Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19230
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post27 Dec 2009, 21:42

Aircraft Operations from Runways with Inclined Ramps (Ski Jump) USAF testing 1991:

http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA237265 (0.9Mb PDF)

Good bits of this 'ski jump' inspired testing by USAF in 1991 (mentioning also USN ski jump testing) are in graphic below. Original PDF of course has much more....
Attachments
USAFskiJumpTest.gif
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19230
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post29 Dec 2009, 03:22

PDF (0.8Mb) attached here made from a 4 page PDF available online in the 'Flight Global Magazine' archive starting at page: (these individual pages are as large as the 4 page pdf attached here though) Magazine is 'Flight International' 04 Dec 1976

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/ ... 02835.html (increment last number upwards)

It will be clear why a ski jump is a good idea and how a small 'Harrier Carrier' could be envisaged. Scale it up for the JSF-B mebbe. :twisted:
Attachments
SkiJump1976bw.gif
Ski Jump Explained Flight Global 1976prn2up.pdf
(828.63 KiB) Downloaded 887 times
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19230
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post02 Jan 2010, 20:48

Has been pointed out that this URL from previous page (about Bedford Array) no longer works: http://www.zinio.com/pages/Jane'sDefenc ... 7391/pg-28

A 3.8Mb PDF made from above URL and this one (also about Bedford Array): http://content.yudu.com/A10pvz/WTJan200 ... ces/28.htm
Attachments
JSF SRVL Bedford Array CVF BOTH.pdf
(3.81 MiB) Downloaded 633 times
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19230
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post03 Jan 2010, 11:07

From the 'wayback' machine here is an excerpt from the Naval Aviation News July 1979 article about CVV from:

http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backiss ... /jul79.pdf (entire issue 3.8Mb PDF)
Attachments
CVVtextNANjul1979.gif
CVVsmallCarrierConcept NAN jul79prn2ED.pdf
(1.24 MiB) Downloaded 496 times
CVVplanDrawNANjul1979.gif
Offline

bjr1028

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 516
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2009, 03:34
  • Location: Dubuque, IA

Unread post03 Jan 2010, 16:15

First off, the CVV that went to concept was a traditional carrier, about the size of the CVA and current CVF programed to basically split a carrier battle group in half. The problem, was not with the availability of STOVL aircraft (as it would built to have one squadron each of F-14s, F/A-18s/ A-7s, and A-6s, but with logistics. To protect the CVVs, they'd need to build additional cruisers, destroyers, and auxiliaries and effectively double the Prowler, Hawkeye, and Viking fleets. In the end, it turned out the big nukes were actually more cost effective.

The VSTOL angle comes from it being both the holy grail of naval aviation and NAVAIR getting Marine Harriers that it never quite figured out what to do with. They look at every thing from adding VSTOL to carrier air wings to ultra small carriers based on destroyers hulls to small aircraft carriers (the design eventually became the PdeA), to medium and large carriers to hybrid ships like the Kievs and even turning the aft deck of the Iowa into a Super Kiev. They ultimately decided to equip Marine helicopter assault ships with small detachments.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19230
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post04 Jan 2010, 07:01

Aircraft carrier on navy's secret $4bn wish list By Ian McPhedran From: The Daily Telegraph March 25, 2008

http://www.news.com.au/national/aircraf ... 1115876869

"THE Royal Australian Navy has produced a secret $4 billion "wish list" that includes an aircraft carrier, an extra air warfare destroyer and long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles for its submarine fleet.

The RAN wants a third 26,000 tonne amphibious ship equipped with vertical take-off jet fighters, a fourth $2 billion air warfare destroyer and cruise missiles that could strike targets thousands of kilometres away.

The list comes at a time when the RAN can barely find enough sailors to crew its existing fleet.

It also coincides with a Federal Government push to save $1 billion a year in defence costs as well as a government-ordered White Paper which will set the spending priorities for the next two decades.

According to insiders, the Government was unimpressed by the RAN's push for more firepower at a time when the Government is aiming to slash spending.

"The navy is out of control," one defence source said. :twisted:

It is understood that the wish list was the final straw in the tense relationship between the Government and Chief of Navy Vice-Admiral Russ Shalders - who will be replaced in July by Rear Admiral Russell Crane.

Admiral Shalders last year also pushed hard for an expensive US-designed destroyer, but lost out to the cheaper, Spanish option.

Taxpayers will spend more than $11 billion to provide the RAN with the two 26,000-tonne amphibious ships and three air-warfare destroyers equipped with 48 vertical launch missiles.

The two big ships, known as Landing Helicopter Docks, are designed for amphibious assaults and will be fitted with helicopters and be capable of carrying more than 1000 troops and heavy vehicles such as tanks and trucks.

The RAN wants a third ship to carry vertical take-off fighter jets.

Its last aircraft carrier, HMAS Melbourne, was decommissioned in 1982 before being sold for scrap.

