JSF is too heavy for the Royal Navy

OK, am I thinking of the wrong thing then? I know the A-12 as the attack
version of the SR-71. Someone said that it was never more than a full-scale
mock-up. I know the A-12, at least the 1 I'm thinking of, flew, and was
tested firing missiles. What am I missing???

--
Jason


"Woody Beal" wrote in message
...
Risky technology. Reaching too far with too many conflicting
requirements.
Anybody else reminded of the A-12?

--Woody

On 5/17/04 8:19, in article
,
"Mike" wrote:

London Times
May 17, 2004

Overweight Carrier Fighters Give MoD £10bn Headache

By Michael Evans, Defence Editor

THE Ministry of Defence is facing another procurement disaster after a
minister disclosed that the fighter jet planned for two new large
aircraft carriers is far too heavy. Adam Ingram, the Armed Forces
Minister, has admitted that the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), also known
as F35, which will replace the Navy’s Sea Harrier from 2012, is
3,300lb overweight, a figure that astonished military aircraft
experts. The JSF, which is being jointly developed by the American
company Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems in Britain, has been designed
for the Royal Navy with the short take-off vertical launch (Stovl)
concept, like the Harriers. However, Lockheed Martin, whose JSF
proposal was chosen in preference to the version offered by Boeing,
has replaced the basic Harrier-style Stovl idea with a new type of
large fan to create the thrust needed for take-off and landing. The
aim was to provide greater power. This has led to the increase in the
engine’s weight. The MoD insisted that although the weight
problem was a concern, the JSF programme was in its early stages and
it was confident that the matter could be resolved. However, some
industrial and Naval experts believe that it is such a challenge that
the MoD may be forced to scrap the Stovl concept and go for a normal
take-off version, even though this would mean extending the carrier
flight deck and adding to the cost of the overall programme, which is
already an estimated £12.9 billion. This might suit the Navy, but the
MoD is committed to the Stovl concept. Rob Hewson, editor of
Jane’s Air-Launched Weapons, said he could see no way in which
Lockheed Martin would be able to “shave off” 3,300lb. When
the JSF was originally designed there were fears expressed that the
engine would be too heavy. “But that was more like 1,000lb too
heavy, now it’s suddenly 3,300lb overweight. It looks like
another potential disaster,” Mr Hewson said. If the weight
problem, which would affect the aircraft’s ability to fly
safely, was not resolved without too much extra cost and time, the
Royal Navy might face the calamitous situation of “not having an
aircraft for the carriers”. The other concern for the MoD is
that the Pentagon, its partner in the JSF programme, is planning to
buy the Stovl version of the aircraft for the Marines only — a
few hundred aircraft. The vast bulk of the JSFs for the US will be
bought by the American Air Force and Navy, and they will all be the
standard take-off versions, catapulted off the carriers. Mr Hewson
said: “If Lockheed Martin finds it cannot solve the weight
problem with the Stovl version, I wouldn’t be at all surprised
if the Pentagon doesn’t drop it and cancel the US Marine order
and just go for the normal take-off version. Then Britain really will
be in trouble.” The MoD is planning to buy 150 JSFs, costing £10
billion, for the two large aircraft carriers. The two ships are, on
current estimates, due to cost £2.9 billion, although BAE Systems,
which was appointed prime contractor for the programme, has given
warning for some time that it will actually cost closer to £4 billion
for two 60,000-tonne carriers. If there is any delay in the planned
in-service date of 2012 for the first carrier, this would cause acute
embarrassment for the MoD. The Sea Harriers are being taken out of
service by 2006, partly because of problems they have been having with
operating in hot climates. The Sea Harriers have difficulty taking off
and landing with a full load of weapons and fuel in excessive heat,
such as in the Gulf. The only solution was to fit a bigger engine ino
the Sea Harrier but the MoD decided it would be too expensive. The
first batch of Sea Harriers has already been withdrawn, and when they
are all taken out of service by 2006 there will be a gap in capability
for six years — or more, if the JSF problem is not resolved.

"JASON BOWMAN" wrote in message
...
OK, am I thinking of the wrong thing then? I know the A-12 as the attack
version of the SR-71. Someone said that it was never more than a
full-scale
mock-up. I know the A-12, at least the 1 I'm thinking of, flew, and was
tested firing missiles. What am I missing???

--
Jason


You're confusting the CIA designator for the aircraft which was of the SR-71
family with the DoD designated naval attack aircraft of a much later period
which was abruptly canceled. The FA-18E/F was the stop-gap measure
employed.

Regards,

Tex Houston

Oh ok. That makes sense then. Thanks for clarifying.

--
Jason
"Tex Houston" wrote in message
...

"JASON BOWMAN" wrote in message
...
OK, am I thinking of the wrong thing then? I know the A-12 as the attack
version of the SR-71. Someone said that it was never more than a
full-scale
mock-up. I know the A-12, at least the 1 I'm thinking of, flew, and was
tested firing missiles. What am I missing???

--
Jason


You're confusting the CIA designator for the aircraft which was of the
SR-71
family with the DoD designated naval attack aircraft of a much later
period
which was abruptly canceled. The FA-18E/F was the stop-gap measure
employed.

Regards,

Tex Houston

"JASON BOWMAN" wrote in message
...
OK, am I thinking of the wrong thing then? I know the A-12 as the attack
version of the SR-71. Someone said that it was never more than a
full-scale
mock-up. I know the A-12, at least the 1 I'm thinking of, flew, and was
tested firing missiles. What am I missing???

The A-12 was a project for a Navy stealth attack jet: flying wing,
two man crew (I think), cancelled in '91 by then SecD Cheney
due mainly to cost over runs.

A-12 was never a *military* designation for any member of the
Blackbird family. A-12 was a Lockheed and/or CIA name for the CIA
bird that was later build, in modified form, for the USAF as the SR-71.

The A-12 was a project for a Navy stealth attack jet: flying wing,
two man crew (I think), cancelled in '91 by then SecD Cheney
due mainly to cost over runs.

AKA The flying dorito.

Due mainly to being led down the primrose path by NAVAIR. The aircraft was
hugely overweight, GD was having serious problems with major composite
structures. The prototype was in final assembly and in big trouble.

A friend who worked the MacAir side of the program thought it was fixable,
but not on the cheap or on the schedule. I think it's very possible the PMA
didn't know the truth, less possible his deputy didn't. When the real word
finally came out, heads rolled and the A/C was cnx'd.

R / John

On Thu, 20 May 2004 00:45:12 -0400, "John Keeney"
wrote:


"JASON BOWMAN" wrote in message
...
OK, am I thinking of the wrong thing then? I know the A-12 as the attack
version of the SR-71. Someone said that it was never more than a
full-scale
mock-up. I know the A-12, at least the 1 I'm thinking of, flew, and was
tested firing missiles. What am I missing???

The A-12 was a project for a Navy stealth attack jet: flying wing,
two man crew (I think), cancelled in '91 by then SecD Cheney
due mainly to cost over runs.

A-12 was never a *military* designation for any member of the
Blackbird family. A-12 was a Lockheed and/or CIA name for the CIA
bird that was later build, in modified form, for the USAF as the SR-71.

Think the "-12" thing related to the SR-71 refers to the YF-12 high
level, high speed interceptor. Think it was related to the SR-71 but
never got past the concept phase.

Interesting links :
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/es...ern/Aero16.htm
(first link on Google looking for "yf-12 interceptor")
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Movie/YF-12/

Haven't got a clue about their accuracy there ... One extract
basically says that the A-12 evolved into the YF-12, which evolved
into the SR-71. But they're talking about an A-12 there that's decades
separated from :

Naval A-12 link :
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/a-12.htm
And :
http://www.habu2.net/a12/avenger2.htm
PS I've been known as SleepyPete but not as SneakyPete ... (read da
link ! :-)

Pete Lilleyman

(please get rid of ".getrid" to reply direct)
(don't get rid of the dontspam though ;-)

In article ,
Alisha's Addict writes:
On Thu, 20 May 2004 00:45:12 -0400, "John Keeney"
wrote:


"JASON BOWMAN" wrote in message
.. .
OK, am I thinking of the wrong thing then? I know the A-12 as the attack
version of the SR-71. Someone said that it was never more than a
full-scale
mock-up. I know the A-12, at least the 1 I'm thinking of, flew, and was
tested firing missiles. What am I missing???

The A-12 was a project for a Navy stealth attack jet: flying wing,
two man crew (I think), cancelled in '91 by then SecD Cheney
due mainly to cost over runs.

