Supersonic stealth jumpjet achieves its first mid-air hover

(can't think of a title)

Why can't we just all be friends...?

Buckling deck plates issue.

Far be it from me to take Lewis to task but this issue of jet exhuast heat affecting deck plating is not a new one. One of the problems that emerged when the Royal Navy started to operate Phantoms off our carriers in the late sixties/early seventies was that of the heat from the aircaft's engines on full chat at launch causing deck plates to buckle!

A fix was found but it was only fitted to one ship, Ark Royal, as by then the carrier force was being run down. That fix was good old water cooling on the exhaust deflectors at the catapult head, I'm sure a similar solution would present itself for the 35B.

Andrew Newstead

it's not really the politicians

it's the mandarins.

Rural Payments Agency anyone?

Real-world threat?

Remind me again why we need this, other than for junior bird-men's pleasure. "Fighter" jets no longer fight, they launch missiles at other "fighters" at 20 miles. A missile launching platform need not be carrying a meatbag or two, nor need it be capable of anything over mach 1. Likewise ground-attack duties seem to be passing to meatbagless Reapers and such.

There, that's sorted. RAF, be warned.

I'm willing to allow BAE develop my flying missile platform idea for a small fee...

Newklear

I've never understood why the RN has avoided building nuclear carriers, given that it has several nuke subs so is obviously used to managing the technology, which is ideal for carriers. The USN has this down to a fine art, with the Reagan-class (shudder at the name) supercarriers able to go without refueling - or even opening the reactor core in any way - for the entire 50-year lifespan of the ship. Plus all the energy you need for hauling such a big weight across the world and firing aircraft off on catapults.

strange design thing

Doesn't that cover panel act as an enormous airbrake?

Okay... but...

It really doesn't strike me as anywhere near as elegant as the Harrier.

Can this thing convert from level flight to hover yet, or vice versa? Can it slam on the vertical thrust at speed and go straight up to evade a persuing aircraft? Can it fly backwards?

I can't see that barn door of a fan lid working very well at speed, it's either gonna slow the plane down too much before the big fan starts providing lift, or get ripped off! Assuming the hydraulics can force it open at x hundred knots.

If they made the fan roof door a pair which opened to the sides they might have more of a hope, but flipping it forward ruins any rear visibility for the pilot and must be like deploying a parachute!

Okay, yes, it's got super cruise etc etc, and the non hover version is a fine aircraft, I just think the hover version still has a way to go before it can compete with the ageing, but very competent Harrier.

That won't stop our unelected president Broon ordering a few dozen though.

Is it me..

.. or isn't there something vastly amusing at using a Godawful amount of fuel for the purpose of not going anywhere? I appreciate why, it just amuses me.

Glad to see the Harrier provided the inspiration for the next generation of VTOL capable planes. No doubt Hollywood will make a film shortly where it will become an American invention. probably by some superfit, athletically built hunk in his garage (roofless, of course, you can only suspend credibility that far, and no, according to Hollywood, fat people don't invent things).

BTW, if Disney gets involved expect it to be released in cheap popup-book cardboard 3D, of course (judging by Alice in Wonderland - what a waste)..

Why does the RAF need a jump jet?

The RN and USMC I can understand but what purpose does this plane serve for the RAF? Surely they're not still hiding out in German forests waiting for the Warsaw Pact to attack?

Catapults, Costs and Carrier Capacity

So RN looks like it'll be the only major customer for a non-standard SVTOL variant of the F35. Read: cost over-run, multiplied.

Cat-launched variant much cheaper, due to much larger USN order bringing down up-front unit costs and whole-life overhead.

Redesigning UK carriers to accommodate cats would, Navy blokes say, involve installation of a steam system the size of a Leander Class frigate's propulsion gear – and that's just for the catapults, the gas turbine system would still handle the carrier's propulsion.

Which means less space to carry aircraft. Which kinda misses the point of an Aircraft Carrier.

So a redesign to nuclear would provide (a la USN) more than adequate power for both propulsion and cat launch, along with all the other benefits of greater operational flexibility. (And that's a big plus).

Using nuclear for electrical drive of maglev catapults, not inefficiently piping steam all over the shop for a WW2-style plane-pinger, would both save both space and increase Aircraft Carrying Capacity (a double plus). USN is already trialling maglev cats at Lakehurst.

And that's in addition to being able to use all that space currently designed for intakes and funnels for increased Aircraft Carrying Capacity (a triple plus).

And the buckling deck problem goes away (a quadruple plus).

And patrol fighters can land with a full warload, without having to ditch unused munitions (a quintuple plus).

"HMS Eric Laithwaite", anybody? A cost-effective, highly efficient and operationally robust maglev-toting British carrier with worldwide capability. Now there's a thought.