Forum: General F-35 Forum

Well then the aluminium interlocked matting at an austere base will necessarily be well maintained otherwise it WILL be useless.

F-16.net Sponsor

spazsinbad wrote:

Well then the aluminium interlocked matting at an austere base will necessarily be well maintained otherwise it WILL be useless.

Oh, you're talking about the USMC plan for "austere" basing... which in all honesty, doesn't really seem very austere.

To which 'austere' base do you refer?

For example the last Singaporean 'Super Skyhawk' Roadway landing (with brake parachute) was in 2002. Singapore has a lot of 'on the road experience' with their aircraft today.

Singapore Air Force fighter planes taking off and landing on the road for large-scale exercises Date:2011-09-02 Author:admin

http://www.9abc.net/index.php/archives/33751

"Recently, the Singapore Air Force’s most advanced fighter in the road on a large-scale landing exercise. Since 1986, the Singapore Air Force has been holding such exercises on a regular basis, this year is the 6th. Because the small size of Singapore, so planes take off and land require a higher road...." English is a bit suspect but you'll get the drift.

Exercise Torrent - Republic Of Singapore Air Force Road Landing exercise 2008 - F-16 Fighting VIDEO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gz6KRKtfdr0

I was thinking one could augment their takeoffs with a water propelled tether, to minimize their fuel burn leaving the deck. Anyone remember the guy flying around with his water-jet pack?

What is a 'water propelled tether'? OK I have 'GOOGLED' it to see it is a JetPack training device. So how is this useful for F-35B? And how would it work for the F-35B? Thanks.

sufaviper wrote:

I flew an F-35 Sim a while back and I asked that question. They said yes it can take off with two 1K JDAMs and 2 AIM-120's, but it would need to refuel withing 15 minutes of take-off. In the Sim I tried it (dumped almost my entire fuel load, then took-off). I was able to take out the drone firing the AIM-120 at near max range, but I had to land a long way from base, so . . . 1st503rdsgt's nope would be correct.

I will say that doing a VL and VTO from the USS Fort Worth would be a cool PR stunt for LM.

Sufa Viper

So, it could be fully functional if it just was fueled immediately after it lifted off?
That would imply that ships with a helicopter capable of topping the F-35B off could collectively serve as a base for them.

Though, now I wonder if there is a hydrofoil that could sprint fast enough for an F-35 to hook up to while in flight.
Of course, at some point, you could be talking about loading the entire plane onto some kind of fast boat to launch them into flight directly.

spazsinbad wrote:

What is a 'water propelled tether'? OK I have 'GOOGLED' it to see it is a JetPack training device. So how is this useful for F-35B? And how would it work for the F-35B? Thanks.

Run your motor at idle, begin to spool up as your computer-controlled water-jet tether lifts your aircraft off the deck. And as it lifts into the air move to full thrust. Basically push the aircraft past the impulse stage and give it some upward momentum. Of course you'd need it to be able to abort if the engine doesn't take over, but that's a less difficult engineering hurdle to be figured out.

Why use water as the medium? Because it's very portable. It's a simple concept. It's mechanically a simple design. And the pump can be driven in many ways, such as using electricity or it's own independent motor.

madrat wrote:

spazsinbad wrote:

What is a 'water propelled tether'? OK I have 'GOOGLED' it to see it is a JetPack training device. So how is this useful for F-35B? And how would it work for the F-35B? Thanks.

Run your motor at idle, begin to spool up as your computer-controlled water-jet tether lifts your aircraft off the deck. And as it lifts into the air move to full thrust. Basically push the aircraft past the impulse stage and give it some upward momentum. Of course you'd need it to be able to abort if the engine doesn't take over, but that's a less difficult engineering hurdle to be figured out.

Why use water as the medium? Because it's very portable. It's a simple concept. It's mechanically a simple design. And the pump can be driven in many ways, such as using electricity or it's own independent motor.

Exactly how would you get any significant forward airspeed while attached to the ground by water hoses? Besides, anyone who's been to the desert knows that water isn't as "portable" as you seem to think. It's heavy and it takes up a lot of space, and the amounts necessary for what you're proposing are logistically impossible unless you're sitting right next to an endless source (a severe operational limitation).

Makes about as much since as http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZywePiZ ... re=related

When your ship is buoyant over the source then supply is a factor of plumbing. You're cutting down fuel burn on the vertical component of take off (this wasn't for short takeoff) and the aircraft still has to do the conversion to horizontal flight.

Sorry to jump into the topic:

You are not giving a ''vertical component'' you are giving the a/c some ''head'' only. You can do the same thing with an elevator instead but your a/c will not fly until its wings start to generate lift. As 1st503rdsgt said your support equipment must also move with the a/c.

oops wrong thread - scusi Embarassed

'popcorn' said: "I was under the impression that Singapore is also considering the STOVL jet."

F-35B starts critical tests in comeback attempt Stephen Trimble 05 Oct 2011

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... pt-362941/

"...Singapore - a security co-operation participant in the F-35 joint programme office - has launched studies aimed at considering the STOVL variant, said Gregg Pyers, lift fan programme director for UK-based Rolls-Royce....”

A Falklands War FOB story:

Harrier Forward Operating Base – Falkland Islands April 22, 2012

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/04/h ... Defence%29

"...The normal Sea Harrier sortie was 75 minutes long which included a 65 minute journey to and from the carriers, only 10 minutes effective mission time. The FOB allowed the Sea Harriers to complete their transit and refuel a number of times before flying back to the aircraft carriers.

For the GR3’s the FOB meant they could wait there for a tasking from a Forward Air Controller.

Fuel was always a problem even though after MOGAS (motor gasoline) for the Rapier units, AVGAS for the FOB was a top priority. At its peak the FOB dispensed over 50,000 litres of fuel per and supported nearly 120 aircraft movements per day...."

spazsinbad wrote:

A Falklands War FOB story:

Harrier Forward Operating Base – Falkland Islands April 22, 2012

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/04/h ... Defence%29

"...The normal Sea Harrier sortie was 75 minutes long which included a 65 minute journey to and from the carriers, only 10 minutes effective mission time. The FOB allowed the Sea Harriers to complete their transit and refuel a number of times before flying back to the aircraft carriers.

For the GR3’s the FOB meant they could wait there for a tasking from a Forward Air Controller.
l was always a problem even though after MOGAS (motor gasoline) for the Rapier units, AVGAS for the FOB was a top priority. At its peak the FOB dispensed over 50,000 litres of fuel per and supported nearly 120 aircraft movements per day...."

The bulk of those 120 aircraft movement must have helos with a few Harriers thrown in because 50000 litres really isn't a lot.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC