Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC

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

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23338
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post01 Nov 2009, 07:37

Good CGI movie of potential JSF ops here (22Mb .FLV): [sadly a lot of detail is hidden in the darkness]

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/multimedia- ... geNav/6568

"Animated Video of Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carrier and Joint Strike Fighter"
______________

Another 3 CVF videos on this page:

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations- ... eth-class/
Offline

callsignthumper

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 78
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2009, 01:21

Unread post04 Nov 2009, 06:59

Ok Do we have problems landing the Harriers???? F-35 will do it better. NO we will not come out with a sloped deck?? We no British! Slope'd decks can cause several issues, which would only complicate ships. Some of you guys should go into the Military, and some should talk amongst others already in the military.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23338
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post04 Nov 2009, 14:50

http://www.armedforces-int.com/categori ... rottle.asp

"In September 2002, the JSF Program Office announced that a novel integrated flight and propulsion control system – pioneered by QinetiQ – will be implemented in the F-35B STOVL aircraft.

QinetiQ, and its predecessor organisations, have undertaken a long running programme of STOVL research with the MOD. This culminated in a three-year programme for the JSF Program Office using QinetiQ’s Vectored-thrust Aircraft Advanced Control (VAAC) Harrier, which has been configured with an experimental fly-by-wire flight control system.

The standard Harrier is notoriously challenging to fly, which leads to considerable constraints on pilot recruitment and extra demands on training”, explains Jeremy Howitt, Technical Manager, Air Vehicle Operations at Bedford.

The Harrier flies like a conventional aircraft at high speed with the pilot controlling the throttle and the rotates the engine nozzles down and enables the transition from wing-borne to jet-borne flight. This requires simultaneous input on all three control sticks – which creates a high workload situation.

“There is also a significantly higher risk of cognitive failure”, explains Jeremy. “Pilots can accidentally operate the throttle when trying to engage the nozzle control and vice-versa –a problem that has caused crashes in the past.


“Recent research has focused on how to make STOVL aircraft as easy to fly as any other aircraft and that ’s where we came in.”

Advanced solutions
Using QinetiQ’s ‘Unified’ control concept, the VAAC cockpit controls are linked, via the experimental flight control computer, to the engine power throttle, nozzle controls and tail surface.

The flight control software automatically modulates all three controls simultaneously to maintain the speed and flight path commanded by the pilot.

This removes the need for a separate thrust-vectoring lever and allows the pilot to maintain a simple right-hand ‘up-down’ and left-hand ‘faster-slower’ control strategy throughout the whole flight envelope.


The new technology could reap huge benefits in terms of improved safety, reduced training costs, ease of operation and greater operational flexibility.

“The technology was proven during a trial aboard HMS Invincible in 2000”, says Jeremy. “The demonstration in a representative operational environment played a major role in the US decision to accept the new control laws.”

The JSF Program Office is keen to use the VAAC Harrier to further refine and optimise the control laws for the JSF requirement. QinetiQ has been asked to provide support through to the F-35B ’s debut flight in 2006. It is planned that two QinetiQ staff will spend four years working with the project team at Lockheed Martin ’s facility in Fort Worth, Texas and it is likely that other QinetiQ experts will be brought onboard as the programme progresses.

QinetiQ is also developing a system for automatic landing on an aircraft carrier, regardless of weather conditions. This autoland capability – which uses differential GPS to bring the aircraft alongside the ship – will again be developed jointly with the US with a view to incorporating it into the production F-35B. [JPALS system now most likely]

The first land-based demonstrations have already taken place at QinetiQ’s Boscombe Down site while the first demonstration at sea is planned to take place on a Royal Navy aircraft carrier in Spring 2004."
Last edited by spazsinbad on 05 Nov 2009, 06:02, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

bjr1028

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 518
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2009, 03:34
  • Location: Dubuque, IA

Unread post05 Nov 2009, 05:28

callsignthumper wrote:Ok Do we have problems landing the Harriers?


A bit of one. Harriers have the high class A mishap rate of any aircraft in the military by a considerable margin. This comes from a combination of mechanical complexity and not being an easy aircraft to fly.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23338
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post05 Nov 2009, 20:05

Just for the heck of it, a marketing brochure for the Su-35 from August 2007. Original PDF file zipped was around 17Mb unzipping to a 20Mb PDF. This 1Mb PDF has had file size reduced whilst retaining quality. Original zip here: http://www.knaapo.ru/media/News/maks2007/35_eng.zip & Engrish page here: http://www.knaapo.ru/eng/products/military/su-35.wbp with a very similar PDF at 2.2Mb (http://www.knaapo.ru/media/eng/about/pr ... et_eng.pdf) but in portrait pages rather than landscape format of the 1Mb PDF here.
Attachments
newSUKHOI 35_eng_razvorot_LandscapeOnlyPRN.pdf
(1.01 MiB) Downloaded 428 times
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23338
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post10 Nov 2009, 13:46

Feb 2009 Royal Navy 'Navy News' story about 'rolling landings' & the 'bedford array':

http://content.yudu.com/A11vkl/NavyNews ... ces/25.htm
Attachments
VACCharrierRollingLandingTrialsNavyNewsRN.gif
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23338
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post10 Nov 2009, 13:57

QinetiQ - solution for F-35B ‘rolling landings’ on Royal Navy’s future aircraft carriers

http://www.defensefile.com/Customisatio ... inetiQ.asp

QinetiQ has successfully completed a series of trials using its T4 Vectored-thrust Aircraft Advanced Control (VAAC) Harrier aircraft on HMS Illustrious. These proved QinetiQ’s innovative new Bedford Array visual landing aid system – which stabilises the aircraft’s approach path in the presence of deck motion – as the solution for Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landings (SRVL) on the Royal Navy’s future carriers, particularly in rough sea state conditions. 17 December 2008
&
http://www.qinetiq.com/home/newsroom/ne ... dford.html

16 December 08
QinetiQ proves its innovative Bedford Array visual landing aid on HMS Illustrious

QinetiQ's VAAC Harrier on HMS Illustrious with fullscale F-35 model
Hi-res download (308kB ) Trials prove novel QinetiQ solution for F-35B ‘rolling landings’ on Royal Navy’s future aircraft carriers in high sea state conditions

QinetiQ has successfully completed a series of trials using its T4 Vectored-thrust Aircraft Advanced Control (VAAC) Harrier aircraft on HMS Illustrious. These proved QinetiQ’s innovative new Bedford Array visual landing aid system – which stabilises the aircraft’s approach path in the presence of deck motion – as the solution for Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landings (SRVL) on the Royal Navy’s future carriers, particularly in rough sea state conditions.

The UK Ministry of Defence has been funding ongoing research to refine and de-risk the use of SRVL approaches for its new jump jet – the F-35B Lightning II Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), the UK MOD’s preferred choice to meet its Joint Combat Aircraft requirement. The MOD plans to operate up to 36 JSFs from each of its two new future aircraft carriers:- HMS Queen Elizabeth, currently expected to enter service in 2014 and HMS Prince of Wales in 2016.

An SRVL landing involves a STOVL aircraft executing a ‘rolling landing’ onto the carrier flight deck, using air speed to provide wingborne lift to complement engine thrust. No arrestor gear is deployed as the aircraft uses its own brakes to stop. Compared to a standard vertical landing, an SRVL recovery offers real advantages for the F-35B as heavier payloads can be brought back and safely landed onboard ship. It also has the potential to reduce propulsion system stress and therefore extend engine life.

Early studies showed that the F-35B has a critical vulnerability to deck motion for the SRVL manoeuvre and that this type of landing is not viable in all desired conditions. As a result, the MOD placed a contract with QinetiQ in 2007 to analyse the root cause of the problem and design a solution.

QinetiQ’s new Bedford Array visual landing aid system was conceived, developed and fully tested in around a year in direct response to MOD requirements. The system ensures that the pilot flying the ‘rolling landings’ makes an accurate approach to the deck, even in rough sea conditions. It takes inputs from external passive references and when combined with information in the pilot’s Helmet Mounted Display, allows for a low workload, stabilised pilot approach in even the worst conditions.

