Simviation Forums

Whoopy do, look at this for taking the fun out of flying...

Push button plane landing hailed

Over the last 6 months this bl**dy aeroplane has done its level best to disable my hearing!

70% of the budget went on that i bet.

It is ironic that JSF ideas are being tested on a 1968 vintage Harrier I (T4)...

Agreed Charlie... I'd have tested the tech on a JSF, much easier to impliment and safer as well...

That is why "military intelligence" is an oxymoron

Hey Chomp it works so don't knock it

Agreed Charlie... I'd have tested the tech on a JSF, much easier to impliment and safer as well...

That is why "military intelligence" is an oxymoron

I disagree with you on two counts:

1.  By using a known quantity (a Harrier) to test a new technology, you can reasonably isolate any problems to that new technology.  In the unfortunate event that you lose the testbed (Harrier) you're out just an old airframe who's cost you've already spent  (presuming the pilot is saved, of course).  By using the JSF to do the initial tests, there's that much more to go wrong.

2.  My son's in military intelligence, and the kid is smart (after all, I'm his dad.... wait that doesn't help the argument!)  All joking aside, I've a deep respect for Military Intelligence, vs a deep concern for "Government by Committee" -- which ultimately is the corenerstone of (most) Western-style coutries, although not always are the best decisions taken.

Agreed Charlie... I'd have tested the tech on a JSF, much easier to impliment and safer as well...

I'd say the 1968 Harrier is the safer bet at the moment (well, the JSF as such doesn't exist except in X-35 form) - it's got releatively few hours, and this particular aircraft, the VAAC (Vectored-thrust Aircraft Advanced flight Control) has been used as such since 1986.

The key to the safety of the aircraft is the front seat pilot. He is a safety pilot in an essentially stock Harrier I cockpit, ready to catch it if the system goes la-la...

Unless the pilot is me

Unless the pilot is me

Yeah, a Harrier hovering in your favourite mode of flight Mark would...

a) not hover

b) turn up somewhat early for its prearranged engagement with Mr Terry Firmer....

It is ironic that JSF ideas are being tested on a 1968 vintage Harrier I (T4)...

It's stupid to test ANY of the JSF STOVL systems on the Harrier...
But as the harrier is the only STOVL plane in the west they had to use it as the russians did phase out the Forger and the Yak-141.

By using the JSF to do the initial tests, there's that much more to go wrong

Same goes for the Harrier, totally different liftfan system (harrier has 4 moveable pipes, JSF has 1x liftfan and 90 degree exhaust pipe movement range)

Only cool thing with the JSF is that it will melt the runway just like the Yak-141 did... full power on the liftfan and afterburner switched on for the main engine

It's stupid to test ANY of the JSF STOVL systems on the Harrier...

Its actually very sensible because the aircraft was already configured to test digital flight control systems. That is also why it doesn't matter that it has the four Harrier jet pipes rather than the seperate lift engine of the JSF/JCA, as the controls are entirely digital.

It should also be said that this isn't the JSF control system, just one researching possible control laws and systems for possible integration into the final aircraft. You should see the rear seat controls. Awesome...

Come to think of it, its probably easier to simulate a JSF/JCA with a Harrier than vice versa...

That is why "military intelligence" is an oxymoron

I'm really kind of tired of this old joke.  The real times that military intel comes through, which is about 90% of the time, you're never going to hear about.  I just wish people would stop following the crowd and really think about it for a sec.

I work for the government and work with the military... What I say is based on my own observations. I've seen screw-ups that nobody in the civilian will ever know about, a lot of them very expensive.

And beefhole, that 90% figure... You don't know what the hell you are talking about!

And beefhole, that 90% figure... You don't know what the hell you are talking about!

Do you?

The overall point is that painting "military intelligence" with a broad brush is dangerous, especially to the ones who do get it right, 99-100% of the time.  Of course you can point out blunders all the time (Dien Bien Phu, Gallipoli, etc).  "Military Intelligence is an oxymoron" makes for a nice ha-ha funny moment, but it is  a disservice to those working -seriously - inb it.

Back on topic, ("Military Intelligence" - mine's questionable - aside), it's a bl**dy clever aeroplane. Pretty colour scheme too...

I just wish I could simulate its controls in FS9...