gabocvet написа: ↑

24 Яну 2017, 16:06

Ще може ли малко подробности?

gabocvet написа: ↑

24 Яну 2017, 20:17

Правят впечатление две неща широчината на палубата и трамплина, а не катапулт.

gabocvet написа: ↑

24 Яну 2017, 20:17

Правят впечатление две неща широчината на палубата и трамплина, а не катапулт.

Archer написа: ↑

24 Яну 2017, 20:56

Тоя новия английски самолетоносач си е пълен компромис отвсякъде ( и то за колко пари) . Да бяха слушали като им казваха да се хванат със французите и да направят един нов общ дизайн с катапулт.

Today in the much-anticipated new episode of the hilarious black comedy “Carry on Carrier” the government announces it shall reverse its decision to fit at least one aircraft carrier with catapults (EMALS) and angled decks for launching conventional aircraft and revert to the original plan to purchase vertical take-off and landing F35B aircraft.
Yes David, all around the world they are laughing at us.
...
Temporary ‘book-balancing’ is the primary driving force behind this decision. By saving the (disputed) upfront cost of fitting EMALS to the carriers and loading the extra costs of operating F35B onto future governments, Phillip Hammond and the Treasury can make savings now, claim to have reduced the deficit and make the MoD’s finances look a bit tidier.
...
We can only speculate but it would seem that instead of the respecting the views of the naval staff, academics, historians & former officers, government is listening to ‘special advisers’ and a toxic mix of land-based airpower and aerospace industry lobbyists.
...
Effectively admitting that commercial profits and the employment benefits of the F35 are far more important than what is actually best for UK defence and the Royal Navy. The RN will have to make do with the F35B, however late, insanely expensive and deficient it maybe.
The RAF fear that if F18s or Raflales were purchased this might delay or mean the abandonment of UK F35 purchase.
...
In the words of a Royal Navy officer “at least we still get fast jets at sea”

Royal Navy CATOBAR is dead, long live VSTOL
There is no question that a conventional aircraft carrier (CATOBAR) with catapults and arrestor gear would be more flexible and powerful than the Vertical Short Take Off and Landing (VSTOL) configuration of the QEC. CATOBAR offers the ability to operate a much greater variety of aircraft than just helicopters and the F-35B.

Unfortunately, the cost of building and maintaining a conventional carrier is beyond the inadequate resources government is willing to provide the RN.

With more money and more time, pinning the success of the QEC project on the F35-B could have been avoided.
Many believe that the costs quoted by BAE Systems in 2012 for fitting EMALS (Electromagnetic launch system developed by the US Navy) were inflated as it was not in their commercial interest to allow anything but F-35B to fly from the QEC. The US Navy was even willing to subsidise the cost of EMALS to some extent. What is certain is that 2010 CATOBAR plan was adding costs and significant further delays to the QEC program. In 2017 the RN budget is still stretched to breaking point, the pound is weak against the dollar and the US Navy having teething problems with the EMALS, while at the same time F-35B has achieved Initial Operating Capability with the US Marines. CATOBAR operations require more manpower, involved greater complexity and more training. Against this background, it looks sensible for the UK to have compromised on the VSTOL concept, at least in the short-medium term. Only the unlikely prospect of Donald Trump cancelling the F35 puts this at risk.

Sharana написа: ↑

24 Яну 2017, 21:21

ПС: Амазоне, ако не те домързи по някое време премести дискусията в някоя правилна тема. Сигурно има още какво да си пишем, не е за Снимки

Sharana написа: ↑

24 Яну 2017, 21:21

ВВС не иска самолетоносачи

Amazon написа: ↑

24 Яну 2017, 21:48

Готово.

The F-35C is probably the most vulnerable of the variants. The US Navy has never been as enthusiastic about the aircraft as the Airforce or Marines, and the C variant is having the most development problems. Lobbying by Boeing and delays to the F-35 has kept the F-18 Super Hornet production lines open. In 2013 Boeing revealed the Advanced Super Hornet concept with new engines, radar, conformal fuel tanks and a more stealthy design. Although an evolved 4th generation aircraft, lacking real stealth/low observability characteristics, it would offer maybe 70% of the F35’s capabilities at 50% of the cost. Perhaps a compromise will be reached where Trump shows he delivered something by axing the F-35C and the US Navy is content to get the cheaper Advanced Super Hornet instead.

On 11th January 2017 Trump rather optimistically stated “we’re going to do some big things on the F-35 program and perhaps the F-18 program. And we’re going to get those costs way down, and we’re gonna get the plane even better, and we’re going to have to competition. And it’s going to be a beautiful thing.”

Правдоподобно ли е и наистина ли USN толкова не го иска F-35 като останалите?

gabocvet написа: ↑

24 Яну 2017, 22:27

Amazon написа:
Ами май го разглеждат като преходен вариант. Схемите на използването му са в комбинация с Хорнети и Гроулери. Имаше и статия преди няколко години, че USN и USAF са се комбинирали да си разработят от нулата изстребител по техни си изисквания и да не се занимават с F-35.

Може ли линк към статията?

Sharana написа: ↑

07 Май 2017, 18:25

Не знам какво е видеото, но даже Proxflow се оказа безпомощен