“The UK has an incredible heritage of innovation in naval aviation and pioneered many of the things now taken for granted in the conventional carrier world,” explained QinetiQ test pilot Justin Paines, who flew the X-35B Joint Strike Fighter Concept Demonstration Aircraft. “With the Bedford Array, we’ve done it again and developed an approach aid that has application beyond F-35B to other forms of embarked aircraft recoveries. We have already received interest from other countries involved in naval aviation.”

QinetiQ’s VAAC Harrier flew a total of 39 sorties in the southwest approaches between 12-19 November to prove the Bedford Array landing system – in all 67 vertical landings and around 230 SRVL approaches were flown.

“This series of trials was designed to refine the operational concept, mitigate failure cases and optimise QinetiQ’s innovative Bedford Array visual landing aids arrangement,” explained Lt Cdr Chris Götke, one of the test pilots who also marked his 400th vertical landing during the trials. “The MOD turned to QinetiQ to solve this significant problem of landing laden aircraft in rough seas. This ingenious solution was first tested in QinetiQ labs and has now been proved by these hugely successful trials and will be implemented on the new carriers.”

In mid-2007, a series of VAAC trials were conducted onboard the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle to establish the fundamental safety, operability and operational benefit of the SRVL technique. The recent trials on HMS Illustrious could prove to be the last research tasking for QinetiQ’s VAAC testbed as the aircraft is now 39 years old, and is expected to be retired from service in early 2009.

For this series of trials the Bedford Array was installed in the port catwalk adjacent to HMS Illustrious’ flight deck, but due to the limited dimensions of the deck, SRVL recoveries were not preformed – instead a low go-around was flown. A second lighting array was also installed on the carrier flight deck and used for a parallel evaluation of the visibility of the lighting system in differing ambient conditions.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23338
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post11 Nov 2009, 00:49

http://40yrs.blogspot.com/2008/12/shipb ... g-aid.html (SKEPTIC for balance)
&
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... m-for.html

Qinetiq-led team demonstrates carrier landing system for JSF DATE:08/12/08 SOURCE:Flight International

A Qinetiq-led trial has demonstrated a new stabilised visual landing aid concept on board the UK Royal Navy's aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious, with the work forming part of a de-risking study into the use of a shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) manoeuvre for Lockheed Martin's short take-off and vertical landing F-35B Joint Strike Fighter with the service's two future CVF vessels.

Qinetiq's two-seat VAAC Harrier testbed flew multiple approaches to a demonstration deck lighting array mounted on the ship, with a total of 66 sorties flown over a week-long period in November and successful approaches made in conditions up to Sea State 6.

An SRVL involves a STOVL aircraft executing a "running landing" along a carrier's axial flight deck, using air speed to provide wingborne lift to complement engine thrust. The touchdown position is similar to that of a conventional carrier, but with no arrestor gear used and the aircraft using its brakes to stop. The technique offers significant additional payload "bring back" for the F-35B, and the potential to extend engine life through reduced wear and tear.

The UK Ministry of Defence has funded research to refine and de-risk the use of the SRVL concept by the F-35B, the preferred choice for its Joint Combat Aircraft replacement for the BAE Systems Harrier GR9/9A. Previous work, including flight trials of the VAAC Harrier on board the French navy aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle last year, has established the fundamental safety and operational benefit of the technique.

For the latest trial, a demonstration visual landing aid dubbed a "Bedford array" was installed in the port catwalk adjacent to Illustrious's flight deck. Taking inputs from inertial references to stabilise against deck motions, this is combined with a ship-referenced velocity vector in a helmet-mounted display to enable a pilot to fly an accurate approach to the deck on a constant glidepath. A second lighting array was rigged on the carrier's flight deck, and was used during a parallel evaluation of its visual acuity.

The VAAC Harrier flew representative approach profiles down to a safety height of around 40ft (12m) above the deck, and according to the Royal Navy, such was the accuracy of the array that a non-aircrew member of the embarked trials team was able to fly a perfect approach from the rear seat position of the trials aircraft while the safety pilot forward remained hands off.

The trial may prove to be the last research tasking for the VAAC Harrier testbed, with the 39-year-old aircraft (above) expected to be retired from use in early 2009.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23338
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post11 Nov 2009, 02:51

Good article here about RN FAA - Carriers - JSF:

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/article ... craft.html

Air power from the sea - the case for aircraft carriers Monday, October 12, 2009
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

dport

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 22
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2009, 00:06

Unread post15 Nov 2009, 18:27

Since I'm a new member, I realize I'm a little late to this rodeo. But as an Active Duty Naval Officer, I felt compelled to disspell some myths here.

#1 The USMC does not have ships. The USN does.

#2 Those ships are built to the USMC's needs. But are operated by the USN.

#3 Articles written by active duty officers do not necessarily reflect the views of their parent service. One only needs to read the US Naval Institute's Proceedings to see that. The US military encourages their mid-grade officers to think big, write articles and defend their arguments. It doesn't mean the service will adopt their view, but it is a way of training the future generation of officers. So when a USMC Major writes that he wants ski-jumps on L-ships that doesn't mean the USMC itself has ever requested L-ships with ski-jumps.

#4 L-ships, even LHA-6, is designed to transfer the USMC's Ground Combat Element from ship to shore. LHA-6's design is a recognition of the fact that L-ships can't park close to the shore to disgorge Marines anymore. The anti-ship cruise missile threat is too great. The best way to get Marines ashore, and not killed in the grey hulls, is to transport them using their Air Combat Element and via LCAC. LHA-6's design is a recognition of that fact. The L-ships can park further off the shore reducing their vulnerability to ASCMs, or as we like to term it now CDCMs (coastal defense cruise missiles), when air and LCAC transportation is used. If you look at the LSDs and LPD-17 class you can see LCAC and air transportation is stressed in both of those classes.

#5 LHA-6 is NOT an escort carrier. It may look like one, but its role is different. It is not a sea control ship. It is an amphibious assault ship. It's number one role is to put the Marine GCE ashore. Just as the LPH class was an amphibious assault ship not an escort carrier. In fact, LHA-6 really should be named LPH, but for some reason was not. In order to execute its mission of putting the GCE ashore it needs a lot of helos and MV-22s, especially since will carry some 1,600 Marines or about half of the Marines in a MEU, just about as much as the LHD-1/8 class. It needs the deck space and the helo spots that a ramp would use to execute its mission.

#6 If the ACE cannot provide enough close air support for the GCE using its embarked AH-1s and AV-8Bs/F-35Bs, then it is US doctrine to call in a carrier and its associated air wing.

US amphibious assault ships are built to support US amphibious operations doctrine. If you know and understand US amphibious doctrine, if you know the threats and challenges faced, you can see why LHA-6, LPD-17, et. al. are built as they are. But you have to abandon your air power centric focus. The USMC has an infantry centric focus, and the USN supports them and their doctrine with ships, equipment and support personnel.

As for the possibility of a STOLV carrier, this subject is examined about every 10 years. Usually Norman Polmar brings up the subject for debate, recently he's been beating the dead horse a lot. Every study the USN has undertaken has concluded the best alternative to support USN doctrine and US policy is to have big carriers.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23338
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post15 Nov 2009, 23:42

dport, Thanks for update on USN thinking re USMC etc. This thread has wobbled hither and thither with perhaps my original intention for discussion on thread (as described by ELP's original article) having my thoughts on the 'LHD for RAN' to be outfitted with JSF-Bs tacked on, being subverted. To me the ELP article was advocating new smaller carriers for one or the other (USN it is) service. Then the thread was swamped by other issues. :-) So be it. It was interesting to see stuff about USMC/USN. Anyway to keep the information (albeit outdated) in one spot here is some more on the JSF runny landing in UcKland.....:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... r-jsf.html

UK to extend rolling carrier landing research for JSF DATE:21/08/08 SOURCE:Flight International
By
The UK Ministry of Defence is continuing research to refine a hybrid shipboard rolling vertical landing (SRVL) technique, potentially to be employed as the primary recovery mode for Lockheed Martin F-35B Joint Strike Fighters operating from the Royal Navy's two Future Aircraft Carriers (CVF).

