Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
New Jets Too Heavy For Take Off  
User currently offlineEZYAirbus From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 2460 posts, RR: 52
Posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3584 times:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3718567.stm

Jet are 'too heavy to take off'


The jets are due to come into service in eight years time
Defence chiefs have admitted "concerns" over a £5 billion order for fighter jets that are too heavy to take off from warships.
The US Joint Strike Fighters are due to replace Britain's ageing Harrier fleet.

The jets, which cost around £35m each are said to be 3,300lbs (1,500kg) overweight.

The MoD said the plane's engine was heavier than envisaged, but added problems normally occurred in the early stages of complex programmes.

From our perspective, these problems do not undermine the programme or our choice of aircraft

Ministry of Defence spokeswoman
Britain has agreed to buy 150 of the new jets. They are due to come into service by 2012.

The Lockheed Martin planes are 45ft long and 30ft wide.

The fighter jets are said to have greater speed and stealth with which to penetrate the most sophisticated surface-to-air missile defences.

But though the aircraft's engine is widely accepted as the most advanced of its kind, it is far heavier than expected.

If the weight problem is not resolved, the jets will be unable to achieve the vertical take-offs that are the trademark of the Harrier Jump Jet.

'Problem will be solved'

Britain is building two new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy - but the runways will be too short for the jets to take off normally, newspapers have reported.

A spokeswoman for the MoD said: "The weight problem is a concern but problems like this occur in the early stages of complex programmes.

"The projects are being carefully co-ordinated and the problem will be solved in time for the jets to come into service in 2012 as planned.

"From our perspective, these problems do not undermine the programme or our choice of aircraft."

Source taken from BBC Website




http://www.glenneldridgeaviation.com
2 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBackfire From Germany, joined Oct 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3507 times:

All together now...


"Should be in the MILITARY forum...!!"  Big thumbs up


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13169 posts, RR: 78
Reply 2, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3212 times:

It's been well documented that F-35 has some weight issues, however, it (and the Harrier) do not use vertical take off in normal operations, that's what the ski-jump on the ships are for.
And CVF will likely be 3 times the size of the current Invincible Class, (which are too small for F-35).

Vertical take offs are for airshows, forget any kind of range or payload if use it on operations.
It seems the BBC saw something in Hansard, and 'sexed up' the rest, make the story more interesting for the layman.

The last time I heard, STOVL stood for 'Short Take Off/Vertical Landing', everyone except some hacks seem to understand that, F-35B, like the Harrier, are STOVL aircraft.

But yes, LM do have some weight issues to fix.
Still, they picked the right aircraft, the Boeing X-32B contender had to lose undercarriage doors and the inlet to perform vertical take offs, which the X-35B demonstrated successfully.




Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic New Jets Too Heavy For Take Off
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
I Think Its Time For New Jets (Snowbirds) posted Thu Feb 10 2005 02:48:37 by BT
Executive Decision F-117 Take Off Sene posted Fri Mar 24 2006 01:05:46 by 747400sp
Ingress Of Usmc Vertical Take Off Aircraft posted Sat Mar 18 2006 14:13:23 by CTR
Does F-18 Take Off With Speedbrake Extended? posted Thu Dec 15 2005 21:08:00 by Lemmy
Landing And Take Off posted Mon May 2 2005 22:45:50 by EMBQA
Fighter Take-off Question posted Sat Apr 9 2005 05:50:45 by Sprout5199
Did Space Ship One Take Off On Its Own Power... posted Thu Dec 16 2004 15:56:35 by Duke
B52s Take Off posted Fri Mar 21 2003 11:07:41 by Gc
A-10 Take-off Run posted Sun Feb 23 2003 19:20:31 by Tu144d
Aircraft Carrier Take-off Speed posted Thu Oct 11 2001 02:16:35 by Crank

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format