A-12 was never a *military* designation for any member of the
Blackbird family. A-12 was a Lockheed and/or CIA name for the CIA
bird that was later build, in modified form, for the USAF as the SR-71.

Think the "-12" thing related to the SR-71 refers to the YF-12 high
level, high speed interceptor. Think it was related to the SR-71 but
never got past the concept phase.

It got well past the concept stage. 3 YF-12As were built. (60-6934,
60-6935, and 60-6936) First flights were in August '63, Nov. '63, adn
March '64, respectively. in late 1966, 60-6934 was converted into teh
2-pilot SR-71C conversion trainer. the other 2 were transferred from
teh Air Force to NASA in late 1969. 6936 was lost due to an inflight
fire in August, 1971, and 6935 was retired to teh Air Force Museum in
1979. These airplanes wer full-up interceptors, with 3 of the bays
openable in flight, and with racks & release gear for the AIM-47
Falcon. The nose and the 4th bay held teh ASG-18 Weapons COntrol
System, which consisted of a pulse doppler "look-down/shoot-down"
radar in the nose, and an IR sensor in the leading edge of each of the
chines, which were cut back so that they didn't interfere with the
radome. The ASG-12/AIM-47 combination was fiarly mature, having been
begun as the weapons fit for the North American F-108 Rapier.
Part of the Phase II program included 12 live firings of AIM-47s,
launched at from Mach 3+/80,000' against low level targets. Maximum
missile range was 120 NM, and the hit rate was something on the order
of 90%.

The F-12 didn't go into service for a number of reasons. It was
expensive to build and run, and like the other Oxcarts, it didn't lend
itself to a spontaneous launch from an Alert Hanger - Blackbird
flights took a lot of before-flight preparation - you couldn't just
kick the tires & light the fires. The most compelling reason is that
the Soviets had stopped developing more advanced Strategic Bombers
than the Tu-95 and M-4, and were concentrating entirely on ballistic
missiles.

The ASG-18/AIM-47 are direct ancestors of the AWG-9/AIM-54 missile
combination used on the F-111B and F-14.


Interesting links :
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/es...ern/Aero16.htm
(first link on Google looking for "yf-12 interceptor")
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Movie/YF-12/

Haven't got a clue about their accuracy there ... One extract
basically says that the A-12 evolved into the YF-12, which evolved
into the SR-71. But they're talking about an A-12 there that's decades
separated from :

Well, a parallel development, really. The main differences were the
bays, the mose, and a retractable ventral fin to counteract what was
expected to be a loss in directional stability due to the cut back
chine. It was found to be unnecessary after it fell off in flight,
and nobody knew it was gone until the airplane was back in the hangar.

Of course, it was no relation to the Flying Dorito, which got its A-12
designation by virtue of being the 12th airplane designated in teh
Post 1962 Attack series.

Naval A-12 link :
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/a-12.htm
And :
http://www.habu2.net/a12/avenger2.htm

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

jason- OK, am I thinking of the wrong thing then? I know the A-12 as the
attack
version of the SR-71. BRBR

The 'Dorito'....A-12
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

The original post had a lot of 'maybes' and 'mights' in it. Sounds to
me like a bunch of quibblers who want to canx out and help out the
budget. As for 2x2000 pound bombs, the only thing where bigger is
better is in cluster munitions. Note that USAF wants smaller LGBs -
250 pound size. Since just as in nukes HE bomb damage radius is a cube
root function of the explosive yield - laser guidance lets a smaller
bomb do the same job. Now if you can hit the target dead on - smack in
the middle - a 100 pounder would work just fine. 50 pounds of HE is
more than a field artillery shell carries. And what's wrong with a
pair of steam cats? The RN carriers weren't supposed to have cats?
That would be really dumb! A properly designed steam cat could launch
STOVLs with the ship lying to.
Walt BJ

"JASON BOWMAN" wrote in message ...
OK, am I thinking of the wrong thing then? I know the A-12 as the attack
version of the SR-71. Someone said that it was never more than a full-scale
mock-up. I know the A-12, at least the 1 I'm thinking of, flew, and was
tested firing missiles. What am I missing???

--
Jason



A-12 Stood for "Archangel" not "Attack" Theres was a fighter version
designated the YF-12 and a proposed nuclear strike variant the "R-12"
though