Jump to content


Photo

Fairey noise


  • Please log in to reply
491 replies to this topic

#1 ozdude

ozdude
  • Member

  • 30 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 20 November 2011 - 12:56

Had to reply to your post #100, Bigleagueslider,

I have lived near or under many flight paths, civilian and military from the '60s onward. Whatever wing tip noise a Fairey Rotodyne might have made, it would be very hard pressed to be noisier than just about any other contemporary aeroplane.

Although 40 odd years of development might have quietened the average commercial jet to tolerable levels, their military cousins are still pretty deafening. What noise reductions would the Rotodyne, or later development have benefited from over the same period?

If nothing else, my discovery via this forum, and exploration of this nearly forgotten aviation byway has been 'quite interesting'. :)

Cheers, Ozdude



Advertisement

#2 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 20 November 2011 - 13:36

The Rotodyne had already reduced its tip noise to 60 db at 100 yards before it was scrapped.
Noise was never a problem, the aircraft was operated a number of times from the heliport in London and there were NO complaints.
The noise issue was used as an excuse to justify selling out one of the greatest aviation technologies of all time.

#3 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 20 November 2011 - 14:34

The Rotodyne .....
The noise issue was used as an excuse to justify selling out one of the greatest aviation technologies of all time.


You haven't answered why other countries and companies didn't pursue it ....

Most airports of the world and infrastructure to suit were already well established before this came along, did you consider the higher cost of it simply didn't justify it?

Had it been an option before the majority airports were established then it may have been a very viable option to pursue.

#4 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 20 November 2011 - 14:51

You haven't answered why other countries and companies didn't pursue it ....

Most airports of the world and infrastructure to suit were already well established before this came along, did you consider the higher cost of it simply didn't justify it?

Had it been an option before the majority airports were established then it may have been a very viable option to pursue.


Airports were only developed from WW2 fixed wing operations.
Prior to WW2 most airfields were just that grass fields with sheds on them.
Even Londons airport at Hendon was grass.
All Atlantic and long range civil air transport used either airships or flying boats.
Building airports after WW2 was just another con to get people into the American Dream illusion.
All the post war airliners were based on military aircraft technology and all were land based and needed long runways.
Rotodyne challenged this and the profiteers did not like it.
Like I said the same greedy ars-h---- that recently stole MOST of your money.

The concept of Rotodyne was started just after WW2 when the UK still had what was left of an Empire.
It would have given a far more efficient world transport system than the rubbish one we have today.
IT STILL COULD but we would have to scrap all the airports and jet airliners.

#5 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,381 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 20 November 2011 - 14:59

Rather off topic excpt it IS about aircraft noise - nice noises IMHO.

A few weeks ago I went to one of the UK IWM Duxford air shows , always a great day out.

Most of the flights were WW2 piston stuff Spitfires, Mustangsa and "Sally B" ( such evocative noises ) plus Korean war jets.

However there was display by a Belgian Air Force F-16 which probably stole the show.

Pure deafening, earth shaking NOISE . Full afterburn vertical climbs etc so the noise was straight down. Really the Airshow equivalent of Top Fuel I think

What was really funny was the pilot does a runway pass with the aircraft standing on the afterbuners ( Cobra?) then full afterburn climb out. He shuts off high up and the only noise is several hundred ( literally) car alarms going off!

#6 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 20 November 2011 - 15:16

Rather off topic excpt it IS about aircraft noise - nice noises IMHO.

A few weeks ago I went to one of the UK IWM Duxford air shows , always a great day out.

Most of the flights were WW2 piston stuff Spitfires, Mustangsa and "Sally B" ( such evocative noises ) plus Korean war jets.

However there was display by a Belgian Air Force F-16 which probably stole the show.

Pure deafening, earth shaking NOISE . Full afterburn vertical climbs etc so the noise was straight down. Really the Airshow equivalent of Top Fuel I think

What was really funny was the pilot does a runway pass with the aircraft standing on the afterbuners ( Cobra?) then full afterburn climb out. He shuts off high up and the only noise is several hundred ( literally) car alarms going off!


Nice, such a pity you did not see the Lightning at an unrestricted airshow.
I helped run one at Elstree back in the 70's.
The Lightning came in at 700 knots and went vertical (about four times the power of an F16).
It broke all the windows in the tower and many in the local village, there was hell to pay.
You could bounce a Lightning on its nose wheel and go vertical strait off the ground in 15 feet using 'both' afterburners.
They have not built a realy powerful jet fighter for decades or run a non restricted airshow.
It is well boreing for us old codgers.
Even the Spits you see at Duxford are limited to behind the crowd line and about a third their capability.
We musnt upset the current weak generations must we, health and safety might moan. hahaha

#7 RVF400

RVF400
  • Member

  • 50 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 20 November 2011 - 15:38

or run a non restricted airshow.

When two F-111 crews tell you where to go stand at 11:15.
Do it , it's well worth the hours drive. :)


I couldn't believe how loud the B-2 is.
Posted Image

#8 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 20 November 2011 - 16:12

or run a non restricted airshow.

When two F-111 crews tell you where to go stand at 11:15.
Do it , it's well worth the hours drive. :)


I couldn't believe how loud the B-2 is.
Posted Image


Kinda negates the stealth capability when heard by a group of Ak carrying Al Quida doesnt it.
I suppose they could get Israel to find targets for it.
Oh sorry been there done that.
The Avro Vulcan was nearly as good for radar avoidance, they didnt tell anyone though.
That might have sold it instead of scrapping it.
F111's swingwing was designed by Sir Barnes Wallis. Relative of Ken Wallis MBE.

Edited by 24gerrard, 20 November 2011 - 16:17.


#9 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,534 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 20 November 2011 - 16:20

What was really funny was the pilot does a runway pass with the aircraft standing on the afterbuners ( Cobra?) then full afterburn climb out. He shuts off high up and the only noise is several hundred ( literally) car alarms going off!


I don't believe the F-16 could do a Cobra.

Cobra manoeuvre - YouTube

Mig 29 M With Cobra manoeuvre - YouTube (at about 1:05)

Su-33 Unsuccessful cobra landing attempt - Admiral Kuznetsov ( RuAF) - YouTube

I don't think he was actually attempting to land using a cobra manouevre. And I doubt the Lightning could do that either.

Su-37 extreme manouevrability demo - YouTube

Edited by Wuzak, 20 November 2011 - 16:23.


#10 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 21 November 2011 - 09:21

Mig 29 M With Cobra manoeuvre -


Mig? Did someone say Mig??

http://forums.autosp...w...6714&hl=MIG

http://s784.photobuc...relexomilitary/



#11 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,534 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 21 November 2011 - 12:17

More Sukhoi Fun

Sukhoi Carrier operations

Who needs a catapult?

#12 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,672 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 21 November 2011 - 13:25

We should rename "The Technical Forum"as the "Techincal Thread Hijack Forum". Not that I don't like or take part in it  ;)

#13 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 21 November 2011 - 18:23

Nice, such a pity you did not see the Lightning at an unrestricted airshow.
I helped run one at Elstree back in the 70's.
The Lightning came in at 700 knots and went vertical (about four times the power of an F16).
It broke all the windows in the tower and many in the local village, there was hell to pay.
You could bounce a Lightning on its nose wheel and go vertical strait off the ground in 15 feet using 'both' afterburners.
They have not built a realy powerful jet fighter for decades or run a non restricted airshow.
It is well boreing for us old codgers.
Even the Spits you see at Duxford are limited to behind the crowd line and about a third their capability.
We musnt upset the current weak generations must we, health and safety might moan. hahaha


At least we can agree about something.But give the yanks credit where it's due there's never been a MIG yet that's shot down an F15.

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related


http://www.youtube.c...feature=related





Edited by Vanishing Point, 21 November 2011 - 18:53.


#14 RVF400

RVF400
  • Member

  • 50 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 21 November 2011 - 23:04

after the first 40 seconds its great
the guy in #3 has some large ones.



#15 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,534 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 21 November 2011 - 23:40

after the first 40 seconds its great
the guy in #3 has some large ones.


Must have been inches between his head and the belly tank.

Here is another close call...though not quite as fast



#16 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 22 November 2011 - 01:50








I was there and have a much better quality vid of the Mosquito on VHS.

#17 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 863 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 22 November 2011 - 04:35

Had to reply to your post #100, Bigleagueslider,

I have lived near or under many flight paths, civilian and military from the '60s onward. Whatever wing tip noise a Fairey Rotodyne might have made, it would be very hard pressed to be noisier than just about any other contemporary aeroplane.

Although 40 odd years of development might have quietened the average commercial jet to tolerable levels, their military cousins are still pretty deafening. What noise reductions would the Rotodyne, or later development have benefited from over the same period?

If nothing else, my discovery via this forum, and exploration of this nearly forgotten aviation byway has been 'quite interesting'. :)

Cheers, Ozdude


Ozdude,

The Fairey Rotodyne program actually had secured some commercial orders from US customers. But development delays in the program led to those orders eventually being cancelled.

The rotor tip jet noise was really only a problem during vertical take-off. Landings were mostly autorotations. Ram jets were then, and now 50 years later still, incredibly noisy. Commercial turbofan engines on the other hand, have become substantially quieter during that same time, mostly due to much greater airflow bypass ratios.

