Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Quote:

Absolutly agree, we're screwed. The annoying part is we could afford alot more if only we ditched the idiotic and unjustified billions of foreign aid we throw at nations like India, Pakistan and worst of all Africa. We have nobdy else to blame but ourselves.

You guys aren't alone, the US has been doing the same thing.

Is it really the end of the world if the UK had to buy Super Hornets?

F-16.net Sponsor

shep1978 wrote:

This is the same EU that had to have American intervention to do anything about genocide and conflict taking place on its territory twice already in the last 65 years...? We (this EU) couldn't even deal with the Serbs on our own for christ sake.

In fairness, the first time around it was Soviet Union that did most of the legwork, not USA.

Agree about the rest...

discofishing wrote:

Is it really the end of the world if the UK had to buy Super Hornets?

Okay, what's wrong with the Rafale then?

France seems to be cutting total purchases and Dassault is trying to close export deals (at least Brazil) so they might be willing to give Brits a sweetened price to get the valuable reference. This could easily include local manufacturing and what else the Brits want, as it's "out of the blue" sales for Dassault anyway. (BTW, AFAIK the Jaguar co-op between Brequet/Dassault and BAe worked out quite fine, FWIW.)

Quote:

Okay, what's wrong with the Rafale then?

I don't think the Rafale is a better multi-role platform than the Super Hornet. I would rather the business go to the US industry, not the French. Overall, I'd like to see capitalism working here. May the best jet or deal win. I must throw in the fact that I still think the UK is getting the F-35B. I really don't think the Super Hornet will ever see FAA service. If, by chance, they do end up purchasing Rafales, it would still be a great plane to have on deck.

The Brits may be prepared to wait for the F-35B:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -bite.html

Quote:

RN sends cadre of pilots to train on US carriers Reuben F Johnson JDW Correspondent

http://www.fightercontrol.co.uk/forum/v ... mp;p=91723

"A larger than usual number of UK pilots are taking part in carrier training in the US.

The move may indicate that the UK favours a commitment to conventional aircraft launched by catapult rather than a STOVL platform

An uprecedented number of UK Royal Navy (RN) Harrier pilots have begun training for catapult-assisted take-off but arrested recovery (CATOBAR) carrier operations in the United States, information obtained by Jane's has revealed.

The news further fuels rumours that the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) may be re-assessing its previous commitment to fulfilling the UK's Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) requirement with the F-35B short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant of the Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), instead opting for a conventional aircraft launched by catapult.

The latter could be the F-35C carrier variant of the JSF, which has a greater range and payload capability than the JSF STOVL variant and also costs slightly less per unit, or even the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet on which the UK pilots are likely to be certified. The RN's two future Queen Elizabeth-class carriers that would operate the JCA are designed for, but not yet intended to be fitted with CATOBAR equipment.

The programme for this exchange of aviators is much larger than normal and was apparently initiated in April when a senior US Navy (USN) officer announced training and squadron integration for 12 UK pilots. This officer then briefed the US Commander Naval Air Forces (CNAF) in mid-April.

Sources who spoke to Jane's on condition of anonymity state that the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OpNav) is "driving the requirement and the CNAF is implementing [it]". Given the high level of support, the training and timing for the programme will be high priority for the local F/A-18 fleet replacement training squadrons (FRSs).

USN sources anticipate that this training programme will be scheduled so that the RN will have 12 fully qualified carrier pilots by 2012. They did not mention whether or not any of these 12 would be trained for the rear-cockpit weapon systems officer (WSO) position in two-seat carrier aircraft or as landing signals officers (LSOs).

According to the programme plan, eight of the 12 pilots will complete a full syllabus on the Boeing/BAE Systems T-45 jet trainer (a carrier-capable version of the BAE Systems Hawk Mk 60) and a full CAT I syllabus on the F/A-18 Hornet. The CAT I syllabus has recently been designated as the pilot certification training for the F/A-18. Three pilots will complete a partial T-45 syllabus and a full CAT II F/A-18 syllabus, which is the training for qualified pilot transition to the F/A-18. The training regime for the 12th and last pilot has not been specified, but it is anticipated that he will conduct some T-45 Goshawk training and a full CAT I or II syllabus that includes day/night landing carrier qualification. Eleven of the UK pilots will join USN fleet squadrons and will be flying both C/D legacy Hornet and E/F Super Hornet models of the F/A-18. The 12th pilot will remain at one of the FRS locations as an exchange pilot.

