be A) Invulnerable and B) the pilot is, finally, worth less than the aircraft so it is not so important? To me the idea that a F35 will never get into a close range 'dog fight' goes against all common sense and history.

Don't agree at all, about the pilot, just saying...

I'm fairly sure that X number of F35's with X number of missiles v Z number of enemy aircraft has been wargamed at a fairly professional level and that, for example if you have 48, very expensive, F35 and the enemy has 150 rather cheaper, but more agile, Soviet/Chinese aircraft, that he does not mind losing, the ending is not always all that good, no matter what the people who make (and make vast amounts of money from) the very, very, expensive F35 say...

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

The problem with the F-35 and ejection apparently comes from the massive weight of the VR helmet thingy the pilots have to wear. Undergoing rapid rocket acceleration that occurs with ejector seats, the pilot's neck seems to have a severe problem coping with all this and so is likely to be snapped by the massive whiplash effect.

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

So the people making the F35 lost sight of the restrictions the human body places on stuff? Really?

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

All this reminds me of the early 1960's, when, according to many experts, some of whom the British Government believed, we are told, missiles were going to make all manned aircraft obsolete. I think that probably also relates to F4 Phantoms starting life with no cannon.

It is a bit like "The bomber will always get through" BS that Governments believed in the 1930's...

Humans never seem to learn from history, perhaps because so few of us read it.

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Apparently so.

Then again, stuff that is cool in the design shop sometimes does not work well when exposed to reality. I worked on a Sea King airborne sonobouy system (that rapidly grew into a mission system), and the initial design used a track ball. That worked fine till it was installed in a real helicopter, which vibrates like a wobbly thing. The trackball then produced its own jiggle from the vibes. Had to be replaced with a stiff stick controller.

This VR helmet may have to be shelved if its so deadly, waiting for possible future tech that is light enough to be put in a normal weight flight helmet?. Pilots certainly do not have time to fish out a neck brace from storage somewhere in the cockpit and fit it properly, before pulling the eject handle!.