Forum: F-35 Lightning II

gf0012-aust: This is an internet forum open to anyone interested in the topic. My input is usually generated by my own need to become informed on an issue that interests me. Just resorting to your own 'superior knowledge' argument has no weight here methinks. If you have non-classified input then certainly direct us to it but I'm not here to argue your case. Argue your own case with the information you can make available.

I fail to see how any flat deck built to deal with Harrier issues will have a problem with JSF-B. I can understand the Osprey problem from what can be gleaned from the internet (where else would I get information by the way?). However I fail to see how that carries over to JSF-B issues. I'm understanding of the need to enquire about these issues before JSF-B deployment by all and sundry. However I still don't see any problem that could not be solved by proper operations.

I'm happy to leave our discussion as it is because if you cannot add anything concrete, unclassified then there is not much to say. Personally I'm only interested in public information. In due course more info will become available about these issues on the internet. I'll be patient.

F-16.net Sponsor

For those following JSF-B engine issues here is more (don't know how it relates to current engine though):

Winner Take All All the nail biting, second guessing, and sheer engineering brilliance in the battle to build the better Joint Strike Fighter. By Evan Hadingham Air & Space Magazine, January 01, 2003

http://www.airspacemag.com/military-avi ... amp;page=5

"As with the Harrier, the 1,350-degree heat of the Boeing airplane’s exhaust gases would pose a threat to the surface of carrier decks, if not to the life and limb of Navy crews (the downdraft from Lockheed’s lift fan was some 1,000 degrees cooler). Since Lockheed’s fan boosted engine thrust, its powerplant could run at lower temperature and with less strain, and these differences would translate into longer life. Most significant, assuming its reliability could be ensured, the lift fan would offer an extra margin of power and safety in a hover. In the end, that ensured Lockheed’s victory."

I know this is totally off-topic from the thread's subject, discussing F-35Bs making vertical landings on L ships et al... but here's one interesting AV-8B landing vid clearly depicting the slightly outward canted and dispersed exhaust during the execution. So perhaps a concentrated, single point main-exhaust vent from the F-35B would create potentially different effects on a given surface - especially after extended hover? It seems to be a valid deduction? We'll probably have to put this conclusively in the 'wait this one out' catagory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KAzJY3zf3k

spazsinbad wrote:

gf0012-aust: This is an internet forum open to anyone interested in the topic. My input is usually generated by my own need to become informed on an issue that interests me. Just resorting to your own 'superior knowledge' argument has no weight here methinks. If you have non-classified input then certainly direct us to it but I'm not here to argue your case. Argue your own case with the information you can make available.

I fail to see how any flat deck built to deal with Harrier issues will have a problem with JSF-B. I can understand the Osprey problem from what can be gleaned from the internet (where else would I get information by the way?). However I fail to see how that carries over to JSF-B issues. I'm understanding of the need to enquire about these issues before JSF-B deployment by all and sundry. However I still don't see any problem that could not be solved by proper operations.

I'm happy to leave our discussion as it is because if you cannot add anything concrete, unclassified then there is not much to say. Personally I'm only interested in public information. In due course more info will become available about these issues on the internet. I'll be patient.

There is information out there that there are problems with F-35B and flight decks Spaz. Right now from what I have read something has to be done with the decks. Harrier is a far lighter plane with much less powerful engine. Common sense here would indicate that there may be significantly different operational characteristics.

To the real issue, Japanese helicopter carriers operating F-35Bs. I don't think so. They are far too valuable performing ASW to have their flight decks wasted on carrying a few F-35s. Look at a map. Look at the force in theater. Look at the potential adversaries. It's not going to happen. These ships are fleet units that would work in conjunction with American carriers in case of war with the Chinese.

Enthusiast Joined: Apr 23, 2009 - 08:44 AM Posts: 97

Thumper3181 wrote:

They are far too valuable performing ASW to have their flight decks wasted on carrying a few F-35s.

Thats the key. Look at the threat matrix and the benefit that these bring to that fight. JSF doesn't add to the capability that they need in their immediate area of interest.

Enthusiast Joined: Apr 23, 2009 - 08:44 AM Posts: 97

spazsinbad wrote:

If you have non-classified input then certainly direct us to it but I'm not here to argue your case. Argue your own case with the information you can make available.

1) No one with access or clearance to see privileged material is going to put that on a public forum. Thats a first order CLM.

2) My issue is not with anyone using public cited material. The issue (and you have an ex military background so should be more than aware of the message here) is that it's self evident that no public material is unimpeachable, but it will remain unimpeachable whenever privileged material could challenge it but obviously can't. IPSO facto your banter with dport becomes disingenuine.

Arguing a case when its apparent that the debate for obvious reasons may be one sided due to privilege issues only serves to promote what can be publicly detailed over what could in the right circumstances easily refute it. One side thus gets oxygen for supporting a POV. The other does not. There is no correlation between citing public material and the accuracy and relevance of said material. Any engineer will tell you that.

anyway, I'm done with this as its going nowhere fast.