The RN pilots will also fly US Marine Corps (USMC) McDonnell Douglas/BAE Systems AV-8B Harrier IIs. [Duh - the give away line seemingly ignored.]

It is the much larger number of pilots included (typical exchange programmes with the USN involve only two or three pilots) along with the additional training involved that suggest this pilot training programme is not part of a standard exchange tour.

"It's typical to take the RAF [Royal Air Force]/RN guy to the carrier for some 'good deal' [carrier] traps," said the USN source, "but they go in daytime only and are scheduled on a 'not to interfere with [regular USN] student traps' basis. In other words they do not have a quota. All 12 of the RN pilots addressed by this training will have a quota."

Asked about the reasoning behind the programme, one source told Jane's that it is designed to "give additional STOVL and cat-and-trap experience and provide invaluable 'big deck' familiarisation prior to introduction of Queen Elizabeth . It will also further strengthen the bonds between the USN, USMC and RN".

In conjunction with Jane's reports in July that the UK MoD is continuing to contract Converteam UK for the design, development and demonstration of an electro-magnetic catapult system, news of a cadre of UK pilots being carrier trained would seem to confirm the ministry is reassessing its carrier options. The contractual decision on what variant of F-35 to buy does not have to be made until early in 2011, although RN sources indicated to Jane's in July that the B/C decision would be made as part of the UK's Strategic Defence and Security Review process, so a decision could come this year even if no contract is signed.

Meanwhile, unsubstantiated reports have emerged that the RN might even be offered an ex-USN carrier as the size of the USN carrier force is reduced from 12 down to 10 ships. This would provide the RN with a conventional 'cat-and-trap' aircraft carrier in advance of the UK's two Queen Elizabeth-class carriers entering service. Although the RN does have experience of operating nuclear-powered submarines, its aircraft carriers have always been conventionally driven. While all USN carriers in service are nuclear powered carrier, the last conventionally powered carrier in USN service, USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63), was decommissioned on 12 May 2009 and is currently maintained as a Ready Reserve Fleet asset." [BOLLOCKS]

Wow. If this article is accurate, I might have to rethink my position on the Super Hornets in FAA service. I wonder how many second hand US aircraft carriers the Royal Navy can buy for the price of building brand new QE class carriers.

disco, the article above has misinterpreted by author IMHO. What has been done for the sake of training is that RN/RAF Harrier pilots with more modern fighter equipment to prepare them for using the gizmos in the F-35B soon. The other issue is that the new CVFs require much fewer crew to operate compared to any old rusty USN carrier (nuke or not). A second hand carrier is a burden on any Navy manpower and otherwise. There is a reason why rustbuckets get sunk.

discofishing wrote:

Wow. If this article is accurate, I might have to rethink my position on the Super Hornets in FAA service. I wonder how many second hand US aircraft carriers the Royal Navy can buy for the price of building brand new QE class carriers.

That have more than a couple years of life left in them, none. Kitty Hawk might be able to last long enough to fill the gap to QE, but not any longer.

spazsinbad wrote:

disco, the article above has misinterpreted by author IMHO. What has been done for the sake of training is that RN/RAF Harrier pilots with more modern fighter equipment to prepare them for using the gizmos in the F-35B soon.

And get them used to landing at a higher sink rate. The F-35B will be operated STOSL most of the time as vertical landings degrade range and payload. Its also a nice back up, if the system proves too complex to be reliable.

Last edited by spazsinbad on Aug 27, 2010 - 11:50 PM; edited 2 times in total

bjr1028, "... as [F-35B] vertical landings degrade range and payload." I think you misunderstand what an RN Harrier vertical landing is (if it will be comparable to an F-35B vertical landing we can only guess at this point - but it is likely). In the RN a Harrier approaches with very little fuel (usually the only load) to maximise available engine performance (and other factors). An RN Harrier does not need a lot of extra fuel as a Hornet may require for bolters or waveoffs. Harriers approach with a guarantee to land while any waveoff is an emergency with a quick turnabout to land finally. Next is a brief explanation given to me by an ex-RN Harrier pilot (with more to follow when it is found again):

Lowball Stovie « Thread Started on Aug 11, 2010, 9:49am

http://ontheroger.proboards.com/index.c ... amp;page=1

"BTW Harriers practice and carry out when required 'running landings ashore' but until the CVF deck length becomes available they do not have that on any carrier. So Harrier pilots can carry out 'running landings' on a big USN carrier if required (which may occur to finangle Harrier and Hornet ops in the same cycle - yeah right). All accounts of SRVL Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing (via simulation with a few runway landings in this mode) indicate that it will be easy - no sweat.

"Anyway, what we normally did was calculate the landing weight to be within dry limits when back on the deck, and we would plan the final stages of the sortie to bring the fuel down to as low a state as possible. NB: we had 50 gallons of water (500 lbs) and only 1000lbs more thrust. During the deceleration, the aeroplane would usually be above dry hover weight because of the additional weight of the water, and because the fuel was burning down at 200 lbs a minute, and you were going to take a minute to decel. Around the 90 knot mark, the wing stopped working and an experienced hand would note an increase in JPT as the engine lift took up the load. This spike in JPT would take you up to a trigger JPT which would automatically create water flow. Again, the experienced hand would see the JPT rising and it would usually enter the 15 second dry limited regime at 698 degrees C, so he would also see the 15 second light come on. Only for a flash though. Because the aeroplane was really quite light, you would trigger the water flow even though you didn’t really need it, and this would bring the JPT back down to 40-50 degrees less than what you could achieve dry. That meant the ELR count rate also went down a lot. Indeed, blemish trained pilots could usually land a war fitted SHAR whilst burning less than 5 counts. I had one hero who seemed to be so smooth and competent, he regularly landed with no counts whatsoever!"
_______________

RN Harrier pilots use a meatball glideslope [DAPS] which the CRAB (RAF) pilots dislike:

"...and the mirror is not polished because the meatball is distorted...
The crab thought process is that the 2.5 degree setting on the “glide path”
(for want of a better name) is too steep! 4 degrees is considered really steep,
1 degree is nearly crab acceptable, level deceleration is what crabs prefer.
Crabs err to the flat/low side every time and it always leads to sadness.
Think of the geometry, the ship is steaming away in excess of 20 knots, the wind speed is usually 15-20 knots, so a 2.5 degree glidepath is into 35-40 knots of headwind, and the landing position is always moving away from you, so the effective angle is somewhat less than 1 degree.
What a good 2.5 degree glideslope gives you is perspective of the ship, a good feel for rate of closure, and a nice level of separation from the water.
On the other hand, flat approaches give no perspective, making it very hard to judge rate of climb or descent, also you get nearly no feel for the rate of closure, & you only have 80-90 feet separation from the water when still half a mile out from the boat. Until they have learned, crab pilots (and now young navy pilots in GR9s) have anxiety ridden early approaches where they nearly hit the water, & overshoot the landing spot, all because they can't fly the meatball. Argghhh! Happy Days!!”

More from same ex-RN (ex-RAN A4G) Harrier pilot on a DAPS approach: Deck Approach Projector Sight

Lowball Stovie « Thread Started on Aug 11, 2010, 9:49am

http://ontheroger.proboards.com/index.c ... amp;page=1

"DAPS brings the aeroplane down the port side on a 2.5 degree glidepath to finish up in the hover at 90 feet over the water as the radalt reads. This is as you say, 30-50 feet above the deck. Indeed, let's call it 40 feet, because the deck is 50 feet above the surface.

