Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

JSF and British/American Ties

page: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
ape

posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 06:04 PM
link   
great links WP, good information.




posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Ape, did you see my answer to your F-22 question..



Just making sure you didn't miss it


ape

posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   
yes and sorry for not responding, thanks for the information I didn't know they contributed that much to the f-22.

with the problems handled with the JSF between the brits and americans it looks like both countries will be having some kick ass aircraft here in the near yet uncertain future, I just hope the UK does not make america regret this decision ( which im sure they wont ) and like the old saying goes, shiza happens.

[edit on 14-12-2006 by ape]

[edit on 14-12-2006 by ape]



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Yeah, it's good we got those codes. After all, we just wanted to be able to add stuff to the aircraft without having to involve you guys.

I'm sure you'd feel the same about anything you got off us


You won't regret it, after all, we're all good buds. We may not like your current Pres too much, but then, we're not overly fond of our own leader. This doesn't mean we don't like you chaps



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Stumason,

Yeah..
Say it safely..
You should go for Congress!

Do you have any sources for the LM 'marketing mindset' behind the Yak approach?
Seems like its extremely insightful info..
Especially since BAe had no background in a lift plus cruise system.
The Yak uses 2 lift engines and a single cruise engine(Soyuz) while the F-35 uses a single F119 derived F135 but again the lift+cruise concept.
The Harrier in no way is related to this design because it use a 2D 45 Deg? TVC design concept.
So the design is Yak based and nobody's even trying to hide that.
The heat generated by the Soyuz engines on the Yak are irrelevant to this desgin concept, even if true.
Maybe you should do a bit of engaging yourself in this aspect.
Would be a pity if your gray matter's working overtime
(making up for my proclaimed deficits) and building bridges between fact and fiction.

Again I reiterate the lift+cruise design concept on the F-35(B) is taken from the Yak, irrespective of whether BAe finally got down to building it or not. BAe had absolutely no experience in VTOL at the time; only STOVL.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 10:14 PM
link   


Again I reiterate the lift+cruise design concept on the F-35(B) is taken from the Yak, irrespective of whether BAe finally got down to building it or not. BAe had absolutely no experience in VTOL at the time; only STOVL.


And where, pray tell, did I say they did? RR are the ones with the VTOL knowledge, and they are the ones building the engine for the VSTOL version of the F-35.

So, I say again, wheres the Yak involvement?



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Stumason,

Yeah..
Say it safely..
You should go for Congress!



I have no idea what your on about...



Originally posted by Daedalus3
Do you have any sources for the LM 'marketing mindset' behind the Yak approach?
Seems like its extremely insightful info..


It's readily available on the internet, my friend. Seeing as you post no links to back up your claims of a Yak designed Rolls Royce engine, I don't really see why I should bother in kind.


Originally posted by Daedalus3
Especially since BAe had no background in a lift plus cruise system.


Never said they did. BAe don't do engines.


Originally posted by Daedalus3
The Yak uses 2 lift engines and a single cruise engine(Soyuz) while the F-35 uses a single F119 derived F135 but again the lift+cruise concept.


Concept a design does not make. Just because the concept may be originally found on a Yak, does not mean that the engine is in anyway connected to Yak. It is not. Otherwise one could argue that Ford designed ALL cars, seeing as they all use the four wheel concept... See what I mean?


Originally posted by Daedalus3
The Harrier in no way is related to this design because it use a 2D 45 Deg? TVC design concept.
So the design is Yak based and nobody's even trying to hide that.


Based? lol. They may have taken the concept, but the design is actually a GE/RR engine. You will find no large, hairy, Himalayan cows involved.


Originally posted by Daedalus3
The heat generated by the Soyuz engines on the Yak are irrelevant to this desgin concept, even if true.


There true alright fella. Read about it.


Originally posted by Daedalus3
Maybe you should do a bit of engaging yourself in this aspect.
Would be a pity if your gray matter's working overtime
(making up for my proclaimed deficits) and building bridges between fact and fiction.


I readily admitted to my mistake with the variants A and C as I believed the F-35 to be VSTOL through and through. As it happens, I am only interested in the F-35B, as that is the one that the UK is getting, hence my lack of knowledge on the other two variants. That still does not take away from the fact that Russians are not involved in the project.

Not sure what your trying to prove, I thought you were from India.

[edit on 14/12/06 by stumason]



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 11:26 PM
link   
My nationality is relevant to the design origins of the lift cruise system on the F-35B??!
Now you got me!


What is VSTOL?
Vertical short take off and landing?
Anyways I concede the VT bit of our hairy himalayan friend's VTOL capability is also irrelevant w.r.t. the F 35B but the VL bit in STOVL is not harrier based; it can't possibly be because the system is different. Moreover that particular VL bit is derived from the hairy himalayan dweller.
That's what I'm trying to say..
The Final contractors who built the engines, cruise+lift system et all are irrelevant, may they be BAe or anybody else.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 11:34 PM
link   
V/STOL= Vertical/Short Take Off or Landing. Seeing as no plane that fly's is a true VTOL, unless you strip a Harrier down, it is the common term used to describe them.

So what your saying is that Yak designed the engines and Rolls Royce/GE are building them?

I don't think so.

I only mentioned your nationality as you seem quite determined to prove that Yak are involved in a US project. They were initially involved, but only during the competition phase to give LM some input with regards to VSTOL as BAe/RR were involved with a competing company for the same contract.

Yak are not involved now.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Man are we still measureing are wangs here?

[edit on 113131p://444 by semperfoo]



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfoo
Man are we still measureing are wangs here?

[edit on 113131p://444 by semperfoo]


No wang measuring going on that I can see.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Daedalus, the worlds first VTOL aeroplane with separate lift and cruise engines was the British Short SC.1 with Rolls Royce engines which flew in 1957, three years *before* the Hawker P.1127 (Harrier prototype) with its Bristol Pegasus engine. These were two competing types of arrangement with Rolls Royce promoting lift/cruise and Bristol pushing the TVC Pegasus. The Pegasus won and Rolls Royce got their revenge by swallowing up Bristol and everyone now thinks that Rolls invented the Pegasus. Rolls developed and promoted separate lift/thrust (chiefly as a means of flogging more engines per plane built) for many years afterwards on a range of designs including fighter aircaft (Mirage IIIV), an alternative design to the C-130 Hercules initially backed by the RAF (AW.681)and even a 100+ seat airliner capable of landing in the heart of London (HS.141) but to no avail, in terms of knowledge and experience Yak were amateurs by comparison.

In 1978 Rolls developed a new version of the Pegasus which was a 'three poster' allowing allowing a normal afterburning nozzle to be used of the rear part which could swivel downwards for vertical lift in concert with two side mounted nozzles further forward carried over from the standard Pegasus. This was proposed in several BAe supersonic ASTOVL proposals in the late 70's and early 80's and it is the rear portion of this engine that is now used on BOTH engines on offer for the F-35B model, the only difference being that Rolls Royce has a much larger design input into the rest of the F136 engine as the remainder of the F135, and all of it on the F-35A and C, is entirely designed by GE.

Fritz, VTOL did not quite happen the way you suggest, but you are largely correct in the general gist of it, for instance;

The original VSTOL concept with vectoring nozzles on a fighter aircraft was actually proposed by Frank Whittle in his original 1930 patent for the jet engine which the Air Ministry did its best to ignore,

originally posted by Frank Whittle in 1930
......the final emission of gas may be directionally controlled by mechanical means giving advantages in take offs and landings and also for manoevering purposes....

Next came the Russian Shuleikov fighter of 1950. This had the basic appearance of the standard Yak-15/Yak-23 type design but with two vectoring nozzles under the wing trailing edge root (this is coincidental, there was no Yak involvement at all). This project was not followed through however and remained completely unknown to anyone outside the USSR until records became available in the 1990's so there was no influence on what followed.

The concept that led to the Harrier was begun by a proposal from Michel Wibault in 1956 called the 'Gyroptere', in this the thrust from the engine could be diverted to either blow out the back of the plane as normal, or downwards through holes in the bottom of the fuselage for vertical lift. When shown this concept Stanley Hooker of Bristol liked the concept but felt it could be achieved in a better way and started the chain of events that led to the Bristol BE.53, the first vectored thrust engine with nozzles, which led directly to the Pegasus.

Daedalus again; Every single AV-8A used by the USMC was built by Hawker Siddeley in the UK ( it was a standard Harrier GR.1 in any case) With regard to the AV-8B Harrier II, every one of those built was 60% built by MDC/Boeing and 40% BAe, except for those operated by the RAF (and now also Royal Navy) which were the other way round with 60% BAe and 40% MDC manufacture.

As a final note regarding other comments on previous pages, BAE is also currently upgrading the USAF's entire fleet of A-10's, just to show the USAF trusts us even if ape doesn't.

If I've missed anything please ask.


[edit on 16-12-2006 by waynos]


ape

posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   
i can't recall once saying I didnt trust the UK, they are however getting their hands on alot of technology they did not develope or contribute to and they compete with US companies in regards to aerospace. I look at this from a busniess standpoint something the brits know well about.


hey sorry for pointing out the obvious that the UK has just scored.

I plan on visiting the UK and then on to europe in the summer/fall of 07, I'm going to wear a sweater with a BIG AMERICAN FLAG on it and see how i'm treated

[edit on 16-12-2006 by ape]



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 02:20 PM
link   
appologies for snipping " software " from your quoted


Originally posted by ape
they are however getting their hands on alot of ................. they did not develope or contribute to.


but my modified quote applies to the advances in :

jet engines

radar

sonar

that the british just gave to the USA in WWII

we were allies then and you accepted our hi tech gifts

we are allies now , so why are you so opposed to us buying the softweare ?



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ape
I plan on visiting the UK and then on to europe in the summer/fall of 07, I'm going to wear a sweater with a BIG AMERICAN FLAG on it and see how i'm treated



you'll be treated great, british people love americans over here.

just a word of advice though, its football not soccer - stick with that rule and you'll be okay lol



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Ape, the smiley on my post was in the wrong place, it was supposed to be after the line about you not trusting us so don't take it to heart



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
but my modified quote applies to the advances in :

jet engines

radar

sonar

that the british just gave to the USA in WWII

we were allies then and you accepted our hi tech gifts

we are allies now , so why are you so opposed to us buying the softweare ?



Becase we were the ones who bought and paid for it. We spent the $35,575,000,000 to get this bird built. We designed it. We did the research for it. We also used other technologys that are going to be incorporated into this bird from other aircraft projects we the US bought and paid for. And lastly we dont owe you ppl sh*t. Lets get that straight right now. You brits did invent the jet engine, with the help of a german. But the radar was merely improved upon by the british from other ppls inventions. mainly a german named Christian Huelsmeyer. the sonar was created back in 1906 by Lewis Nixon, an AMERICAN! Look it up yourself. How about the US inventing the aeroplane. We invented flight! See how stupid and immature that sounds? What a waste of time. I just dont know what it is you ppl seem to think we americans owe you. Cause it sure as hell isnt the above text by Mr. Ignornant. Just be happy you got what you ppl wanted, and stop b*tching about this. Its over. Though I hope we dont give you everything! And that could be possible. Certain secrets just might stay secret within the US.

Cheers.

[edit on 063131p://666 by semperfoo]



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 08:06 PM
link   
So, you owe us nothing eh? Well, If it wasn't for us you'd all be living in teepees and wearing feathered headresses.

Now can we stop this puerile bitching? I see nobody has responded to my factual post but you would rather bitch away like an old woman instead



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfoo
Becase we were the ones who bought and paid for it. We spent the $35,575,000,000 to get this bird built. We designed it. We did the research for it.


*screams* you yanks are sooooo (how can i put it?) ^hard to get through to^

what hes trying to say is we spent blahblah on all those technologies and 'you' stole them off us (as you like to say)!


same as the atom bomb, britain researched that for 20 years, but due to britain being broke and us losing our empire (because we virtually paid for both world wars)
yes britain funded for your assistance/canadas/australias/indias etc.

a newly rich america came along funded putting the bomb together in the 'manhattan project'.. funny thing is many americans claim the 'atom bomb' is an american invention just because of this reason
but they don't realize most of the scientists that worked on the manhattan project were british and canadian (british commonwealth at the time).

summary - you americans don't seem to mind when you receive technologies that have cost other nations million/billions to research, but you hate it when its the over way round (judging comments in this thread).

oh and nobody says your country owes us anything.

[edit on 16-12-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
So, you owe us nothing eh? Well, If it wasn't for us you'd all be living in teepees and wearing feathered headresses.


Actually no, at least I would be living in Germany or England depending on how things went, damn, that would suck.





new topics




 
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join