A programme of MoD-sponsored research work, including technical advice from the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl), has already concluded that SRVL would offer a significant increase to the F-35B's payload "bring back", without any fundamental platform or safety issues. However, further investigations are planned to address a range of optimisation and integration issues, says Martin Rosa, JSF technical co-ordinator in the Dstl's air and weapon systems department.

An SRVL involves a short take-off and vertical landing aircraft performing a "running landing" on to the carrier flightdeck, using air speed to provide wingborne lift to complement engine thrust. The touchdown position on an axial flightdeck is similar to that of a conventional carrier - about 45m (150ft) from the stern, but no arrestor gear is required, as the aircraft uses its brakes to come to a stop within a distance of 90-150m. The technique could allow an F-35B to recover with an extra 907kg (2,000lb) of weapons and fuel, or reduce propulsion system stress and increase engine life.

The Dstl began work to examine the feasibility of employing the SRVL manoeuvre in the late 1990s. Following a series of simulation-based studies, the MoD's investment approvals board in July 2006 endorsed the requirement as part of its F-35B-based Joint Combat Aircraft programme.

Speaking at the Royal Aeronautical Society's International Powered Lift conference in London in July, Rosa said SRVL studies have shown that "a way forward exists to achieving operationally useful increases in bring-back, compared to a vertical landing, on board CVF with an appropriate level of safety". But "uncertainties remain in terms of the scope of an operational clearance and the potential impact on the sortie generation rate for CVF".

Qinetiq used its VAAC Harrier testbed to perform representative land-based flight trials and a ship-based SRVL demonstration aboard the French navy's aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle last year

Rosa said past work has also identified a promising visual landing aids (VLA) concept optimised for SRVL and stabilised against deck motion. "We will continue to mature the SRVL-optimised VLA arrangements, look at the possible 'tuning' of the JSF flight-control laws, and further study the effect of SRVL on the CVF sortie generation rate," he said. The capability's full scope will be confirmed after flight trials from the 65,000t vessels, which are due to enter service in 2014 and 2016, respectively.

Other forthcoming work includes optimisation of the approach profile, agreement on the optimal post-touchdown technique, and mitigation for failure cases, such as a burst tyre on touchdown.
Offline

Thumper3181

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 626
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2006, 05:49

Unread post16 Nov 2009, 06:00

dport wrote:Since I'm a new member, I realize I'm a little late to this rodeo. But as an Active Duty Naval Officer, I felt compelled to disspell some myths here.

#1 The USMC does not have ships. The USN does.

#2 Those ships are built to the USMC's needs. But are operated by the USN.

#3 Articles written by active duty officers do not necessarily reflect the views of their parent service. One only needs to read the US Naval Institute's Proceedings to see that. The US military encourages their mid-grade officers to think big, write articles and defend their arguments. It doesn't mean the service will adopt their view, but it is a way of training the future generation of officers. So when a USMC Major writes that he wants ski-jumps on L-ships that doesn't mean the USMC itself has ever requested L-ships with ski-jumps.

#4 L-ships, even LHA-6, is designed to transfer the USMC's Ground Combat Element from ship to shore. LHA-6's design is a recognition of the fact that L-ships can't park close to the shore to disgorge Marines anymore. The anti-ship cruise missile threat is too great. The best way to get Marines ashore, and not killed in the grey hulls, is to transport them using their Air Combat Element and via LCAC. LHA-6's design is a recognition of that fact. The L-ships can park further off the shore reducing their vulnerability to ASCMs, or as we like to term it now CDCMs (coastal defense cruise missiles), when air and LCAC transportation is used. If you look at the LSDs and LPD-17 class you can see LCAC and air transportation is stressed in both of those classes.