As if by magic, you fly a straight approach on the centre ball all the way to the hover position set specifically for night time at no 6 spot because this gives you the best vertical and line up cues for visual hovering, using nearly the entire runway and the full super structure. Once along side the landing spot, you translate sideways to put your aircraft centreline on the left hand edge of the runway centreline tram track, and your bum on the 6 spot forward line marker. This means your nose wheel will be on the line. Landings are scored with reference to actual position, although it is not really critical provided all your wheels are on the deck and you haven't hit anything!!"
______________________

NECESSARILY there has been editing but I'm hoping you get the drift:

"The airforce/marine Harrier Is had less effective reaction controls than the Sea Harrier and Harrier IIs. Specifically, SHAR had a better roll capability.

Talking CCA approaches. Harriers (all models) get marshalled or self marshall to a place called "the cakestand" which is on DFC at 15 miles to run to the ship (NB: its actually on the Red 185 bearing). Aeroplanes in a formation break up to adopt 1000 feet and 3 minutes separation. IE lead is a 1000 feet in "the cakestand" which is a standard 4 minute hold. Formation no 4 will be at 4000 feet. As the lead departs the cakestand, the rest of the formation drops down 1000 feet in the hold.

Each aeroplane departs the cakestand at 3 minute intervals and at 1000 feet. From the cakestand the pilot follows self steering (radar or Microwave aircraft digital guidance equipment...MADGE) or radar headings from the boat to fly along the approach path. At ten miles, downwind checks, 6 miles take 20 nozzles check duct pressure(reaction controls working), 5 miles 40 nozzles (IE you are slowing to approach speed, holding level), 4 miles 60 nozzles slowing to 130-140 knots 8 AoA (depending on aircraft weight) select water switch to "landing" (check water flow, manual on off).

At 3.8 miles you commence descent either with MADGE, radar pilot interpreted approach or talk down. It's a 3 degree glidepath. Follow the cues to .8 of mile where the call is ".8 miles level off 200 feet look up call FlyCo".

The pilot looks up and sees a low ball so he remains flying level at 200 feet. Next cue Madge/PIA and verbal from the boat is "half a mile". At this point, the pilot sees a centred ball and takes the nozzles to the hover stop. In a Sea Harrier, shortly after you pass 90 knots and note a JPT spike (due to the throttle up) followed by a flash of the 15 second light. This is indicating the JPT has gone high and triggered the water flow. If the 15 second light stays on you select water to manual with a thumb flick. If the 15 second light still stays on you go around to lighten up because the aeroplane won't hover yet...

On the basis everything worked, you then fly down the meatball flight path until you are hovering alongside 6 spot using nozzle nudge/braking stop selections as required to achieve a controlled deceleration.

This is the same for all Harriers although the USMC have varied things a bit. My description is an ideal world. Other stuff happens and the approach can occasionally be quite stressful."

Attribution of the text above about RN Harrier flying was inadvertantly omitted. My apologies to all concerned. The URL for the thread now appears in two above entries - repeated here:

Lowball Stovie:
http://ontheroger.proboards.com/index.c ... hread=1212

I wouldn't pay any attention to these RN getting F-18's stories that keep cropping up in highly questionable newspapers. Really, its not worth it as its the same old BS about "un-named sources said this that or the other" , nothing about this story that is even remotely believable. It is afterall about as likely as us buying the Rafale... Wink

discofishing wrote:

Quote:

Okay, what's wrong with the Rafale then?

I don't think the Rafale is a better multi-role platform than the Super Hornet. I would rather the business go to the US industry, not the French. Overall, I'd like to see capitalism working here. May the best jet or deal win. I must throw in the fact that I still think the UK is getting the F-35B. I really don't think the Super Hornet will ever see FAA service. If, by chance, they do end up purchasing Rafales, it would still be a great plane to have on deck.

Rafale is slightly inferior to SH in A2G but massively superior in A2A.. Rafale would be a good choice for the RN but it is too risky ..It would deteriorate UK-USA relations.

Rafale is not superior to SHornet in A2A. The SHornet has superior radar, BVR missile and ECM. It has HMS while Rafale does not. Rafale is not slightly inferior to SHornet in A2G either, it is considerably inferior, one aspect being the ability to self-designate LGB's.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

UK to ditch F-35B for Superhornet