The latest ships are 10m longer and 8m wider than the Melbourne and will be built in Spain and fitted out at the Tenix shipyard in Melbourne.

The Spanish navy will carry 30 Harrier jump jets aboard its similar ships.

They will each cost more than $1.7 billion. The fighters would cost about $100 million each. The destroyers will cost about $2 billion each, taking the total cost to more than $4 billion.

Tomahawk cruise missiles cost about $1 million each and can carry a 450kg conventional or 200 kiloton nuclear warhead more than 2500km.

In the past Australia has stayed away from long-range strike missiles for fear of triggering a regional arms race.

The wish list is what the RAN would like to see make up part of the White Paper process which will later this year provide a strategic blueprint for the defence of the nation for the next 20 years.

That process will direct new spending worth more than $50 billion over the next 10 years."
Offline

gf0012-aust

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 97
  • Joined: 23 Apr 2009, 07:44

Unread post04 Jan 2010, 07:10

what absolute unmitigated rot.

It's not in Plan Blue, never been in Plan Blue (the 10 year Strategic Plan for Navy) and never appeared in Plan Green either.

RAN is fundamentally disinterested in fixed wing combat air because there are other projects which are far more important - and because the Minister (Snr and Jnr) have made it palpably clear about what we will be getting.

More to the point, it was never submitted in any of the draft White Papers which Govt eventually signed off on and what we are bound to.

We bought the fatships due to Army reqs based on what we learnt in East Timor, they were never purchased to get the combat FAA up again, and RAAF certainly were not signing off on it as we needed Joint agreement on the purchase anyway.

These kinds of articles are a waste of bandwidth as they have no basis on what actually happened in the real life decision making process.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19230
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post05 Jan 2010, 03:14

Despite the pipe dream waste of space, stories such as these indicate that indeed some one is thinking about these issues and others are hearing about them. Of course at the time the LHD buy was announced there was a flurry of speculation about operating JSF-Bs off of them, as the Spanish Navy intend on their own examples. No big deal. I hope you will be pleasantly surprised down the road despite the RAAF being against such ideas. That 'RAAF opposition' is one fundemental given in any discussion about RAN FAA future fixed wing.
Attachments
ModelOzLHDmitHarriers.jpg
Offline

gf0012-aust

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 97
  • Joined: 23 Apr 2009, 07:44

Unread post05 Jan 2010, 05:22

spazsinbad wrote:Despite the pipe dream waste of space, stories such as these indicate that indeed some one is thinking about these issues and others are hearing about them.



Hardly when McPhedran could have looked at the White, Blue and Green papers (and the Blue is the kicker) and worked out that there was nothing in the system. Anyone can talk - but these things require documentation at an official level - none exist.

spazsinbad wrote:Of course at the time the LHD buy was announced there was a flurry of speculation about operating JSF-Bs off of them, as the Spanish Navy intend on their own examples.


this would be akin to the same flurry of noise that occurred when John Ashcroft stood in front of us in Canb and stated that if Aust wanted the F-22 that the US would look favourably upon the request. I'd add that this was with a Republican led Govt where we have extremely good access, where theS Executive elevated our access at unparalleled levels and where they were fundamentally opposed to the empirical view of the world that Senator Obey held. Even with a Govt that has been the most friendly in modern times to AustGov it didn't turn into an event. But, that didn't stop every teenager and military armchair enthusiast (and pseudo professional military platform commentator/blogger from here to alpha centauri ) then decided that we needed the F-22 etc... At an official level RAAF had already determined prior to Ashcrofts speech that we weren't getting it. Ditto for the fixed wing FAA lazarus

spazsinbad wrote:No big deal. I hope you will be pleasantly surprised down the road


I would be pleasantly surprised when I know what the Ministerial suits are saying, what senior uniforms are saying and what we've been explicitly told re our budget. it aint happening within the next 10 years at least - we do plan out to 2040 and I can tell you unequivocably that there is no fixed wing FAA factored in from here till 2040 - when the next iteration of planning will be kickstarted in 2030. Plan Blue covers 10 years - and both public and classified versions make no mention of any fixed wing FAA.

spazsinbad wrote:despite the RAAF being against such ideas. That 'RAAF opposition' is one fundemental given in any discussion about RAN FAA future fixed wing.


RAAF didn't oppose, in fact they offered up the RAF/RN model where RAF pilots took over RN FWFAA roles.

Wha RAAF didn't want was anything that compromised the joint platform selections - and all services sign off to these things at a joint approval level. RAN and Army were the keys - and THEY didn't want them due to other priorities. RAAF have a say because they do under JOINT decision processes. They were not the single service determinant.

We're not getting them. PERIOD. again, they do not appear in any ADF, RAN plans right out to 2040. The next major decision point is 2025, or 2018 if Plan Blue dovetails end to end with the current. Govt has explicitly stated that we have to save $20bn over the next 10 years, and have explicitly stated that there will be no creep on approved projects. the fatships are already approved. hence no additional monies will be allocated to them.

