• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Sign in to follow this  
Shootist Jeff

F-35 Porn

Recommended Posts

Those modern fighters are like bloody anti-gravity devices.

 

Incredible machines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can do a vertical take-off at landing weight, if you can hover you can go up.

The running start is the plan for launch with full load of ammo and fuel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VTO takes a huge amount of fuel - the running ramp the Brits put on their small carriers makes a big difference to flight time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Extremely coo!! Why can they not do a Vertical Take-Off, Jeff?

I am pretty sure the F-35 can, but VTOL operations are incredibly inefficient. Even a slow roll greatly increases the takeoff weight so whenever possible VTOL planes really act in STOVL mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a few things came to mind while watching that video...

and I know I'm not up to speed on what role these critters are intended to play, but the hatches and flaps that open up for the vectored thrust fans look a might delicate to me. wondering how much damage one of those could sustain and still function.. a couple small arms rounds looks like it take out the hinges and hydraulics that open and close them.

 

impressive as they are, they remind me of how many failures we've had with canting keel mechanisms and the like.

 

just too many things that can break or go tits up. think I'd still rather go into battle in an A-10 LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Remember reading that the power going from the engine / through a shaft / gearbox / fan is the same as a WW2 destroyer propulsion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VTO takes a huge amount of fuel - the running ramp the Brits put on their small carriers makes a big difference to flight time.

 

Why didn't they put ski jumps on the Wasp Class assault ships? It has to be more than the innate Anglophobic nature of the USN?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

VTO takes a huge amount of fuel - the running ramp the Brits put on their small carriers makes a big difference to flight time.

 

Why didn't they put ski jumps on the Wasp Class assault ships? It has to be more than the innate Anglophobic nature of the USN?

It was originally designed as a helo carrier, it wasnt originally intended to launch harriers. Even when I was deployed on it in the late 90's it didn't carry harriers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

VTO takes a huge amount of fuel - the running ramp the Brits put on their small carriers makes a big difference to flight time.

Why didn't they put ski jumps on the Wasp Class assault ships? It has to be more than the innate Anglophobic nature of the USN?

It was originally designed as a helo carrier, it wasnt originally intended to launch harriers. Even when I was deployed on it in the late 90's it didn't carry harriers.

 

 

Were you USN crew or USMC that was on it for an ex or deployment?

Seeing as how the Marines have been flying Harriers since the 70's and one of them was flying Harriers in Gulf I that just doesn't make sense. Deck space issues, how often do they need to carry helo's on the front end?

I have a cousin that flew Greyhounds and when I asked him about it, he just shrugged and said "Heh, probably because the British came up with the idea first..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

VTO takes a huge amount of fuel - the running ramp the Brits put on their small carriers makes a big difference to flight time.

 

Why didn't they put ski jumps on the Wasp Class assault ships? It has to be more than the innate Anglophobic nature of the USN?

It was originally designed as a helo carrier, it wasnt originally intended to launch harriers. Even when I was deployed on it in the late 90's it didn't carry harriers.

Were you USN crew or USMC that was on it for an ex or deployment?

Seeing as how the Marines have been flying Harriers since the 70's and one of them was flying Harriers in Gulf I that just doesn't make sense. Deck space issues, how often do they need to carry helo's on the front end?

I have a cousin that flew Greyhounds and when I asked him about it, he just shrugged and said "Heh, probably because the British came up with the idea first..."

I was USMC infantry. The whole time we were in the Med we had nearby (relatively) aircraft carrier support. A Pacific Pump may have used a different loadout. But we were principle headed to provide ground support to Kosovo and the the former Yugoslavia so we had a lot of civilian construction equipment and heavy lift helicopters onboard. Stuff like bobcats, front end loaders, a cement truck (no fucking idea why), a fire truck (crowd control)...

 

By the tie we loaded all the assault gear in the holds there wasn't much roof left for helo's so they pretty much lived on the flight deck. The well deck was all preloaded with assault equipment, mech infantry and the like, then progressively less combat oriented stuff like skid loaders, fork lifts, cargo trucks, etc, then non-munition supplies like pallets of MRE's and water. By the time she left dock for the pump, there wasn't any empty space on the entire ship. Maybe a bit on the flight deck, but not a whole lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

VTO takes a huge amount of fuel - the running ramp the Brits put on their small carriers makes a big difference to flight time.