Thumper3181, "There is information out there that there are problems with F-35B and flight decks" I'm happy to be informed - please point me to info, thanks. Yes I have seen the 'news' report that is on this thread already and repeated in several online places.

gf0012-aust, your argument was going nowhere fast from the beginning. Civilians can only make do with the information that is available. For me the issue is not 'right or "rong"'. The information I have found points to some JSF-B differences to the Harrier jet efflux issue. Difficult to compare one with the other though as the JSF-B is not flying in an operational environment. In regards to the JSF-B any problems seem to be over stated (when nothing is really said except the Osprey problem is cited). Thinking about it again what can be said if the JSF-B is not flying. One can only guess (with modelling in the military for sure). So be it. We'll see.

I'm hoping some smart RAN cookies are reading this stuff to get the 3rd RAN LHD ready for STOVL ops! BTW I'm wondering what the Spanish Navy are doing in regard to their LHDs and JSF-Bs? Sorry I don't read Spanish.

Enthusiast Joined: Apr 23, 2009 - 08:44 AM Posts: 97

spazsinbad wrote:

I'm hoping some smart RAN cookies are reading this stuff to get the 3rd RAN LHD ready for STOVL ops!

what 3rd LHD? There is none. RAN don't actually get to decide anyway. Considering that the Govt have already dictated what we can and cannot get, then there would be more than a few people in RAN surprised - esp the "smart" ones.

spazsinbad wrote:

Thumper3181, "There is information out there that there are problems with F-35B and flight decks" I'm happy to be informed - please point me to info, thanks. Yes I have seen the 'news' report that is on this thread already and repeated in several online places.

Dport was kind enough to post one back on the 27th. No doubt you where too busy with other things to notice.
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/11/n ... y_112209w/

Lets not let this go back and forth Spaz. You might scare some posters away.

spazsinbad wrote:

I'm hoping some smart RAN cookies are reading this stuff to get the 3rd RAN LHD ready for STOVL ops! BTW I'm wondering what the Spanish Navy are doing in regard to their LHDs and JSF-Bs? Sorry I don't read Spanish.

Again FOR WHAT PURPOSE????? Again the seaborne threat to Australia is sub based. What purpose does one cocked up light carrier serve? Planning on beating up the Kiwis?

Thumper3181, I had referred to that Navy Times thread (which URL you have used is broken BTW). I'll quietly object to your claim that I have not noticed the notice and instead claim that you have not noticed that I have noticed. Scaring the posters? Heaven forfend.

"Again FOR WHAT PURPOSE?????" Self evident I would have thought. But then again I guess not. Kiwis are easybeats. They have nothing to protect them except wooly sheep and tussock grass. Australia will activate the fifth column possum invaders when the time is right. Smile

geogen, necessarily because the JSF-B is not flying in various situations to see one has to conjecture about a lot of things. A (X-35B) JSF-B test vertical landing video (onto a mesh pit to reduce any debris or hot gas blowback) can be seen here (0.6Mb):

http://www.jsf.mil/video/x35/stovl_snip-it_high.wmv

with more videos here:

http://www.jsf.mil/gallery/gal_video.htm# specifically:

http://www.jsf.mil/video/x35/stovl_snip-it_high.wmv

This is a longer X-35B landing video which (I would gather due to experimental nature) is taking much moe time than a JSF-B would take to land on a deck for example. We will find out more in due course of course.

Various comments have been made about the split nature of Harrier exhaust footprint out of two smaller nozzles. JSF-B has one hotter nozzle exhaust from a larger opening at (whatever it might be) lower temperature/thrust with the front lift fan exhaust even cooler (see graphic on previous page or go here):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_LiftSystem

Depending on landing environment there are mitigating circumstances for any STOVL aircraft such as WOD (Wind Over Deck). Guessing games will continue until more is known publically.

Most Harrier shipboard landings (which approach/landing techniques might vary slightly in USMC or RN FAA usage) would be done to minimise hover time over the deck (which I could not imagine would be very long and certainly not two minutes - except for a test purpose). I'm told by ex-RN Harrier pilots that they return with minimum fuel to maximise their landing power to weight ratio. I'm told they land ASAP and it is easy because they "STOP and LAND". Smile

Mostly it would appear (but bear with me here I cannot see every Harrier landing over decades) they are in a near hover off the ship's side opposite landing spot. They then sidle over to hover briefly then descend to land on that spot, cutting the engine swiftly at touchdown. This is a sweeping generalisation about an Harrier landing of course.

Your air show demo video link shows a Harrier 'showing off' for the crowd - which is fair enough - thus taking a longer time to land.

Spaz, I respect your enthusiasm in your cause, sir. I've got one myself actually, being a hopeless delta-winged F-16Xx fan Wink

One things for sure, the public does not yet know the extent to this 'heat' issue. What is apparent, is that the Mil is working to address heat issues for both aircraft (v-22/F-35b) operating on current Amphib assets - we can leave it at that. Incidentally, ELP has a newly posted 'Heat solution' timeline report (just checked his blog to verify if he had something) if you wish to review that piece (if not already). As a consolation perhaps; is that a block III, FOC F-35B combat squadron will not be assigned to deck ops anytime soon, so there's time to better evaluate, plan and fix sufficiently to meet finalized requirements.

As for conjecturing how much time a far heavier F-35B (with reserve fuel and even weapons load) will require to make a 'structurally safe' deck-VL, in windy conditions, by new rookie pilot, whatever the condition, etc, in comparison to the current STOVL, we can't say. Only the 'timeline' will tell Very Happy

Cheers.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Japan gearing up to acquire F-35 fighters