As for speed, the CH-47 is only about 20mph slower than the Rotodyne, with comparable range and payload.

slider


#18 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,534 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 22 November 2011 - 04:46

Some more low level Mosquito stuff....

The Philips factory in Eindhoven in 1942

(with Bostons and Havocs)


2nd TAF FBVIs

28 bombs on target from (probably) 36 dropped.


Operation Jericho (1944)

#19 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 7,480 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 22 November 2011 - 18:22

As a schoolboy I was at Wattisham for one such demo, very impressive.

I believe the US Marines had an equivalent to the RotoDyne - I don't know if they were related. Knowing the UK government's predeliction for handing our technology over to the Americans, I wouldn't be at all surprised...

Advertisement

#20 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 7,480 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 22 November 2011 - 18:26

F111's swingwing was designed by Sir Barnes Wallis. Relative of Ken Wallis MBE.



The Swallow may have been invented by Barnes Wallis, but he was long past designing when the F111 saw service.

#21 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 23 November 2011 - 10:34

http://www.theregist...harriers_saved/

I am furious over this.
Britains daft government is spending billions of pounds on two carriers we DONT need and the inferior AMERICAN aircraft they will operate.
Now they sell a proven military system that meets all the need for quick deployment and consolidation tasking in the modern military theaters of operation and to the AMERICANS and for a pitance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If this doesnt prove how corrupt and stupid out government is, nothing will.
I wonder which bankers ordered this disgusting move?

Do you have any doubts now that rotodyne and many other superior designs from Britian have been thrown away for the sake of the greed system and for the profits of a minority of criminals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It has been going on since WW2.

#22 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,508 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 23 November 2011 - 12:56

Oh yes, the curious case of Wing Commander Wallis. While I might be mistaken on some of the details, I seem to recall it this way... One day whilst out performing his customary sidewalk inspections, he became lost. Confused and disoriented, after 90 minutes or so he reverted to a feral state and soon he was spotted stripped naked in the park and running with a pack of squirrels. One day he would become their king.

#23 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 23 November 2011 - 14:29

Oh yes, the curious case of Wing Commander Wallis. While I might be mistaken on some of the details, I seem to recall it this way... One day whilst out performing his customary sidewalk inspections, he became lost. Confused and disoriented, after 90 minutes or so he reverted to a feral state and soon he was spotted stripped naked in the park and running with a pack of squirrels. One day he would become their king.


What are you on Magoo? :stoned: :drunk:

#24 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 23 November 2011 - 15:00

Oh yes, the curious case of Wing Commander Wallis. While I might be mistaken on some of the details, I seem to recall it this way... One day whilst out performing his customary sidewalk inspections, he became lost. Confused and disoriented, after 90 minutes or so he reverted to a feral state and soon he was spotted stripped naked in the park and running with a pack of squirrels. One day he would become their king.

I saw him quite often, holding court in the park, the Autumn mist swirling about his loins, a semicircle of squirrels hanging on every utterance. Not just squirrels, but a smattering of other shy, disease-carrying rodents, even a deer or two. Happy days... He insisted that the squirrels used his full title, and any follower who called him 'Wallis' was in for a severe kicking.

#25 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 23 November 2011 - 20:06

http://www.theregist...harriers_saved/

I am furious over this.
Britains daft government is spending billions of pounds on two carriers we DONT need and the inferior AMERICAN aircraft they will operate.
Now they sell a proven military system that meets all the need for quick deployment and consolidation tasking in the modern military theaters of operation and to the AMERICANS and for a pitance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If this doesnt prove how corrupt and stupid out government is, nothing will.
I wonder which bankers ordered this disgusting move?

Do you have any doubts now that rotodyne and many other superior designs from Britian have been thrown away for the sake of the greed system and for the profits of a minority of criminals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It has been going on since WW2.



We've always needed carriers ever since we invented the things and showed the Japanese how to use them at Pearl Harbour when we raided the Italian navy at Taranto and the Americans then used the idea to pay the Japanese back for it at Midway.We then scrapped the best fleet we had (which rightly used AMERICAN Phantom air superiority fighters because we had nothing at the time,or since,to match them for carrier use)during the 1970's and almost lost the Falklands war because we were using cheap cut price versions of the idea and those gutless Harriers which couldn't catch a few Skyhwaks and Etandards.

The Marines are probably happy enough to use the things because they've got the US Air Forces with 'proper' planes to call on if they get into a real fight.

The carriers that we're building now probably still won't be in the same leaugue as the Eagle and the Ark Royal of the 1970's let alone a US Navy battle group and the aircraft they carry probably won't be in the same league as a Phantom or an F14 or F18 either unless the Eurofighter can be converted for carrier use.

The British government has always been too stupid to really be corrupt.

Which is why we're lucky that in most recent combat situations we've not had to rely on just recent British fighter aircraft.As for the Rotodyne,Harrier,Tornado etc as they say there's only two types of aircraft fighters and targets.The question is wether the Tornado F3 or the Eurofighter was/is a better fighter than an F15,F18 for carrier use and F22 and in which case wether the money would have been better spent on an American product.


#26 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 23 November 2011 - 20:32

The Marines are probably happy enough to use the things because they've got the US Air Forces with 'proper' planes to call on if they get into a real fight.


And just where is this real fight going to originate from?
A few guys in the desert with AK47s?
This is the big problem with military thinking in 2011, there are far to many people still locked in the cold war mind set.


#27 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 23 November 2011 - 21:11

And just where is this real fight going to originate from?
A few guys in the desert with AK47s?
This is the big problem with military thinking in 2011, there are far to many people still locked in the cold war mind set.



Nothing is guaranteed in what's always been an unsafe world and history shows that substandard military equipment usually costs lives at some point.


#28 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,534 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 23 November 2011 - 23:27

We've always needed carriers ever since we invented the things and showed the Japanese how to use them at Pearl Harbour when we raided the Italian navy at Taranto and the Americans then used the idea to pay the Japanese back for it at Midway.We then scrapped the best fleet we had (which rightly used AMERICAN Phantom air superiority fighters because we had nothing at the time,or since,to match them for carrier use)during the 1970's and almost lost the Falklands war because we were using cheap cut price versions of the idea and those gutless Harriers which couldn't catch a few Skyhwaks and Etandards.

The Marines are probably happy enough to use the things because they've got the US Air Forces with 'proper' planes to call on if they get into a real fight.


The Marines use Harriers as attack aircraft, hence the US deignation as AV-8B.

There were proposals for supersonic versions of the Harrier concept, but these went by the wayside.


The carriers that we're building now probably still won't be in the same leaugue as the Eagle and the Ark Royal of the 1970's let alone a US Navy battle group and the aircraft they carry probably won't be in the same league as a Phantom or an F14 or F18 either unless the Eurofighter can be converted for carrier use.


The replacement for the Harrier, at least in US Marine service, is to be the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter. There are 3 versions of the JSF, the A, B (the STOVL version) and C (which, IIRC, is bigger than the A or B). The F-35 program is running seriously behind schedule and over budget. IIRC one report said that it was still some 7 years away from being in production and combat ready.

Australia signed onto the F-35 program in 2002. I am not sure if we are still part of the program. I hope not.

We are in the process of buying new F-18 Super Hornets to replace our F-111s. The bulk of our fighters are the earlier, and less capable F/A-18s.

Looking at Wiki RN Carriers the next generation carrier will have the angled deck as per US carriers. So that should allow some flexibility in choice of aircraft to operate from them.

But the Ark Royal didn't have the angled deck, and operated mainly STOVL (Harriers) and VTOL (Helicopters).




Which is why we're lucky that in most recent combat situations we've not had to rely on just recent British fighter aircraft.As for the Rotodyne,Harrier,Tornado etc as they say there's only two types of aircraft fighters and targets.The question is wether the Tornado F3 or the Eurofighter was/is a better fighter than an F15,F18 for carrier use and F22 and in which case wether the money would have been better spent on an American product.


Production of the F-22 has been stopped. It is overexpensive, not as effective as the brochure says and apparently doesn't have sufficient armour to be suitable for ground attack roles (ie apparently they are vulnerable to small arms fire!). The F-15 is not carrier capable, nor is the F-22. The Tornado isn't either, as far as I know, and I doubt that the Eurofighter Typhoon is.

The best American product for carrier-borne operations at the moment is the F-18E/F Super Hornet.

An alternative is the Dassault Rafale, which has a carrier version as well. Or, if you look to Russia there are the options of the MiG-29K (similar in size to the F-18) or the Sukhoi Su-33 (larger and more capable than the MiG, but also more expensive).

I believe the Tornado has come to or is coming to the end of its life. So it is unlikely that a carrier version of that will be possible.

By the time the RN's new carriers are completed the F-35 may be ready, so it is likely that will be the strike fighter used.

#29 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 24 November 2011 - 00:11

The Marines use Harriers as attack aircraft, hence the US deignation as AV-8B.

There were proposals for supersonic versions of the Harrier concept, but these went by the wayside.




The replacement for the Harrier, at least in US Marine service, is to be the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter. There are 3 versions of the JSF, the A, B (the STOVL version) and C (which, IIRC, is bigger than the A or B). The F-35 program is running seriously behind schedule and over budget. IIRC one report said that it was still some 7 years away from being in production and combat ready.

Australia signed onto the F-35 program in 2002. I am not sure if we are still part of the program. I hope not.

We are in the process of buying new F-18 Super Hornets to replace our F-111s. The bulk of our fighters are the earlier, and less capable F/A-18s.

Looking at Wiki RN Carriers the next generation carrier will have the angled deck as per US carriers. So that should allow some flexibility in choice of aircraft to operate from them.

But the Ark Royal didn't have the angled deck, and operated mainly STOVL (Harriers) and VTOL (Helicopters).






Production of the F-22 has been stopped. It is overexpensive, not as effective as the brochure says and apparently doesn't have sufficient armour to be suitable for ground attack roles (ie apparently they are vulnerable to small arms fire!). The F-15 is not carrier capable, nor is the F-22. The Tornado isn't either, as far as I know, and I doubt that the Eurofighter Typhoon is.

The best American product for carrier-borne operations at the moment is the F-18E/F Super Hornet.

An alternative is the Dassault Rafale, which has a carrier version as well. Or, if you look to Russia there are the options of the MiG-29K (similar in size to the F-18) or the Sukhoi Su-33 (larger and more capable than the MiG, but also more expensive).

I believe the Tornado has come to or is coming to the end of its life. So it is unlikely that a carrier version of that will be possible.

By the time the RN's new carriers are completed the F-35 may be ready, so it is likely that will be the strike fighter used.



I don't think that the new F 35 will be in the same league as a Phantom,F14 or F 18.The Ark Royal and the Eagle of the 1970's certainly were 'proper' catapult equipped,angled deck,carriers equipped with Phantoms and both were scrapped shortly before the Falklands War. :eek:

But I did say the F 18 is the right plane for carriers at the moment but the F 14 was probably better.


http://www.youtube.c...feature=related


http://www.youtube.c...feature=related


http://www.youtube.c...feature=related


Edited by Vanishing Point, 24 November 2011 - 01:06.


#30 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,534 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 24 November 2011 - 02:24

I don't think that the new F 35 will be in the same league as a Phantom,F14 or F 18.The Ark Royal and the Eagle of the 1970's certainly were 'proper' catapult equipped,angled deck,carriers equipped with Phantoms and both were scrapped shortly before the Falklands War. :eek:

But I did say the F 18 is the right plane for carriers at the moment but the F 14 was probably better.


http://www.youtube.c...feature=related


http://www.youtube.c...feature=related


http://www.youtube.c...feature=related



The F-14 was retired because of the cost of procurement and operations. The F-18 is cheaper.

Similarly in Russia it seems that the Sukhoi Su-33 saw only limited production, and will be replaced by the smaller and cheaper MiG-29K.

The F-4 was, of course, the best of an earlier era.

From this video http://www.youtube.c...feature=related it would appear that the RN will get the STOVL F-35Bs, and that the Queen Elizabeth class carriers won't have catapults or arresting gear. F-35s will be launched from a ramp as per Harrier, and be recovered in VTOL (or very short landing) mode.

Who knows, maybe by the time the carrier is completed the F-35 will actually work....


btw, a few years ago a simulated battle between a team using F-18s, F-22s and F-35 and opponents with Sukhoi Su-35/37 and MiG-29s. The Sukhois and MiGs dominated despite having inferior numbers, basically wiping out the American aircraft.

Maybe when the F-35 gets in the air they will be opposing things like this


#31 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 863 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 24 November 2011 - 02:39

And just where is this real fight going to originate from?
A few guys in the desert with AK47s?
This is the big problem with military thinking in 2011, there are far to many people still locked in the cold war mind set.


24gerrard,

You might question the value of aircraft carriers in the post cold war world, but I'll give you a couple of recent examples where US Navy carrier based aircraft were used to good effect, and likely saved the lives of many thousands. The first is the overflight of Kosovo by carrier based aircraft in the Adriatic, which helped prevent further genocide of Albanians by the Serbian military. The second is the enforcement of the southern Iraq no-fly zone by Persian Gulf based carriers during the 90's, which prevented further genocide of the Iraqi Kurds by the Hussein regime. The US Marines also flew AV-8B Harriers over Libya from the USS Kearsarge in the Mediterranean.

As for steam, existing US Nimitz carriers use steam power for launching aircraft. But the future carriers will use a linear electric launch system.

slider

#32 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 24 November 2011 - 03:12

The F-14 was retired because of the cost of procurement and operations. The F-18 is cheaper.

Similarly in Russia it seems that the Sukhoi Su-33 saw only limited production, and will be replaced by the smaller and cheaper MiG-29K.

The F-4 was, of course, the best of an earlier era.

From this video http://www.youtube.c...feature=related it would appear that the RN will get the STOVL F-35Bs, and that the Queen Elizabeth class carriers won't have catapults or arresting gear. F-35s will be launched from a ramp as per Harrier, and be recovered in VTOL (or very short landing) mode.

Who knows, maybe by the time the carrier is completed the F-35 will actually work....


btw, a few years ago a simulated battle between a team using F-18s, F-22s and F-35 and opponents with Sukhoi Su-35/37 and MiG-29s. The Sukhois and MiGs dominated despite having inferior numbers, basically wiping out the American aircraft.

Maybe when the F-35 gets in the air they will be opposing things like this



The problem with VSTOL aircraft is that it's always been difficult to make twin engined air superiority aircraft with that ability and the cheap rate QE2 carriers and the F 35 seem no different in that regard.I'm not surprised that the F 35 and F 18 can't look after itself but it is surprising to hear that the F 22 isn't up to the job either and US is going backwards from the days when the F 15 and the F 14 were introduced and that the decision to replace the F 14 with the inferior F 18 was cost driven.

I really think both governments are run by people with s..t for brains and can only hope that those like me,who said that getting rid of the Eagle and Ark Royal and the capability to use fleet air arm air superiority aircraft ,just before the Falklands kicked off,won't be proved right again but this time with (much) more to lose and more serious consequences.I really think that under these circumstances you'd need to be a kamikaze pilot to apply for a job with the RAF or Fleet Air Arm now and the US pilots won't be far behind judging by your comments.



#33 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 24 November 2011 - 03:19

24gerrard,

You might question the value of aircraft carriers in the post cold war world, but I'll give you a couple of recent examples where US Navy carrier based aircraft were used to good effect, and likely saved the lives of many thousands. The first is the overflight of Kosovo by carrier based aircraft in the Adriatic, which helped prevent further genocide of Albanians by the Serbian military. The second is the enforcement of the southern Iraq no-fly zone by Persian Gulf based carriers during the 90's, which prevented further genocide of the Iraqi Kurds by the Hussein regime. The US Marines also flew AV-8B Harriers over Libya from the USS Kearsarge in the Mediterranean.

As for steam, existing US Nimitz carriers use steam power for launching aircraft. But the future carriers will use a linear electric launch system.

slider


The question is why is it that China and Russia don't seem to be taking Gerrard's advice.They obviously seem to think that their military power needs to be built up to face a lot more than just a 'few guys in the desert with AK's'.So who is it that they are planning to use all the hardware against ??. :eek:

Edited by Vanishing Point, 24 November 2011 - 03:25.


#34 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 24 November 2011 - 09:36

The question is why is it that China and Russia don't seem to be taking Gerrard's advice.They obviously seem to think that their military power needs to be built up to face a lot more than just a 'few guys in the desert with AK's'.So who is it that they are planning to use all the hardware against ??. :eek:


Just like in America they keep the cold war flags flying just to allow the criminal minority to make money from making the stuff.
It would be far simpler to sit down as they have on global business issues and do the same for the military stand off.
They could all reduce their military forces by a huge amount.
IMO it is America that is mainly responsible for the continued paranoia.

Edited by 24gerrard, 24 November 2011 - 10:17.


#35 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 24 November 2011 - 09:44

24gerrard,

You might question the value of aircraft carriers in the post cold war world, but I'll give you a couple of recent examples where US Navy carrier based aircraft were used to good effect, and likely saved the lives of many thousands. The first is the overflight of Kosovo by carrier based aircraft in the Adriatic, which helped prevent further genocide of Albanians by the Serbian military. The second is the enforcement of the southern Iraq no-fly zone by Persian Gulf based carriers during the 90's, which prevented further genocide of the Iraqi Kurds by the Hussein regime. The US Marines also flew AV-8B Harriers over Libya from the USS Kearsarge in the Mediterranean.

As for steam, existing US Nimitz carriers use steam power for launching aircraft. But the future carriers will use a linear electric launch system.

slider


So how much better was an overfly of Kosova with expensive US carrier aircraft as opposed to quick deployment Harriers and consolidation aircraft in huge numbers?
The answer is to stop supplying modern military equipment to such regimes.

Enforcing the Southern no fly zone in Iraq was an excuse to use the carrier based aircraft and to trial the kit.
The only reason there was the odd obsolete aircraft still serviceable in Iraq or the Hussein regime was still in power, was because our governments WANTED it so. They could easily have taken it out completely as they did later with the second hit man Bush 2 in charge.

There was NO effective opposition in either case to warrant nuclear fleet carriers and vastly expensive conventional aircraft.

Edited by 24gerrard, 24 November 2011 - 10:18.


#36 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 24 November 2011 - 09:46

Nothing is guaranteed in what's always been an unsafe world and history shows that substandard military equipment usually costs lives at some point.


Of course a balanced military force is always needed.
It is the countries (mentioning no names buddy) that increase military spending that cause wars though.

#37 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 24 November 2011 - 09:55

The F-14 was retired because of the cost of procurement and operations. The F-18 is cheaper.

Similarly in Russia it seems that the Sukhoi Su-33 saw only limited production, and will be replaced by the smaller and cheaper MiG-29K.

The F-4 was, of course, the best of an earlier era.

From this video http://www.youtube.c...feature=related it would appear that the RN will get the STOVL F-35Bs, and that the Queen Elizabeth class carriers won't have catapults or arresting gear. F-35s will be launched from a ramp as per Harrier, and be recovered in VTOL (or very short landing) mode.

Who knows, maybe by the time the carrier is completed the F-35 will actually work....


btw, a few years ago a simulated battle between a team using F-18s, F-22s and F-35 and opponents with Sukhoi Su-35/37 and MiG-29s. The Sukhois and MiGs dominated despite having inferior numbers, basically wiping out the American aircraft.

Maybe when the F-35 gets in the air they will be opposing things like this


STOVL combat aircraft that go supersonic are IMO impossible to design and develop, certainly for carrier operation.
There is no possibility of matching land based designs in performance. (a waste of time and money)
The F-35 has been sold to the British government as a CON to make Americans money.
It has little chance of ever working, if it does it will be hell on earth to operate.
If they can stop the daft thing from burning huge holes in the flight deck it will be a start.
The Harrier supersonic project was dropped when the subject was studied a bit.
The Americans rarely do this, you only have to look at the reliant three wheeled design they have stolen for CART racing. :rotfl:
Without saying to much, I understand there have been major changes to the British carrier designs during build.
Somebody tell our daft government just what patsies they are?
Perhaps they can get our Harriers back before we end up with two static carrier displays in regents park like the Chinese concrete one Cheapy showed us.

Edited by 24gerrard, 24 November 2011 - 09:58.


#38 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 24 November 2011 - 10:03

24gerrard,

As for steam, existing US Nimitz carriers use steam power for launching aircraft. But the future carriers will use a linear electric launch system.

slider


Hmmm, same as the induction drag strip I suggested for EV drag racing.
At least the American Navy keeps up to speed.
They could use them to fire all the obsolete aircraft and ic cars they have into the ocean.

Edited by 24gerrard, 24 November 2011 - 10:04.


#39 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 24 November 2011 - 10:16

The Harrier concept was for a rapid deployment aircraft from ship or landbased.
The vectored thrust was designed to allow the aircraft to operate from forward 'tactical' bases and from ships far smaller than conventional carriers. Harriers can operate from a small tanker deck.
The aircraft is ideal for ground attack when the incident develops rapidly and requires a response swift enough to prevent the enemy building forces.
The vectored thrust also gives a combat advantage by decreasing the turn radius.

Non of this transfers to a 'supersonic' STOVL design.
In fact trying to do so will always result in a heavy complex and difficult to operate joke with a performance way below any conventional land based combat aircraft.
How was the British government so naive to be taken in by the Americans on this?

Advertisement

#40 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,534 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 24 November 2011 - 11:35

The answer is to stop supplying modern military equipment to such regimes.


Regimes have a habit of changing.


#41 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 24 November 2011 - 12:21

Regimes have a habit of changing.


You only have to ask the CIA to find that out.
So dont sell any of them the latest military kit or anything close.
Simple agreement with Russia China and any other major country would allow this.

#42 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 24 November 2011 - 15:06

Just like in America they keep the cold war flags flying just to allow the criminal minority to make money from making the stuff.
It would be far simpler to sit down as they have on global business issues and do the same for the military stand off.
They could all reduce their military forces by a huge amount.
IMO it is America that is mainly responsible for the continued paranoia.



I think that so called 'paranoia' actually kept the peace and made the world a much safer place than it is now.You're right they have sat down on 'global business issues' and look where it's got us.Going like sheep to the slaughter.

#43 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 24 November 2011 - 15:11

So how much better was an overfly of Kosova with expensive US carrier aircraft as opposed to quick deployment Harriers and consolidation aircraft in huge numbers?
The answer is to stop supplying modern military equipment to such regimes.

Enforcing the Southern no fly zone in Iraq was an excuse to use the carrier based aircraft and to trial the kit.
The only reason there was the odd obsolete aircraft still serviceable in Iraq or the Hussein regime was still in power, was because our governments WANTED it so. They could easily have taken it out completely as they did later with the second hit man Bush 2 in charge.

There was NO effective opposition in either case to warrant nuclear fleet carriers and vastly expensive conventional aircraft.


So how much better would it have been and how many lives could have been saved if we'd have used the 'proper' aircraft carriers and Phantoms that we had in the 1970's instead of Harrier carriers and Harriers during the Falklands conflict.The sad thing is you can't ask those that were killed by Argentine bombs and Exocets the answer.


#44 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 24 November 2011 - 15:14

The Harrier concept was for a rapid deployment aircraft from ship or landbased.
The vectored thrust was designed to allow the aircraft to operate from forward 'tactical' bases and from ships far smaller than conventional carriers. Harriers can operate from a small tanker deck.
The aircraft is ideal for ground attack when the incident develops rapidly and requires a response swift enough to prevent the enemy building forces.
The vectored thrust also gives a combat advantage by decreasing the turn radius.

Non of this transfers to a 'supersonic' STOVL design.
In fact trying to do so will always result in a heavy complex and difficult to operate joke with a performance way below any conventional land based combat aircraft.
How was the British government so naive to be taken in by the Americans on this?



The aircraft is only 'ideal' for ground attack if you've got the air superiority fighters to get air superiority in the theatre first and you just ain't going to be able to get air superiority with Harriers or any other type of VSTOL aircraft.


#45 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 24 November 2011 - 20:10

The aircraft is only 'ideal' for ground attack if you've got the air superiority fighters to get air superiority in the theatre first and you just ain't going to be able to get air superiority with Harriers or any other type of VSTOL aircraft.


You can achieve air superiority with any aircraft if there is no real opposition.

#46 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 24 November 2011 - 20:12

So how much better would it have been and how many lives could have been saved if we'd have used the 'proper' aircraft carriers and Phantoms that we had in the 1970's instead of Harrier carriers and Harriers during the Falklands conflict.The sad thing is you can't ask those that were killed by Argentine bombs and Exocets the answer.


Not nearly as many as you would have if we had retained a force in the Falklands.

#47 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 24 November 2011 - 20:16

I think that so called 'paranoia' actually kept the peace and made the world a much safer place than it is now.You're right they have sat down on 'global business issues' and look where it's got us.Going like sheep to the slaughter.


I think you will find the Americans and those who operate with them have all but lost control in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
I do not call that a safer world.
Thanks to corrupt world business and the leach bankers, they can no longer afford to deal with such military problems.
For every bankers bonus a soldier dies.
Dont forget Russia can carry on building 'air superiority fighters' on cold war lines and keep the west spending fortunes barely keeping up but Russia was no better in Afghanistan than America or anyone else. All they ever achieved were billion rubell holes in the sand rather than the current billion dollar holes.

Edited by 24gerrard, 24 November 2011 - 20:19.


#48 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 24 November 2011 - 20:38

You can achieve air superiority with any aircraft if there is no real opposition.


The 'opposition' in this case seems clear enough and it's as 'real' as it gets.

#49 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 24 November 2011 - 20:49

Not nearly as many as you would have if we had retained a force in the Falklands.


The outcome of the Falklands conflict was dependent on what happened at sea and in the air not just on land and in the air and there would have been no way of sustaining the required forces to defend the place so far away,against a country that was that close,without getting air superiority/supremacy in the area of exclusion required from air and naval interdiction,around the Islands, without naval air power.They never did get that air superiority/supremacy because the Harrier was never designed for that role.The casualties sustained were mostly the result that issue.As the Argentines rightly said they lost the Falklands war because their bombs weren't fused correctly and they ran out of exocet missiles (just) before we ran out of ships.

Edited by Vanishing Point, 24 November 2011 - 21:10.


#50 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 24 November 2011 - 21:09

I think you will find the Americans and those who operate with them have all but lost control in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
I do not call that a safer world.
Thanks to corrupt world business and the leach bankers, they can no longer afford to deal with such military problems.
For every bankers bonus a soldier dies.
Dont forget Russia can carry on building 'air superiority fighters' on cold war lines and keep the west spending fortunes barely keeping up but Russia was no better in Afghanistan than America or anyone else. All they ever achieved were billion rubell holes in the sand rather than the current billion dollar holes.


The Americans didn't lose control in Iraq they actually stopped what (was) at the time a very serious threat from one of the strongest powers in the Middle East that was getting stronger (with Russian help).The threat of an aggressive well armed Iraq has been removed which is what the object of the mission was and that mission wouldn't have been accomplished if the US didn't have air superiority fighters of the type it had v those of the Russian supplied Iraqi air force.What came after was just what happened by listening to the pc do gooders who think that it's the job of those who've stopped an aggressive power to then police it and re build it instead of sending the place back to the stone age and then closing the borders and forgetting about them.

But the terrorist threat from Afghanistan etc would be a lot less of a threat if the western countries stopped immigration by nationals from those States and applied travel and border restrictions against them instead of trying to deal with the problem at the wrong end.