#5 LHA-6 is NOT an escort carrier. It may look like one, but its role is different. It is not a sea control ship. It is an amphibious assault ship. It's number one role is to put the Marine GCE ashore. Just as the LPH class was an amphibious assault ship not an escort carrier. In fact, LHA-6 really should be named LPH, but for some reason was not. In order to execute its mission of putting the GCE ashore it needs a lot of helos and MV-22s, especially since will carry some 1,600 Marines or about half of the Marines in a MEU, just about as much as the LHD-1/8 class. It needs the deck space and the helo spots that a ramp would use to execute its mission.

#6 If the ACE cannot provide enough close air support for the GCE using its embarked AH-1s and AV-8Bs/F-35Bs, then it is US doctrine to call in a carrier and its associated air wing.

US amphibious assault ships are built to support US amphibious operations doctrine. If you know and understand US amphibious doctrine, if you know the threats and challenges faced, you can see why LHA-6, LPD-17, et. al. are built as they are. But you have to abandon your air power centric focus. The USMC has an infantry centric focus, and the USN supports them and their doctrine with ships, equipment and support personnel.

As for the possibility of a STOLV carrier, this subject is examined about every 10 years. Usually Norman Polmar brings up the subject for debate, recently he's been beating the dead horse a lot. Every study the USN has undertaken has concluded the best alternative to support USN doctrine and US policy is to have big carriers.


Your points are all well put. Clearly the gators are not carriers and their number one aviation mission is to support moving troops and equipment ashore as quickly as possible. A ski ramp is just not mission effective and given the length of the flight deck not necessary.

Further none of the gators are 30 knot ships. None of them can keep up with a carrier task force so as light carriers they are too slow and as sea control ships they are overkill. Building anything smaller than a Nimitz, a light carrier, for the USN is crazy. Study after study has shown the effectiveness and efficiency of the size. Building a sea control type ship is pointless as well since the main reason for convoy escort is gone. Better to spend the money on an adequate number of CVNs with robust air wings.

Which brings me to the last point. As a naval officer what is your opinion on the Marine's plans to operate F-35Bs off of the CVNs? Personally I think the DoD needs to tell them to replace their existing baby bugs with Supers or F-35Cs. Either that or Navair should get funding enough to deploy an all Navy carrier air wing.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23338
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post16 Nov 2009, 06:39

Thumper3181, can you point to a source for this statement please? "Marine's plans to operate F-35Bs off of the CVNs". Thanks.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

bjr1028

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 518
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2009, 03:34
  • Location: Dubuque, IA

Unread post17 Nov 2009, 05:20

spazsinbad wrote:Thumper3181, can you point to a source for this statement please? "Marine's plans to operate F-35Bs off of the CVNs". Thanks.


the TACAIR plan is to operate one marine strikefighter squadron per carrier air wing. They have no plans to buy any F-35Cs or F/A-18E/Fs. Use your imagination.

That being said, terrible idea. They're going to require either refits and/or major changes in the takeoff and landing patterns.
Offline

Thumper3181

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 626
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2006, 05:49

Unread post17 Nov 2009, 06:10

spazsinbad wrote:Thumper3181, can you point to a source for this statement please? "Marine's plans to operate F-35Bs off of the CVNs". Thanks.


Well Spaz, I could waste my time looking for the source that I read oh about a year ago. I could point out that bjr1028's well thought out post on the subject shoudl be a good indicator that the Marines are going to be operating F-35Bs off the carriers simply because they will have nothing else. Or I can say let's stipulate that they plane on flying F-35Bs off of the carriers for argument's sake and go from there. I would say its a far more likely scenario than the Navy putting ski jumps on gators.

For the record I too think it's a really stupid idea. There is no reason to hobble the Navy with the neutered version of the F-35. The marines should be told that they can either have Supers or F-35Cs to replace the baby bugs or they can disestablish their baby bug squadrons and increase the number of Navy squadrons to allow for 4 Navy strike fighter squadrons per wing.
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests