Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2009, 03:41
by spazsinbad
Is There a Ski-Jump in the U.S. Navy’s Future?

Interesting ideas there ELP. Perhaps you overlooked that the RAN may have the potential (with two new LHDs in future) to carry JSF-Bs (if only crossdecking RN or USMC JSF-Bs). The RAN LHDs have ski-jumps. It has been made clear already that the RAN has no intention of using this ski jump (yeah right) however it would also be a useful spare deck for any Harrier operations from RN or USMC, until their respective JSF-Bs come online.

The Osprey apparently has deck heating issues (which I don't think should ever be linked to any JSF-B issues) which may be problematic. Designing/building a new small STOVL dedicated ski jump carrier would allow any potential problems operating the Osprey to be overcome. Suitably equipped helos (similar perhaps to RN helos) may be a stop gap solution for EW and other related duties.

Of course already it is assumed that any new small ski jump carrier for the US would be designed specifically for the JSF-B.

RE: ELP

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2009, 03:53
by solomon
The new LHA is already designed more for air operations rather than the traditional Gator Navy role. It has no well deck and is really optimized as a sea control ship rather than a workhorse for the Navy/Marine team. I disagree with the idea totally. Already there are calls to cut back on the number of amphibious ships in the Navy, ideas like this would lead to an enlarged Marine Corps with no transport. I also don't see how a ski jump would help with V-22 operations.

RE: ELP

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2009, 03:54
by solomon

RE: ELP

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2009, 04:01
by spazsinbad
Lack of a ski jump on USMC 'harrier carriers' has always been a bone of contention between USMC & USN (where the USN don't want the ski jump because [one idea] it will take a vital helo space away from the deck). What ELP has suggested is a single dedicated new specifically designed for the JSF-B small carrier. The V-22 for EW may or may not work on such a specific ship. Hence the helo as fall back. However if the V-22 is thought to work on such a specific JSF-B with ski jump small carrier then there is no problem. No one has suggested that a ski jump is useful for the V-22. [I'll go and read the above archive URL now.]

Having read the page at the URL about USS America (abuilding) we can see that this is an all purpose (JSF-B & Helo) carrier - not one small carrier dedicated to operation of the JSF-B as so brightly suggested by ELP.

RE: ELP

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2009, 04:03
by solomon
Since when has it been a "bone of contention"? Source, cause I never heard that...anywhere.

RE: ELP

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2009, 04:05
by solomon
And it was never the Navy complaining about deck space for helicopters...The USMC has always deployed more helicopters than their Royal Marine/Navy counterparts. If you look at the aircraft carriage for the HMS Ocean it is usually half that of a Tarawa class ship. That's doctrine not a design flaw.

RE: ELP

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2009, 04:08
by spazsinbad
In this article 'ski jumps' are referred to as 'ramps' (must be USMC speak): The STOVL Joint Strike Fighter in Support of the 21st Century Marine Corps

"The most significant contribution that the Navy could make to STOVL air and helicopter-borne power projection is adding a ramp (ski jump) to all Tarawa- and Wasp-class amphibious ships."[76] It is ironic that although the US is the largest operator of Harriers and amphibious ships in the world, it is also the only navy in the world that does not have ramps on its Harrier platforms. The UK, India, Italy, and Spain all have ramp-equipped ships that optimize the combat power of the Harrier. The British discovered that if the ship's deck were curved upward the last 100 feet or so, the aircraft would exit the bow with a ballistic trajectory (speed builds up during the ballistic portion of the flight until the aircraft attains normal wing-borne flight). The US Navy studied ship designs featuring ski jumps with exit angles of up to 12 degrees but rejected the concept as too costly in design weight of the ship and perceived loss of helicopter spots.[77] The ramp for Harrier operations significantly improves aircraft performance, payload, safety, and deck utilization. A ramp not only dramatically improves a STOVL aircraft's takeoff performance, it facilitates concurrent fixed-and rotary-wing operations afloat.[78]"

Discussion might be useful to this forum?: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy- ... ed-8977-3/

RE: ELP

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2009, 04:16
by solomon
Thats a position paper written by a Marine Officer. Probably for one of the war colleges (being a Major that's about the time they get sent to one...CSC is in the title so I would assume its for the Command Staff College). But the point remains. Its an idea who's time has not come. Precious resources have already been devoted to this aviation only LHA, we don't need to compound the mistake by taking away spaces from troop carrying helicopters. The F-35B and AH-1Z/UH-1Y are there to support guys on the ground. If you start putting ramps, ski jumps, whatever you want to call them on the ships then you're losing valuable space for the transports to get the Marines to there objective. Plus if you keep building these type ships then you're stuck with only heliborne operations. No LCACs, no AAVs, and no EFVs....just air.

RE: ELP

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2009, 04:21
by spazsinbad
solomon, that is one tough ask to justify my comment about 'controversy' and how the USN has stopped USMC getting their 'ramps'. However I think that particular article gives the flavour of that, despite it being written by a Major (ten years ago now). The USMC has been agitating for 'ramps' ever since they started to cross deck on RN carriers with ramps. It may be news to you however.

RE: ELP

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2009, 04:31
by solomon
I was in the Marine Corps three years ago so if it was being proposed I would have heard about it. That kind of debate wouldn't be classified top secret.

RE: ELP

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2009, 06:01
by geogen
Good thread, spaz. And definitely not an anti-F-35 agenda oriented article by ELP, nor his first of this type.

It's a valid question raised to ponder optimal, (near-term even) power sources for future surface hulls of destroyer and larger classes. Electrical-generating power is definitely (or should be) a key consideration too, of all future builds perhaps, allowing for various future systems integration.

But perhaps at least a couple such 'America' class LHAs could be modified indeed under a more specialized 'Sea Control' mission role enabling more range and payload for F-35B. Those would augment the existing multi-role LHA/LHD - ostensibly a ship classification requirement not as critical in the future anyways, according to SecDef. Not to go extensively off topic, but a further capability for future LHA class could be command for an aero-stat ship equipped for fleet anti-cruise missile Early Warning/data-link control (e.g., coordinated for SA-6 employment).

But regarding the contemplated USN 'ski-jump' issue, perhaps a 'bolt-on' modular/removable ski-jump could be configured for any standard 110' Beamed, 820'+ lengthed LHA/LHD (for specialized mission requirements)?

RE: ELP

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2009, 08:48
by spazsinbad
solomon, I don't understand your reference to 'top secret' and why you yourself have not heard about it (the ramp). The May-June 1990 edition of "Naval Aviation News" has a two page article written by Major Art Nalls (now flying an ex-RN Harrier as a civilian warbird) about his advocating the 'ramp'. Testing started Dec. 1988 on 'Principe De Asturias' with a Marine detachment from NATC.

PDF here: http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backiss ... 0/mj90.pdf

Re: RE: ELP

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2009, 10:26
by shep1978
spazsinbad wrote:In this article 'ski jumps' are referred to as 'ramps' (must be USMC speak


To be fair they are not 'ski ramps' at all as no-one has ever skied off of one, they are ramps that resemble ski ramps but that is not what they are.

Re: ELP 'news' item - possibility small STOVL carrier USN/US

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2009, 12:18
by elp
spazsinbad wrote:Is There a Ski-Jump in the U.S. Navy’s Future?

Interesting ideas there ELP. Perhaps you overlooked that the RAN may have the potential (with two new LHDs in future) to carry JSF-Bs (if only crossdecking RN or USMC JSF-Bs). The RAN LHDs have ski-jumps. It has been made clear already that the RAN has no intention of using this ski jump (yeah right) however it would also be a useful spare deck for any Harrier operations from RN or USMC, until their respective JSF-Bs come online.

The Osprey apparently has deck heating issues (which I don't think should ever be linked to any JSF-B issues) which may be problematic. Designing/building a new small STOVL dedicated ski jump carrier would allow any potential problems operating the Osprey to be overcome. Suitably equipped helos (similar perhaps to RN helos) may be a stop gap solution for EW and other related duties.

Of course already it is assumed that any new small ski jump carrier for the US would be designed specifically for the JSF-B.



:::: yawn :::: The RAN? Yeah... well so what? :lol: - The thrust of the article was the procurement path the U.S. Navy is going down with less and less money via the economic meltdown and gold plated useless ships like LCS and Zumwalt off to the side pretending they have relevance.

Also I wasn't advocating V-22. I have never been much of a fan. Been-there-done-that-with class A mishaps and the associated smell. Yet there is a study to make a AEW V-22 (fact)... like it or not.... and again... so what?

RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2009, 13:41
by spazsinbad
ELP, thanks for your contempt for the RAN - noted.

RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2009, 23:22
by solomon
The point about me not hearing about it is the fact that anything dealing with amphibious shipping had and still has my full attention. Even as far back as the late 80's and early 90's the only time there was even a discussion of using LHA's as sea control ships (and that's what this debate is really about) it was quickly dismissed. Already we are losing hulls as retirements of ships is increasing. If you were to even take one of the big deck amphibs and devote it to the sea control mission along with ski ramps or whatever you call it, it'll affect deployment schedules and you'll lose at least one or more MEU's from the rotation per year. Bad idea no matter how you slice it. Full size aircraft carriers are more than adequate to full fill the missions that you would possibly want to use the LHA/sea control ship for.

RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2009, 02:58
by spazsinbad
Long story ending with quote about "decades long veto of USMC 'ski jumps'":

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/20 ... in_070805/

Marines experience Brit style on 'Lusty' (HMS Illustrious)
"Another philosophical difference is that the British are open to ideas that to
Americans seem goofy, but work, such as the 12-degree ramp at the bow of the ship
that dramatically improves Harrier operations. Senior U.S. naval officers over the
decades have vetoed the idea, saying they don't like how it looks and that it takes up
three helicopter landing spots. British and Marine officers say only one deck spot is
lost to the "ski jump."

To a man, Marine pilots want the ramps installed on their ships to improve
operational flexibility and safety.

"We're all in love with the ski ramp because when you come off that ramp, you're
flying," Bradicich said. "From our ships, if you're fully loaded, you need 750 feet,
and even then you've got some sink once you clear the deck. Here, you can do the
same thing in 450 feet and you're climbing."

But the ramp is intimidating at first sight, pilots said.

"I expected it to be violent, but when you take off, it's almost a non-event," said
Maj. Grant "Postal" Pennington, a pilot with VMA-513 at Marine Corps Air Station
Yuma, Ariz. "Up you go, and you're climbing. It's a great experience."

Equally important is the ship that's bolted to the ramp, pilots said.

"Some of our younger guys who haven't flown from our ships yet are in for a big
surprise when they do," Bradicich said. "This is probably the best ship you could
possibly fly a Harrier from. It's not very big, but it's really stable, no roll, just a little
pitch, not like the flat-bottom gators that roll so much. You've got the island
moving 30 feet in each direction when you're trying to land. That tends to get your
attention."

The combination of ski ramp, stability and dedicated crew contributed to a
breakneck operational pace. The Marines proudly logged a ship record 79 takeoffs
and landings in one day.

"These guys are great. We've qualed 28 guys in three days, most with eight landings
and takeoffs, so even though we said that we were going to crawl, walk, run, our
pace has been tremendous, even with different procedures," Pennington said. "We
like to approach the ship at 45 degrees and hit one of the spots, but they approach
from dead astern, come to a hover abeam, slide over, then drop down to the deck.
It's different, but you get the hang of it."

The only downside? "The thought that we're going to have to get off," Bradicich
said."

RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2009, 03:04
by spazsinbad
Marine Pilot description of Harrier landing for the heck of it: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Marine+Co ... a087374258

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2009, 04:14
by bjr1028
Near zero. It seems like it would save money, but it would also require a lot of associated system without a catastrophic loss of capability.

Using smaller carriers would require either more hulls for the same mission. One Nimitz is equal to 3 or 4 smaller carriers. Additional hulls would require either more than one carrier in a group or building additional escorts and auxiliaries to cover it. A smaller carrier requires almost the same number of ships to protect it as a larger one.

The naval aviation training program would have to be rewritten and possibly involve additional training squadrons. For instance, Marine Harrier pilots in addition to going through the full fast jet pipeline, also receive helicopter training. On the fortunate side, Whiting field is ideal for training pilots in both fixed and rotary wing platforms and without having the requirement to land on ship, the T-38 and T-45 could be replaced by a single aircraft. That being said, however, unless a STOVL trainer is procured, the first time the students would land on a ship would be in the fleet replacement squadrons. STOVL landing may be in theory easier, but the seas don't calm and the ship doesn't stop just because you're in a STOVL airplane.

Lastly, is development and acquisition of new systems. The F/A-18F, EA-18G, and E-2C/D cannot be adequately replaced by anything in the pipeline. The single seat F-35B in addition to being a deck hog with the non-folding wings, would be unable to do recon, fleet defense, Fast FAC, or electronic attack mission because of the single seat. Either a stretched two-seat variant would have to be developed or a new aircraft. New recon and EA pods would have to be developed as would a buddy tanker system which would probably require either the centerline or the bay paylons (or all three) becoming wet for the recovery tanker mission.

Likewise, existing heliborne systems have less than 25% of the mission effectiveness of the Hawkeye, Not only would a new radar system have to be developed, a pressurized variant of the Osprey would probably be required to use it to its full effect.

All in all, you might save on the hull, but probably more than make up for it with the changes that would be required.

RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2009, 05:22
by Corsair1963
Well, the USN has no plans to operate F-35B's. So, the point is moot............The future is EMALs equipped Carriers operating F-35C's,F/A-18E/F's and UCAV's.

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2009, 05:24
by solomon
quotes from the same article

But one of the most satisfying things is that the ship is a strike carrier where Harriers, not helicopters, are the priority.

“On a gator, the Harriers are secondary to the amphibious and helicopter mission.”

It all points back to the issue of LHA's in the US Navy being dedicated to amphibious operations and those in the RN being dedicated to "something" else....once again, if you want sea control ships bring the ramps but if you want a strike carrier then we already have the best in the world. Smaller isn't always better and the RN is already making baby steps back to a full deck carriers.

ski jump on LHD/LHA

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2009, 05:59
by solomon
Do you see room on that deck for a ski jump? Leave the helos behind and you can have what 10 harriers and have a British type Marine force but it would be seriously less capable than the force you have now.

RE: ski jump on LHD/LHA

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2009, 06:11
by spazsinbad
Plenty of room for the ski jump. One less helo spot it is said. Obviously that argument (about having a 'ramp') has been lost - for now.

RE: ski jump on LHD/LHA

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2009, 20:17
by solomon
Good job on finding the evidence to back up your claims spazsinbad. I was wrong but in the Corps the Infantry is king and the air side is second fiddle. Unlike the Navy and the Air Force, if you ain't a Grunt, you ain't...but then again everyone is a rifleman!

RE: ski jump on LHD/LHA

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2009, 21:39
by spazsinbad
soloman, I have plenty of anecdotal evidence from former RAN FAA A4G pilots (having been Harrier pilots in USMC on exchange in the late 1970s early 1980s OR RN Harrier pilots on exchange or having transferred to the RN from the RAN FAA once our fixed wing folded by 1984). However that is probably not good enough because they don't post this information online. Despite what USMC Harrier pilots have said they would like, they are not successful in advocating for a 'ski jump' or 'ramp'. If need be one could be bolted on in quick time.

BTW any flat deck that has all the aircraft 'on show' is going to look overly crowded. However for flight ops not all the aircraft would be required, or even available due to unserviceabilities. These 'other' aircraft likely would be below in the hangars, with only aircraft required being on deck. During flight ops there is the merry dance of having to tow / push / taxi aircraft around all the time with some going below or coming up from below the flight deck. I'm certain that any available space on a 'ramp' fitted deck would be used, with minimal disruption, compared to a non-ramp fitted deck.

Anyway as you suggest that is not relevant because there are no ramps in the USMC. Sad that. & for the fun in it Pprune has amusing threads about Harrier issues, some comparing USMC & RN FAA ops for example here: http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-87428.html

RE: ski jump on LHD/LHA

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2009, 04:16
by spazsinbad
A crowded flight deck c. 1972-4 HMAS Melbourne:

Image

RE: ski jump on LHD/LHA

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2009, 04:27
by solomon
No well deck, no AAVs, no M-777s, no MTVRs, no HUMVEEs, no GROUND COMBAT ELEMENT aboard those ships! We have aircraft carriers for strike in the US NAVY! They handle those missions well. The AV-8B is designed for ground support. The redesign was a point of friction between the USMC and UK because the Marines wanted a bomb truck, the Royal Navy a fighter. The USMC won and the plane has performed superbly ever since. Different doctrines, different uses. What are you going to do with all the extra space if you decide to sea control the thing????? Leisure cruise? Besides, the busiest ships in the US Navy are the gators. Don't fix what ain't broke!

RE: ski jump on LHD/LHA

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2009, 05:11
by spazsinbad
Interesting that you should bring the 'mud mover' argument up in the light of this Marine 'fighter' development:

http://www.marines.mil/units/mciwest/mc ... OLONG.aspx

"...Yuma’s Marine Attack Squadron 211 became the first AV-8B Harrier unit to test-fire an air-to-air missile capable of engaging unseen enemies June 8, 2009, over an ocean test range about 200 miles off Okinawa, Japan.

The AIM-120 advanced medium-range air-to-air missile extends the reach of a Harrier’s punch, due to the weapon’s range.

“The AMRAAM makes the AV-8B more lethal,” said Capt. Michael W. McKenney, VMA-211 pilot who launched the missile.

Currently, the Harrier uses AIM-9 Sidewinders as their air-to-air missile. However, those track infrared energy from the target, which needs to be within visual range when launched.

Depending on the variant, the AMRAAM has a range of up to 65 miles — more than double the Sidewinder — and uses an active radar to adjust course midflight in order to track and hit its target, according to Raytheon, the missile’s manufacturer...."

RE: ski jump on LHD/LHA

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2009, 05:18
by geogen
Good contributions overall, Spaz. Your posts are worth the read..

RE: ski jump on LHD/LHA

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2009, 05:34
by solomon
You don't get it. The primary mission remains supporting the grunt on the ground. Interesting (but I guess its not really...this is just like some other sites airpower centric) that you want to turn a ground support aircraft into a fighter. Guess what, they put sidewinders on A-10's too. Doesn't mean that aerial combat is its primary mission though.

RE: ski jump on LHD/LHA

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2009, 06:05
by spazsinbad
soloman, I do get it but why restrict your ground support to only moving mud. Surely your ground supported fellows would like to see the added capability if it was required at the time. No need to rouse (on me. The RAN supported the ARMY (Australia) in the day even when the main mission was 'RAN Fleet Defence' with the 'poor man's fighter' the A4G Skyhawk. Out of the ordinary for that time was wired for four underwing AIM 9B Sidewinders. Having flexible capability- is a must I would think in this day and age particularly if it can be done easily. [This idea came from the mid 1960s when the USN had A4Bs on ASW carriers for 'fighter ops'.

Have you considered anyway that... (a comment from an e-mail correspondent):

"Modular ski-jumps (a la Hermes) are (I think) 150ft.

One point your mates miss is that nothing is/would be lost re 'supporting the troops.' Just maximising the utility of ship and, more importantly, the aircraft. For CAS, surely launching with more fuel/weapons (ie from ski-jump launch) is better for "supporting the troops" than reduced loads (ie straight deck launches)? Also, a two or 4-ship F35B CAP for the task group/MEU while in transit to littoral - when there's unlikely to a CVN anywhere nearby - would have to be a huge bonus for all? Even fish-heads would welcome the top cover, I imagine." [Fish Heads is acceptable RAN slang for a 'birdie' to call an ordinary Navy bod.]

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2009, 16:43
by StolichnayaStrafer
Hey, nothing wrong with the Marines utilizing their fixed wing assets for air cover too. In a way, it is still a part of CAS for the ground forces- one never knows when a fixed or rotary wing attacker(s) could manage to slip into the FEBA. Sure we usually have pretty successful CAP capabilities, but stranger things have happened during hostilities in the past. A pretty vulnerable time is during initial deployments and buildups- who knows what the future may hold? The Marines are known for improvising, adapting and overcoming.

As for a ski jump, they should be able to work out something! With all of our technological advances, they could design an elevating bow deck section that can be raised and lowered as needed. I'm sure they could make it work if they really wanted to. That way they lose no deck space and can clear the way for the fixed wing ops as needed. Since they are much slower, don't helos usually launch first from the Assault ships? By the way- if they want AEW helos, what better place to park them than at the bow? That way they definitely would be getting airborne first AND clearing the way for fixed wing ops using the ski jump!

Just my thoughts, it makes sense and makes things work out as well. :wink:

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2009, 19:32
by spazsinbad
Flat Deck ships have lifts so why not have a 'ramp' / Ski Jump that does as you suggest. Great Idea.

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2009, 05:52
by Thumper3181
spazsinbad wrote:Flat Deck ships have lifts so why not have a 'ramp' / Ski Jump that does as you suggest. Great Idea.


Lots of reasons not to fit ski jumps and even more reason to not fit moving ones. Ski ramps where originally fitted to British carriers due to their small size and willingness(need) to optimize them for operation of fast jets over helos.

A 750 foot takeoff roll accomplishes the same thing as a 150 foot ski jump without the additional top side weight and reduction in usable deck space.

A lifting ski jump is even worse. Every time you raise or lower it you significantly change the ships CoG. You add even more topside weight due to the machinery needed, you reduce hanger space, again due to machinery needed.

Why the British stick with a ski ramp for the CVFs is beyond me. It is sheer stupidity.

Lastly, an LHA is in no way shape or form a substitute for an aircraft carrier. It is too slow and it lacks the combat persistence that a CVN has. Study after study has concluded that the large deck carrier provides more flexibility and bang for the buck.

I will not comment on Eric's rational other than to observe that his understanding of macro economics is roughly on par with that of aviation. Superficial at best. As long as the dollar remains the world's reserve currency (and there is no real sign of that changing anytime soon) Obama can keep on printing dollars with little more consequence than a bit of inflation.

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2009, 07:22
by spazsinbad
From previous page a quote from a USMC Harrier pilot: "Bradicich said. "From our ships, if you're fully loaded, you need 750 feet, and even then you've got some sink once you clear the deck. Here, you can do the same thing in 450 feet and you're climbing."

This thread has mainly centred on FLAT DECK USMC carriers, when it started out as something different. So be it. However the statement by Thumper: "Why the British stick with a ski ramp for the CVFs is beyond me. It is sheer stupidity." has got to be answered. The RN FAA invented the ski jump and have utitlised it well. Whatever penalties there are, the gains are there for them to stick with it for their new carriers. If the 'beedall' pages are read you will see many variations of carrier design before the final one was selected. There was much thought given to type of aircraft to fly, with option for CTOL perhaps in later decades (after refit).

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvfmain.htm

Anticipating other issues the RN FAA have invented the 'rolling landing' concept to also better utilise their larger/longer future carrier decks. What the USMC do with their JSF-Bs will be up to them. Likely they will use whatever the Brits invent that suits them. Links to 'rolling landing' info are in the thread at: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-12591.html

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2009, 16:50
by Thumper3181
spazsinbad wrote:This thread has mainly centred on FLAT DECK USMC carriers, when it started out as something different. So be it. However the statement by Thumper: "Why the British stick with a ski ramp for the CVFs is beyond me. It is sheer stupidity." has got to be answered. The RN FAA invented the ski jump and have utitlised it well. Whatever penalties there are, the gains are there for them to stick with it for their new carriers. If the 'beedall' pages are read you will see many variations of carrier design before the final one was selected. There was much thought given to type of aircraft to fly, with option for CTOL perhaps in later decades (after refit).

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvfmain.htm

Anticipating other issues the RN FAA have invented the 'rolling landing' concept to also better utilise their larger/longer future carrier decks. What the USMC do with their JSF-Bs will be up to them.


On the Hermes and the Illustrious class it may have made sense. The CVF is another matter. I know all about Beedall and read his analysis a while back. Read between the lines. The decision to go with ski ramps and the F-35B was just as much a political and industrial decision as it was a military one.

There are two factors driving the direction of the RN on this. The UK is trying to do sea based power projection on the cheap. They do not want the F-35 to be a rival to or threaten the Eurofighter program. Those carriers could have just as easily been built with catapults. I understand that the RN views EMALs as risky and they may be right about it but they could have either used steam turbines or installed steam generators on them.

They would then have had two truly powerful carriers. Rather than embarking the neutered light attack F-35B version they could have employed F-35Cs which if purchased in sufficient numbers would make a far better Tornado replacement than Typhoon ever will. They also could have employed a true AEW capability. Instead they will have two ships that are really nothing more than glorified LHAs that still need to operate with the USN in any kind of high threat environment.

As for the rolling landing, they have developed nothing yet. It is still in the testing stage.

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2009, 21:38
by spazsinbad
Of course a rolling landing is still in the SUCCESSFUL testing stage (with the Harrier two seater). Can't really test the JSF-B except probably in a simulator for the moment. However JPALS and tests with Harrier have been done OK according to reports. You can read between the lines and conjecture all you wish about the new RN carrier design. However it is what it is. Your claim that an F-35B is 'neutered' is emotional claptrap. Sure some slight capability is traded for other excellent characteristics needed for RN FAA requirements. All allies will co-operate with one another as required. Already it has been demonstrated that all those countries with Harriers freely crossdeck - sometimes in multiple variations and combinations. I'm certain this will happen with the JSF-B and with the JSF family because it has been designed that way for this purpose of close co-operation with allies.

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2009, 02:38
by solomon
It amazes me how some people want to reinvent wheels. The LHA aren't getting a ramp and that's just the facts. Writers can come up with all sorts of new proposals that they think deserve consideration but in the end sanity and purposeful design is what wins the day. LHA's, LHD's etc...were designed for amphibious assault and for supporting forces ashore. Anything that takes away from that mission (design wise) is a non-starter. So fantasize all you want it ain't gonna happen.

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2009, 03:35
by spazsinbad
soloman, I think we are at cross purposes here. The thread was talking about something completely different to your last post above. Then I chimed in with ideas about the new RAN LHDs which have a 'ramp'/ski jump already fitted. It was deemed too expensive to remove them - even before the two RAN LHDs have been built. I gather they are useful - if for the moment the RAN does not have plans to have any STOVL aircraft. Remember the concept of 'cross decking' that your USMC practice so well to this day with various allied flat decks/with/without ramps. [In NavAv a 'ramp' is the back end of the carrier - sometimes rounded (in olden tymes) not usually in todays NavAv. A minor point but I do get confused so would rather use the term 'ski jump'. :-)

Please let us allow the USMC / USN to use your ships as they are at present. However having ideas about new ways to modify or use them can be useful despite the conventional wisdom. No harm done nor intended. I would be certain to know that the USMC know how to use their kit to the degree they are allowed. However the USN does exercise some control over the USMC for various reasons. That is neither here nor there in context of this thread but worth keeping in mind. Notice how USMC Harrier pilots like 'ski jumps' and have done so ever since the beginning decades ago now. And I will fantasise as I please thank you. :-)

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2009, 03:50
by solomon
the only cross purpose we're at is the fact that i'm still responding to a person that hasn't even been to a pier to see an LHA, has no idea about their function and yet feels compelled to make suggestions on modifications to them. the very article that started the cluster?+&% going is pure fantasy, i'm disappointed in myself for even taking the time i have on it. as far as the RN is concerned, they do what they do, Thumper3181 covered that in detail. nuff said.

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2009, 04:17
by Thumper3181
spazsinbad wrote:Of course a rolling landing is still in the SUCCESSFUL testing stage (with the Harrier two seater). Can't really test the JSF-B except probably in a simulator for the moment. However JPALS and tests with Harrier have been done OK according to reports. You can read between the lines and conjecture all you wish about the new RN carrier design. However it is what it is. Your claim that an F-35B is 'neutered' is emotional claptrap. Sure some slight capability is traded for other excellent characteristics needed for RN FAA requirements.


Just keeping you honest about the rolling landing. It is being tested and it does look promising.

No conjecture about CVF. The design is very much compromised. They should have had a teakettle in the hull with an extra 25,000hp. Two steam catapults should be in the bow and they need to lose the goofy split island. All of these design "features" where either political or industrial driven. They would then have a carrier with the air wing, speed and persistence to be able to operate independently of the USN in a major engagement.

F-35 in all of it's guises is going to delight it's supporters and surprise it's detractors but there is no getting away from the fact that the B model is range, payload and g limited. For the UK F-35B will be a fine fighter but unlike the F-35C it cannot replace the Tornado and make Typhoon somewhat redundant,

That all said I think it's great to speculate, but what advantage do you see in putting a ramp on an LHA when it's main mission is moving men and material ashore. Doesn't the Navy have large deck carriers to provide the bulk of the air support. Do you really think that if the Marines where to go ashore in anything other than a third world country that a CSG or two wouldn't be lurking somewhere over the horizon?

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2009, 06:25
by spazsinbad
soloman, you introduced the LHA - as you say the original article was not about the LHA. I introduced the RAN LHD. Thread discussions go where they go. Yes and some are pure fantasy. No big deal. I myself am getting a bit long in the tooth to even stay awake during this discussion - and perhaps it is my bedtime - but I spent nearly ten years in the RAN back in the mid 1960s to70s; most of those years in the Fleet Air Arm flying jet aircraft - even 'off of' our carrier as illustrated earlier. I know the backside of the ramp very well as a matter of fact. And yes I got up every morning during those ten years to start work at 8am sharpish if ashore. I eat piers for breakfast. :-)

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2009, 06:45
by spazsinbad
Thumper, personally I have no problem with the LHAs not having ski jumps. However, with new aircraft and new ships being designed/built perhaps that issue could be revisited for future consideration. I would have thought that the USMC would be interested in being even more self-contained with their own 'mini STOVL carrier' as first described perhaps by ELP. Sheesh if they are not then I'm not going to advocate one for them. What I would advocate would be JSF-Bs on our RAN LHDs but first things first, these LHDs have to be built and delivered but surprise surprise they will have a ski jump already (taking up a likely valuable helo spot). So it goes. I guess the USMC and the RAN are familiar with having to work with what they have and also come up with innovative ideas in the process.

Thumper, your description of any perceived deficiencies in the new RN Carriers probably could be transferred in general to any carrier design. All these things are compromises. If you perceive these new RN Carriers as deficient then that view is not shared by me. To digress slightly.... The new EMALS equipped carrier may have to be constructed with steam catapults due to problems with EMALS. This may not turn out to be the case but surely NOT having the need for catapults and arrestor wires can be an advantage? STOP & LAND is what I hear all the time (I should go see a doctor). :-)

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2009, 07:49
by Thumper3181
spazsinbad wrote:Thumper, personally I have no problem with the LHAs not having ski jumps. However, with new aircraft and new ships being designed/built perhaps that issue could be revisited for future consideration. I would have thought that the USMC would be interested in being even more self-contained with their own 'mini STOVL carrier' as first described perhaps by ELP. Sheesh if they are not then I'm not going to advocate one for them. What I would advocate would be JSF-Bs on our RAN LHDs but first things first, these LHDs have to be built and delivered but surprise surprise they will have a ski jump already (taking up a likely valuable helo spot). So it goes. I guess the USMC and the RAN are familiar with having to work with what they have and also come up with innovative ideas in the process.

Thumper, your description of any perceived deficiencies in the new RN Carriers probably could be transferred in general to any carrier design. All these things are compromises. If you perceive these new RN Carriers as deficient then that view is not shared by me. To digress slightly.... The new EMALS equipped carrier may have to be constructed with steam catapults due to problems with EMALS. This may not turn out to be the case but surely NOT having the need for catapults and arrestor wires can be an advantage? STOP & LAND is what I hear all the time (I should go see a doctor). :-)


It really does go back to the LHAs not needing ski ramps due to their size and mission. Once an airstrip is secured Marine F-35s will leave the LHA and go ashore to accompany the Marines inland. Any advantages the ski ramp convey are overshadowed by the ramps drawbacks given the Marine's mission. They simply do not need the additional range when providing CAS on the beach.

The Marines have very influential supporters in Congress. If they wanted ski jumps on the LHAs they would have had them already. They don;t need their own mini STOVL carrier because the Navy has 11 super carriers backing them up. Again it may work for RN or RAN. It does not work for USN. They have resources and capabilities that her majesty's navies can only dream of. The existence of super carriers in numbers makes a mini STOVL carrier superfluous for the Navy.

All ship designs are a compromise. The British simply did not have to make the compromises they did. I share your concern about EMAL and I hope the CNO is losing sleep making sure it's developed on time, but I never said anything about EMAL for the CVF. A steam based propulsion system, preferable nuclear should have been fitted to these ships.

Stop and land may be nice but it makes for inferior aircraft performance and a limited air wing. What do you do for AEW? Clearly conventional carrier based fighters out perform both the F-35B and the Harrier. Again these carriers are being done on the cheap.

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2009, 08:34
by spazsinbad
Thumper, I'm not suggesting anything with EMALS illustration other than it can be (catapult & arrestor equipment) part of the problem if it does not work. This discussion can go round and round and I welcome your comments on the original premise of this thread about the proposed small carrier.

In the same way IF some on this forum don't like their home country being told what to do etc. then please allow the same sentiment for other countries, and what they do. I'm not going to attempt to speak for the RN and their choice of carrier. Yet with their limited resources they seem to have made a good choice to continue what they know how to do well. I guess the USMC has a strong argument in the same way (to continue to do what they do well). I have not forgotten that a lot of USMC Hornets are aboard USN carriers. I guess this will ensure that those same Hornets will be available for the USMC when they need them.

The RN is working on the AEW problem. What happens on that score will be known but I don't claim to know now what that will be. You seem to have conveniently forgotten that Carrier Aircraft pay a penalty (if compared or designed in tandem with conventional aircraft). Hence the JSF-C is going to have differences due to the nature of NavAv operations. Given all the expensive variables you have mentioned it is not surprising that non-super power countries do do things on the cheap as you say. And I'm certain that your allies will do wonders with all their cheap & nasty non nuclear gear.

In 1973 I was visiting San Diego to be bowled over by the size of the fleet alongside. Just a few piers (there goes that word again) held more assets that anyone could fantasise about. So it is worthwhile to keep things in perspective regarding your own countries capabilities, compared to other allies capabilities. Anyway those few piers held more assets than the entire RAN at that time (not including the USN carriers).

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2009, 20:56
by Thumper3181
spazsinbad wrote:Thumper, I'm not suggesting anything with EMALS illustration other than it can be (catapult & arrestor equipment) part of the problem if it does not work. This discussion can go round and round and I welcome your comments on the original premise of this thread about the proposed small carrier.

In the same way IF some on this forum don't like their home country being told what to do etc. then please allow the same sentiment for other countries, and what they do. I'm not going to attempt to speak for the RN and their choice of carrier. Yet with their limited resources they seem to have made a good choice to continue what they know how to do well. I guess the USMC has a strong argument in the same way (to continue to do what they do well). I have not forgotten that a lot of USMC Hornets are aboard USN carriers. I guess this will ensure that those same Hornets will be available for the USMC when they need them.

The RN is working on the AEW problem. What happens on that score will be known but I don't claim to know now what that will be. You seem to have conveniently forgotten that Carrier Aircraft pay a penalty (if compared or designed in tandem with conventional aircraft). Hence the JSF-C is going to have differences due to the nature of NavAv operations. Given all the expensive variables you have mentioned it is not surprising that non-super power countries do do things on the cheap as you say. And I'm certain that your allies will do wonders with all their cheap & nasty non nuclear gear.

In 1973 I was visiting San Diego to be bowled over by the size of the fleet alongside. Just a few piers (there goes that word again) held more assets that anyone could fantasise about. So it is worthwhile to keep things in perspective regarding your own countries capabilities, compared to other allies capabilities. Anyway those few piers held more assets than the entire RAN at that time (not including the USN carriers).


I have no problem with your opinions on the use of US ships. That is what a forum is for. I just happen to think you are wrong about the ski jump. I thought it important to point out that the British have a vested interest in ski jumps not because they are operationally superior but because they are for them politically motivated.

I think you are Australian. If you are congratulations on receiving your first Super Hornet. They where a great choice and they will server your air force well for many years.

Please enjoy the two videos below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9at2eBFI398
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f85qH...eature=related

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2009, 22:04
by spazsinbad
Thumper, yes I am from Oz. Could you explain briefly why you think the RN Ski Jump choice was politically motivated. Personally I can see why it is used and I think I have explained that - even if obscurely. Give me a clue about the politics anyway. Thanks.

If you are interested just today a new refreshed 4.4GB PDF about the RAN FAA Skyhawk A4G and all FAA fixed wing aircraft, particularly and other Skyhawks used by other countries (for context) plus 'how to deck land' (even 'how to land a Harrier') has been uploaded to: http://www.a4ghistory.com/ On the page there is also a smaller "A4G Only" PDF and a video of A4G ops on HMAS Melbourne. Enjoy.

Yes the Super Hornet for Oz (with Growler potential) will be an excellent asset, especially when teamed with JSFs. :-) The Air Force Chief is an ex-RAN FAA A4G pilot (from early 1980s before 'fixed wing folded' for good). Info is in the PDFs online.

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2009, 06:25
by Thumper3181
spazsinbad wrote:Thumper, yes I am from Oz. Could you explain briefly why you think the RN Ski Jump choice was politically motivated. Personally I can see why it is used and I think I have explained that - even if obscurely. Give me a clue about the politics anyway. Thanks.


The CVFs if properly outfitted could carry 60-70 aircraft. They are big enough to efficiently operate CATOBAR aircraft. The use of CATOBAR aircraft allow for the use of a proper AEW aircraft as well as much more capable F-35C. Simply put CVF becomes are far more potent force if it has a more potent air wing. Cost is not that great to add steam or EMALS to the ship if the decision is made now to do so. The argument of being able to stop then land being better is just stupid. These are warplanes and naval aviators. Not operating CATOBAR aircraft because it is perceived by some that it is more dangerous it ridiculous. Lastly getting F-35Cs makes for a much more potent and versatile air force for the RAF since they could be used as Tornado replacements and fighters once Typhoon becomes ineffective in the 2025 time frame.

Taken all of the above into account I must conclude that making such a stupid decision to use ski ramps and F-35Bs on these aircraft carriers is so stupid as to border on criminal therefore the decision must be political.

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2009, 12:30
by spazsinbad
Thumper, I must admit I got bored with the endless wrangling over the final choice for the RN new carriers. I decided to wait for the finality of it; but due to the global economic meltdown that seems to have hit Britain harder than most, the final choice is being debated again - but not what carrier - the choice seems to be NONE, ONE or TWO. Any other consideration (of a different new carrier) now apart from the JSF-B falling over completely, seems to be out of the question. I guess US citizens usually have the luxury of deciding what and how many. I'm from a country similar to Britain that abandoned conventional fixed wing carrier aviation a generation ago. To my knowledge there would be only one or two serving RAN Reserve officers who have experience in conventional carrier aviation. Generating this 'know how' from scratch is a big ask. However re-invigorating VSTOL ops with new aircraft and carriers is a better choice for the RN, despite what you percieve as the downside. You must keep in mind that CTOL is expensive. Britain does not have the funds. I would not be suprised if a late political decision either delays the building of one or two carriers; or there is outright cancellation. Cancellation makes VSTOL ops look MAGbloodyNIFICENT by comparison. These are hard times for Britain.

I would suggest that if Britain had a tonne of money they would have opted long ago to resurrect conventional fixed wing carrier aviation but ever since its loss the VSTOL component has hung by a thread. Even today it is merged with the RAF. The only reason most likely that RN VSTOL ops have survived so long would be their outstanding performance in the Falklands War, under very trying conditions.

You may not recall that HMS Invincible was going to be sold to the RAN for Harrier Ops however the Falklands War intervened and Britain decided to keep the carrier while Australia was 'happy' to not go ahead with the sale. That was the end of fixed wing carrier ops for the RAN FAA. A dual seat Harrier with A4G pilots 'with a few hours training' (and with an instructor in back seat) landed on HMAS Melbourne when she was visiting Great Britain in 1977. VSTOL on HMS Invincible (for political reasons at the time called 'a through deck cruiser') was the way forward for the RAN Fleet Air Arm (HMAS Melbourne was a rust bucket at this stage being a WW2 cheaply built light fleet carrier). These are the breaks when money is tight. Having two large LHDs (larger than HMAS Melbourne) will be an amazing change for the RAN and Army co-operation when they become available in a few years. That would be the background to perhaps why Britain chose what it chose. I would suggest their carriers were chosen for economic and practical reasons, less to do with 'political' reasons but then all that is debatable I acknowledge.

I don't think I have suggested that CATOBAR ops are dangerous (from suitable carriers etc.). I used to fly A4Gs from HMAS Melbourne (and at night a few times WHOA!). My garbled story about that is at: http://wwwnew.filefront.com/12844254/Ra ... ryA4G.pdf/ (7.5Mb) Trying to explain NavAv to civilians is always difficult in our part of the world; because we don't do it any more. That started me on the road to the 4.4GB PDF and to this forum (due to my interest in the JSF for Oz and the potential for the JSF-B for the RAN - if the money and willingness is there but I must admit probably we would need another LHD at least to be specifically fitted out for this task of JSF-B VSTOL ops).

Agree that if the money was there GB would have most likely gone to conventional carrier ops with JSF-Cs - for various reasons that was not their choice. However there is room in the design of their new carriers for conventional equipment to be fitted in future refits, for future conventional carrier aircraft. Their new carriers will be built to last and be useful with upgrading over a long life.

I just cannot accept that the decision to go with VSTOL and ski jumps was stupid or criminal. The RN FAA invented VSTOL and they know how to get the best out of it, and it suits their requirements (even if it does not suit you). I'm sure the USMC will be very glad to cross deck with the RN FAA with their new carriers (if it all works out as planned) & even cross deck with the 'through deck cruisers' of today.

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2009, 13:32
by underhill
Thumper - The RN STOVL decision is in part industrial/political, in part historic and in part real. The industrial/political bit is that UK STOVL technology bought them a large share of the program, which will be valuable if they do sell 6000 jets (hardeharhar) and probably US-type stealth levels. The historic bit is that UK involvement started with STOVL and the Navy, and until the very late 1990s it was still premised on an all-Navy force operating off 40,000 ton ships. The real bit is that the STOVL jet is expected to be very easy to land, making a joint RN/RAF force operationally practical.

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2009, 14:04
by spazsinbad
underhill, you make good points. Talk from former RN (ex-RAN) Harrier pilots suggests that RAF Harrier pilots not liking to operate off ships - so the easier it is made for them the better - if this 'JOINT' arrangement continues. However I reckon the RN FAA pilots will fly the JSF-Bs but allow exchange with RAF pilots as has happened in the past. I hope people understand that flying from any ship is a skill not easily learnt on dry land. However once mastered landing ashore is no problem. :-)

Flying from a ship one understands that everyone onboard is involved in the success of the mission. Perhaps this can be said of an air force - I can't recall. Funnily enough I spent 15 months learning to fly with the RAAF before going back to the RAN to fly from NAS Nowra etc. This was and continues to be the usual arrangement for RAN pilots (exceptions were with a mass training effort in the USA in USN for 'startup pilots' when the RAN FAA was revived for fixed wing in the middle 1960s). Exchanges (of aircrew) between various air arms of the commonwealth is common where appropriate.

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2009, 14:10
by underhill
The problem is that cat-trap carrier pilots have a training/ops cycle that is full. You can't do a training/sea-ops/land-ops cycle because the "ops" bit gets too old. S you end up with a train/CV/train/land cycle but then you really haven't saved anything and you need four crews for every one deployed on the carrier.

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2009, 20:22
by spazsinbad
underhill, I guess you refer now above to conventional carrier ops? My remarks were about RN/RAF Harrier ops today extrapolated (most likely if joint ops continue) to JSF-B. However I don't really see why the RAF should be involved in JSF-B ops. Sure there will be exchanges of jet pilots (RN / RAF) but nothing major. However I don't know what that JSF-B arrangement will be. My informants tell me that 'once mastered' Harrier flying from a carrier is easy enough and yes this skill needs to be practiced like any other. In the past this 'practice' was seen to be a problem in the USMC Harrier world where the pilots often did not get enough practice to remain current. I believe this is not the case today. Cutting back on flying hours to less than minimum required for safe flying is always a problem.

Rereading your para above, my comment would be that any aircraft probably requires two pilots/aircrew when deployed, whilst ashore in a different squadron one would have even more for the training cycle and or ops ashore cycle. I'm not sure what you are getting at frankly.

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2009, 02:38
by Thumper3181
spazsinbad wrote:
I just cannot accept that the decision to go with VSTOL and ski jumps was stupid or criminal. The RN FAA invented VSTOL and they know how to get the best out of it, and it suits their requirements (even if it does not suit you). I'm sure the USMC will be very glad to cross deck with the RN FAA with their new carriers (if it all works out as planned) & even cross deck with the 'through deck cruisers' of today.


I agree the UK is broke. They do not have the luxury of being able to print money like the US. This probably goes far beyond CVF and VTOL. The problem with the UK (and I know this is going to rub some wrong) is that they still have delusions of grandeur. I am not talking about military or strategic delusions but industrial delusions. They keep insisting on developing things that they could get themselves that they could get for less elsewhere.

Eurofighter and Astute come to mind. Why are they buying so many Eurofighter? Just think where they would be now if they had bough Super Hornets like the RAAF instead. The Supers are cheaper to buy, and cheaper to operate. They already come with an AESA. They can do everything the Typhoon can do and a few more things as well. They would have saved literally billions of pounds and had a more useful plane with a known development spiral.

The same goes for Astute. They could have license built the Virginias or better yet Collins and then collaborated with the RAAN on the Collins replacement. Again literally billions of pounds would be saved.

The list goes on and on. Everything from Merlins to A400s, to Meteor. There have been less expensive and in many cases more capable alternatives. The problem with the UK is that it is "punching above its weight" when it comes to weapons development and the drain on the treasury is starting to show.

That is why the UK is building 900 foot, 60,000 ton VTOL carriers. They don't have enough money to build a proper conventional carrier and they don't have enough sense to build an improved Invincible class if they are going to continue with STOVL. The CVFs are overkill for STOVL and yet another example foolishly spending money that could be spent better elsewhere but because of their delusions of grandeur they insist on building glorified LPAs rather than either a true carrier or a true STOVL carrier. Why not go to the Italians, Spanish or Japanese. They have some fine STOVL designs.

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2009, 03:05
by spazsinbad
thumper, OK, you have your view and 'delusions of grandeur' theory has some validity; but this would be the case if the USA was winding down also. You may know that GB has obligations to its former empire that may not be so strong however they remain. Also GB has to get along (unlike the US) with her allies in Europe. The Common Market/NATO drive a lot of unpleasant decisions for GB. The USA will have to swallow some unpleasant medicine - most likely - to get along with allies in future but none of these decisions are for my own country (OZ) to make. I just point out some of the real politik here. I think you want to gloss over that the new RN carriers will have a long life, with upgrade potential to future aircraft (after JSF-B) either more STOVL or Navy arrest & cat.

The RN & RN FAA infighting with RAF and ARMY has been phenomenal in tight times. A big decision to spend big on big carriers that should last a long time seems very smart to me - if it works out. I'll not predict too much. With a smaller analogy I'll claim that leaving a ski jump on RAN LHDs was a smart move even if it proves over time to be just a big lump of metal on the flight deck - the RAN equivalent to 'delusional grandeur'. :-)

Delusions of grandeur bring us all down in the end. :-)

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2009, 03:11
by solomon
Just a thought but the real answer to the Royal Navy and Royal Australian Navies aircraft carriers needs are to scrap their current plans and piggy back off the US LHA(R) program. The LHD-8 is due to be officially commissioned in Oct so why not take the F-35 program one step further???? And for the last time forget those damn ramps.

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2009, 04:56
by spazsinbad
soloman, Hmmm, are you going to be giving any away? :-) Thanks for the thought though. Then again there is the no small matter of crewing large ships. The RAN refused offers of obsolete USN carriers back in the day because at that time it would have taken most of the RAN to crew such a carrier.

One thought that perhaps has been overlooked; because after all the new RN Carriers have not been built, nor have the JSF-Bs, for them to demonstrate the 'rolling landing'. As the 'rolling takeoff' improved VTOL to STOVL; and the 'ski jump' improved that 'rolling takeoff' so will the 'rolling landing' improve the VL part of JSF-B ops. Brit insight at work.

This 'rolling landing' won't be as heart stopping as ELP has imagined (in one of his posts on another blog): http://worldwidewarpigs.blogspot.com/se ... ng+landing
(please read the comments about this issue)

Hence the larger deck that so annoys thumper. This large deck will allow safe rolling landings - yay! :-) One could imagine that the larger deck allows a bunch of other simultaneous takeoffs (from the front part - with jet blast deflector in use) and landings of some forwardness at the RAMP back end OR just have quick and nasty vertical landings all at the same time. Go the Brits. :-)

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2009, 13:55
by underhill
Rolling landings were adopted due to the emerging issue of marginal bring-back performance with the F-35B. (At least that's what UKG documents say, but what do they know compared with the experts here?) Good discussions can be found over at Pprune: most concerns stem from the fact that you're moving on the deck - and well above taxi speeds - with the engine spooled down, prohibiting a bolter, and relying on wheel brakes to stop and the nosewheel to steer.

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2009, 14:05
by spazsinbad
Flying off a carrier and back onto it is dangerous - it is NOT always as dangerous as it is made out to be. Real experts in the RN FAA will work it out for sure. I guess we will see when the JSF-B is flying from the new RN Carriers - rolling landings or not. I like to speculate in a good way - while some want to be negative. So be it. I guess Pprune is inhabited by experts. (Sarcasm)

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2009, 14:34
by underhill

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2009, 14:56
by Thumper3181
spazsinbad wrote:thumper, OK, you have your view and 'delusions of grandeur' theory has some validity; but this would be the case if the USA was winding down also. You may know that GB has obligations to its former empire that may not be so strong however they remain. Also GB has to get along (unlike the US) with her allies in Europe. The Common Market/NATO drive a lot of unpleasant decisions for GB...........I think you want to gloss over that the new RN carriers will have a long life, with upgrade potential to future aircraft (after JSF-B) either more STOVL or Navy arrest & cat.

The RN & RN FAA infighting with RAF and ARMY has been phenomenal in tight times. A big decision to spend big on big carriers that should last a long time seems very smart to me - if it works out.

Delusions of grandeur bring us all down in the end. :-)


Delusions of grandeur was probably too strong a term but you got my point. The UK is not winding down it is just going through a rough economic patch and it is feeling the effects of (IMHO) bad government policies.

Obviously Eurofighter was a self inflicted wound. the British thought they where being clever when they wrote the contract and the Germans and Spanish are making sure they buy every frame they contracted for even if they don't need nor can they afford them. The shame of it is that I do not believe they have the same contractual obligation with F-35. They get to make all the aft fuselages for everyone built regardless of whether they pull out or not. The shame is they could have used a single plane (F-35C,B) to replace every fixed wing jet in their inventory for a fraction of the price of Eurofighter.

The UKs global obligations are exactly the reason why they should have went fixed wing. They then would have had a proper carrier fully able to operate independently in a high threat environment. They do not have that with the combination currently envisioned.

I am not glossing over the fact that they have a design that due to its size will be able to grow incapability. I am just saying that they should move to the next step now while it is reletively inexpensive.

Eric ..... Underhill is right. The rolling landing was brought about due to concerns with bring back.

Solomon is wrong. An LHD is not a fleet unit. Too slow. Not enough storage capacity for air ops.

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2009, 15:12
by spazsinbad
Whatever the reason 'rolling landings' are a continuation of RN FAA expertise in STOVL ops. They think ahead and plan ahead. Don't make that a negative. The RN FAA stopped fixed wing carrier ops a long time ago. You have not considered what it would take to resurrect all that know how (gone and lost forever). They have the knowledge and will to make STOVL ops work for their benefit. And they will do it safely. They will work it out. No need to worry.

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2009, 20:15
by solomon
Thumper3181...you're wrong. it most definitely IS a fleet unit. the only question is in what capacity. NOT MANY NAVIES have the capability of maintaining a cruise speed of over 25 knots....not many modern warships have top speeds in excess of 35 knots...the big deck carriers can and that what there escorts are designed to match. Because the LHD is slower does not mean that it is not a fleet asset and two, that it can't serve in the same role as the other conventional carriers floating around the world's oceans. Especially the LHA(R)....

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2009, 23:03
by muir
Part of the problem as I understand it is that no-one knows if and when the emals will work. Since they don´t want nuclear propulsion for several reasons there´s nothing to generate the steam needed for conventional catapults. I´m sure this could be solved but it would cost a lot of money and take up valuable space. This way they might install emals when the ships come in for a first major overhaul in say the mid 2020´s when the technology is more mature. After all, they have had to make do with the small Invicinbles for more or less 35 years when they get the new carriers which will be a great improvement no matter the config.

Unread postPosted: 14 Jul 2009, 02:06
by Thumper3181
spazsinbad wrote:Whatever the reason 'rolling landings' are a continuation of RN FAA expertise in STOVL ops. They think ahead and plan ahead. Don't make that a negative.


They did not think ahead. If they had, the spec for the B would have taken into account a higher bring back weight. Lets not put the cart before the horse here. They may well pull it off but again it's a compromise that was found for a perceived shortcoming after the fact. Don't kid yourself, it is going to take quite a bit of training and practice to master landing an aircraft on a pitching deck that has in effect stalled yet is still deriving lift from it's wing.

solomon wrote:Thumper3181...you're wrong. it most definitely IS a fleet unit. the only question is in what capacity.


Probably the wrong choice of words. They are not battle force units. They cannot keep up with the carriers and her escorts. The LHDs can sustain about 20 - 22 knots, far too slow to accompany CVNs. CVF can only sustain 25 knots, still too slow and probably one of the real technical reasons why they will never fit catapults to them. You may not be able to generate enough wind over the deck for air ops.

I agree, one of the more cost effective things the RN could have done was to build to a modified LHA design if all they wanted to do was sea control. I dont however really know what they want to do with the CVFs but what is clear is that the are too big to be cost effective Invincible replacements and too slow and ill equipped for independent power projection against a first rate foe.

muir wrote:Part of the problem as I understand it is that no-one knows if and when the emals will work. Since they don´t want nuclear propulsion for several reasons there´s nothing to generate the steam needed for conventional catapults. I´m sure this could be solved but it would cost a lot of money and take up valuable space. This way they might install emals when the ships come in for a first major overhaul in say the mid 2020´s when the technology is more mature.


I agree about EMALS but the fact remains at 25 knots sustained and 26 knots max they would have had a hard time getting planes in the air under some circumstances. EMALS will also take a lot of electricity. This capacity has not been designed into the ships either. Bottom line, there will never be cats on these ships if built as envisioned.

Unread postPosted: 14 Jul 2009, 02:28
by spazsinbad
Thumper, you can have your opinion about rolling landings and how difficult that might be. However already the technology to do an automatic rolling landing is in place (read references at beginning of this thread / & / or others). Which ever comes first does not to me seem relevant about the specifications for the JSF-B (after all primarily designed by the USofA) and any thought of 'bring back'. Probably the two notions came together during all the planning for the carrier (and how big it is) and the usefulness of the computer JPALs auto land system already proven with the Harrier trainer (for the JSF-B). The RN FAA will deal with what it has, will plan for what it will get and when both carrier and aircraft are available the RN FAA will prove the worth of the combination.

Kid myself? Fellow A4G pilots landed by day and sometimes by night on a small fleet carrier. Some of the same pilots went off to fly Harriers in the USMC and RN (some permanently). I don't believe any of them thought that Harrier flying was difficult. Navy Pilots train intensively for the deck. RN JSF-B pilots will do the same (having developed proper procedures to do so safely). To give an example of how much training it took to land an A4G on HMAS Melbourne (for most young pilots this would be their first deck landing). After learning to fly the A4G and then posting to the front line embarked squadron, the new pilot would carry out at least 100 FCLP landings - most at night - before going out for their first 'running landings' on the ship. After another sortie or two they would be allowed to drop the hook for their first arrest and catapult. What a blast. After years of training this made them proper Navy Pilots. Bear in mind the RAN FAA had no way train the way the USN does even today with an early deck landing experience with trainer aircraft. If you need reminding - Navy Pilots require particular training in their deck landing skills - this is nothing new.

Claiming that 25 knots speed is not sufficient to generate WOD for catapult launches is plain ridiculous. I think you need to read up on Naval Aviation (at least for the USN).

Your guesswork about possible upgrades to the RN carriers is just that. Stating your opinons as fact does not convince me.

Unread postPosted: 14 Jul 2009, 05:39
by solomon
From Wikipedia...(please note, I hate using them as a source but it was a quick lookup)....

"Carriers steam at speed, for example up to 35 knots (65km/h), into the wind during take-off in order to increase the apparent wind speed over the deck, thereby reducing the speed of the aircraft relative to the ship. On some ships, a steam-powered catapult is used to propel the aircraft forward, assisting the power of its engines and allowing it to take off in a shorter distance than would otherwise be required. On other carriers, aircraft do not require assistance for take off—the requirement for assistance relates to aircraft design and performance."

Russian SU-33 operated off ski ramps but the performance was degraded. Lightly armed and inadequately fueled. Also note that aircraft operating off US ships that are doing 30 plus knots into the wind with full fuel load and weapons/with the aid of a catapult often suffering a "drop off" at takeoff.....if other nations armed and fueled their airplanes to the same standard and only employed ski ramps then you'd have a bunch of expensive airplanes on the sea floor. When it comes to the operation of high performance aircraft (whether fighters or bomb trucks) you need catapults, wires, high speed to get wind over the deck and a big deck to operate from. The latest US carriers come in at 101,000 tons and are nuclear powered. The Queen Elizabeth class is around 60,000 tons. It is at best a hybrid between being a full deck carrier and an LHA (note the LHA(R) or LHA-6 class comes in at 45,000 tons).

Unread postPosted: 14 Jul 2009, 06:18
by spazsinbad
Googling 'steam catapult' will get any number of good hits. Different steam catapults have different lengths for the catapult stroke and different maximum OOMPH! What I know: HMAS Melbourne had a cat stroke length of just over 100 feet (length changed incrementally in a positive direction during refits with bits from Bonaventure added for example). Anyway this 'small' cat could shift the max weight A4G at 24,500lb to flying speed of around 135 KIAS (I'm guessing that one - it has been a while) in under two seconds from the proverbial standing start. Ground speed at end of stroke would be minus the WOD. Melbourne could make about the max. of 22 knots. It was only a problem in nil wind tropical conditions for max weight. If really necessary the 'war shot' of just under 9Gs would get the Maxed A4G airborne. Usually the 6G shot was used as standard for all weights and usually WOD conditions (just to make life simple) all on this 100 foot cat stroke. Of course the same cat had the S2E/G airborne even before the strop dropped off at the end of the stroke. Doing carquals with a lightly loaded A4G with the 6G push was amazing! I have illustrated a simple scenario.

USN carriers have steam cats of some length able to hurl stuff at great speed despite the WOD or lack thereof. Yes there are limitations according to conditions but these would be minimal. Most limitations start to involve the aircraft rather than the catapult itself. For example the A4G was stressed to 9G in the longitudinal direction - hence a limitation. However the cat pressure could be ramped up to break it (but why do that?).

The weight of any USN aircraft is checked carefully at launch time so that the right pressure is applied for the cat shot. Each aircraft type may have individual loadouts thus the shot is varied to make sure aircraft reaches safe flying speed at the end while conversely not overstressing the airframe in error. The Argentine Navy A4s did not get airborne at start of Falklands War because of nil wind with their war loads. However their catapult looked to be way longer than the one on an equivalent carrier Melbourne. But I do not profess to know the type of steam engine powering their catapult - looks like it must have been underpowered.

I hope you understand that there are many variables for a successful catshot. Airframe limits/ catapult limits/ environmental limits including ship speed through the oggin to make WOD. Yes the WOD can be critical depending on so many variables but often it is not. Would you believe it is possible to have TOO MUCH WOD for landing? There are LSO PDF NATOPS manuals online that describe the landing situation.

There are other factors for catapults such as the sea state and how the ship is moving in that environment. Often the cat officer is smart enough to signal the launch when the wave is breaking over the bow such that the usual wait time of a few seconds before the cat fires will allow the bow / catapult to be on the rise as the aircraft reaches the end. Of course every now and then the reverse happens, not that the pilot usually knows about it until he is told by the 'goofers' and 'lollygaggers' onboard at landon time. :-)

Just stating that a carrier is a certain tonnage compared to another certain tonnage does not describe a lot. Ships move in the ocean no matter. Some will move more than others if the swell is such that it 'resonates' with the ship to make it move alarmingly. There are several excellent videos of these factors online. The 'CARRIER' PBS TV series shows one such episode I think. Melbourne moved a lot in some sea states but not in others that one would perhaps guess would make the movement worse. Variables, variables, variables need to be considered. Melbourne was under 20,000 tons (down to 16,000) depending on how it is measured. The landing area from flat ramp start to angle drop off was just over 300 feet. The TA4G could not operate on this short deck because there was not enough time and space to get the longer nose up to bolter or do a touch and go landing. So it goes. The A4G was operated to fit the environment. In the same way the JSF-B will be operated to fit is respective RN and USMC and other environments.

Unread postPosted: 14 Jul 2009, 07:25
by Thumper3181
Remember CVF sustains 25 knots in a calm sea with a clean bottom and fresh engines, IOW right our of refit. Her sustained speed is likely to be somewhat less in the real world. Maybe closer to the 22 knots of your old ship or that of an LHA.

Next, the A4 was truly a marvel of it's day. Light, strong and able to carry a relatively large war load. However it still maxed out at 24,500lbs. F-35 MOTW will be closer to 70,000 lbs. granted the newer catapults on the CVNs have a longer travel but that does not make up for all the increased weight. Also remember the F-35C is only rated for 7.5G in peace time. So just how hard can you drag the plane if there is little wind over the deck? You can only add more pressure up to a point. After that you risk pulling the nose gear off.

I doubt you will be able to launch a fully loaded F-35C with only 22 knots over the deck.

Unread postPosted: 14 Jul 2009, 08:41
by spazsinbad
Thumper all of your above is guesswork. Firstly the vertical G forces (+ or -) experienced in flight are not the same as the horizontal G force usually only experienced in a catapult or arrest or any quick stopping (crash?). I'm referring to the horizontal G force. I bet it will be difficult to know what that is but interesting nevertheless for reason described. You still do not comprehend that a catapult most often can tear the wings off most aircraft, it must be restrained to offer the appropriate amount of power over the length of the stroke within the horizontal G or other aircraft limitation (for example that might be groundspeed for the tyres during the cat stroke - for example the A4G had a 175 knot ground speed limit otherwise tyres burst). The weight is checked before launch so that the catapult is powered exactly as required to achieve the required safe result - no more and no less. Not having been in the USN it would be difficult for me to give the numbers but having read a lot about these issues and from decades of anecdotal evidence (reading APPROACH magazine or GRAMPAW PETTIBONE in Naval Aviation News would be other good sources for 'sea stories') I think my quick sketch of the cat situation is accurate.

Yes you are correct in the sense that any carrier needs to be able to make speed. However extrapolating my story about an A4G to an F-35C is just wrong. It cannot be done. Perhaps a Super Hornet analogy would be more appropriate but other than search the intertubes for such a thing I cannot give you one off the top of my head.

The longer catapult length allows lesser G force to be applied over a longer period of time (within the max tyre speed limits or any other limit). No point in reaching flying speed one second down a four second cat shot. Better to get there with a safety margin at the end. At lower G there is less stress on the airframe. Also if it is a bad (soft) shot then perhaps there is time to stop (unlikely though) or to eject in a timely fashion. For example an A4G at full power ready to go being held back from going forward only by the 'holdback' had no chance of stopping if that hold back broke before the catapult fired. First the engine had to wind down if the pilot reacted instantly, whilst winding down the engine is producing power even after the brakes are being applied from the initial impetus of being at full power with only 100 feet of slippery steel cat track to stop on. I never thought about it. :-) You will see in the PDF videos of the result of two such 'soft shot failures'.

The EMALS will be wonderful for the smooth ride because it will 'intelligently' (according to weight and aircraft type) apply G in a fashion over the length of the stroke to minimise the G force but achieve the required result. An A4G cat shot was just WHAM!

So to answer your last statement. I would guess that much has gone into calculating (given all the variables of aircraft launch weights, catapult length and power) that there will be no issues with being able to launch the JSF-C under any conditions on the NUKE carriers (only ones left now). I have read/heard anecdotal evidence that some USN aircraft have been launched whilst the carrier was going downwind. I have a pic somewhere from Naval Aviation News cover showing an A4 being launched from a carrier at anchor. Bear in mind usually a ship at anchor will point its nose into the wind if the tide does not compel it to do otherwise.

NavAv is fun right? :-)

Unread postPosted: 14 Jul 2009, 10:56
by spazsinbad
Naval Aviation News Magazine cover August 1962:

Unread postPosted: 14 Jul 2009, 17:54
by solomon
spazsinbad,

whats your point son? its a piss ant of an airplane! the carrier is the size of a LPH-2 (or rather just a bit bigger)...even at it ultimate development the Singapore version its still a light strike fighter. to compare it to modern day, heavy wt naval fighters is a misnomer. why can't you see that. WHO CARES THAT IT CAN LAUNCH OFF THE DECK WITH WHO KNOWS WHAT PAYLOAD! They've launched C-130 off carriers, OV-10's off carriers etc....just cause you can do something doesn't make it operationally PRACTICAL! i got drawn back in because Thumper3181 pinned you like a UFC fighter, pounded your statement like a piece of cold meat and sent your "version" of the facts back to the showers....but like a bad dream you won't let this go! wow...seek help.

Unread postPosted: 14 Jul 2009, 19:05
by spazsinbad
solomon, you do not seem willing to comprehend. Not my problem. Thumper has made statements that should have been in the form of questions. I answered with knowledge that I hope could allow thumper to understand that what he was alluding to was just plain wrong. You yourself do not seem to understand how a catapult works; nor how it is used today in the USN. Not my problem. If I used in your eyes inappropriate analogies then once again not my problem. Not having flown current USN aircraft off USN carriers it would be wrong for me to speculate, but easy to tell my own story. On the net there are plenty of stories and information that could explain further about the steam catapult. I was attempting to explain from my own personal knowledge and experience and understanding. I gather you have none. Seek help yourself. I do not believe I have answered any question in an insulting manner and would request that you take your medication before replying. Thanks.

I liked the way you react to pictures. You yourself seem to only respond with invective or a pretty picture. I guess that is your only level of understanding. I will not be bullied by you.

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2009, 00:09
by StolichnayaStrafer
Something wrong about that picture...

how many carriers launch aircraft with an anchor down???

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2009, 01:20
by spazsinbad
At least one.

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2009, 02:42
by Thumper3181
solomon wrote: i got drawn back in because Thumper3181 pinned you like a UFC fighter, pounded your statement like a piece of cold meat and sent your "version" of the facts back to the showers....but like a bad dream you won't let this go! wow...seek help.


Easy buddy. He is entitled to his opinion. This isn't the Key publishing forum. There are many knowledgeable and literate people here. We do not have to resort to name calling to make a point.

Spaz, I think you are missing the point that we are trying to make to you and believe it or not some of us also know a thing or two about naval aviation. You are comparing a much smaller plane with a much smaller payload, yet it is rated at 9G where in peacetime the F-35C is going to be rated at 7.5G. You can only put so much steam in the piston but lets assume that the amount of steam is sufficient that if necessary they could rip the nose gear out of the plane. In other words it is true there is plenty of steam to shoot the plane. It is true that the travel distance on the C-13s is somewhere around 200 feet, roughly double the old cats on your ship. The problem is that MTOW has more than tripled. Although T/W may be better on F-35C I may be wrong but I would guess that wing loading is better on the A-4. I think you are going to have trouble under more conditions with the F-35C at 22 knots than you would the A-4. Please show me where I am wrong.

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2009, 06:01
by spazsinbad
Thumper I am happy to answer questions as best I can, and I am only going to claim what I know rather than pretend I know more than that. I still think you have not understood the difference between what is commonly referred to as the Max/Min G loading for an aircraft and apparently the F-35C has a 7.5G limit (maybe the F-35A is different at 9G?). Whatever it is is irrelevant during a catapult shot. I am referring to the horizontal G force down the fore and aft axis of the aircraft. The G force more commonly referred to acts in the vertical plane either on (positive G) or under (negative G). If you know what this horizontal G force is then well and good because I do not.

Working out without the graphs or figures to do so what a JSF-C requires from different USN catapults to be launched at Max All Up Weight is something I cannot do. My stories illustrated the variables involved in any catapult shot calculation. Depending on what the various limits are then something sensible can be said about what various conditions can mean such as the WOD for example. Without these figures we can only guess as you have been doing. I'm not prepared to guess but prepared to educate you about the catapult in a general sense, especially about the horizontal G limit. You cannot make the vertical G limit the horizontal one unless that is fact. The A4G had a 6G limit (in a general sense) but had that much higher 9G limit in the horizontal down the catapult track fore and aft direction.

The physical effect of this G force on the pilot is like being punched in the chest with a closed fist. Breathing is impossible. Every pilot would hold their breath and tense up (as they do for vertical G force) in an effort to stop their breath being punched out of their lungs by the 6G A4G ordinary cat shot. I think the 'war shot' of just under 9G was only ever theoretical because it was likely never used in practice.

Yes extraploting from what one aircraft can achieve via a catapult shot under varying conditions to take that guesswork to another aircraft just compounds the guesswork. So not much point really. However as has been suggested the WOD can be important. My guess would be that the JSF-C has been designed with the catapults in use in mind so that it will not have a problem being catapulted at the maximum all up weight under reasonable conditions (whatever they might be). The story about aircraft being catapulted downwind attempted to highlight that sometimes WOD can be negative or NIL in the case of a catapulted aircraft from a carrier at anchor.

Another story, in the prop era there were several attempts to land aircraft with the straight deck carrier at anchor but hopefully pointed into the wind. I don't believe this silliness was ever attempted in the jet era but one never knows. Mabye Google knows. :-)

Also your figure of 200 feet for one catapult would be I guess a minimum length (without looking up catapult lengths for current nuke USN carriers) I would have thought that these catapults are much longer. The longer the catapult stroke the less the G force longitudinally needs to be to achieve the desired end speed (up to the limit of the groundspeed due to tyre limits). There are simple formulas to observe in mathematics but they are too simple to apply to the real world of the catapult because it is a mechanical device with the power at beginning, that usually starts to taper off somewhere down the stroke. EMALS neatly avoids that issue with computer/electric power tailored for each aircraft in a more refined way than today's methods (which are still good). The sustained application of less G force down the track keeps the aircraft under less stress with EMALS.

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2009, 06:18
by spazsinbad
Here is a different view of USN catapults:

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/usw ... riers.html

"From its four catapults, an aircraft carrier can launch an aircraft every 20 seconds. The catapults are about
300 feet long and consist of a large piston underneath the deck. Above the deck, only a small device engages
the aircraft nose gear. The catapult has two rows of slotted, cylindrical piping in the trough beneath the flight
deck. When the planes are ready for takeoff, the aircraft handlers on the flight deck guide the plane onto the
catapult and hook up the catapult to the plane's nose gear. On each plane's nose gear is a T-bar which pulls
the plane down the catapult. This bar on the nosegear of the aircraft attaches to a shuttle protruding from the
flight deck and connects to a pair of pistons in the trough. A holdback device installed on the nosegear holds
the aircraft in place as tension is applied. After a final check, the pilot increases the aircraft engines to full
power. When the engines are steady at full power, the catapult is fired , which accelerates the plane from 0 to
160 knots in under two seconds. On a signal from the catapult safety observer on the flight deck, steam is
admitted to the catapult by opening the launching valves assembly. (The length of time the valves remain open
is determined by the weight of the aircraft and the wind over the deck.) Steam surges into the cylinders,
releasing the holdback and forcing the pistons and shuttle forward while accelerating the aircraft along the 300-
foot deck. A 60,000-pound aircraft can reach speeds in excess of 150 mph in less than two seconds. The
shuttle is stopped when spears on the pistons plunge into waterbrake cylinders. A cable and pulley assembly
then pulls the shuttle back down the catapult for the next launch."
________________________
&
from here: http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/page ... l?d=135057

"Nimitz-class aircraft carriers have four steam-powered catapults that launch aircraft from the flight deck of the carrier. These catapults can propel a 48,000-pound aircraft 300 feet, from zero to 175 miles per hour in two seconds. Northrop Grumman will complete testing on all four of George H. W. Bush's catapults later this year."
______________
&
there are assumptions made in this calculation from: (best to download the doc - I'll make a graphic soon)

https://pumas.gsfc.nasa.gov/files/03_23_02_1.doc

"Exercise 4. Given that the length of the steam catapult (d) is 309 ft (94.2 m), and assuming the aircraft starts from rest and the catapult exerts a constant force on the aircraft, what “g force” does the pilot experience just before takeoff?

Solution: In addition to the length of the catapult, we can use the value for v we calculated in the first exercise, 256.7 ft/s or 78.2 m/s. Acceleration will be constant because force and mass are constant. Using two motion equations we are already familiar with, we can solve a system of two equations with two unknowns:

Dv = a t

And solve for t=2.41s and a=106.64 ft/s2 or 32.5 m/s2. If we divide the aircraft’s acceleration by the acceleration of gravity, we get 3.3 g’s experienced by the pilot in this case, meaning that all the pilot’s body parts and internal organs seem to weigh three times as much as normal. (Which actual hornet pilots confirm is in the right ballpark.)
______________________

The graphic below has been made from the same document above (the text only mangles the formulae) so the graphic is exactly what is seen in the doc. [Bear in mind the G force is the HORIZONTAL G FORCE in the direction of the acceleration down the 'longer' catapult track - shorter track more G force and on and on with other variables.]

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2009, 06:45
by spazsinbad
Good 'news item' opinion about EMALS and the RN Carriers: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/03 ... act_inked/

Go for it. Probably whatever this article implies is always debatable and never fact. The dire straits of the UK economy with not much money for new kit with an incredible squabble going on about it all would be fact though. I believe another inquiry into UK Defence requirements is being held because there is no money available for much.

&
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf1-25.htm
_______________
&
for the USN:

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/

"General Atomics has been awarded the contract to develop the EMALS electromagnetic aircraft launch system which uses a linear electromagnetic accelerator motor. EMALS demonstrators have been tested at the Naval Air Systems Command (NASC) Lakehurst test centre in New Jersey. It is planned that EMALS will replace the current C-13 steam catapults."

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2009, 06:55
by spazsinbad
Concise explanation about USN catapulting (& other matters) here:

http://navysite.de/cvn/flightdeck.htm

"When the engines are steady at full power, the catapult is fired , which accelerates the plane from 0 to 160 knots in under two seconds. On a signal from the catapult safety observer on the flight deck, steam is admitted to the catapult by opening the launching valves assembly. (The length of time the valves remain open is determined by the weight of the aircraft and the wind over the deck.) Steam surges into the cylinders, releasing the holdback and forcing the pistons and shuttle forward while accelerating the aircraft along the 300-foot deck. A 60,000-pound aircraft can reach speeds in excess of 150 mph in less than two seconds."
_________________________

http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation/14 ... 10_135.htm

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2009, 23:54
by solomon
ok, whats your point? four posts and i'm still missing what you're trying to convey. executive summary please.

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2009, 23:56
by spazsinbad
solomon, take a hike, the thread started with ELP post, you hijacked and I just followed thumpers incorrect statements & answered his questions and I'll ignore your stupid, very ignorant remarks completely.

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2009, 01:55
by solomon
yeah, i'll take a hike...right into your area of responsibility....what's your point cowboy? you've posted all this information and i want to know...whats your point?

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2009, 02:25
by spazsinbad
solomon I know you are incapable of following a thread. My concise answer would be the information about the catapults in use in the USN is for Thumper who thought they were 200 feet. Also you and Thumper have no idea how a catapult works hence the simple explanations etc. Don't bother me again with your crap.

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2009, 02:52
by solomon
you've focused in on the simplest of details in order to attempt to prove a point that continues to elude you. the only crap on here is your line of reasoning.

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2009, 03:32
by spazsinbad
Then prove that statement stupid.

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2009, 06:02
by Thumper3181
spazsinbad wrote:I still think you have not understood the difference between what is commonly referred to as the Max/Min G loading for an aircraft and apparently the F-35C has a 7.5G limit (maybe the F-35A is different at 9G?). Whatever it is is irrelevant during a catapult shot. I am referring to the horizontal G force down the fore and aft axis of the aircraft. The G force more commonly referred to acts in the vertical plane either on (positive G) or under (negative G).

Working out without the graphs or figures to do so what a JSF-C requires

Also your figure of 200 feet for one catapult would be I guess a minimum length (without looking up catapult lengths for current nuke USN carriers) I would have thought that these catapults are much longer. The longer the catapult stroke the less the G force longitudinally needs to be to achieve the desired end speed (up to the limit of the groundspeed due to tyre limits).


EMALS neatly avoids that issue with computer/electric power tailored for each aircraft in a more refined way than today's methods (which are still good). The sustained application of less G force down the track keeps the aircraft under less stress with EMALS.



I very well understand the difference in G forces. What I was trying to point out is that the A-4 was probably built to a different standard than the F-35. Forces the nose gear of the A-4 can tolerate the F-35 probably will not.

I agree with you about the C-13, its travel is much longer than 200 feet. Correct as your excellent references show but we are not talking about C-13s. We are talking about what would be fitted to CVF. That catapult would be considerably shorter. Look at the picture at ther URL you gave me below. Fitted with Catapults as shown CVF would not be able to conduct simultaneous take off and landings. In order to do that the #2 catapult would have to be made considerably shorter.
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf1-25.htm

I agree with you about emails. It does promise to be a more efficient, kinder way to launch aircraft.

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2009, 08:09
by spazsinbad
Thumper fair enough about now you refer to the new RN carriers. Difficult to know what is being referred to in this thread. Vaguely I recall that the 'beedall' page was referring to the C-13s anyway; but that is moot because they are not going to be fitted. Perhaps in the future an EMALS will be fitted for future aircraft after the JSF-B. I do not see any point in speculating other than that.

"Officials from both competing CVF teams made it clear during 2002 that given the development risks still associated with EMCAT technology, steam catapults in the form of the C13 system employed in all current US Navy carriers represented the only proven, reliable, low-risk solution for CVF at Main Gate. "Steam exists, and the C13-2 catapult is the launch system against which the JSF CV variant is being built," said a senior member of the BAE Systems ship/air interface team. "Its performance characteristics are going to be matched around that technology". A Thales source concurred. "Today's steam-catapult technology is very, very reliable. There are still a lot of unknowns concerning EMCAT technology, such as pulse effects on other ship systems." (from the 'beedall ' reference given above)

The A-4 was NOT towed by the nose gear, I guess this would allow the higher horizontal / fore and aft G force for the catapult. All the strain was taken by two catapult hooks under the main frame alongside but inside the main wheels. One reason why the Skyhawk disappeared quickly from the USN was the changeover to the new way of launching aircraft. The pic below attempts to show arrangements.

I am not concerned with the CVF with catapults because it is not happening (for now). Sadly perhaps none or only one will be built - due to the lack of finances. How any catapults would theoretically be fitted (despite the rough sketch) my guess would be that the bow cat would still be usable for simultaneous arrests and cats on the CVF. [HMAS Melbourne was too small for those ops - the landing foul line went over the beginning of the catapult as it seems to do in the rough CVF sketch - depending on accuracy etc.]

To get back to the JSF-C on USN carriers. I would imagine that all the parameters are known given that the C-13 steam catapult is in use. My guess would be that the JSF-C can be catapulted at max all up weight (for the catapult) while doing that in normal conditions will not be a problem. The formula is a simple way to determine that but in practice computer simulations would be done with baseline data and then trials ashore at Lakehurst I think (EMALS is being tested/developed there also).

Now that we agree anyway that a JSF-C will be going down a 300 foot catapult in the USN, then the G forces are not going to be too dramatic, the JSF-C will be OK on USN carriers. AND this thread started to discuss ELP's notion of a small ski-jump equipped JSF-B carrier so why do we discuss catapults and JSF-Cs? I have no idea but it has been fun.

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2009, 02:25
by Thumper3181
spazsinbad wrote:"Officials from both competing CVF teams made it clear during 2002 that given the development risks still associated with EMCAT technology, steam catapults in the form of the C13 system employed in all current US Navy carriers represented the only proven, reliable, low-risk solution for CVF at Main Gate.

EMALS may have been the higher risk but it is going to get done. Steam is no longer an option for the Navy. If there are problems money will be thrown at it and heads will roll. EMALS was not going to work for the RN from the start because there is not enough spare generating power in the power plant they chose and the flight deck arrangements are all wrong. Simply put Thales botched the design.

spazsinbad wrote:I am not concerned with the CVF with catapults because it is not happening (for now). Sadly perhaps none or only one will be built - due to the lack of finances.

You are right but this was a self inflicted wound. Tranche 3 should not happen and the A400 dumped. Rather than building the Thales monstrosity they could have built 3 or 4 to the Italian, Spanish or Japanese designs or they could have modified the LHA to take the RR Gas turbines so it has a decent turn of speed and cost about 20 percent less than the Thales design to build.

spazsinbad wrote:Now that we agree anyway that a JSF-C will be going down a 300 foot catapult in the USN, then the G forces are not going to be too dramatic, the JSF-C will be OK on USN carriers. AND this thread started to discuss ELP's notion of a small ski-jump equipped JSF-B carrier so why do we discuss catapults and JSF-Cs? I have no idea but it has been fun.

I never had any doubt that F-35C could be launched at full load from a C-13. We got off on a tangent because I tried to point out to you that when you take a really good look at the CVFs and you look at the politics, catapults were never and will never be an option for them.

As for ELP, well lets just say that he has an equally bad understanding of modern project management, macro economics and now naval aviation. The following is for ELP’s benefit.

First, modern PM lesson. It makes no sense to test excessively with your prototypes when you have vetted models, component testing procedures, simulations and test beds. You can eliminate much of the early flight testing and with it much of the development cost.

Second the Macro Economics lesson. Due to the fact that the US dollar remains the world’s reserve currency and that is not changing anytime too soon, Obama can simply print money. The risk he runs is not bankruptcy but inflation. ELP likes to trot out the fact that the Chinese are bank rolling the US deficient when in fact all they are doing is keeping costs in the US low by soaking up debt. They are stuck in a “dollar trap” The hold trillions in paper and in return we got trillions in goods. Who has the better of the deal? If they dump their notes the value of the dollar goes down and they hurt themselves. Not going to happen. We can keep doing this until there is a nation with the natural resources, domestic market, relative stability and economic prowess that exceeds that of the US. Not going to happen anytime soon.

Third, the naval aviation lesson. Why would I want to use the least capable, most costly model of F-35 for power projection? Why would I want to base them on a relatively slow ship with little combat endurance when compared to a CVN? Why would I want to base them on a ship that cannot embark it’s own fixed wing AEW or air refueling? Study after study has found that the large deck CVN is the most cost effective and flexible platform for naval aviation. Fitting a ski ramp and neutered (relatively speaking) F-35 to a gator boat is not cost or combat effective when you have the luxury of 11 CVNs in your fleet.

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2009, 03:03
by spazsinbad
Thanks for the ending to get us back on track thumper. Perhaps ELP did not pose the question correctly. I would have thought that the USMC would run a dedicated small ski jump carrier (with all the grunt required) using JSF-Bs so that the USMC own and control the whole package (I guess the Navy run the ship) with the aircrew/maintainers and Command & Control being Marine to go and do what the Marines require. Of course I'm only dreaming.

I guess until the RN carriers are built using JSF-Bs there are going to be some unknowns. Personally I would be confident that the RN FAA will get the best out of what they are given - to surprise some of us anyway. Remember the Falklands War.

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2009, 05:18
by Thumper3181
spazsinbad wrote:Thanks for the ending to get us back on track thumper. Perhaps ELP did not pose the question correctly. I would have thought that the USMC would run a dedicated small ski jump carrier (with all the grunt required) using JSF-Bs so that the USMC own and control the whole package (I guess the Navy run the ship) with the aircrew/maintainers and Command & Control being Marine to go and do what the Marines require. Of course I'm only dreaming.

I guess until the RN carriers are built using JSF-Bs there are going to be some unknowns. Personally I would be confident that the RN FAA will get the best out of what they are given - to surprise some of us anyway. Remember the Falklands War.


I think you need to understand how the USMC fits into the overall scheme of things to realize that it would never happen.

The Marines are not an independent arm of the armed forces of the United States. Like the Coast Guard they are a subordinate command. In the Coast Guard's case during peacetime it currently is subordinate to the Dept of Homeland Security. The Marines are subordinate to the Navy. The Navy mans and commands the ships not the Marines. Money for the Marines comes out of the Navy's budget. Although the Navy holds all the cards the Marines have some powerful friends in Congress.

The Marines want to replace all their fixed wing TACAIR with F-35Bs. The Navy is adamant Marine F-18s get replaced by F-35Cs. The fourth fighter squadron in most Carrier Air Wings is Marine F-18s. The Navy does not want to mix up B's and C's since the be is not as capable, it makes mission planning more difficult, and it complicates logistics.

I happen to think the Navy is right. If the replacements for the Marine F-18s stay under Marine control they should be F-35Cs and only the Harrier replacements should be Bs. Time will tell if the Navy wins this argument. The reason I bring it up is to illustrate yet another reason why the Navy would never allow the Marines to own and control the whole package.

As for the FAA, let hope that reason prevails in the UK and something to replace the Invincible s gets built.

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2009, 05:30
by spazsinbad
thumper I guess I'm on the side of the Marines then. Yes - the Marine situation is understood and I understand how they would like to be more independent, if possible. As you say that is not likely to happen, in the same way Marine pilots did not get ski jumps on their flat tops. I had not really considered the changeover of Marine Hornets with JSF types. The RN FAA need all the help they can garner.

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2009, 09:39
by spazsinbad
Possible new candidate for a VERY LARGE Nuclear JSF-B/Harrier Carrier (+ Helos of course):

http://www.informationdissemination.net ... opter.html

“I am concerned about the EMALS program for the next aircraft carrier. As the Secretary knows well, I recently visited the production facility and was favorably impressed; however, failure of this one system to deliver on its promises means we are building the world’s largest helicopter carrier. I would like the Secretary to address what additional oversight and continuity of oversight he envisions for this program."

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2009, 17:20
by bjr1028
It would have been nice to build something CVF sized as a trials/training carrier for EMALS instead of just praying it will work for the ford class.

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2009, 17:23
by bjr1028
Thumper3181 wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Thanks for the ending to get us back on track thumper. Perhaps ELP did not pose the question correctly. I would have thought that the USMC would run a dedicated small ski jump carrier (with all the grunt required) using JSF-Bs so that the USMC own and control the whole package (I guess the Navy run the ship) with the aircrew/maintainers and Command & Control being Marine to go and do what the Marines require. Of course I'm only dreaming.

I guess until the RN carriers are built using JSF-Bs there are going to be some unknowns. Personally I would be confident that the RN FAA will get the best out of what they are given - to surprise some of us anyway. Remember the Falklands War.


I think you need to understand how the USMC fits into the overall scheme of things to realize that it would never happen.

The Marines are not an independent arm of the armed forces of the United States. Like the Coast Guard they are a subordinate command. In the Coast Guard's case during peacetime it currently is subordinate to the Dept of Homeland Security. The Marines are subordinate to the Navy. The Navy mans and commands the ships not the Marines. Money for the Marines comes out of the Navy's budget. Although the Navy holds all the cards the Marines have some powerful friends in Congress.

The Marines want to replace all their fixed wing TACAIR with F-35Bs. The Navy is adamant Marine F-18s get replaced by F-35Cs. The fourth fighter squadron in most Carrier Air Wings is Marine F-18s. The Navy does not want to mix up B's and C's since the be is not as capable, it makes mission planning more difficult, and it complicates logistics.

I happen to think the Navy is right. If the replacements for the Marine F-18s stay under Marine control they should be F-35Cs and only the Harrier replacements should be Bs. Time will tell if the Navy wins this argument. The reason I bring it up is to illustrate yet another reason why the Navy would never allow the Marines to own and control the whole package.

As for the FAA, let hope that reason prevails in the UK and something to replace the Invincible s gets built.


As they should insist. An all F-35B marine Corps means either less aircraft on carriers, expensive refits to carriers, F-35Bs launching off of the cat spots with a reduced load, or launching off of the fantail and disrupting flight ops. Of course, the DoN could also just cut Marine TACAIR funding and give it to the Navy.

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2009, 17:37
by bjr1028
spazsinbad wrote:Whatever the reason 'rolling landings' are a continuation of RN FAA expertise in STOVL ops. They think ahead and plan ahead. Don't make that a negative. The RN FAA stopped fixed wing carrier ops a long time ago. You have not considered what it would take to resurrect all that know how (gone and lost forever). They have the knowledge and will to make STOVL ops work for their benefit. And they will do it safely. They will work it out. No need to worry.


Rolling landings from the video are more or less a non-arrested trap. Its going to require training levels similar to arrested carrier landings.

Thumper3181 wrote:I agree about EMALS but the fact remains at 25 knots sustained and 26 knots max they would have had a hard time getting planes in the air under some circumstances. EMALS will also take a lot of electricity. This capacity has not been designed into the ships either. Bottom line, there will never be cats on these ships if built as envisioned.


CVF follows the British traditional of fitted for but not with to save money. The design has dedicated space for another MT30 or two and a steam boiler/generation for cats. Will never be fitted, but its there.

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2009, 20:26
by spazsinbad
bjr1028, 'training levels similar to arrested landings' will be a doddle for the RN FAA pilots. No big deal. There will be a lot of computer help for such landings - there is a huge amount of computer help for vertical landings also as I understand how things work in the JSF-B. See the JSF simulator videos mentioned in other threads.

Rolling landings are an option for circumstances. Otherwise I would imagine that 'STOPping & LANDing' will be a preferred technique.

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2009, 21:04
by spazsinbad
For Thumper3181: (regarding what USMC will get in regard to mix of JSFs)

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... dline=Navy Backs Single Engine As F-35C Rolls Out

"Initial operational capability for the F-35C is scheduled for fiscal 2015. The Navy plans to buy 680 F-35s, but the mix between Cs and STOVL Bs for the U.S. Marine Corps will be determined by the Quadrennial Defense Review now under way, Roughead says. “The mix of Bs and Cs is part of the ongoing discussion.”

While the fleet mix may still be in flux, Roughead says “the aircraft must come in on time.” Even assuming F-35C deliveries begin on schedule, the Navy is looking at extending the life of about half of its Boeing F/A-18A-D fleet to minimize an expected fighter shortfall."

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2009, 23:44
by spazsinbad
NOT verbatim quote from a book (title to follow) regarding JSF-B [Dave] 'runny landings' on new RN carriers: "Have a great new book here which goes into that a bit - so far looks like 60 KIAS (ie an average of about 20-ish knots relative to deck, with an average 40 knots WOD) at touchdown. Deck travel will vary with load, but boffins think 90 to 120 feet will do the trick, and no problemmo for a/c brakes."

I do not have the book - relying on quote above from someone else. Here are book details:

A Century of Carrier Aviation by David Hobbs

Hardback 304 pages
ISBN: 9781848320192
Seaforth Publishing
Published: 4 March 2009

http://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/?product_id=1850

"The detailed examination of the inventions that better enabled naval fixed
wing aviation are fascinating with the author writing from a position of
experience with some of the systems.

While the book is written from a British point of view, the US contribution
to carrier technology and development is not overlooked.

Written by a retired RN Fleet Air Arm pilot and award-winning historian of
naval flying, this is a masterly overview of the history of aviation in the
world's navies down to the present day. The book is heavily illustrated from
the author's comprehensive collection of photographs. Nearly all the images
are previously unseen.

This book is essential reading to anyone with an interest in naval air
power. It is truly the last word on aircraft carrier development. This book
cannot be recommended more highly.
The Navy Magazine - The Australian Navy League."

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2009, 05:05
by Thumper3181
Spaz, no doubt the RN/RAF will sort out"rolling landings" with STOVL OPs and they will have an effective solution. I do however take issue with your insinuation that STOVL/rolling landings (STOSTL??) is going to be in some way superior to CATOBAR operations on a carrier. Lets not forget that this STOSTL scheme is nothing more than a "plan b" compromise. It is much less effective in terms of sortie rate, range, payload and platform. Further I have to agree with bjr1028, the rolling landing is in effect a conventional landing with reduced lift from the wings and no arresting hook. The British may well perfect it enough for operational use but it will require much skill and training to pull off with any degree of safety over the long haul. You claiming it will be "no big deal" is just plain wrong.

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2009, 05:14
by spazsinbad
Thumper, I guess we can claim and counter claim. I happen to have some of my own NavAv experience. Without any other experience (unlike USN pilots for example) I was trained to deck land an A4G for the first time ever but with extensive shore based FCLP training beforehand. It was no big deal. It is only a problem in your air force mind to not be able to grasp NavAv. I don't mean to insult - just make a direct point. You can insult me back and then we will be square. OK? :-)

BTW I was basic flight trained by our AirForce so I really know how to do airforce landings as well. And they ain't like deck landings.

Arguing about something that is not going to happen seems futile. The RNers will use JSF-Bs and learn how to operate them in their NavAv environment to the best of their considerable abilities and experience. They invented this stuff after all.

And to think that 'runny landings' will be the only way the RN will operate is conjecture. Most likely given circumstances the quick vertical landing will be used. The RN will operate as safely as they can in circumstances of the day. Same as it ever was.

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2009, 06:59
by Thumper3181
Your NAVAIR experience has no bearing here. Are you experienced in shipboard STOVL Ops? How many rolling landings have you done? In fact you have exactly the same real world experience as I in this which is zero.

I am not arguing about anything except to point out to you that STOVL Ops as the RN/RAF sees it is not an improvement in any way over CATOBAR Ops. It is a compromise forced upon them based on political and economic decisions made by their civilian leadership.

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2009, 07:06
by spazsinbad
thumper, I have owned up to my experience and have stated that I'm in contact with former A4G pilots who went to the RN or exchanged with USMC - all flying Harriers. They have passed on some knowledge to me in a way that makes sense because of our shared experience (on A4G). If you have have downloaded the PDFs mentioned, there is a classic A4G to SHAR comparison report written by a pilot having flown both aircraft. That only goes part way to explain what I have gleaned over the years regarding STOVL ops.

Point taken: we share the same real world ZERO experience of STOVL ops as most forum members (unless they own up).

You can labour your point about CATOBAR ops being better than STOVL ops till the cows come home. I'm not listening - I have heard you. Countries that can afford conventional carrier aviation amount to three. US, France and Brazil. All the others operate Harriers or equivalent in some way (Russian). The RN will soon operate JSF-Bs. Lack of funds compromises every one including apparently the USofA. This is the real world.

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2009, 07:19
by Thumper3181
If France and Brazil can and do afford CATOBAR so could the UK. The fact that all countries have financial limitations has no bearing on this. The fact remains STOVL is a compromise and only the British are cheeky enough to try and claim it's some advantage. Buying a few less Typhoons and ditching the A400M would have easily freed up the funds for making the CVFs into proper carriers.

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2009, 07:32
by spazsinbad
Thumper, I'm glad you have lead on this issue: Britain makes a mistake not going CATOBAR instead of STOVL. Whatever. In the cold reality that will descend on the RN FAA soon enough (given that their two new carriers survive the endless reviews between now and when they are ready to go; along with a suitable number of JSFs) these same exceptional airmen and their maintainers will do their darndest with their equipment. And improve upon as they have started to do already (running landing concept). Banging on about what might have been is silly.

Brazil operates A4s from the ex French carrier FOCH. These A4s will be upgraded to a better standard of weapon delivery and standard than their capability today. French carrier has a few problems to my knowledge but it seems irrelevant compared to USN carrier strength, along with USMC capability. The RN & USMC will cooperate well with the other JSF-B users in future. No worries.

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2009, 00:38
by bjr1028
spazsinbad wrote:bjr1028, 'training levels similar to arrested landings' will be a doddle for the RN FAA pilots. No big deal. There will be a lot of computer help for such landings - there is a huge amount of computer help for vertical landings also as I understand how things work in the JSF-B. See the JSF simulator videos mentioned in other threads.

Rolling landings are an option for circumstances. Otherwise I would imagine that 'STOPping & LANDing' will be a preferred technique.


1) Yeah it is a big deal because Britain's politicians, in there infinite lack of wisdom, gave joint custody to the RAF's CAS squadrons. They'll spend time a lot of time on land based CAS missions. Sure they can have short field training on a runway, but they have yet to make one that moves and pitches.

2) Yes, I did the video and it shows me the F-35B is a much different aircraft than the Harrier. You have to dump all the excess ordnance and all but just enough fuel to make it on board. I think you'll see rolling landings more the norm with vertical landings used in emergencies.

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2009, 00:50
by spazsinbad
bjr, not sure you have your point about joint custody of JSF-Bs by RAF & RN FAA correct. Maybe it is still being worked out in the same way the USMC is deciding the mix of JSF aircraft types for their future use. I'll look online for more info but I believe the JSF-B situation (like the two new carrier situation) is still 'up in the air' although obviously things move forward. For Great Britain that does not mean a lot until the ships have been commissioned and the aircraft delivered. A lot can happen between then and now.

Your second point about the difference between JSF-B and Harrier landings vertically is perhaps misconstrued. Harrier pilots prefer to land vertically as has been described before by "STOP & LAND", they stop over water adjacent to deck spot then sidle sideways to land vertically quickly. In most cases (having sufficient training and practice) they prefer to do this in the RN Harrier world anyway with minimum fuel. This condition will always give them the maximum differential of their all up weight to available engine power. They are used to landing in this manner whereas a fixed wing pilot would be 'sweating blue chips' to be at minimum fuel on their final pass to an arrested landing. Not a problem for an experienced Harrier pilot though.

How JSF-B pilots will carrier land is not known at this point, but as we know scenarios are being developed, at least by the smart Brits anyways. :-)

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2009, 00:56
by bjr1028
spazsinbad wrote:thumper, I have owned up to my experience and have stated that I'm in contact with former A4G pilots who went to the RN or exchanged with USMC - all flying Harriers. They have passed on some knowledge to me in a way that makes sense because of our shared experience (on A4G). If you have have downloaded the PDFs mentioned, there is a classic A4G to SHAR comparison report written by a pilot having flown both aircraft. That only goes part way to explain what I have gleaned over the years regarding STOVL ops.

Point taken: we share the same real world ZERO experience of STOVL ops as most forum members (unless they own up).

You can labour your point about CATOBAR ops being better than STOVL ops till the cows come home. I'm not listening - I have heard you. Countries that can afford conventional carrier aviation amount to three. US, France and Brazil. All the others operate Harriers or equivalent in some way (Russian). The RN will soon operate JSF-Bs. Lack of funds compromises every one including apparently the USofA. This is the real world.


Harrier STOVL ops may not completely translate over, especially with the UK moving up a significant notch in the carrier size category. The F-35B is twice the size with twice the ordnance, with twice the range and a completely different propulsion system. In short, its a much better strikefighter, but not quite as capable as the Harrier in STOVL flight.

Also, lets be realistic here, an Invincible with a handful of harriers isn't much of a threat. A QE with F-35s is a big threat and is going to be watched a bit more. The F-35B may be up to the task, but the best heliborne AEW have are maybe 25% as capable as E-2Cs (let alone the Ds), the QEs are slow, have only CWIS mounts, and the British parliament only funded half of the Type 45s.

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2009, 01:07
by spazsinbad
bjr, so what you are saying is that the Brits will not have a capable force compared to someone else? All the chest thumping about what might have been (given impossible amounts of money that Britain can not afford) seems to be silly IMHO. Your statement that the JSF-B will not be as capable as a Harrier in STOVL flight is ludicrous. What do you base this on - a different propulsion system? :-)

All the thought experiments here need reality testing for sure. We have had the first JSF-B test pilot claim that it is easy to fly (but not had enough vertical flight to comment further on that). However simulator pilots are astonished at the 'push button' ease with which they can do vertical landings already. Yes that needs to be translated to the real world but no worries in my book. Rolling landings will have the same computer help for the RN pilots. Remember many computers will control the JSF flight characteristics in real time in flight. The JSF-B controls are modified when it is transitioning and in vertical flight as explained in recent video (mentioned in a thread here). How easy can it be. Not much. :-)

All carrier pilots will fly "manual" but that does not mean so much today in JSF land. Plus all the onboard guidance for the pilot is phenomenal. JPALS is one such system - go read about it.

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2009, 05:50
by geogen
Good analysis IMO, bjr. I've been adamantly critical myself to the perceived flawed, inefficient, vulnerable QE/F-35B 'all in one basket' defense concept from inception (no reason to bore in specific proposals and conclusions here). Raw military analysis though will just concede the highly flawed reasoning and decision making. However, it's not too late to change the collective strategic planning IMO... across the board.

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2009, 21:01
by spazsinbad
Interesting look here at operating from a TOO SMALL carrier deck in Short TO (with a ski jump) - Arrested Landing scenario:

http://www.neptunuslex.com/2009/08/01/flanker-ops/

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2009, 08:56
by spazsinbad
The Influence of Ship Configuration on the Design of the Joint Strike Fighter: (1Mb PDF)
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA399988
"While the implications of shipboard compatibility have long influenced the design of maritime-based aircraft, the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is unique in that the program is centered on the concurrent development of a family of highly common aircraft variants, two of which are to operate from distinctly different ship types. This procurement strategy poses a formidable challenge to the aircraft designer: How to design an air system that meets the unique needs of its multiple warfighter customers while preserving enough commonality to reap the benefits of the "family" approach to design, manufacture, and operational sustainment. This paper describes how the configurations of the United States Navy's aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships, as well as the United Kingdom Royal Navy's INVINCIBLE-class of carriers, have influenced the basic configurations of the catapult launch / arrested landing (CV) and the short takeoff/ vertical landing (STOVL) variants of the JSF. From these discussions, the designers of future air capable ships can better understand which characteristics of current ship designs impose the most significant constraints for the aircraft based aboard them, and where ship/air interface considerations should play."

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2009, 09:13
by spazsinbad
Earlier on page 1 of this thread (which cannot now be edited so it is stuck here) there was reference to a later date re USMC Harrier testing. An even earlier example of testing is here (01jul1979): USMC Harrier jumps for joy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:YAV-8 ... i_jump.jpg

"Operation Ski Jump was the test taking off of a Marine Corps YAV-8B Harrier aircraft, from a specially built ramp was constructed by the Bridge Co., 8th Engineer Support Bn., 2nd Mar. Div., Fleet Marine Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C. Location: NAVAL AIR STATION PATUXENT RIVER, MARYLAND (MD) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (USA)"

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2009, 06:16
by spazsinbad
Blurb on how the JSF-B will be easy to fly:

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

"The STOVL variant had already been selected to equip the Royal Navy’s new aircraft carrier and JSF is now emerging as a potential candidate to meet the manned component of the MOD’s Future Offensive Air System capability to replace the Tornado GR4.

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 aerodynamic control surfaces. As the aircraft decelerates, the pilot must engage a third control lever that 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.

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.

Core expertise

The delivery of a new generation of aircraft will also demand training for the JSF pilots and maintainers. Lockheed Martin is looking to develop a ‘one size fits all’ training programme with the aim of 80 per cent commonality to help reduce long-term costs.

“The Centre for Human Sciences has unrivalled expertise in the development and assessment of training programmes and could have a vital role to play in this work”, says Jon Saltmarsh, who is leading QinetiQ’s commercial input into the JSF programme.

Apart from cost and capability, there is also the issue of interoperability, which is the third key driver for JSF.

“Interoperability issues concerned with communications, command and control and the integration of legacy processes and equipment will need to be addressed”, says Jon.

“There is no company better placed than QinetiQ to undertake this work. Our underpinning expertise and knowledge of how defence systems link together is one of our key strengths.”

Niche areas

There is also potential for QinetiQ to play into niche areas such as data fusion, pilot systems, survivability, noise reduction, materials and modelling and simulation. QinetiQ’s aerodynamics experts have already provided valuable advice to Lockheed Martin during tests carried out in wind tunnels around Europe.

QinetiQ is also looking to provide support during the aircraft acceptance process. Traditionally, the acceptance route has involved test and evaluation at Boscombe Down prior to formal military aircraft release. The JSF aircraft, by contrast, will undergo a continuous acceptance process as it is developed and the results will allow the US and UK to certify the aircraft following a joint test programme.

“This is a significant change as we’ve never accepted an aircraft in this way before and we hope to be closely involved in the US work”, says Fiona.

The aim is to resolve any critical safety issues before the aircraft goes through certification, which is expected to contribute to considerable cost savings."

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2009, 06:19
by spazsinbad
Go here for some 'rolly landing' lurve:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... e-b-4.html

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2009, 20:24
by bjr1028
Did you get the blurb where the F-35B has a 1500KG reduction in payload, a 1/3rd reduction in range, and a 70% reduction in associated AEW&C capability. None are insignificant.

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2009, 20:50
by spazsinbad
This is the official LockMart set of stats at beginning of August 2009:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/ ... index.html

F-35 Lightning II - F-35B STOVL Variant

The F-35B is the first aircraft in history to combine stealth with short takeoff/vertical landing capability and supersonic speed. This distinction gives the F-35B the unique ability to operate from small ships, roads and austere bases. The F-35B deploys near front-line combat zones, dramatically shrinking the distance from base to target, increasing sortie rates and decreasing the need for logistics support. Internal fuel capacity is seven tons, providing an unrefueled range of more than 900 miles without external tanks. The F-35B standard weapons load is two AIM-120C air-to-air missiles and two 1,000-pound GBU-32 JDAM guided bombs.

Optional internal loads include six GBU-38 small-diameter bombs, as well as a wide variety of air-to-ground missiles, dispensers and guided weapons. The internal weapons bay is reconfigurable for all air-to-ground ordnance, all air-to-air ordnance or a blend of both. A missionized version of the 25 mm GAU-22A cannon is installed or removed as needed. When stealth is not required to execute a mission, the F-35B external pylons are loaded with ordnance, giving the aircraft a weapons payload of more than 15,000 pounds.

Primary customers will be the U.S. Marine Corps, the United Kingdom’s Royal Air Force and Royal Navy, and the Italian Navy.
________________________

F-35 Lightning II -F-35C CV Variant

The U.S. Navy’s first-ever stealth aircraft operates from the service’s large carriers via catapult launch and arrested recovery. Larger wings and control surfaces and the addition of wingtip ailerons allow the F-35C pilot to control the airplane with precision during carrier approaches. The aircraft incorporates larger landing gear and a stronger internal structure to withstand the forces of carrier launches and recoveries. Ruggedized exterior materials mean low maintenance requirements for preserving the aircraft’s Very Low Observable radar signature, even in harsh shipboard conditions. F-35C internal fuel capacity is nearly 10 tons, providing an unrefueled range of well over 1,200 miles without external tanks. The standard internal weapons load is two AIM-120C air-to-air missiles and two 2,000-pound GBU-31 JDAM guided bombs.

Optional internal loads include eight GBU-38 small-diameter bombs, as well as a wide variety of air-to-ground missiles, dispensers and guided weapons. The internal weapons bay is reconfigurable for all air-to-ground ordnance, all airto-air ordnance or a blend of both. A missionized version of the 25 mm GAU-22A cannon is installed or removed as needed. When stealth is not required to execute a mission, the F-35C external pylons are loaded with ordnance, giving the aircraft a weapons payload of more than 18,000 pounds.
___________________________________

F-35 Lightning II - F-35A - CTOL Variant

The conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) F-35A – designed for the U.S. Air Force – is the primary export version of the Lightning II. The F-35A uses standard runways for takeoffs and landings. Internal fuel capacity is nine tons, providing an unrefueled range of more than 1,200 miles without external tanks. The F-35A carries a 25 mm GAU-22/A cannon internally. The standard internal weapons load is two AIM-120C air-to-air missiles and two 2,000-pound GBU-31 JDAM guided bombs. Optional internal loads include eight GBU-38 small-diameter bombs, as well as a wide variety of air-to-ground missiles, dispensers and guided weapons. The internal weapons bay is reconfigurable for all air-to-ground ordnance, all air-to-air ordnance or a blend of both. When stealth is no longer required to execute a mission, the F-35A external pylons are loaded with ordnance, giving the aircraft a weapons payload of more than 18,000 pounds.

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2009, 00:43
by spazsinbad
Title: The STOVL Joint Strike Fighter in Support of the 21st Century Marine Corps
Author: Major Ben D. Hancock, United States Marine Corps (1997)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ancock.htm

Thesis: The potential basing flexibility and firepower that the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) offers the Marine Corps in support of Operational Manuever From the Sea (OMFTS) will not be realized with the doctrine, mindset, and equipment that currently determines how we operate and support STOVL jets on amphibious ships and ashore in an expeditionary environment.

Background: In the 21st Century the JSF will replace both the F/A-18 and the AV-8B as the USMC fulfills its goal of an all-STOVL aviation component. STOVL aircraft increase basing flexibility which is fundamental to the expeditionary nature of the Marine Corps and provides the foundation for improved responsiveness. OMFTS seeks to avoid establishing a traditional logistics base ashore and the majority of firepower, to include aviation, will remain afloat and only go ashore if necessary. This means that the JSF will operate primarily from naval ships versus land bases. The JSF will be a far more capable aircraft than the AV-8B, but if the shipboard environment that it operates in is one which remains marginalized and biased against effective fixed-wing operations, we will not fully realize the JSF's firepower and flexibility.

Forward basing tactical aircraft reduces the distance to the battlefield and improves response times and aircraft surge rates. Operating jet aircraft from dispersed sites is a big logistical challenge. The Marine Corps does not have enough equipment to supply significant amounts of fuel and ammo to maneuver units. Relying almost exclusively on aviation to supply forward bases will place an enormous burden on already limited vertical lift capability.

Recommendations: The Navy-Marine Corps team must develop and refine STOVL employment concepts that includes ramps (ski jumps) and smaller EAFs and it must fund the hardware and structural improvements that allow STOVL aircraft to operate in their intended environment. If we envision maintaining a primarily sea-based approach to conducting operations and we require responsive day/night air support in all-weather conditions, then we need to fundamentally change how we operate fixed-wing jets off amphibious ships. The most significant contribution that the Navy could make to STOVL air and helicopter-borne power projection is adding a ramp to all LHA/LHD class amphibious ships. A dedicated " JSF carrier", such as an LHA/LHD with a ramp and updated radars, would serve as the optimum mobile forward base.

Although the most effective means of employing the JSF would be to base it ashore as soon as possible, it should remain sea based for as long as possible where it can be more easily provided with fuel, ordnance, and maintenance without becoming a logistical burden. Seabasing may remain the best means of enhancing sustainability and reducing vulnerability."

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2009, 08:55
by spazsinbad
Key Performance Parameters from Norway JSF Brief dated 06 March 2008. Note different takeoff distances for USMC and RN FAA JSF-Bs without and with 'ski jump' respectively.

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2009, 11:15
by spazsinbad
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA407726 [URL for original PDF - very small - attached to this message

V/STOL SHIPBOARD RECOVERY: “IT’S NOT JUST ANOTHER CARRIER LANDING”
AUTHOR: Major Andrew G. Shorter USMC - 12 April 2002
Excerpts:
"The United States Marine Corps operates the only vertical/short take-off and landing (V/STOL) jet aircraft in the United States, the AV-8B Harrier. This aircraft provides the USMC with a unique basing flexibility not found in conventional jet aircraft. The Harrier is the only aircraft that can accomplish shipboard operations (take-offs and landings) using routine procedures that are the same as those for shorebased launch and recovery operations. The USMC Harrier force trains and operates at less than its full potential because of the tendency to unnecessarily apply conventional aircraft carrier training and operating procedures to the Harrier. The current V/STOL shipboard training and currency requirements do not maximize the use of limited manpower and operational flying time with respect to the highly technical, mission oriented, tactical core skills training. There are historical elements that contribute to this situation as well as adherence to perceptions that either were or are now invalid for the current conditions. However logical and sensible these measures may have been or seemed to be up to this point, the current standards can and should be changed to more closely reflect the modern capabilities and requirements of today’s V/STOL force."
&
"Specifically, a V/STOL aircraft’s effectiveness while afloat is a function of its efficiencies generated by the following factors inherent to V/STOL operations at sea:
1. The ability to maintain a continuous ready deck
2. More unconstrained use of available aircraft flight time
3. Better utilization of available deck space
4. The ship’s maneuvers are more independent of wind on deck (WOD)
5. Faster launch and recovery rates
6. Faster aircraft turnarounds due to reduced respot requirements
7. Greater residual capacity to continue flight operations even if the ship receives battle damage
8. Greater freedom to adjust air plans during execution in responding to contingencies These factors, when exploited correctly, produce greater strike effectiveness for V/STOL aircraft at shorter ranges, and remain on par with conventional take-off or landing (CTOL) aircraft at longer ranges."
&
It is a well-known Harrier pilot’s aphorism that it is “far better to stop and land, than land and try to stop.”

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2009, 05:06
by neptune
Yap!, Yap!, Yap!, if we had this and if we had that! LHA-6 (7,8&9 soon) America has the keel laid and hanging iron. 2013 (4 years for those that can't count) it hits the water and loads weapons and A/C with 844ft. and 106 ft. beam. 2 LM-2500 gas turbines for push and 20+ "B-Light" with assorted Ospreys, Sea Stallions, Venoms and Vipers. The Brits are fielding (maybe) the QE 3&4 919ft. and 128ft. beam. with 40+ "B-Light" or (not and) Chinooks (maybe). If the Brits go to "C-Light", their ski-jumps will go to electric cats, like the Ford CVN. LHA-6 America "IS" an escort carrier. You are not gonna' do air superiority with a "B-Light" unless you are talking about helos and or recc. A/C (slow movers). How many Harriers have modern A/S kills (1982 and Falklands don't count in 2009)? The grunts are gonna insist on CAS, and hanging bombs and rockets off hardpoints will "slightly??" affect LO and A/S. Who cares about LO if you are praying for more 25mm into the bad-guys on the other side. Rockets, bullets and bombs are what CAS is all about and slower is better. A bennie spinner or a HOG is preferred because they can stick around longer, but a "fast mover" will do in a pinch. Get real!, "B-Light" is CAS regardless of what the boys in blue and the canoe club are preaching to the politicos. LHA is how they are going to get there and between "B-Light", Ospreys and snakes our 'gyrenes are going to continue to be "THE" most awesome strike force in this world. If the canoe club pushes L/M to make AEGIS x + s band, it could be ready in time for America and the Ford. Ospreys could carry a mini-mp-rtip (Global Hawk) and arrange Hell Fire or Hell Fire II enemas for all the bad guys. Gig-em Marines.

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2009, 00:29
by spazsinbad
Those pesky Chinoise - don't they know that 'ramps' are bad? :-) sarcasm alert :-)

Ski Ramp Satellite and Images From Yanliang Thursday, August 13, 2009

http://www.informationdissemination.net ... -from.html

"New satellite images, Bing not Google interesting enough (search Yanliang, choose Aerial, and zoom in on the airport), from the Xian-Yanliang test facility shows what appears to be a ski jump at the end of a short runway. This new satellite imagery matches some recent photos that have recently popped up of a Ski Jump claimed to be at the same facility.

The geography of the ski jump at Yanliang is odd. The airport there is nearly 400 miles from the coast and is 1500 ft above sea level. It could be weather conditions, specifically wind, is favorable for producing the desired effect of aircraft carrier operations.

Regardless, the ski jump is yet another sign that China continues to examine technologies for the development of an aircraft carrier."

For more pics and sat overheads go here: http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/9-4501.aspx

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2009, 01:11
by bjr1028
spazsinbad wrote:Those pesky Chinoise - don't they know that 'ramps' are bad? :-) sarcasm alert :-)x


They're going to use Russian tech. Like they Indians, they wouldn't use STOBAR because its some super great solution, they'd use it because they don't have acceptable CATOBAR or STOVL technology. STOBAR is the worst of both worlds. The Russian SU-33s can't take off at anywhere near full load and the deck arrangement cuts the number of airframes that would be carried if it had cats in roughly half.

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2009, 02:22
by spazsinbad
bjr, you like to mix up things a bit IMHO. Probably if a small carrier had small aircraft to operate things would not be so bad (Harriers and 'through deck cruisers'). However operating LARGE aircraft on a small carrier has no advantages at all as you say. Does not mean the concepts are bad, just that in the instance you refer, the implementation of a mixture of components is not good. STOVL and ski jumps work, runny landings will work on new RN CVFs. If all else fails they'll do quick vertical landings.

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2009, 04:49
by geogen
Spaz, thanks for KPP.gif.

As for differences in takeoff performances whether ski-jump or not, it is apparently a nominal 100' difference in itself: 450' vs 550'. Nothing too remarkable? Now if the combat radius was improved under the same combat load, by say even 25-50 miles... then we'd be onto something?

But the apparent advertised data of both USMC and RN combat radius ranges being the same 450nm, does not really add much new material to this debate unfortunately - other than the 450nm range data perhaps being a surprise to the short side??

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2009, 04:59
by geogen
neptune, thanks for interesting post.

However, even an F-35B off an LHA/LHD, armed with JSOW-ER would make a more superior anti-maritime and stand-off strike platform than Harrier could have ever been tasked.

It could be far more air-dominant than the mighty Harrier in both relative and absolute performance terms.

This is just discussing the mere performance capabilities.

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2009, 05:30
by spazsinbad
geogen, to small navies a 100 foot difference in takeoff performance - with ski jump - is significant. Italy, Spain and perhaps Australia or even India (obviously RN but they will have HUGE ships maybe) will be only able to afford small flat decks for the time being. Same small flat deck ships can be used for cross decking the HALLOWED USMC STOVLies. :-)

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2009, 23:27
by Corsair1963
geogen wrote:neptune, thanks for interesting post.

However, even an F-35B off an LHA/LHD, armed with JSOW-ER would make a more superior anti-maritime and stand-off strike platform than Harrier could have ever been tasked.

It could be far more air-dominant than the mighty Harrier in both relative and absolute performance terms.

This is just discussing the mere performance capabilities.



The F-35 is going to be a very dangerous Anti-Surface Platform. Especially, when you combined it with two internally carried NSM/JSM Anti-Ship/Land Attack Missiles. Which, are Stealthy just like the Lightning......... :twisted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Strike_Missile

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2009, 13:22
by spazsinbad
Excerpts from: The Influence of Ship Configuration on the Design of the Joint Strike Fighter

http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA399988 (1Mb PDF)

JSF Air Vehicle Description
Unique features of the CV variant include a wing with approximately 35% greater area than that on the other two variants, larger tail surfaces, and ailerons on the trailing edges of the wings. These features were added to improve the slow-speed performance and flying qualities required for carrier landings. Additionally, landing gear and other main structural components have been strengthened to withstand shipboard launch and recovery. A launch bar and arresting hook are incorporated to allow catapult takeoff and arrested landings.

AIRCRAFT LAUNCH AND RECOVERY
The JSF aircraft have been sized to take full advantage of the aircraft launch and recovery equipment available on the ships of interest. For example, the CV variant is designed to withstand the tow loads imposed by the C-13 Mod I and Mod 2 catapults, as well as the deceleration loads of the Mk-7 Mod 3 arresting gear. If future launch and recovery systems offer substantially different loading profiles than those factored into the design, a substantial impact to launch performance (i.e., wind-overdeck requirements) and/or service life could result.

Flying Qualities and Performance
Shipboard operations introduce a host of environmental factors not present ashore, and many of these factors have a significant impact on the required performance of the aircraft and its associated flying qualities.

CV VARIANT APPROACH SPEED
A safe carrier landing requires the aircraft to be capable of flying slowly enough to be recovered within the capacities of the arresting gear, while not imposing an unacceptably high requirement on the ship to generate wind-over-deck. This capability of a slow approach speed cannot come at the expense of unsatisfactory flying qualities."

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2009, 03:14
by spazsinbad
QDR Chatter High--Naval And Air Forces to Become More Expeditionary Friday, August 21, 2009

http://www.informationdissemination.net ... es_21.html

"News here of chatter flowing out of the QDR process indicating a heavier reliance on the expeditionary nature of naval and air forces. Don't know how much trust to put into the reports, but it seems to make sense given the little I know of the team at OSD (P) and their policy inclinations, and the security challenges that face them.

http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=4245844&c=AME&s=TOP

It also seems to point back to something I said in this post about the Fighter-Attack shortfall, and that was advocating a thorough analytical debate within the department about the mix of land and sea-based fighter attack capability. If the department is looking to hedge by beefing up the "expeditionary" portions of naval and air forces, then clearly paying for capability twice doesn't make sense. The "expeditionary" functions of the Air Force that will be in high demand are its tankers, logistics, and C4I--not its fighter attack forces. Like Staples says, "We (the Navy) got that"."

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2009, 04:46
by Corsair1963
spazsinbad wrote:QDR Chatter High--Naval And Air Forces to Become More Expeditionary Friday, August 21, 2009

http://www.informationdissemination.net ... es_21.html

"News here of chatter flowing out of the QDR process indicating a heavier reliance on the expeditionary nature of naval and air forces. Don't know how much trust to put into the reports, but it seems to make sense given the little I know of the team at OSD (P) and their policy inclinations, and the security challenges that face them.

http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=4245844&c=AME&s=TOP

It also seems to point back to something I said in this post about the Fighter-Attack shortfall, and that was advocating a thorough analytical debate within the department about the mix of land and sea-based fighter attack capability. If the department is looking to hedge by beefing up the "expeditionary" portions of naval and air forces, then clearly paying for capability twice doesn't make sense. The "expeditionary" functions of the Air Force that will be in high demand are its tankers, logistics, and C4I--not its fighter attack forces. Like Staples says, "We (the Navy) got that"."



See we may see F-35B's is USAF Service yet....... :wink:

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2009, 01:46
by spazsinbad
ONE RN CVF down with perhaps another to follow (things never improve in GB - they only get worse):

"The Sunday Times October 25, 2009
Navy surrenders one new aircraft carrier in budget battle by Michael Smith
The Royal Navy has agreed to sacrifice one of its two new aircraft carriers to save about £8.2 billion from the defence budget.
The admirals, who have battled for a decade to secure the two new 65,000-ton carriers, have been forced to back down because of the soaring cost of the American-produced Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft due to fly off them.
The move is a blow to the navy’s prestige and has come on the heels of Gordon Brown’s announcement last month that he was axing one of the navy’s four Trident nuclear deterrent submarines.
It is too late for the navy to renege on contracts to build the two carriers, the Queen Elizabeth, due to go into service in 2016, and the Prince of Wales, due to follow in 2018. Although the second carrier will be built, it will be used as an amphibious commando ship, with only helicopters on board instead of JSF aircraft.
The move will leave the navy without a carrier when the Queen Elizabeth goes into refit, leaving open the possibility that it might have to borrow one from the French navy. In a meeting with Brown last year, Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, had suggested that refits of French and British aircraft carriers should be co-ordinated.
The decision to have only one new aircraft carrier will cut the number of JSFs to be flown by RAF squadrons from 138 to about 50, saving £7.6 billion. At current prices, the aircraft will cost close to £90m each, but this could rise to more than £100m.
Using the Prince of Wales as a commando ship will save a further £600m, the amount that would have been needed to replace the amphibious landing ship Ocean, which is due to go out of service in 2018.
The decision to cut the number of JSF aircraft has been agreed by senior navy and air force commanders in discussions preparing for the strategic defence review.
Both Labour and the Conservatives are committed to conducting a strategic defence review after the general election, which must be held by the late spring.
A senior Royal Navy officer said: “We always knew that the real cost of the carrier project is the JSF fleet to go on them. It would cost us at least £12 billion if we bought all the aircraft we originally asked for. We are waking up to the fact that all those planes are unaffordable. More than half of the £5 billion contracts to build the two new carriers have been contracted, so it is too late to get out of building the ships. This way at least we are covered when Ocean goes out of service.”
Since both aircraft carriers will still be built, there are unlikely to be job losses at the Rosyth ship yards, close to Brown’s constituency. The JSF aircraft are being built in Fort Worth, Texas, with the involvement of BAE Systems.
The RAF, which had been due to replace its Tornado aircraft with the JSF, will now equip all its frontline squadrons with Eurofighter aircraft instead.
The Conservatives said any decision to axe a carrier would be “absolutely unacceptable” and typical of the government’s “chaotic, inconsistent and incompetent defence procurement policy”.
Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said the move exposed the government’s claim that it wanted a completely independent strategic defence review. “The government is saying it is fully committed to the carriers while at the same time forcing them to be cut,” he said.
“It is confusing for the navy, it is confusing for industry and it is completely inconsistent with the whole concept of running an independent defence review.”
The Ministry of Defence said Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary, remained 100% committed to the carriers but “financial circumstances mean some difficult decisions will have to be taken to prioritise our forces’ efforts in Afghanistan”.
The Royal Navy currently has three smaller 20,600-ton carriers: Illustrious, Ark Royal and Invincible. Illustrious is on a visit to Liverpool. Invincible has already been mothballed."

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2009, 03:05
by geogen
Unfortunate, but unfortunately expected for ahwile now by some. It's the reality and will most likely require ugrent overall strategic UK doctrine revamping to meet this emerging scenario.

And No, Spazsinbad... I'm no longer proposing the Leasing of USS Enterprise to GB to offset the RN :wink:

But perhaps UK can take the moment finally to step back, re-evaluate some requirements, and exploit the opportunity (not a setback) to modernize planning/doctrine to meet forward-looking deterrence needs and exercise a more prudent, calculated and effect-maximizing plan? Respects to the Queen..

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2009, 03:28
by Corsair1963
Sorry, that article hardly makes sense! First, only one Carrier would likely be available at a given time. So, its not like the RN would have to field two Carrrier Air Wings if it choose not to do so. Also, the second Carrier is so far off. It hardly needs to make a decision anytime soon.........


It also makes a reference to the F-35 replacing the Tornado's? Which, is odd considering the current proposed buy of F-35B's. Is planned as a replacement for Harriers in RAF/RN Service. (i.e. Joint Harrier Force) Not as a replacement for RAF Tornado's!

Talk about an article laced with inconsistency!


Just more politics.......... :?

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2009, 04:09
by bjr1028
If Brown stays in the office how much longer will the UK's armed forces still exists. The cuts since he became PM have been massive.

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2009, 04:11
by Corsair1963
Personally, I think the Labor Government needs to cut back on the Medication. :wtf:

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2009, 04:12
by bjr1028
Corsair1963 wrote:Sorry, that article hardly makes sense! First, only one Carrier would likely be available at a given time. So, its not like the RN would have to field two Carrrier Air Wings if it choose not to do so. Also, the second Carrier is so far off. It hardly needs to make a decision anytime soon.........


It also makes a reference to the F-35 replacing the Tornado's? Which, is odd considering the current proposed buy of F-35B's. Is planned as a replacement for Harriers in RAF/RN Service. (i.e. Joint Harrier Force) Not as a replacement for RAF Tornado's!

Talk about an article laced with inconsistency!


Just more politics.......... :?


The plan was to replace the Tornadoes with F-35A or Cs. Now they'll be lucky if they get UCAVs.

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2009, 10:21
by geogen
Currently, the cost of A' ordered by USAF for FY10 is the same cost as the B/C, per FY10 order.

The argument could be made then, for a common C mod, for USAF, RAF et al alike. But it would provide cheaper variants for USN which could allow for eventual procurement numbers USN actually might require. Otherwise, C price may not be affordable longer term for USN and a decision to cancel C now, could pop the A's cost. So maximal scale of economy could be exploited by a single variant for all forces? The alternative then, could be even worse impact on the Program and larger strategic shortfalls across all services? :?

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2009, 10:49
by spazsinbad
Not my words - an insight/comment for a possible future from an old 'hairier' pilot: "A strange story. 2 carriers will be built, one for CVF and one for amphib. No difference to basic design or equipment. Big change to the number of JSF to be purchased. It sounds like RAF will lose Harrier/F35 and buy more Typhoon. 50 F35 will suit the Navy needs just fine. After the 2 carriers and 50 F35s are in service, a refit will bring the number of CVF up to speed, and a later tranche of F35s will be okay for a follow-on purchase. No doors slammed, no early cancellation of anything, just a common sense cost saving in the short to medium term!"

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2009, 13:28
by bjr1028
Well, if it does get the RAF out of the naval aviation business...

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2009, 15:25
by shep1978
Corsair1963 wrote:Personally, I think the Labor Government needs to cut back on the Medication. :wtf:


Personally, i'd like to see the lot of them hung, bunch of thieves and crooks the lot of them.

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2009, 18:10
by SpudmanWP
geogen wrote:Currently, the cost of A' ordered by USAF for FY10 is the same cost as the B/C, per FY10 order.


No it does not... I did a cost breakdown a few weeks back that showed that FY10 F-35A fighters were ~15 million cheaper than B&C, IIRC.

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2009, 02:21
by geogen
SM, I'm sorry I missed the break down. Mind linking it? I'll give it a read. I concede any of us could be wrong on any number of claims, especially me (since I make a long ton of claims), given the natural confusion generated from an unprecedented, complex and unique development/acquisition program.

note: In this case I was just quoting the apparently allocated Congressional funds for 10 F-35A in FY10 budget appropriations bill @ $2.048 billion. 20 F-35B/C units being ordered are apparently allocated with $3.997 billion in comparison? It could be insufficient data as well, being formulated in these budgeted procurement figures, sure. :shrug:

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2009, 03:15
by SpudmanWP
It was on another forum... Here it is:

Here is the numbers for the F-35 TODAY.

$135.89 million REC flyaway cost for 2010 USAF F-35A fighters. Unfortunately, the USAF did not make this easy to figure out.

Here were the steps (Both Docs prepared in May 2009):

1. Download the USN FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2010 BUDGET ESTIMATES at
http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/FMB/10pres/APN_BA_01-04_Justification_Book.pdf

2. On page 33 it states (per F-35B&C)...
... A. Total Weapon System Procurement Cost is $4,478,048,000
... B. USN F-35 REC flyaway is $155,420,000
... C. USN REC Flyaway as a percentage of Wpn System Cost 69.41% (A/20/B)

3. Download the USAF 2010 Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification at
http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2010/AirForce/0604800F.pdf

4. On page 3 it confirms the USN Total Weapon System Procurement Cost (2.A above)

5. The USAF Total Weapon System Procurement Cost is $2,349,430,000

6. Using the same 69.41% from 2.C and dividing the cost from 5 (above) by 12 airframes, the cost comes to $135.89 REC Flyaway.

Now if it is $136 mil when only 32 (yes I know that 30 are in the Def bill, but the USAF have not changed their docs yet) are being produced, what is going to happen when they start making more than 200 a year? The price will drop well below $100 million and likely below $70 million in the end.

The USAF, not LM, has stated in 2001 or 2002 that the average lifetime cost is $83 mil. This was before LM, for the last two years, has produced the F-35s UNDER BUDGET (by 3% and 5% respectively).


I found some better info from this USAF doc...
http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media ... 11-090.pdf

Airframe cost (USAF vs USN) in millions
87.437 vs 97.076 = 9.639 cheaper for the USAF

CFE Electronics
28.803 vs 28.158 = 0.645 cheaper for the USN

Engines/Eng Acc (USAF vs USN) in millions
14.345 vs 26.875 = 12.530 cheaper for USAF.. most likely due to F-35B lift fan.

Rec Flyaway ECO (?) (USAF vs USN) in millions
2.755 vs 3.311 = 0.556 cheaper for the USAF

Final numbers for REC Flyaway (in millions)
USAF = 133.34
USN = 155.42

22 Million cheaper for the F-35A

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2009, 13:12
by geogen
Thanks for the sources to work off, SM. We have our obvious conflicting disagreements, but I respect your overall approach and class act.

On these service-derived 'budget estimates' above: they don't appear to be too far off the Def bill budgets at all. Very similar. With regards to the 'pricing', I'm just going to have to focus my current arguments not on the largely irrelevant F-35 REC (URF cost) IMO, but rather on the UPC(?) or Total Flyaway (weapon system cost) price aspect of the F-35 'pricing' issue. It's the contract price which is being paid for by customer for each a/c acquisition, per FY. I.e., it's what should relevant when discussing price - as it's what domestic and foreign fighter budgets account for - not the URF price.

Accordingly, for whatever reasons included in FY10 F-35 A/B/C procurement formula, each aircraft type (both the A mod and B/C mod) will cost the budget about $200m each. (and yes, I'd also be interested to see exactly how/why all mods were priced under either the 'UPC' pricing scheme, or 'weapon system cost' (not exactly sure which it is) being disclosed). Further note: FY11 should reveal interesting F-35 pricing data in that it's apparently the first SDD mature, Block III combat operational capable production jet. Some could argue: that block III variant upgraded non-recurring costs... plus its initial contractor support, added training and support equipment as part of 'weapon system' cost pricing, could actually end up costing more per unit in TY $ than FY10 per unit purchase price? (I will be neutral on this possibility for now.)

As a relative comparison re: the FY10 per unit F-35 purchase cost noted above; the 31 total unit E/F-18 E/F/G avg per unit purchase price (from Senate Def bill report) was approx $84,851,000 ea. *(note: the per unit E/F-18 E/F 'weapon system' purchase price of $112.2m was higher than EA-18G's per unit 'weapon system (?)' price estimate of $73.3m (not bad)... which could indicate the 22 EA-18G order was an aircraft only URF purchase estimate, without some specialty 'non-recurring equipment' jammers, etc and without the initial support, test and training equipment and initial spares??)

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2009, 17:29
by SpudmanWP
I can understand your looking at the "Weapon system cost", I just feel it is less relevant with LRIP aircraft, especicilly early ones.

I feel it does not represent the true cost of the AC. For example, the total non-recurring costs for the USAF was 550.645 mil (55.06 mil per AC) and the USN was 644.402 mil (32.22 mil per AC). This is why they call it Non-recurring as it has little to do with the real cost of the AC. Last year the Non-recurring was 24.8mil for the F-35B&C and 47 mil per F-35A. The Non-recurring costs are obviously not a steady indicator of the true cost of an AC.

btw, I am just glad you are not a card caring member of the "Can't turn can't climb, can't run" crowd ;)

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2009, 21:44
by spazsinbad
GeographicallyGenerous and especially SpudmanWP (do you want fries with that?) thanks for all the info and explanations. I'm still confused but it helps. I guess we will know one day when Australia buys some JSFs what the cost will be - but then again the arguments will begin afresh. Whatever the JSF costs it should be value for money (and I can't run or hide on this forum!) :-)

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2009, 21:53
by SpudmanWP
"do you want fries with that?"

Exactly... when I was much younger, I was known for ordering well-done french fries. I was also notorious for taking back the crap they would give me and demanding fresh fries.

Joe Peshi had it right when he said (NSFW WAV) "They &@$* you at the drive-thru"

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2009, 22:35
by spazsinbad
Thanks for the WAV spuddie, made my day. :-) Who'da thunk. So now: what does the WP signify?

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2009, 23:29
by SpudmanWP
Again, when I was younger I was a Alpha/Beta game tester for Starsiege. My team was called the Wolf Pack, hence WP. It has stuck with me ever since, especially since every time I tried to create a profile, someone already had spudman :).

Starsiege had a nice Alpha/Beta program since it was completely open to the public to download and play. We still had an official Playtest group though.

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2009, 00:59
by spazsinbad
Geez that is obscure. Thanks. :-)

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2009, 01:43
by spazsinbad
Just to bring the thread 'back on topic' (if that is possible).... I can see how there have been many comments lately about the apparent loss of one of the RN CVFs - whatever. However often adverse comment is made about the 'super carrier' size of the CVF. Bigger is better for lots of reasons including deck handling/deck shuffling space let alone for landing or taking off. As we don't have anyone operating JSF-Bs (Daves in RNspeak) as yet we can only speculate. To help that speculation perhaps it is useful to look at how these GIGANTIC RN SUPER CARRIER DECKS will be used PERHAPS. :-) Article mentioned before now is from the Naval Aviation News May-June 1990 edition. The entire PDF could be downloaded from here (however all relevant text is in the GIF graphic below): http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backiss ... 0/mj90.pdf

So what, youse genteel readers may ask? Well as indicated in the text by Major Art Nalls USMC a ski jump (not ramp) and a bigger deck can be very, very useful as he explains.

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2009, 02:51
by jetnerd
I am personally bummed out hearing the UK's decision, as prudent as I'm sure it had to be. The major benefits of the CVFs to the UK collapses like a house of cards without 2 of them and enough F-35's to fill them: unit price goes up for both USMC (or USN) and the RN, unit price probably goes up now with 2 "different" CVFs which also collapses the argument for the French version (is it still going to get built?). Plus, having only 1 fixed wing hull dramatically lessens UK's ability to project power whenever needed.

Unfortunately recent grumblings http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... 5-jet.html that JSF costs might go much higher than anticipated may partially vindicate this move.

It would have been nice to have our closest ally operating big deck carriers again. Would have loved to see them put EMALs catapults on them so they could operate F-35C's, bringing their reach/strike capability closer to that of our CVNs.

Jetnerd

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2009, 02:56
by Corsair1963
jetnerd wrote:I am personally bummed out hearing the UK's decision, as prudent as I'm sure it had to be. The major benefits of the CVFs to the UK and collapses like a house of cards without 2 of them and enough F-35's to fill them: unit price goes up for both USMC (or USN) and the RN, unit price probably goes up now with 2 "different" CVFs which also collapses the argument for the French version (is it still going to get built?).

Unfortunately recent grumblings http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... 5-jet.html that JSF costs might go much higher than anticipated may partially vindicate this move.

It would have been nice to have our closest ally operating big deck carriers again. Would have loved to see them put EMALs catapults on them so they could operate F-35C's, bringing their reach/strike capability closer to that of our CVNs.

Jetnerd


Sorry, one article hardly makes it fact.............. :wink:


Just the usual politics. :?

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2009, 03:04
by jetnerd
Corsair, I sincerely hope you're right both regarding CVF construction and JSF costs. I'm a fan of the original 381+ F-22 order who has conceded that y'all on here are right - that, save the 160-unit silver bullet force, the F-35 is our key for the next 20-30 years to controlling the air.

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2009, 03:10
by Corsair1963
jetnerd wrote:Corsair, I sincerely hope you're right both regarding CVF construction and JSF costs. I'm a fan of the original 381+ F-22 order who has conceded that y'all on here are right - that, save the 160-unit silver bullet force, the F-35 is our key for the next 20-30 years to controlling the air.



Well, the article even says that both Carrers are to be constructed. Plus, the fact that the RN could live with just one Air Wing and then rotate it between Ships.


Regardless, what does it really matter at this stage. As the first Carrier is many many years off. Let alone the second....... :?

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2009, 03:14
by SpudmanWP
IIRC, the article said that the time to stop buying F-35Bs will not happen for MANY years.

By that time the MYB price for the F-35 program will be fixed, the economy will likely be better, and they could decide to continue purchases "in light of clearer cost numbers, a better economy, etc".

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2009, 03:28
by Corsair1963
The RN could order enough F-35B's for the first CVF shortly. Then when the economy and defense budget improves. Just order second batch for the Prince of Wales.

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2009, 06:41
by geogen
SpudmanWP wrote:I can understand your looking at the "Weapon system cost", I just feel it is less relevant with LRIP aircraft, especicilly early ones.

btw, I am just glad you are not a card caring member of the "Can't turn can't climb, can't run" crowd ;)


Believe you, me... I look forward to see the first Youtube airshow demo USAF puts on for us. No doubt it should be able to buzz around just like legacy jets in these airshows (yet with an even nicer reheat decibel). :D

Regarding pricing definitions as listed in the finance.mil pdf link you provided, it is very important to look at these carefully in order to determine how one agency/insitution is defining a certain cost terminology vs another institution, such as US Congress for example. (the break-down is slightly different).

Forinstance, one budget estimate may declare a line under 'Total Flyaway Cost', whereas another may define such costs as only the 'Basic Flyaway'. Or, one estimate may include 'Advanced procurement costs' as part of the weapon sys cost, while another will list such 'Adv proc' separately, apart from the weapon sys cost (and total Procurement Cost). One of the most confusing definitions on the 'finance.navy.mil' estimate pdf though, was their apparent splitting of the terms 'Weapon System Cost' and 'Total Flyaway Cost' into two completely separate definitions.

Furthermore, in the finance.mil pdf they apparently define 'Total flyaway' as is traditionally defined under the 'Basic Flyaway' cost definition: i.e. Recurring + non-recurring costs only. No biggie, just good to realize this when making an assessment of course.

So yes, it's pretty important to do some finer analysis of what one is looking at, when a particular price is being declared.

As for what price is important though?? It should be the bottom line total, 'Procurement Cost' which includes initial spares + 'Total flyaway' cost (minus, perhaps, the Advanced Procurement line item).. the cost when divided by the units procured in the FY budget will give the 'UPC' - perhaps a cost which can be best defined as the 'real purchase price'. This is what taxpayers are essentially paying per jet, that year, to have each jet with all associated costs necessary to operate.. delivered to the service in operational order. Hence, the more expensive this UPC cost, the fewer units able to be afforded as part of the budgeted 'Procurement Cost' portion of the budget, allocated by Congress to DoD.

As for non-recurring costs... yes, they are there as a fluctuating fraction of the Basic 'Flyaway cost' every year, on such a complex weapon system as F-35. They will jump around as an actual fractions of the 'FAC' year to year of course, depending on what block is being procured, e.g., and depending on start-up costs for new equipment and special updates ordered by customer, etc. (for example: the higher Block 2 non-recurring costs can be noted in the budget line item vs Block .5 and block 1 non-recurring costs. And FY11 initial LRIP lot block III non-recurring costs could be higher yet, per unit).

However, as is expected; future MYB orders when bought at higher annual procurement sizes and especially when under repeat Block-variant orders, said non-recurring costs will be lowered per unit.

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2009, 07:09
by SpudmanWP
2011 and 2012 are going to some very interesting budgets indeed.

One item of interest in defining the "Non-recurring" costs, I found this line in the budget.
Nonrecurring Costs includes funding for Diminishing Manufacturing Sources (DMS) necessary to protect JSF delivery schedule.

btw, I graphed the REC Flyaway, in 2009 dollars, since the beginning.

IMHO, we are well on our way to sub $100 Mil REC Flyaway.
.

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2009, 11:10
by geogen
We can only sincerely hope to see that 'FY' day... I'll pop champagne when I see $90m FY09 dollars, per URF. (and post a vid, how 'bout that) :applause:

But again, the sexy Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF), a la $110m F-15SE and $135m Raptor - while looking good on paper and charts when selling jets - is just one component of the price paid, per a/c unit, per FY year, when buying a fighter aircraft. At the very least... the per unit Total Flyaway Cost (AKA, weapon sys cost) is what what it costs to buy (and actually receive) an operational jet (initial spares not included). And that [Weapon Sys Cost] is the figure shown in Def appr bills for the aircraft's procurement cost and is what Congress decides on when determining how many units to approve each FY.

It's what NEEDS to be better built into the transparent Procurement calculus when forming policy.. and made bigger focus when estimating long term acquisition schedules - for sake of Program sustainment, strategic planning and ultimately national defense.

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2009, 15:39
by bjr1028
spazsinbad wrote:Just to bring the thread 'back on topic' (if that is possible).... I can see how there have been many comments lately about the apparent loss of one of the RN CVFs - whatever. However often adverse comment is made about the 'super carrier' size of the CVF. Bigger is better for lots of reasons including deck handling/deck shuffling space let alone for landing or taking off. As we don't have anyone operating JSF-Bs (Daves in RNspeak) as yet we can only speculate. To help that speculation perhaps it is useful to look at how these GIGANTIC RN SUPER CARRIER DECKS will be used PERHAPS. :-) Article mentioned before now is from the Naval Aviation News May-June 1990 edition. The entire PDF could be downloaded from here (however all relevant text is in the GIF graphic below): http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backiss ... 0/mj90.pdf

So what, youse genteel readers may ask? Well as indicated in the text by Major Art Nalls USMC a ski jump (not ramp) and a bigger deck can be very, very useful as he explains.


What the major doesn't say is that most of that 300 feet can't be be used for helicopter ops at all when the Harriers are off the ship. I'll say this again, LHDs are not carriers, they're troop transports. They exist to funnel the Marines into the Ospreys so they can get to the fight, not be a mobile base for Harrier strikes (which they don't have a large enough magazine for anyway). Of course the Harrier pilots want a ramp, its easier for them, but the operations for a ESG don't center around them.

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2009, 21:30
by spazsinbad
bjr1028, please bring your imagination to the post. It is an example of how the RN might use their new CVF using an admittedly older example of USMC Harrier ops, where a 'real' scenario is imagined (that may mimic how the future RN FAA JSF-B ops may unfold). Forget about Marines. We know they don't like Harriers. [Just kiddin'.] They may like JSF-Bs though but we will leave that for another thread. I hope this will stop the Marine Harrier bashing. If JSF-Bs were flying from ships ,well perhaps real life examples could be used; but we don't have that yet. OK?

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2009, 00:11
by spazsinbad
From Flight Global online archive 2002 is this PDF from 10-16 Dec 2002: http://www.flightinternational.com/ Relevant except is the GIF graphic highlighting another advantage of 'runny landings' which is more than just the 'bring back more' angle. Rest of article 'old news' becoming relevant again (carriers too expensive).

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2009, 07:06
by spazsinbad
More on runny landings from the 100 year celebration of the RN FAA online newsletter (4.4Mb) at:

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/upload/pdf/ ... tion_3.pdf

An image of relevant bit of the page is shown in the JPG below here. Text follows:

"Successful Trials for New Joint Strike Fighter
The new Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) F35 JointStrike Fighter is another step closer following extremely successful trials of the aircraft’s advanced flight control software which will enable pilots to land onboard ship in all weathers, day and night with ‘centimetric accuracy’. The trials, carried out onboard HMS Illustrious using a veteran two seat Harrier airframe, the Vectored-thrust Aircraft Advanced Flight Control (VAAC) Harrier, put the new system to the test. The Harrier was heavily modified with a conventional control arrangement in the front cockpit and a modern glass cockpit display in the rear seat to simulate the way the new Joint Strike Fighter will fly and respond to different inputs. 66 running landings and recoveries were achieved in varying sea states up to and including sea state six with outstanding results. The test aircraft, XW175 is the oldest flying two seat Harrier in the world. Commander Kieron O’Brien, the Air Engineering Officer, HMS Illustrious said “The VAAC harrier provided a fantastic facility to trial the Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) techniques that will be utilised by the Joint Combat Aircraft in the new carriers. It worked brilliantly. XW175 represents an incredible link between the past and the future of the Fleet Air Arm.”

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2009, 07:37
by spazsinbad
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/

RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2009, 06:59
by callsignthumper
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.

RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2009, 14:50
by spazsinbad
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."

Re: RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2009, 05:28
by bjr1028
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.

RE: Re: RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2009, 20:05
by spazsinbad
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.

RE: Re: RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2009, 13:46
by spazsinbad
Feb 2009 Royal Navy 'Navy News' story about 'rolling landings' & the 'bedford array':

http://content.yudu.com/A11vkl/NavyNews ... ces/25.htm

RE: Re: RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2009, 13:57
by spazsinbad
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.

RE: Re: RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2009, 00:49
by spazsinbad
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.

RE: Re: RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2009, 02:51
by spazsinbad
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

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2009, 18:27
by dport
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.

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2009, 23:42
by spazsinbad
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.

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2009, 06:00
by Thumper3181
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.

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2009, 06:39
by spazsinbad
Thumper3181, can you point to a source for this statement please? "Marine's plans to operate F-35Bs off of the CVNs". Thanks.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2009, 05:20
by bjr1028
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.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2009, 06:10
by Thumper3181
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.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2009, 06:34
by spazsinbad
Thumper3181, so these are your thoughts alone then. AFAIK the decision about what JSFs and how many for the USMC is being discussed with no fixed idea so far. If the CNO says this then I take that as a given no matter what you say. There are suggestions around from various think tanks asking that the USMC get a mix of JSFs for various reasons so that they can mix with USN more nicely. To me this whole argument is irrelevant until decision made and besides it has little relevance to initial topic of this thread but we soldier on regardless with all this guff about prejudices of various people. So be it. Here is a source for some "mixin' & matchin'":

Strategy for the Long Haul - USMC (CSBA) Center for Stategic Studies:

http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA491834 (1.3Mb PDF)

F-35 Lightning II Multirole Fighter
"The Marine Corps currently possesses a mixed fleet of fixed-wing aircraft that it uses
to control the airspace above Marines, to support them with aerial fires, and to interdict
and attrite enemy forces at range. The Corps has thirteen squadrons of F/A-18
Hornets (A, C, and D models) and seven squadrons of AV-8B Harriers.122 The Service
plans to replace these aircraft with 420 F-35Bs,123 at a projected cost of approximately
$41 billion (a per-unit cost of $97 million).124 The Corps plans to purchase only the
“B” (STOVL) model in order to gain efficiencies in fielding a single type of aircraft and
maximize flexibility with Marine Air Wings composed entirely of interchangeable
F-35 squadrons. For the Corps, the appeal of an all-STOVL fleet is understandable
and compelling, but only if viewed from a Marine Corps perspective. If viewed more
broadly from the perspective of naval air power, other considerations come into play.
In April 2008, the Navy and Marine Corps signed the latest version of a Memorandum
of Agreement governing the integration of their tactical air fleets. The stated purpose
of the Tactical Air Integration (TAI) plan125 is “to provide Combatant and Joint Force
Commanders with flexible, responsive, interoperable and expeditionary forces.”126
It goes on to say,
Naval Aviation force projection is accomplished by the balanced integration of Marine
Corps TACAIR [tactical aircraft] squadrons into Carrier Air Wings (CVW) and, when
required, Navy squadrons into Marine Aircraft Wings (MAW). The goal is to exploit
revolutionary Network Centric Warfare and Expeditionary Maneuver Warfare concepts
to enhance power projection by tightly integrating Carrier Strike Groups (CSGs),
Expeditionary Strike Groups (ESGs), and Marine Air-Ground Task Forces (MAGTFs).127
Further,
The objective is to fill all operational and training requirements with the most appropriate
unit while balancing unit operational tempo across the force . . . This process furthers
TACAIR integration leading to a fully interdependent DON TACAIR force in which
VMFA [Marine Corps F/A-18] and VFA [Navy F/A-18] squadrons routinely deploy as part
of CVW and land-based expeditionary operations.128
So, while the Corps is pushing forward with its all-STOVL purchase, it must also
reach agreement with the Navy on how to effectively implement the tactical aircraft
integration plan.
In principle, the Marine Corps will provide a sufficient number of fixed-wing tactical
air squadrons to support full utilization of available flight decks represented by
the Navy’s eleven aircraft carriers. In return, the Navy will provide squadrons in direct
support of land-based operations as the need arises. It would seem, then, that
some level of commonality between Navy and Marine Corps aviation would be helpful.
The Corps’ commitment to an all-STOVL fleet appears to go in the opposite direction.
The two Sea Services are set to pursue two different tracks for their naval air
capability. The Navy has little choice in its selection of a Joint Strike Fighter model
since the whole point of having naval aviation is to project it from an aircraft carrier.
Airplanes that fly off modern carriers must be able to withstand the increased stresses
of launch and recovery. The F-35C (Navy variant) is being designed to account for
regular use in this environment, possessing a more robust set of landing gear and a
larger wing area (for increased lift at the slower speeds associated with launch and
recovery operations). It must also be able to operate at increasing distances given
the worsening anti-ship threats already discussed. The Marines seek to operate in
multiple worlds — flying tactical aircraft off carriers, amphibious assault ships, and
austere operating sites ashore. STOVL — short take-off vertical landing — gives the
Marines the ability to operate from a much broader set of locations than the F-35A
(conventional take-off and landing or CTOL, the version being purchased by the US
Air Force) or F-35C (Navy) models."

And much more in this vein from beginning of this quote on page physical page 84 (page 65 internal) to page. The recommendation of this study is for USMC to buy a mixed fleet of JSF-Bs & Cs.

"In view of the above, the Marine Corps should reconsider its all-STOVL policy and
purchase a mixed fleet of F-35B STOVL and F-35C Carrier Joint Strike Fighters — up
to eleven squadrons of F-35Cs132 to fulfill the Corps’ tactical aircraft integration commitment
to carrier-based, naval aviation wings, with the remainder F-35B STOVL
variants to support Marine Corps requirements for tactical aircraft support aboard
LHA/LHD platforms and operations at expeditionary bases ashore."
____________________

122. Only “active force” squadrons are listed here. The Corps also maintains one training squadron of F/A-
18s, one of AV-8Bs, and two reserve squadrons of F/A-18As.
123. The F-35 Lightning II, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), comes in three variants: the F-35A,
a conventional take-off and landing aircraft being purchased by the US Air Force; the F-35B, the short
take-off vertical landing (STOVL) model being acquired by the US Marine Corps; and the F-35C, to
be purchased by the Navy and possessing heavier landing gear and a larger wing for aircraft carrier
operations.
124. Steve Kosiak and Barry D. Watts, US Fighter Modernization Plans: Near-Term Choices (Washington,
DC: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2007), p. 12. It should be noted that Marine Corps
aircraft are purchased by the Navy, using “blue in support of green” dollars.
125. Memorandum of Agreement Between Command, Naval Air Forces, and Deputy Commandant for
Aviation, United States Marine Corps, Subject: Department of the Navy Tactical Aircraft Integration,
(Washington, DC: April 17, 2008)

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2009, 08:16
by Thumper3181
Spaz, the original topic of this thread has been beaten to death. The idiocy of putting a ski jump on the gators or CVFs for that matter has been pointed out to you by not only myself but others ad nauseum. I am not sure of the point you are trying to make about Marine F-35Bs on CVNs but it's pretty clear that as of now if the Marines get their way that is what will happen. Your own article even indicates as much, but if you don't believe what you read then try this one which makes it even clearer that the Marines want an all F-35B force. It also clearly points out that congress has mandated that the Marines operate off of the Navy carriers as well. I would consider it a pretty good source.
A Marine fighter squadron is permanently attached to the wing. It is not an occasional thing. One out of every four carrier fighter squadrons is a marine squadron.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/20 ... f_070430m/

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2009, 08:49
by spazsinbad
Thumper, you may consider the topic beaten to death. IF that is the case - THEN STOP! OK? :-) I'm happy to debate this topic as it was originally promulgated. I'm not interested in putting anything on existing flat decks that does not already exist. However others brought up the topic and then BEAT IT TO DEATH.

BTW the CVFs (if you are referring now to the new RN FAA carriers) will have ski jumps and the RAN LHDs will have ski jumps so that is relevant to my interest. In a nutshell: it seems that having a dedicated small ski jump carrier or two for the Marines to use exclusively is beginning to be not such a bad idea, given the lack of money to build new SUPER carriers - but I'll make it clear this is my own thought and often seen on the web because others think similarly. Not that it matters to me in the long run because my interest would be in the RN or RAN FAA and how they might use JSF-Bs etc.

I'm not quibbling about what your ideas might be but I would ask that you say they are your ideas (and not suggest that the argument is settled regarding the USMC buy of JSFs - it is not.) Hence my interest to find out if indeed it is settled and it is not. But then again I don't give a damn for how the USN & USMC work it out.

I'll stress again my interest is in how JSF-Bs will operate from flat decks (with / without ski jumps). BTW because your Congress makes a law does not mean same Congress cannot make a new law. Clearly the law forcing USN and USMC to operate Hornets together was made at a time when the aircraft were in common use.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2009, 17:31
by bjr1028
Thumper3181 wrote:Spaz, the original topic of this thread has been beaten to death. The idiocy of putting a ski jump on the gators or CVFs for that matter has been pointed out to you by not only myself but others ad nauseum. I am not sure of the point you are trying to make about Marine F-35Bs on CVNs but it's pretty clear that as of now if the Marines get their way that is what will happen. Your own article even indicates as much, but if you don't believe what you read then try this one which makes it even clearer that the Marines want an all F-35B force. It also clearly points out that congress has mandated that the Marines operate off of the Navy carriers as well. I would consider it a pretty good source.
A Marine fighter squadron is permanently attached to the wing. It is not an occasional thing. One out of every four carrier fighter squadrons is a marine squadron.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/20 ... f_070430m/


They're downplaying it. 2 Minutes seems a bit low. You can operate the F-35B too ways off of a Nimitz. 1) Use the JBDs, launch them air to air only or with very little fuel and performance an immediate tanking. 2) Add a fifth JBD amidships 2-300ft behind the port bow for use by F-35Bs. You'll also probably have to add a third deck axial configuration for launch and recovery for F-35Bs. As for the advantage of forward basing, when was the last time a Marine squadron not on a ground rotation actually came ashore. The Harriers on the ships pretty much stay on the ships. There is also no way either the CAG and the battle group commander would allow a squadron assigned to the carrier to detach.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2009, 17:51
by bjr1028
spazsinbad wrote:Thumper, you may consider the topic beaten to death. IF that is the case - THEN STOP! OK? :-) I'm happy to debate this topic as it was originally promulgated. I'm not interested in putting anything on existing flat decks that does not already exist. However others brought up the topic and then BEAT IT TO DEATH.

BTW the CVFs (if you are referring now to the new RN FAA carriers) will have ski jumps and the RAN LHDs will have ski jumps so that is relevant to my interest. In a nutshell: it seems that having a dedicated small ski jump carrier or two for the Marines to use exclusively is beginning to be not such a bad idea, given the lack of money to build new SUPER carriers - but I'll make it clear this is my own thought and often seen on the web because others think similarly. Not that it matters to me in the long run because my interest would be in the RN or RAN FAA and how they might use JSF-Bs etc.


Neither the RAAF nor the RAN has any plans to buy the F-35B. The reason the ski-jumps are there is because it would have cost more to remove them (the RAN asked Navatia about that). If you're looking for a Melbourne replacement, keep dreaming.

I'm not quibbling about what your ideas might be but I would ask that you say they are your ideas (and not suggest that the argument is settled regarding the USMC buy of JSFs - it is not.) Hence my interest to find out if indeed it is settled and it is not. But then again I don't give a damn for how the USN & USMC work it out.

I'll stress again my interest is in how JSF-Bs will operate from flat decks (with / without ski jumps). BTW because your Congress makes a law does not mean same Congress cannot make a new law. Clearly the law forcing USN and USMC to operate Hornets together was made at a time when the aircraft were in common use.


Here's what congress would have to contend with for spazsinbad's law.
1) refit of all Nimtiz-class carriers for STOVL aircraft or replacement with STOVL carriers.
2) Cancellation of E-2D and APY-9 radar and replacement with either a completely new radar or adoption of helicopter AEW with 1/3rd the range and 1/5th the number of targets that can be tracked.
3) Rewriting of the entire naval aviation training syllabus.
4) early retirement of F-18E/Fs
5) development of electronic attack and recon capabilities for the F-35B.

Billions spent on much less capable platform to make some kid in Australia happy.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2009, 18:26
by spazsinbad
bjr1028, it is obvious you have no idea what I have been saying in this thread and to claim in your numbered points that is what I am saying is plainly ridiculous. Those points are yours alone and not mine. I'll say again - however the USN / USMC work out how they operate the C & B separately or together or not at all is of no interest to me. Start your own thread about the issues you claim required to operate (in your own dreams) apparently the JSF-B in the USN/USMC. Thanks.

Because the RN FAA are obviously smart, learning & planning how to operate the JSF-B - even before it is flying, the RAN can learn from their experience for their own future. I'll admit that most likely it would take a third specially outfitted LHD to operate JSF-Bs in the RAN likely with RAAF pilots but it is not in the realm of the impossible. Unlike some understanding what this thread is supposed to be about. :-)

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2009, 19:50
by gf0012-aust
spazsinbad wrote:Because the RN FAA are obviously smart, learning & planning how to operate the JSF-B - even before it is flying, the RAN can learn from their experience for their own future. I'll admit that most likely it would take a third specially outfitted LHD to operate JSF-Bs in the RAN likely with RAAF pilots but it is not in the realm of the impossible. Unlike some understanding what this thread is supposed to be about. :-)


There are no RAN/RAAF pilots cross training or exchanged with RN/RAF US Services, Spanish, Italian or French forces for fixed wing combat air off of ships. whenever we are about to transition to new capabilities which effect doctrine we send people out to exchange and/or learn. we atypically do that 2 years ahead of evolution. eg we had people dealing with shornet issues as soon as getting the plane was at a higher level of confidence. eg we did the same with wedgetail and the C17's) ie we don't get assets "cold" without learning from other owners about "business" and operational impact. Its not the way we do "business"

There are RAAF pilots who are cross training and exchanged with like minded allies for expeditionary roles with amphibious assets... (ie rotary)

there has been no change in doctrine for RAN/RAAF pilots or no change in development for doctrine for RAN/RAAF fixed wing CAS on fleet assets (see point 2)

the use of RAAF pilots on RAN assets has been looked at years ago and was dropped when the decision not to have a fixed wing combat air element created. ie the RN/RAF model was looked at but abandoned.

at this stage it is impossible. the Minister had a meeting with our division earlier this week. there is no money for any program that may fall out of scope. the govt will only continue to fund programs in scope. programs that fall out of scope are career limiting moves - its been made clear over the last 10 months what the govt expects of Defence and sister orgs to get done.

to get fixed wing combat air back onto RAN assets such as the LH's would see a number of "tells" falling into place. None of those are happening - and if there was an intent then they would have been formed some 3 years ago to converge with IOC for the JSF, commissioning date for the LH's and it would impact on a number of other Aust Def programs initimately effected by association. again - none are happening.

fixed wing combat air in the RAN FAA isn't even remotely on the cards - certainly not for the next 10 years. Can it happen? sure. Will it happen? well, there are a whole raft of other things that have to be in place before there were public announcements. there are zero supporting events happening, so its apparent that all 3 services are not gearing up for a non expeditionary but organic FAA/RAAF capability on the LH's or issues involving our fixed wing air sans organic fleet air in support of that doctrine.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2009, 21:51
by spazsinbad
gf0012-aust, notwithstanding any 'inside' knowledge you have, in the timescale of usefulness of LHDs and JSFs for Australia, the possibility of obtaining extra JSFs (albeit B models) for probably another (3rd) LHD is not impossible. I'm happy to acknowledge this combination won't be seen in the near future, as you suggest. Frankly whatever CRABS (RAAF Pilots) say about shipboard operations would be useless given their general lack of knowledge; except for those fortunate few who have managed deck landings during their USN training on Hornets, and now on Super Hornets. Thankfully the current Chief of Air Force (CAF) has such training, even from his days as an A4G pilot in the RAN FAA. :-)

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2009, 00:26
by spazsinbad
I wonder IF the Brits have factored in this issue of deck heating? (likely answer - YES):

https://www.fbo.gov/download/2ed/2edead ... 10_v20.pdf (0.56Mb)

Thermal Management System (TMS)
"DARPA is soliciting innovative research proposals in the area of Thermal Management Systems (TMS) for aircraft landing decks. The deployment of the MV-22 Osprey has resulted in ship flight deck buckling that has been attributed to the excessive heat impact from engine exhaust plumes. Navy studies have indicated that repeated deck buckling will likely cause deck failure before planned ship life. With the upcoming deployment of the F-35B Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), it is anticipated that the engine exhaust plumes may have a more severe thermo-mechanical impact on the non-skid surface and flight deck structure of ships. Currently, there are no available strategies to mitigate deck buckling and thermal-mechanical deck failure other than heavy structural modifications. The goal of this effort is to exploit thermal management technologies that incorporate a thermally and functionally stable non-skid surface which meets Navy requirements for application, safety, and performance. Eligible technologies should consist of an integrated Thermal Management System (TMS) that mitigates the thermo-mechanical structural impact of the F-35B engine exhaust plumes. It is anticipated that the integrated TMS will be implemented on Navy Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) 1 and Landing Helicopter Assault (LHA) 6 Class amphibious assault ships.
A responsive proposal to the TMS BAA will outline the development of a system that can be installed on top of the existing decks on amphibious assault ships, and can be used to mitigate the thermal loading that is applied by vertical and short take off and landing aircraft. The proposed system will need to incorporate a thermally stable non-skid that is capable of operating under these extreme conditions. Proposals that incorporate advanced, highly wear resistant non-skids, such as amorphous metal coatings, are encouraged. DARPA anticipates that, with proper servicing and repair, the thermally stable non-skid will exhibit a lifetime consistent with the overall integrated Thermal Management System. Any routine servicing and repair required by the thermally stable non-skid must be capable of being performed on the flight deck without major disruptions to shipboard operations. The proposed research and development should investigate innovative approaches that enable revolutionary advances in systems. Specifically excluded are efforts that primarily result in evolutionary improvements to the existing technologies or commercially available systems."

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2009, 03:17
by gf0012-aust
spazsinbad wrote:gf0012-aust, notwithstanding any 'inside' knowledge you have, in the timescale of usefulness of LHDs and JSFs for Australia, the possibility of obtaining extra JSFs (albeit B models) for probably another (3rd) LHD is not impossible. I'm happy to acknowledge this combination won't be seen in the near future, as you suggest. Frankly whatever CRABS (RAAF Pilots) say about shipboard operations would be useless given their general lack of knowledge; except for those fortunate few who have managed deck landings during their USN training on Hornets, and now on Super Hornets. Thankfully the current Chief of Air Force (CAF) has such training, even from his days as an A4G pilot in the RAN FAA. :-)


Our ORBAT structure is mapped out to 2025. JSF stumpies don't appear in any of it. :)

we could also restart our nuke weapons program from the 70's, or build nuke subs based on what tech sets we have access and capability to do etc.... but we won't.

JSF stumpies before 2025 (if at all) are in the same probability boat.

granted we could end up in a shooting war in 2015 and all bets are off, but as of now and planned out to 2030, there is no planned fixed wing combat FAA even remotely planned for.

to do so means planning and implementing things years ahead of IOC etc... none of that is in place let alone under consideration.

in procurement intent - the issue is always the other capability "tells" which give a clue - its never the primary platform which gives the hints.

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2009, 03:50
by spazsinbad
A fifteen year plan is just that. IF there is no flexibility or contingency planning I would be astounded. Perhaps you are just not aware of it. Perhaps what you are saying says something about 'planning' in todays ADF but being sure of a plan out to 2030 is uncanny. JSF-Bs will be well thought out and built by that time, with initial 2 RAN LHDs starting to rust out. Then we get new build suitable craft for 'Super JSF-Bs'. I'm an eternal optimist. :-)

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2009, 06:34
by gf0012-aust
spazsinbad wrote:A fifteen year plan is just that. IF there is no flexibility or contingency planning I would be astounded.


in procurement intent - the issue is always the other capability "tells" which give a clue - its never the primary platform which gives the hints.

I'm lucky enough to have seen the classified versions of the whitepaper due to my job. I reckon I would have seen any clue. however, if it was material that was classified then I wouldn't be discussing that specific issue on an open forum. there is however a degree of relationship between the unclass whitepaper and the classified whitepaper. whats fundamentally different is detail - not content. There is no reference to manned combat FAA in Plan Blue either.

re contingencies, well of course we have contingencies - we have various plans that deal with any number of scenarios. thats what ends up on the bosses (PM's) desk whenever something in our region goes to custard and we need to consider exercising a military response.

that is however completely separate from the reality that if we are to get fixed wing combat air in place then a whole pile of other things need to started before we even give out squadron numbers. there are planning tells, training tells, future integration tells that impact on a whole raft of extant programs and projects. it cannot be done in isolation. It will definitely not happen under the current political ideology - it will definitely not happen when its been made repeatedly and abundantly clear to us that we aren't getting any more money and that the Govt will not wear scope creep of any magnitude in any project. NACC and BACC have crueled it for everyone as far as that goes. The fat ships politically are unacceptable to this govt if they are perceived as force projection assets. getting fixed wing combat FAA is an anathema to everything this govt seeks to promote to our neighbours.

there's no point in being optimistic if it ignores how we do business, how the business needs to be done, whats required to support that business and how we are to raise train and sustain that business.

we are planned to 2030. we know what we are getting. short of going to war at short notice and having a compelling procurement need where our biggest primary ally is not going to provide us with capability platform skillsets outside of our extant force structure - then its not happening.

wishing it so does not change the reality matrix of what we would be doing now.

geez we're already planning for assets IOC 2025 for RAAF - and it doesn't include STOVL aircraft.

in 2030 we could decide to plan for nuke subs - but should we get excited now? it's a harsh and realistic and respounding no.

could the region change tomorrow? well probability and possibility are always planned for - but the region would have to go seriously hot, our neighbours would need to do a 180, the US would need to invoke a 21st cent version of the monroe doctrine and we would need to change the way we look at extant doctrine significantly to accomodate same.

these things need to be looked at in the cold hard light of force planning around coherent arguments. the threat matrix, the political will, the political intent, the budget, extant doctrine and indeed the uniform advice given to govt says repeatedly no.

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2009, 06:43
by spazsinbad
Yadda Yadda Yadda. :-) I'm old enough to have seen plans change in an instant. I guess the 'tells' told well about an instaneous (apparently) decision to buy a bunch of Super Hornets for Oz (I'm not complaining) when the RAAF biggies had just told Parliament (enquiry) that they were not needed. In the political sphere things change quickly despite boring long term plans. You knew that. I was around when the RAN FAA was going to get a second hand through deck cruiser - then not. Buga. Just the other day there was a stupid UK newspaper story about MoD selling a 'second hand/ unwanted' CVF to India - since denied strongly by MoD BTW. All kinds of shite happens which often makes no sense at all. As long as it is for the good - I don't mind. :-)

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2009, 06:57
by gf0012-aust
spazsinbad wrote:I guess the 'tells' told well about an instaneous (apparently) decision to buy a bunch of Super Hornets for Oz (I'm not complaining) when the RAAF biggies had just told Parliament (enquiry) that they were not needed.


we had people on exchange dealing with SHornets 2 years before the announced decision - none of that was public domain - and yet for everyone in defence that was a pretty big tell of intent. the govt got shornets as it had a defencible fit against demobbing the pigs. The abrams were defensible because the leos were uneconomical to prepare for the MEAO. The fat ships were held against the manoora and kanimbla because those ships were getting a flogging. The C17's were purchased because we were spending dead money on ukrainian leases. etc etc.... there is not one element of opportunity for the govt to trot out fixed wing combat air when the fat ships were procured for expeditionary work and in accordance with the imprimatur of the sister services.

when we were getting C17's we already had people on exchange,
when we got the abrams we already had people in the US with their blackhats

none of this operates in isolation. when we get gear -even at short notice, we have arranged the exchanges and training.

major capital acquisition such as fixed wing air has to go through to the nat security council - we cannot do a rapid acquisition because rapid only deals with assets that don't have a sustainment component in the approval process.

you do realise that the processes on procurement in australia changed with Kinnaird? and that we can do zero, zip, nada, zilch without cabinet involvement and the NSC. the days of snap purchases are long gone.

there needs to be an injection of reality when we're discussing procurement - we don't and can't go out and just buy major capital gear. every one of the short procurement buys that you can drag up in the last 10 years involved having people offshore and getting things in place years before the announcements.

re the Chief of Air being an ex scooter driver - well, the Chief of Navy is an ex clearance diver - I can't see him making the RAN turn into a specwarrie outfit. prev association doesn't translate to weighting or impacting on procurement decisions. :)

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2009, 07:53
by Thumper3181
spazsinbad wrote:Yadda Yadda Yadda. :-) I'm old enough to have seen plans change in an instant. I guess the 'tells' told well about an instaneous (apparently) decision to buy a bunch of Super Hornets for Oz (I'm not complaining) when the RAAF biggies had just told Parliament (enquiry) that they were not needed. In the political sphere things change quickly despite boring long term plans. You knew that. I was around when the RAN FAA was going to get a second hand through deck cruiser - then not. Buga. Just the other day there was a stupid UK newspaper story about MoD selling a 'second hand/ unwanted' CVF to India - since denied strongly by MoD BTW. All kinds of shite happens which often makes no sense at all. As long as it is for the good - I don't mind. :-)


Spaz I think what he is trying to say is that there are procedures that must be followed that entail lead time. If the F-35B was in the cards you would have seen advanced planning for it already. Stop beating another dead horse.

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2009, 08:19
by spazsinbad
Thumper3181, I can understand what 'gf0012-aust' is saying, to me though it is irrelevant. What is planned today for the RAN has no relevance to this thread 'the merits of small ski jump carriers for USMC and JSF-Bs with that idea taken to the RAN as described on the first page'. Whether or not these are 'planned' has the same relevance to the 'plan' (non-existent at moment) for the USMC to get dedicated ski jump carriers (perhaps similar to RN CVFs). The thread got bogged down in stuff about current USMC flat decks and what cannot be done. My interest is what can be done in future and my interest will continue to be down that track. If this is a boring thread for you - then stay away. Your horse may be dead - mine is the one in the desert with no name. :-)

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2009, 08:32
by gf0012-aust
spazsinbad wrote:Thumper3181, I can understand what 'gf0012-aust' is saying, to me though it is irrelevant. What is planned today for the RAN has no relevance to this thread 'the merits of small ski jump carriers for USMC and JSF-Bs with that idea taken to the RAN as described on the first page'.


hmm, I was directly responding to this:

spazsinbad wrote:Because the RN FAA are obviously smart, learning & planning how to operate the JSF-B - even before it is flying, the RAN can learn from their experience for their own future. I'll admit that most likely it would take a third specially outfitted LHD to operate JSF-Bs in the RAN likely with RAAF pilots but it is not in the realm of the impossible. Unlike some understanding what this thread is supposed to be about.

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2009, 09:39
by spazsinbad
gf, to my understanding you were going on and on about process and not why it is not a good idea for the RAN to have JSF-Bs on another LHD in the future. One sentence could encompass a present fact that there is no current plan, or forseeable plan, for such an item (you had me at NO). My interest would be 'why is it not a good idea' and following on 'why is there no plan'? :-) It is boring for some to learn about other countries - I can understand that. However nothing is boring to me except naysayers who give no reason for their nays than "every one says it is not happening". So what. It has been interesting for me to find various news items describing how for a long time the RN FAA has been pursuing their CVF concepts, preparing for JSF-Bs. Very inspiring stuff - bravo the RN FAA (BZ for the NavAv types).

Plans are good but plans are not the be all and end all. History shows what happens to plans. Plans show what not to do when different circumstances arise. I'll keep a keen eye on RN FAA and USMC and others operating JSF-Bs. Good luck to 'em. :-)

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2009, 10:53
by gf0012-aust
spazsinbad wrote:gf, to my understanding you were going on and on about process and not why it is not a good idea for the RAN to have JSF-Bs on another LHD in the future. One sentence could encompass a present fact that there is no current plan, or forseeable plan, for such an item (you had me at NO).


I was going on about the realities of the ADF - and in particular the RAN. The woulda coulda shoulda debates still need to have a reality check. Otherwise we would all be breaking out the photon torpedoes... :)

spazsinbad wrote:My interest would be 'why is it not a good idea' and following on 'why is there no plan'? :-)


Assets are procured because there is tactical merit to do so within the multitude of strategic scenarios that we create to deal with likely and possible conflicts. The scenarios are tri-service - and often include people who have done long exchanges with our partners (and are usually sent off because they are part of some dream team recognised at some recent point in their career that they are forward thinkers etc... My frustration can bubble up when there appears to be a subcutaneous view that no one on the hill has remotely thought about things like fixed wing combat air for a lazarused FAA - and that if its so simple to see on the internet then by jimminy the tactical blackshoes must be asleep or not doing their job. Anyone who's been involved with this kind of issue knows that this is not even remotely so.

spazsinbad wrote:It is boring for some to learn about other countries - I can understand that. However nothing is boring to me except naysayers who give no reason for their nays than "every one says it is not happening". So what. It has been interesting for me to find various news items describing how for a long time the RN FAA has been pursuing their CVF concepts, preparing for JSF-Bs. Very inspiring stuff - bravo the RN FAA (BZ for the NavAv types).


Spaz, I spent the last 10 years overseas dealing with a number of different militaries/navies. This isn't boring for me and I'm more than interested in what our allies do because it directly impacts on my job - so I hope you don't assume that I have a sheltered view of technology use within other militaries.