I cannot spell this out more simply than as above.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19230
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post05 Jan 2010, 06:13

I guess we will just have to amuse ourselves until it all blow(flie)s over then....
Attachments
FliesNavaleCartoon.gif
Offline

bjr1028

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 516
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2009, 03:34
  • Location: Dubuque, IA

Unread post05 Jan 2010, 14:46

gf0012-aust wrote:this would be akin to the same flurry of noise that occurred when John Ashcroft stood in front of us in Canb and stated that if Aust wanted the F-22 that the US would look favourably upon the request. I'd add that this was with a Republican led Govt where we have extremely good access, where theS Executive elevated our access at unparalleled levels and where they were fundamentally opposed to the empirical view of the world that Senator Obey held. Even with a Govt that has been the most friendly in modern times to AustGov it didn't turn into an event. But, that didn't stop every teenager and military armchair enthusiast (and pseudo professional military platform commentator/blogger from here to alpha centauri ) then decided that we needed the F-22 etc... At an official level RAAF had already determined prior to Ashcrofts speech that we weren't getting it. Ditto for the fixed wing FAA lazarus


Ashcroft was also offering something he couldn't deliver. The executive branch has no authority in weapons exports, only congress does.
Offline

gf0012-aust

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 97
  • Joined: 23 Apr 2009, 07:44

Unread post05 Jan 2010, 19:58

bjr1028 wrote:
Ashcroft was also offering something he couldn't deliver. The executive branch has no authority in weapons exports, only congress does.


and we knew that at the time. my point was that in front of suitably cleared and credentialed staff he made an open comment about what we could expect.

Ashcroft could not speak for State (first hurdle) or for Congress (Obey and ITARS issues) and indeed not for POTUS who didn't have sole source capability either.

3 months later Ashcroft was shuffled out of the job - and we always suspected it was for speaking without authority.

Thankfully, we'd already determined that we didn't want or need the F-22 for future force development - so expectations were not damaged anyway.

It is however, the only public announcement from any serving (then) US representative acting with implied authority to ever state in the open an Executive blessing on F-22.

We however, took it with a ton of salt.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19230
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post06 Jan 2010, 22:15

USN Think Tank Thunks JSF-Bs on CAVOUR.....

Pentagon's Think Tank Delivers Bold New Proposal For the U.S. Navy Posted by Paul McLeary at 1/6/2010

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... d=blogDest
&
http://www.informationdissemination.net ... hting.html

"8 Light Aircraft Carriers similar to the Italian Cavour class but dedicated to VSTOL aviation."
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19230
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post10 Jan 2010, 19:06

Just a note about the JSF-B heat 'problem':

F-35B Ready to Begin Stovl Testing Mar 3, 2009 By Graham Warwick and Guy Norris

http://www.aviationow.com/aw/generic/st ... %20Testing

Interesting note From long article about the exhaust being similar to a Harrier in a hover: "The majority of testing will be conducted over the open [hover] pit, but for the final series of runs steel panels will be fitted over the grating to allow the ground environment during vertical takeoff and landing to be measured. “Our area of interest is under the [aft] three-bearing nozzle, which should be similar to a Harrier exhaust,” says McFarlan.

The outwash environment will also be measured to determine the impact on maintainers. In addition, tests over the plated pit will indicate the extent to which hot exhaust gas is recirculated and ingested by the engine, potentially reducing vertical thrust. An inlet rake will measure pressures and temperatures going into the engine.
During the concept demonstration phase it was shown that the lift fan reduces recirculation by creating a “dam” of cooler air that blocks hot exhaust flowing forward from the aft nozzle. “We don’t expect to see any hot gas ingestion on the pit,” says McFarlan, who adds that the inlet rake will remain in place for Stovl flight tests."
____________________

Two approaches to achieving short takeoff and vertical landing 10th January 2010 - Engineer Live

Compares and contrasts the 'Hairier' and the 'Forget' (had A/B vertical landings!) with F-35-B engines:

http://www.engineerlive.com/Design-Engi ... ing/21553/

"....The lift fan generates a column of cool air that provides nearly 20000 pounds of vertical thrust using variable inlet guide vanes to modulate the airflow. An equivalent amount of thrust is provided by the downward-vectored rear exhaust. Because the lift fan extracts power from the engine, exhaust temperatures are reduced...."

ORIGINAL graphic from here: http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/f2.jpg
Attachments
JSF-BairflowScreen.gif
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19230
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post15 Jan 2010, 01:45

CVF animated (inventive) mini documentary Utube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFh-W9n8Xqg

Queen Elizabeth Class Carrier Short Documentary (Kieran Griffith) 9m 40s 25Mb .FLV video
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

cron