 

Why didn't they put ski jumps on the Wasp Class assault ships? It has to be more than the innate Anglophobic nature of the USN?

 

 

Not Invented Here permeates the USA, not just the military.

 

Try and list 10 good ideas invented in other countries that were adopted in the USA. There was a huge kerfuffle over the Marines getting Harriers BITD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing as how the Marines have been flying Harriers since the 70's and one of them was flying Harriers in Gulf I that just doesn't make sense.

 

 

 

I think the Marines got them in the mid 80's... my cousin was one of the fist squadrons to transition into them and this was in 1984... I use to go visit him in Yuma, AZ where the did the transition and training.

 

What a dreadful place

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

VTO takes a huge amount of fuel - the running ramp the Brits put on their small carriers makes a big difference to flight time.

Why didn't they put ski jumps on the Wasp Class assault ships? It has to be more than the innate Anglophobic nature of the USN?

Not Invented Here permeates the USA, not just the military.

 

Try and list 10 good ideas invented in other countries that were adopted in the USA. There was a huge kerfuffle over the Marines getting Harriers BITD.

NIH syndrome is just one of our 10 exceptional qualities!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got a question and a comment.

 

First the question. I noticed that the two landing spots on the flight deck for the F-35s were a different color, did the Wasp's flight deck have to be retrofitted / upgraded similar to the America class?

 

The sad thing when I look at all these ridiculously cool modern fighter and bomber aircraft is that they won't live on past their military service, they're probably too complex to maintain and operate as an individual or foundation. While 50 years from now there will still be a bunch of WW2 aircraft flying, the odds that we'll get to see F-22s, F-35s, or any of their foreign counterparts seems remarkably slim, which is a shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Seeing as how the Marines have been flying Harriers since the 70's and one of them was flying Harriers in Gulf I that just doesn't make sense.

 

 

 

I think the Marines got them in the mid 80's... my cousin was one of the fist squadrons to transition into them and this was in 1984... I use to go visit him in Yuma, AZ where the did the transition and training.

 

What a dreadful place

 

 

AV-8A was a dreadful airplane. Largely a Hawker-Siddeley product, the US put some money into it and bought it for the Marines in the early 70's. We used to hold mock wakes for fellow flight school grads who received orders to Harriers and it was widely mocked for it's "Dead Bug" roll over and die tendency. The mission was described as delivery of a single bomb, aircraft and pilot to a target within a few miles for where it took off. US started the AV-8B development in the late 70's (love the capability. Hate the execution in AV-8A) without the Brits but later they joined in development of the AV-8B/Harrier GR7 which was a lot better airplane. Even then, it held the record for the highest cost per hour tactical aircraft in the US inventory for a lot of years. NOthing fundamentally wrong, jut lots of expensive and troublesome bits that tended to break.

 

Harriers uses "direct impingement" for vertical lift and max vertical takeoff is very limited. LM largely got the Marine vote for F-35 by using a lift fan (with the transmission, clutch, doors, and other "fiddly bits" that a FMECA (failure modes and effects analysis) leads to one result - if a part in that chain fails at a critical time, the aircraft will crash. To LM's credit, so far, the lift system looks very robust in operation. Advantage of the lift fan is lots of mass airflow that is a lift multiplier over direct exhaust impingement. Even so, the exhaust of the F125 engine can spall concrete, melt mild steel, etc. so there are challenges. To be fair, the F-414's in the F/A-18E/F/G required jet blast deflector mods to the carrier to cool them. All new aircraft come with associated changes to the platforms carrying them. It's why we have "air-ship integration" teams because major ship alterations happen on a very long cycle.

 

Ski jump has been looked at a lot and has some real advantages but some trades as well. US decided to not make those trades. UK makes them. A lot of Brit, Australian, French and even Russian tech (post Cold War and pre Putin) has made it into US aircraft.

 

Friend of mine has both a single seat and a 2 seat Harrier and takes them to airshows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Seeing as how the Marines have been flying Harriers since the 70's and one of them was flying Harriers in Gulf I that just doesn't make sense.

 

 

 

I think the Marines got them in the mid 80's... my cousin was one of the fist squadrons to transition into them and this was in 1984... I use to go visit him in Yuma, AZ where the did the transition and training.

 

What a dreadful place

 

 

[snip]

 

Friend of mine has both a single seat and a 2 seat Harrier and takes them to airshows.

 

 

wat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Seeing as how the Marines have been flying Harriers since the 70's and one of them was flying Harriers in Gulf I that just doesn't make sense.

 

 

I think the Marines got them in the mid 80's... my cousin was one of the fist squadrons to transition into them and this was in 1984... I use to go visit him in Yuma, AZ where the did the transition and training.

 

What a dreadful place

[snip]

 

Friend of mine has both a single seat and a 2 seat Harrier and takes them to airshows.

wat

. http://artnalls.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Seeing as how the Marines have been flying Harriers since the 70's and one of them was flying Harriers in Gulf I that just doesn't make sense.

 

I think the Marines got them in the mid 80's... my cousin was one of the fist squadrons to transition into them and this was in 1984... I use to go visit him in Yuma, AZ where the did the transition and training.

 

What a dreadful place

[snip]

 

Friend of mine has both a single seat and a 2 seat Harrier and takes them to airshows.

wat

. http://artnalls.com

 

 

Some pretty impressive resumes there....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got a question and a comment.

 

First the question. I noticed that the two landing spots on the flight deck for the F-35s were a different color, did the Wasp's flight deck have to be retrofitted / upgraded similar to the America class?

 

The sad thing when I look at all these ridiculously cool modern fighter and bomber aircraft is that they won't live on past their military service, they're probably too complex to maintain and operate as an individual or foundation. While 50 years from now there will still be a bunch of WW2 aircraft flying, the odds that we'll get to see F-22s, F-35s, or any of their foreign counterparts seems remarkably slim, which is a shame.

The different color is different deck surfacing material being tested. The F-35 is significantly hotter than the Harriers according to the pilot and swo folks who deal with them. Or so I'm told by my daughter (USNA grad) who has friends in that community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Seeing as how the Marines have been flying Harriers since the 70's and one of them was flying Harriers in Gulf I that just doesn't make sense.

 

 

 

I think the Marines got them in the mid 80's... my cousin was one of the fist squadrons to transition into them and this was in 1984... I use to go visit him in Yuma, AZ where the did the transition and training.

 

What a dreadful place

 

 

AV-8A was a dreadful airplane. Largely a Hawker-Siddeley product, the US put some money into it and bought it for the Marines in the early 70's. We used to hold mock wakes for fellow flight school grads who received orders to Harriers and it was widely mocked for it's "Dead Bug" roll over and die tendency. The mission was described as delivery of a single bomb, aircraft and pilot to a target within a few miles for where it took off. US started the AV-8B development in the late 70's (love the capability. Hate the execution in AV-8A) without the Brits but later they joined in development of the AV-8B/Harrier GR7 which was a lot better airplane. Even then, it held the record for the highest cost per hour tactical aircraft in the US inventory for a lot of years. NOthing fundamentally wrong, jut lots of expensive and troublesome bits that tended to break.

 

Harriers uses "direct impingement" for vertical lift and max vertical takeoff is very limited. LM largely got the Marine vote for F-35 by using a lift fan (with the transmission, clutch, doors, and other "fiddly bits" that a FMECA (failure modes and effects analysis) leads to one result - if a part in that chain fails at a critical time, the aircraft will crash. To LM's credit, so far, the lift system looks very robust in operation. Advantage of the lift fan is lots of mass airflow that is a lift multiplier over direct exhaust impingement. Even so, the exhaust of the F125 engine can spall concrete, melt mild steel, etc. so there are challenges. To be fair, the F-414's in the F/A-18E/F/G required jet blast deflector mods to the carrier to cool them. All new aircraft come with associated changes to the platforms carrying them. It's why we have "air-ship integration" teams because major ship alterations happen on a very long cycle.

 

Ski jump has been looked at a lot and has some real advantages but some trades as well. US decided to not make those trades. UK makes them. A lot of Brit, Australian, French and even Russian tech (post Cold War and pre Putin) has made it into US aircraft.

 

Friend of mine has both a single seat and a 2 seat Harrier and takes them to airshows.

 

To jump on IB's bandwagon here. On the ramp thing, its really about mission capability trades, and not about "Not Invented Here" syndrome. The Brits and others use the ski-jump approach as a way to launch fixed wing aircraft from smaller aircraft carriers and/or not deal with the weight and complexity of catapults. Our aircraft carriers are large enough to have dedicated catapults. The LH class ships are primarily helo/CV-22 carriers for landing Marines ashore. The ramp would take away a landing spot, which would reduce the numbers of Marines you can move on and off the ship. For us, that's not a trade we want to make. If we need to generate more fixed wing sorties, or fly longer ranged missions, we either bring a carrier or get a tanker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ramp was created for launching Harriers without relying totally on VTO capability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon, So yes, the ramp was created to launch Sea Harriers... because Great Britain had decommissioned all it's traditional aircraft carriers by the late 70's, and had commissioned the Invincible Class Carriers as aviation-capable anti-submarine warfare (ASW) platforms to counter the Cold War North Atlantic Soviet submarine threat.

 

To quote Wiki (dangerous sometimes, but accurate here):

"The government decided that the carrier needed fixed-wing aircraft to defend against Soviet reconnaissance aircraft.[12] In May 1975, it authorised the maritime version of the Hawker Siddeley Harrier,[10][14] which was successfully developed into the Sea Harrier. This meant that the design was reworked again to include a small complement of these VTOL aircraft. In order to launch a heavily laden Harrier more efficiently by STOVL (short take-off vertical landing) from the comparatively short - 170-metre (560 ft) - flight deck, a 'ski-jump' was developed. The slope was initially 7° when incorporated into Invincible and Illustrious and 12° for Ark Royal."

 

The loss of their "conventional" carrier capability which cost them both fighters with longer range and endurance, and Airborne Early Warning (like the E-2 Hawkeye) and had serious negative impacts to the British Fleet during the Falklands War.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get it now, vertical landing is easy peasy, once you've dumped your bomb-load and burned up your fuel, but VTO would seriously limit those payloads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon, So yes, the ramp was created to launch Sea Harriers... because Great Britain had decommissioned all it's traditional aircraft carriers by the late 70's, and had commissioned the Invincible Class Carriers as aviation-capable anti-submarine warfare (ASW) platforms to counter the Cold War North Atlantic Soviet submarine threat.

 

To quote Wiki (dangerous sometimes, but accurate here):

"The government decided that the carrier needed fixed-wing aircraft to defend against Soviet reconnaissance aircraft.[12] In May 1975, it authorised the maritime version of the Hawker Siddeley Harrier,[10][14] which was successfully developed into the Sea Harrier. This meant that the design was reworked again to include a small complement of these VTOL aircraft. In order to launch a heavily laden Harrier more efficiently by STOVL (short take-off vertical landing) from the comparatively short - 170-metre (560 ft) - flight deck, a 'ski-jump' was developed. The slope was initially 7° when incorporated into Invincible and Illustrious and 12° for Ark Royal."

 

The loss of their "conventional" carrier capability which cost them both fighters with longer range and endurance, and Airborne Early Warning (like the E-2 Hawkeye) and had serious negative impacts to the British Fleet during the Falklands War.

 

I think that answers my question, the usuable flight deck on the USN LHA & LHD's were almost 200' longer, making a ski jump slightly less critical, but even the new RN Queen Elizabeth has a ski jump. I was just idly wondering how useful that last helo landing spot would be at the bow of a pitching carrier. Then again they aren't exactly WWII converted escort carriers.

I wonder what system the Marines use to launch Harriers in a "boisterous" sea state without catapults? Getting the timing wrong on the downroll seems like it would really ruin someone's day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Burlington, VT is getting F-35s to replace F-16s. I'm looking forward to seeing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Jon, So yes, the ramp was created to launch Sea Harriers... because Great Britain had decommissioned all it's traditional aircraft carriers by the late 70's, and had commissioned the Invincible Class Carriers as aviation-capable anti-submarine warfare (ASW) platforms to counter the Cold War North Atlantic Soviet submarine threat.

 

To quote Wiki (dangerous sometimes, but accurate here):

"The government decided that the carrier needed fixed-wing aircraft to defend against Soviet reconnaissance aircraft.[12] In May 1975, it authorised the maritime version of the Hawker Siddeley Harrier,[10][14] which was successfully developed into the Sea Harrier. This meant that the design was reworked again to include a small complement of these VTOL aircraft. In order to launch a heavily laden Harrier more efficiently by STOVL (short take-off vertical landing) from the comparatively short - 170-metre (560 ft) - flight deck, a 'ski-jump' was developed. The slope was initially 7° when incorporated into Invincible and Illustrious and 12° for Ark Royal."

 

The loss of their "conventional" carrier capability which cost them both fighters with longer range and endurance, and Airborne Early Warning (like the E-2 Hawkeye) and had serious negative impacts to the British Fleet during the Falklands War.

 

I think that answers my question, the usuable flight deck on the USN LHA & LHD's were almost 200' longer, making a ski jump slightly less critical, but even the new RN Queen Elizabeth has a ski jump. I was just idly wondering how useful that last helo landing spot would be at the bow of a pitching carrier. Then again they aren't exactly WWII converted escort carriers.

I wonder what system the Marines use to launch Harriers in a "boisterous" sea state without catapults? Getting the timing wrong on the downroll seems like it would really ruin someone's day.

 

Dilli,

Get the timing wrong on a catapult launch in big seas can be eye opening too! Because the USN has conventional large deck carriers to do its power projection missions with aircraft, it can, from a roles and missions standpoint, allow the big deck Helo ships to be optimized for Helo / Tiltrotor ops. They can carry F-35s, but they are not intended to be the "kick down the door" force against a adversary with decent air force. The F-35s on the LHD/LHA class ships are there for lower intensity ops and to provide limited air support to troops. Again, if you need lots of firepower from the air, that's the mission of the CVN. The real misson of the LHD/LHAs is to land the Marines so the extra helo spot or two can make a big difference in the number of troops you can offload

 

A ski jump is a great way to enable heavier mission load outs on STOVL aircraft. As can be seen by the proliferation of ski jumps on smaller carriers. But even the new Queen Elizabeth - which is a pretty big ship at 65000-75000 tons can't match the sortie generation rate of a Nimitz or Ford class carrier with 4 catapults and arrested landing gear.

Crash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Jon, So yes, the ramp was created to launch Sea Harriers... because Great Britain had decommissioned all it's traditional aircraft carriers by the late 70's, and had commissioned the Invincible Class Carriers as aviation-capable anti-submarine warfare (ASW) platforms to counter the Cold War North Atlantic Soviet submarine threat.

 

To quote Wiki (dangerous sometimes, but accurate here):

"The government decided that the carrier needed fixed-wing aircraft to defend against Soviet reconnaissance aircraft.[12] In May 1975, it authorised the maritime version of the Hawker Siddeley Harrier,[10][14] which was successfully developed into the Sea Harrier. This meant that the design was reworked again to include a small complement of these VTOL aircraft. In order to launch a heavily laden Harrier more efficiently by STOVL (short take-off vertical landing) from the comparatively short - 170-metre (560 ft) - flight deck, a 'ski-jump' was developed. The slope was initially 7° when incorporated into Invincible and Illustrious and 12° for Ark Royal."

 

The loss of their "conventional" carrier capability which cost them both fighters with longer range and endurance, and Airborne Early Warning (like the E-2 Hawkeye) and had serious negative impacts to the British Fleet during the Falklands War.

I think that answers my question, the usuable flight deck on the USN LHA & LHD's were almost 200' longer, making a ski jump slightly less critical, but even the new RN Queen Elizabeth has a ski jump. I was just idly wondering how useful that last helo landing spot would be at the bow of a pitching carrier. Then again they aren't exactly WWII converted escort carriers.

I wonder what system the Marines use to launch Harriers in a "boisterous" sea state without catapults? Getting the timing wrong on the downroll seems like it would really ruin someone's day.

Dilli,

Get the timing wrong on a catapult launch in big seas can be eye opening too! Because the USN has conventional large deck carriers to do its power projection missions with aircraft, it can, from a roles and missions standpoint, allow the big deck Helo ships to be optimized for Helo / Tiltrotor ops. They can carry F-35s, but they are not intended to be the "kick down the door" force against a adversary with decent air force. The F-35s on the LHD/LHA class ships are there for lower intensity ops and to provide limited air support to troops. Again, if you need lots of firepower from the air, that's the mission of the CVN. The real misson of the LHD/LHAs is to land the Marines so the extra helo spot or two can make a big difference in the number of troops you can offload

 

A ski jump is a great way to enable heavier mission load outs on STOVL aircraft. As can be seen by the proliferation of ski jumps on smaller carriers. But even the new Queen Elizabeth - which is a pretty big ship at 65000-75000 tons can't match the sortie generation rate of a Nimitz or Ford class carrier with 4 catapults and arrested landing gear.

Crash

I'm just speculating that in the last 20yrs and most likely in the next 20yrs there's been a larger demand for heavier loadouts on STOVL aircraft off LHA/LHD's than one or two helo spots to offload a Marine battalion in 2hrs or evacuate an embassy. You have to admit there have been too many times in the past, and there will be in the future, when there have been Marines on the ground and fleet CV(N)'s have been noticeable in their absence. Hell that's why the Marine's fought so hard against Navy for the Harriers in the first place.

 

Signed, a NAFTA ferringer with carrier envy whose only service in the last 20yrs has been Robbie Burns night at the mess.

 

P.S. It was a Canadian that came up with the idea of the "meatball" landing lights, it was the RN that built the first offset flight deck CV...so yeah, the USN does adopt "foreign" ideas. From time to time. Grudgingly. :D

P.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Burlington, VT is getting F-35s to replace F-16s. I'm looking forward to seeing them.

 

Trust me, you won't be looking forward to hearing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Burlington, VT is getting F-35s to replace F-16s. I'm looking forward to seeing them.

Trust me, you won't be looking forward to hearing them.

 

Which is why the Geared Turbo Fans in commercial air travel are going to YYYYUUUUUUGGGEE! 70% reduction in noise signature, 20% better fuel economy, and 15% less emissions. That's from memory, so don't sue me if I'm off a few percentiles on any of these...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Burlington, VT is getting F-35s to replace F-16s. I'm looking forward to seeing them.

 

Trust me, you won't be looking forward to hearing them.

 

Louder than the F22?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Burlington, VT is getting F-35s to replace F-16s. I'm looking forward to seeing them.

Trust me, you won't be looking forward to hearing them.

 

Which is why the Geared Turbo Fans in commercial air travel are going to YYYYUUUUUUGGGEE! 70% reduction in noise signature, 20% better fuel economy, and 15% less emissions. That's from memory, so don't sue me if I'm off a few percentiles on any of these...

 

Ok, not to quibble about a few % ,,

, but you are comparing Greyhound busses to F1 cars in performance parameters.

 

 

? Loud ?

 

Bone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Burlington, VT is getting F-35s to replace F-16s. I'm looking forward to seeing them.

Trust me, you won't be looking forward to hearing them.

 

Which is why the Geared Turbo Fans in commercial air travel are going to YYYYUUUUUUGGGEE! 70% reduction in noise signature, 20% better fuel economy, and 15% less emissions. That's from memory, so don't sue me if I'm off a few percentiles on any of these...

 

Ok, not to quibble about a few % ,,

, but you are comparing Greyhound busses to F1 cars in performance parameters.

 

 

? Loud ?

 

Bone

 

Yes, I know that's what I am comparing, but I was reflecting on noise signatures. Once you hear a A320neo or Bombardier CS100 or 300, you will be blown away by how quiet they are. Operating regularly now in Europe. A 320 neo flew over our plant last summer, it was amazingly quiet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Burlington, VT is getting F-35s to replace F-16s. I'm looking forward to seeing them.

 

Trust me, you won't be looking forward to hearing them.

 

 

 

They did a noise study, and there were some disagreements about the results. I think they might have said they wouldn't be louder than the F-16s by much, but differently loud. I think the airport or the ANG did offer more buyouts for certain nearby homes.

 

It was one of our Green Mountain Boys in that iconic F-16 over Manhattan photo from after 9/11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was a little kid the hottest fighters (Century Series) were just starting to break the sound barrier. Sonic booms were not at all uncommon back then.

 

Even so, the loudest plane I ever heard was the SR71 when it did a low speed, low altitude pass over Vancouver and out over English Bay. Christ that thing was loud! It had a unique sound as well - a crackling, sizzling noise, not the whine or boom of the usual jet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Burlington, VT is getting F-35s to replace F-16s. I'm looking forward to seeing them.

 

Trust me, you won't be looking forward to hearing them.

 

They did a noise study, and there were some disagreements about the results. I think they might have said they wouldn't be louder than the F-16s by much, but differently loud. I think the airport or the ANG did offer more buyouts for certain nearby homes.

 

It was one of our Green Mountain Boys in that iconic F-16 over Manhattan photo from after 9/11.

They are significantly louder than F-16's, 15's or 18's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was a little kid the hottest fighters (Century Series) were just starting to break the sound barrier. Sonic booms were not at all uncommon back then.

 

Even so, the loudest plane I ever heard was the SR71 when it did a low speed, low altitude pass over Vancouver and out over English Bay. Christ that thing was loud! It had a unique sound as well - a crackling, sizzling noise, not the whine or boom of the usual jet.

B1b for me... But I never saw a 71, unfortunately .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Jon, So yes, the ramp was created to launch Sea Harriers... because Great Britain had decommissioned all it's traditional aircraft carriers by the late 70's, and had commissioned the Invincible Class Carriers as aviation-capable anti-submarine warfare (ASW) platforms to counter the Cold War North Atlantic Soviet submarine threat.

 

To quote Wiki (dangerous sometimes, but accurate here):

"The government decided that the carrier needed fixed-wing aircraft to defend against Soviet reconnaissance aircraft.[12] In May 1975, it authorised the maritime version of the Hawker Siddeley Harrier,[10][14] which was successfully developed into the Sea Harrier. This meant that the design was reworked again to include a small complement of these VTOL aircraft. In order to launch a heavily laden Harrier more efficiently by STOVL (short take-off vertical landing) from the comparatively short - 170-metre (560 ft) - flight deck, a 'ski-jump' was developed. The slope was initially 7° when incorporated into Invincible and Illustrious and 12° for Ark Royal."

 

The loss of their "conventional" carrier capability which cost them both fighters with longer range and endurance, and Airborne Early Warning (like the E-2 Hawkeye) and had serious negative impacts to the British Fleet during the Falklands War.

I think that answers my question, the usuable flight deck on the USN LHA & LHD's were almost 200' longer, making a ski jump slightly less critical, but even the new RN Queen Elizabeth has a ski jump. I was just idly wondering how useful that last helo landing spot would be at the bow of a pitching carrier. Then again they aren't exactly WWII converted escort carriers.

I wonder what system the Marines use to launch Harriers in a "boisterous" sea state without catapults? Getting the timing wrong on the downroll seems like it would really ruin someone's day.

I read somewhere thay they kept the ski jump on the QE2 class because of the clearance between the harriers and the sea on the 'murican ships, which the UK didn't like, so they kept the ski jump :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Burlington, VT is getting F-35s to replace F-16s. I'm looking forward to seeing them.

 

Trust me, you won't be looking forward to hearing them.

 

They did a noise study, and there were some disagreements about the results. I think they might have said they wouldn't be louder than the F-16s by much, but differently loud. I think the airport or the ANG did offer more buyouts for certain nearby homes.

 

It was one of our Green Mountain Boys in that iconic F-16 over Manhattan photo from after 9/11.

They are significantly louder than F-16's, 15's or 18's.

Yes...yes they are...and they quickly put an end to cocktail hour conversation when you're swinging on the pick in Boggy Bayou...NTTAWWT...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Burlington, VT is getting F-35s to replace F-16s. I'm looking forward to seeing them.

Trust me, you won't be looking forward to hearing them.

 

They did a noise study, and there were some disagreements about the results. I think they might have said they wouldn't be louder than the F-16s by much, but differently loud. I think the airport or the ANG did offer more buyouts for certain nearby homes.

 

It was one of our Green Mountain Boys in that iconic F-16 over Manhattan photo from after 9/11.

They are significantly louder than F-16's, 15's or 18's.

 

 

That's loud, then. The 15's that fly over me here in Portland are quite loud. 18's, not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this