I am however very big on reality checked conversations. Its interesting that you praise the UK on their forward thinking when they've got people out here trying to pick up on some of our procurement processes because their's are "busted". Similarly Ashton Carter will be in Aust in the next 2 months to look at procurement modelling done in Oz as the Executive in the US are about to make sweeping changes with how they expect US companies to play in future projects - the US Exec consider that some of our modelling has merit.

None of this stuff is done in a vacuum.

spazsinbad wrote:Plans are good but plans are not the be all and end all. History shows what happens to plans. Plans show what not to do when different circumstances arise. I'll keep a keen eye on RN FAA and USMC and others operating JSF-Bs. Good luck to 'em. :-)


I'm curious as to how recent your experience with mil planning is - because everything we do is based around strategic and tactical vignettes - even those that are unlikely are planned for. No gear is bought without going through the user community and run by on potential usage.

Heaven help that we went back to procurement practices of even 6 years ago - let alone the frantic 70's and awful 80's where the only rigour was making sure things were on an asset list. There is almost zero relationship to procurement then and how we do it now. having worked with US, UK and some of the Euros I can assure you that we all have pretty similar processes on assessment - and we all share information about capabilities.

platforms are purchased because they meet a tactical and strategic imperative - the govt (and both sides of politics) expects us to do more with less. they certainly won't let us go out and gravy train capability. you only have to look at whos suffering at the moment to see that a few countries are pruning their own wishlists, so to buy a capability which is not regarded as tactically or strategically essential is a quick way to lose budgets.

/back on topic.

AFAIK (having spoken to other JSF program participants) the USMC is not after a mixed fleet. It would go against their core operational imprimature which is interfacing with the USN at various levels. the touchstone on all these debates lies with logistics. If the loggie train is going to be more complicated, then you need a damn good reason to travel that road.

SecDef is no different from DefMin as far as those issues go.

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2009, 11:54
by spazsinbad
gf0012-aust, I have no problem admitting that my time was for ten years finishing 35 years ago in the 'frantic 70s' as you put it. :-) [Extra Edit: I had assumed from our e-mail conversation that you were aware of my RAN experience? To be clear I have not been involved with any military procurement, so how can I comment except as a receiver/user of those goods so procured. Being a jet pilot - mostly A4G Skyhawk - I had a lot of 'beefs' about some decisions, as you might well imagine and have been an interested onlooker ever since - a "LollyGagger" in the vernacular.]

I might ask where were you in the SeaSprite debacle and why did that drag on for so long. I guess the US can learn a lot from that procurement NOT. Interesting vague comment in your last para about USMC not having a mixed fleet. I'll assume you refer to a JSF-B only fleet. Good on 'em. Buga the USN. :-) Might mean that smaller carriers might be in the pipeline if money is tight for the USN nuke carrier navy. I'm not really that interested in what they do though. Just a random thought thrown in.

Planning is not the problem. Implementing plans without adequate money becomes the problem - mixed in with political interference. I gather in the SeaSprite example that 'political' was main factor to continue after reason for purchase changed; and then 'political' not PRACTICAL when that sorry saga dragged on for a decade - without result - and a Billion Dollars lost. Nice result. Congratulations. I don't hold you personally responsible though. :-)

So - not having been involved in the Great Canberra BoonDoggle, I have a point of view only from an operational perspective. Some of that perspective can be seen in a free Video DVD download at: http://www.a4ghistory.com/ The other material on same page has been mentioned before; so I won't mention it again. Don't want to scare the dead horses. :-) Oh in my last year in the Navy I saw some different perspective being involved in the Turana project. Great fun - pity it did not work out.

Despite your explanation which is welcome and perhaps vaguely encouraging - I don't buy that much has changed 'procurement wise'. Still same old same old. No reflection on your input but just the nature of things run by humans. Mix in the politicians and it all goes off on a new direction overnight. What happened to suddenly enable the wonderful Super Hornet buy? I'll await the next plan, I'm prepared to be surprised. :-)

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2009, 12:38
by gf0012-aust
spazsinbad wrote:gf0012-aust, I have no problem admitting that my time was for ten years finishing 35 years ago in the 'frantic 70s' as you put it. :-) I might ask where were you in the SeaSprite debacle and why did that drag on for so long. I guess the US can learn a lot from that procurement NOT. Interesting vague comment in your last para about USMC not having a mixed fleet. I'll assume you refer to a JSF-B only fleet. Good on 'em. Buga the USN. :-) Might mean that smaller carriers might be in the pipeline if money is tight for the USN nuke carrier navy. I'm not really that interested in what they do though. Just a random thought thrown in.


you're confusing me now - the last series of thread responses you indicated that you were interested in the potential for USMC etc to run stumpies as it might have a bearing on other forces to do same...

spazsinbad wrote:Planning is not the problem. Implementing plans without adequate money becomes the problem - mixed in with political interference. I gather in the SeaSprite example that 'political' was main factor to continue after reason for purchase changed; and then 'political' not PRACTICAL when that sorry saga dragged on for a decade - without result - and a Billion Dollars lost. Nice result. Congratulations. I don't hold you personally responsible though. :-)



I think you missed the bit I stated prev that I've spent the last 10 years offshore. If you care to look at Seasprite in all its glory you'll see that there is no shortage of reasons as to why it derailed - scope creep being the obvious one. You are aware of course that approval for these projects at every critical path is via Govt? you are aware that there are any number of stakeholders that can veto the project if they have concerns at every critical path point? I'd suggest that researching how and why Seasprite derailed is something a little more complicated than whats goes into the mass media. A lot of the blame for the excruciating death of Seasprite can be sheeted straight home to the capability sponsors. Seasprite was a classic example of stuffing too much technology into the wrong platform due to an earlier procurement deciision to buy different skimmers which never eventuated because one of our partners turned cold. ie it has its roots in a skimmer purchase for a non allied partner who ran out of money and we elected to run with it anyway (and no, its not NZ).

You are aware I assume of the role of the sponsors (uniforms), the managers, the stakeholders, the security council and the govt at various critical paths? If you're unaware then its by the by as I assume then that your first hand exp is being backfilled by the media - that is the same media that refers to C17's as "bombers" and HMAS Sydney as a "battleship". The ubiquitous M113 is usually promoted to being a tank (which should make Sparks/Meyers et al extremely warm inside)

I'd add that planning is a problem if its not relevant to doctrine - and if its not relevant to the force structure and capability sought throughout the capability life cycle.


spazsinbad wrote:So - not having been involved in the Great Canberra BoonDoggle, I have a point of view only from an operational perspective. Some of that perspective can be seen in a free Video DVD download at: http://www.a4ghistory.com/ The other material on same page has been mentioned before; so I won't mention it again. Don't want to scare the dead horses. :-) Oh in my last year in the Navy I saw some different perspective being involved in the Turana project. Great fun - pity it did not work out.


if we're playing the experience card then I've worked on sig management, ships, UDT, aircraft evaluations and weapons systems evaluations - so I'm not a complete novice :)

spazsinbad wrote:
Despite your explanation which is welcome and perhaps vaguely encouraging - I don't buy that much has changed 'procurement wise'. Still same old same old. No reflection on your input but just the nature of things run by humans. Mix in the politicians and it all goes off on a new direction overnight. What happened to suddenly enable the wonderful Super Hornet buy? I'll await the next plan, I'm prepared to be surprised. :-)


I'm not sure why you can continue to claim that nothing has changed in procurement when it is self evident to anyone who has to work in it. The last 18months alone are akin to being on a different planet. If you're unaware of what processes bind the decisions and have been imposed upon Defence, then its worth pausing before commenting.

I am not sure whether you are reading my responses - the Shornet decision was not "overnight" - it was a 2 year decision - and that was with significant groundwork done to even fast track that decision. In fact, I can point to sites where I commented on the decision in Apr 2006 - and I'd been informed some 4 months before hand by colleagues both in Oz and in the US. that would make it a 3.5 year cycle. (and in real terms, thats slower than the JSF decision)


anyway I'm now passing on this thread as its going nowhere quickly.

I suspect that the mods might exercise the sword soon if it stays off course.

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2009, 12:58
by spazsinbad
gf, this thread veered off course a long time ago. To me it is interesting what you claim. Output is another thing. Whatever.
To get back on topic perhaps here is what Mr. Beedall things about some 'heat' issues with JSF-Bs amongst other things:

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf1-24.htm

"Unlike the Invincible class, CVF will be fitted with a Jet Blast Deflectors (JBD). This is necessary because of the very high and potentially dangerous and destructive thrust that the F-135 engine in the JSF generates when running at maximum thrust for launch. It is hoped that with modern materials it will be possible to avoid the cost and complexity of having to use sea water to cool these - the expected use or otherwise of afterburners during launch will be a big factor in this decision.
...JBD position with "hold-back" restraints about 150 metres back from the ski-jump style bow.... The take-off run was considered sufficient for F-35B's to be launched at maximum take-off weight (MTOW) given reasonable (30kts) actual wind over deck (WOD)... But in addition the extended centre- line flight deck configuration allowed for occasional very long (over 200m) take-off runs from an unrestrained starting point right aft (like Harrier's on the current Invincible's) for heavily loaded aircraft in low WOD conditions. Some changes in this configuration may occur with the reduction in platform size.
....
Work was also carried out to map the heat and acoustic footprints on deck. Noise is a major issue for the CVF design as health and safety considerations restrict the allowable tolerance to high levels of acoustic energy. The Jan 2003 design featured two vertical landing pad for F-35B's.
Fish says that CVF and JSF offer the chance to improve STOVL operation significantly over today's Sea Harrier FA.2/Harrier GR.7A. Options for the vertical landing element include approaching over the ships stern rather than coming alongside and manoeuvring over the landing spot. This offers an improved landing rate and addresses environmental issues - such as the jet exhaust down blast associated with landing on. The F-35's improved STOVL handling and control will be a factor in allowing this, while the aircrafts electro-optical sensors offer opportunities to present the pilot with improved cueing.
During cost reduction efforts in the second half of 2003, the flight deck arrangements for CVF were considerably simplified, this was partially imposed by the reduced size of the ship. ...only a single JBD is now fitted on the axial runway, beside the aft island. The bow area was now split, with the ski jump ski jump limited to the port side, this has the significant benefit of allowing additional [although rather exposed] deck parking to starboard. The special landing pads for F-35B VL's also seem to have been dropped. The flight deck has been narrowed aft, making the provision for an angle landing lane very obvious. The Delta flight deck area is about 4 acres (nearly three times that of an Invincible-class).
Reports emerged in Q1 2005 indicated that the design team was considering the feasibility of adopting the shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) technique. This offered some advantages, particularly in hot weather conditions, but issues such as bolters and fuel reserves also had to be addressed and the final decision was apparently negative." [Last sentence out of date today. Later on same page there is more up to date info about 'runny landings'.]

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2009, 13:03
by spazsinbad
gf, to get back to your procurement experience. That is news to me about 'we were going to buy Super Hornets all along' when specifically asked about this topic the CDF replied it had been looked at and decision was against. Yes youse guys looked at it and I understand how they could be bought so quickly (given reversal of decision NOT to buy - to BUY). Sure this is way off topic but it goes to the twists and turns of Oz procurement; which you claim has changed recently. Good to know. We'll see eh. I understand that people do their best with decisions taken and information given at the time; but nothing is set in stone.

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2009, 16:15
by spazsinbad
Wot Bill Sweetman has to say about the 'hot' issues with Osprey and Lightning II onboard:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... d=blogDest

Hot Hot Hot Posted by Bill Sweetman at 11/18/2009 7:38 AM CST

"US Navy amphibious ships operating MV-22B Osprey tilt-rotors will need major structural repairs after less than half their planned service lives, according to a newly released Navy document, unless a new Deck Thermal Management System (DTMS) can be developed to protect the decks from exhaust heat. The only other alternative identified so far is a heavy structural modification to the deck. The JSF is considered likely to cause similar problems.

The problem is caused when the MV-22 is preparing for a mission and parked on deck with rotors turning. The result is localized heating and expansion, which causes visible buckling of the deck after ten minutes. According to the Office of Naval Research document, announcing a joint ONR/Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) program (DARPA announcement here) to search for solutions, repeated buckling is expected to cause deck failure at 40 per cent of planned ship life.

The JSF presents a slightly different problem. Its exhaust is hotter and faster, but in normal operations will not be directed at the deck for more than two minutes. Nevertheless, the Navy expects "a severe thermo-mechanical impact" on ship decks, no doubt an immense surprise: who could possibly have thought that an 18000-pound-thrust nozzle, blasting straight down at the deck at a distance measured in inches, might be a problem?

ONR has teamed with DARPA to see if anyone out there can come up with a Rumplesnitz!-type solution that will make the fire-breathing dragons go away. It's not easy. The Navy wants a passive solution (no coolant pumps, for example) that can be laid down on the existing deck, and is no more than an inch thick so as not to complicate operations. It has to include an anti-skid coating, and as well as being able to dissipate heat, it has to survive the mechanical stress of aircraft movements and the JSF's blast.

Reading the Navy and DARPA documents, it seems that what is envisioned is a layer of heat-pipes buried in a mat bonded to the deck, designed to rapidly spread the heat from the spots under the exhaust across a wider area. The goal is to keep the underlying deck structure from reaching more than 200 deg. F after 90 minutes of a parked V-22 or 120 seconds of exposure to a JSF exhaust.

The Navy expects to award a contract or contract for DTMS development in October 2010, conduct land-based tests in 2013 and certify the technology for full-scale development by 2014."

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2009, 05:37
by spazsinbad
A recent prize winning essay for 'Proceedings' has this to say FWIW:

http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedin ... RY_ID=1838

Extract from "Buy Fords, Not Ferraris" by Commander Henry J. Hendrix, U.S. Navy

"Another critical component of the surge force will be the Expeditionary Strike Groups and their light amphibious carriers. Long considered to be the central core of the amphibious force, these highly capable aircraft carriers can serve in new roles within surge operations. Assuming one is in dry-dock for maintenance, a force of ten LHAs can provide nine small flattops for surge operations. Five of them will go to sea with their embarked Marine Expeditionary Units serving as their primary strike assets (again, the assumption would be that two of the MEUs would either be deploying or returning from deployment at any given time) while the remaining available LHAs deploy with each of their decks and hangars populated by two squadrons of STOVL Joint Strike Fighters.

The four LPDs and four LSDs that would have normally deployed with the Joint Strike Fighter-configured LHAs can be allocated to provide such maritime lift as necessary to carry out the Marine Corps' mission. Such a configuration would provide the naval services with a wider, distributed, and more survivable strike capability and joint forcible entry options in an increasingly anti-access environment. The new LHA(R) America-class ships, lacking a well-deck, would seem particularly suited for this STOVL strike carrier role."

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2009, 07:50
by Thumper3181
spazsinbad wrote:A recent prize winning essay for 'Proceedings' has this to say FWIW:

http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedin ... RY_ID=1838

Extract from "Buy Fords, Not Ferraris" by Commander Henry J. Hendrix, U.S. Navy

"Another critical component of the surge force will be the Expeditionary Strike Groups and their light amphibious carriers. Long considered to be the central core of the amphibious force, these highly capable aircraft carriers can serve in new roles within surge operations. Assuming one is in dry-dock for maintenance, a force of ten LHAs can provide nine small flattops for surge operations. Five of them will go to sea with their embarked Marine Expeditionary Units serving as their primary strike assets (again, the assumption would be that two of the MEUs would either be deploying or returning from deployment at any given time) while the remaining available LHAs deploy with each of their decks and hangars populated by two squadrons of STOVL Joint Strike Fighters.

The four LPDs and four LSDs that would have normally deployed with the Joint Strike Fighter-configured LHAs can be allocated to provide such maritime lift as necessary to carry out the Marine Corps' mission. Such a configuration would provide the naval services with a wider, distributed, and more survivable strike capability and joint forcible entry options in an increasingly anti-access environment. The new LHA(R) America-class ships, lacking a well-deck, would seem particularly suited for this STOVL strike carrier role."


Did you see who wrote the article? Do you understand he has a certain (incorrect) point of view. Did you read this article also?
http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedin ... RY_ID=2023

Using Gators as light carriers is a real bad idea. The are designed to move Marines and material ashore as quick as possible. They are too slow and they do not carry enough fuel or ordinance to make a good light carrier. Their slow speed and lack of combat persistence would not be much help in a real naval air battle. If the Gators mission is no longer valid then build fewer Gators but no one should delude themselves into thinking that this can make up for fielding smaller air wings or fewer carriers.

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2009, 08:25
by spazsinbad
Have not read the link but I saw the point (out of many in original article) that: "The new LHA(R) America-class ships, lacking a well-deck, would seem particularly suited for this STOVL strike carrier role." However I'm not advocating anything other than the idea that in these tough economic times a small USMC STOVL carrier or two seems like a good idea - as I hope that article by Hendrix elaborates. It seems that the path down to more and more Super Carriers will be blocked after the one abuilding now. I'm no seer though. Let the USMC have all the things they have no but not compromise on having suitable light attack carriers for their use; with backup as required from any Super Carriers around. Surely that seems to be an idea that the USMC would go for. Let them keep the Helo Gators and not mix in JSF-Bs. If it is too hard to do then it is too hard. Not my concern really.

The RAN / Army / RAAF will learn how useful the new 2 LHDs will be. The RAAF will learn how to use the conventional landing (A or C) model JSFs and over time something else might come of that combined experience. However that is an Australian concern. We will look to any operator of JSFs to learn from and in the case of any JSF-B notions we know who to look to including the Spanish builders / users of the LHDs.

Surely with some experience in Australia from above conditions something new will emerge.

Have read the link suggested earlier and recall without reading it again that it makes the points well for Super Carriers that USN has already. However when there is no money for more - what next. As I say - not my concern.

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2009, 11:18
by gf0012-aust
Thumper3181 wrote:
Using Gators as light carriers is a real bad idea. The are designed to move Marines and material ashore as quick as possible. They are too slow and they do not carry enough fuel or ordinance to make a good light carrier. Their slow speed and lack of combat persistence would not be much help in a real naval air battle.


The author seems to have ignored the cardinal issue with any carrier required to undertake fixed wing combat air delivery.

its about bunkerage volume and design before its about having a large flat deck.

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2009, 14:50
by bjr1028
Thumper3181 wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:A recent prize winning essay for 'Proceedings' has this to say FWIW:

http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedin ... RY_ID=1838

Extract from "Buy Fords, Not Ferraris" by Commander Henry J. Hendrix, U.S. Navy

"Another critical component of the surge force will be the Expeditionary Strike Groups and their light amphibious carriers. Long considered to be the central core of the amphibious force, these highly capable aircraft carriers can serve in new roles within surge operations. Assuming one is in dry-dock for maintenance, a force of ten LHAs can provide nine small flattops for surge operations. Five of them will go to sea with their embarked Marine Expeditionary Units serving as their primary strike assets (again, the assumption would be that two of the MEUs would either be deploying or returning from deployment at any given time) while the remaining available LHAs deploy with each of their decks and hangars populated by two squadrons of STOVL Joint Strike Fighters.

The four LPDs and four LSDs that would have normally deployed with the Joint Strike Fighter-configured LHAs can be allocated to provide such maritime lift as necessary to carry out the Marine Corps' mission. Such a configuration would provide the naval services with a wider, distributed, and more survivable strike capability and joint forcible entry options in an increasingly anti-access environment. The new LHA(R) America-class ships, lacking a well-deck, would seem particularly suited for this STOVL strike carrier role."


Did you see who wrote the article? Do you understand he has a certain (incorrect) point of view. Did you read this article also?
http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedin ... RY_ID=2023

Using Gators as light carriers is a real bad idea. The are designed to move Marines and material ashore as quick as possible. They are too slow and they do not carry enough fuel or ordinance to make a good light carrier. Their slow speed and lack of combat persistence would not be much help in a real naval air battle. If the Gators mission is no longer valid then build fewer Gators but no one should delude themselves into thinking that this can make up for fielding smaller air wings or fewer carriers.


The magazine in the Wasps and Tarawas is designed for helicopter munitions. In fact, during OIF they were sending the LCACs out to the stores ships to resupply them with ammo. Normal resupply methods weren't enough. If Harriers can do this, how would they keep JSF's sufficiently supplied with ordinance.

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2009, 15:06
by Thumper3181
gf0012-aust wrote:
Thumper3181 wrote:
Using Gators as light carriers is a real bad idea. The are designed to move Marines and material ashore as quick as possible. They are too slow and they do not carry enough fuel or ordinance to make a good light carrier. Their slow speed and lack of combat persistence would not be much help in a real naval air battle.


The author seems to have ignored the cardinal issue with any carrier required to undertake fixed wing combat air delivery.

its about bunkerage volume and design before its about having a large flat deck.

I think it's interesting to note that the author's apparent expertise is in helicopters and book writing. So it's not surprise he knows little about naval architecture and carrier operations.

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2009, 06:13
by dport
spazsinbad wrote:A recent prize winning essay for 'Proceedings' has this to say FWIW:

http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedin ... RY_ID=1838

Extract from "Buy Fords, Not Ferraris" by Commander Henry J. Hendrix, U.S. Navy

"Another critical component of the surge force will be the Expeditionary Strike Groups and their light amphibious carriers. Long considered to be the central core of the amphibious force, these highly capable aircraft carriers can serve in new roles within surge operations. Assuming one is in dry-dock for maintenance, a force of ten LHAs can provide nine small flattops for surge operations. Five of them will go to sea with their embarked Marine Expeditionary Units serving as their primary strike assets (again, the assumption would be that two of the MEUs would either be deploying or returning from deployment at any given time) while the remaining available LHAs deploy with each of their decks and hangars populated by two squadrons of STOVL Joint Strike Fighters.

The four LPDs and four LSDs that would have normally deployed with the Joint Strike Fighter-configured LHAs can be allocated to provide such maritime lift as necessary to carry out the Marine Corps' mission. Such a configuration would provide the naval services with a wider, distributed, and more survivable strike capability and joint forcible entry options in an increasingly anti-access environment. The new LHA(R) America-class ships, lacking a well-deck, would seem particularly suited for this STOVL strike carrier role."


I read the article when it came out. He made some good points. Other points were woefully lacking. Just one mid-grade officer's opinion is all it really is.

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2009, 08:25
by spazsinbad
Some 2001 thinking from UK: (PDF made from a series of web pages at)

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... ntent;col1

Future Carrier Aviation Options: A British Perspective Naval War College Review, Summer, 2001 by David J. Jordan

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2009, 00:19
by spazsinbad
"Harrier Carrier" picture thread here: [h/t to 'New Wars' "correspondent" D. E. Reddick - http://newwars.wordpress.com/2009/11/23 ... /#comments]

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/sh ... p?t=146196
______________

Other carrier types: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/sh ... p?t=144822

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2009, 13:39
by spazsinbad
The Bedford Array will enable Shipboard Rolling Vertical Landings SRVL. Explained at various places: http://content.yudu.com/A10pvz/WTJan200 ... ces/28.htm "Warship Technology Jan 2009"
specifically
http://content.yudu.com/A10pvz/WTJan200 ... ces/28.htm
&
http://content.yudu.com/A10pvz/WTJan200 ... ces/29.htm
_____________________________

Janes Defence Weekly 04 March 2009: (graphic from URL below)

http://www.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=3 ... v=sub&p=28
&
http://www.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=3 ... v=sub&p=29

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2009, 02:08
by spazsinbad
From the 'Janes Defence Weekly' article above:
[EDIT] Another easier to access story here: http://www.navynews.co.uk/news/345-vaac ... uture.aspx

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2009, 12:16
by spazsinbad
Vertical Landing in Simulator (burn a hole in the deck) for JSF-B: 'Joker, Joker'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkWuB9wA_18 (19Mb .FLV video)

"Lockheed Martin shows off the F-35 flight simulator to a group of trade press reporters visiting the factory in Fort Worth, Texas on July 28 2009."

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2009, 22:45
by dragorv
Nice video! I've always enjoyed seeing those simulations.

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2009, 03:30
by spazsinbad
US Marines eye UK JSF shipborne technique DATE:15/06/07 SOURCE:Flight International

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... nique.html

"A shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) technique being developed by the UK for the Lockheed Martin F-35B is being eyed by the US Marine Corps as a way to facilitate operation of short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) Joint Strike Fighters from US Navy aircraft carriers.
The F-35B is scheduled to replace USMC Boeing F/A-18s and concerns have arisen that integration of the STOVL JSF with conventional US Navy fighters will disrupt carrier landing operations.
The F-35B lacks a hook and will have to approach the ship, hover and land vertically, potentially slowing deck operations.
The rolling vertical landing technique is being developed to increase the F-35B's bringback payload when operating from the UK's planned CVF large-deck carriers.
An SRVL approach exploits the ability of the STOVL JSF to use vectored thrust to slow the aircraft while retaining the benefit of wingborne lift.
For the USMC, the technique would allow a conventional approach to a short landing on the carrier and could ease integration of the F-35B with US Navy F/A-18E/Fs. [or JSF-Cs]
"We strongly support what the UK is doing on rolling landings," says Lt Gen John Castellaw, USMC deputy commandant for aviation. Studies on how the F-35B will be operated continue, but SRVL "appears to be a viable option", he says
The F-35B will also replace the USMC's Boeing AV-8Bs, but these normally operate alongside helicopters from assault carriers too small for conventional fighters.
"We continue to work with the navy on this," Castellaw says, pointing out the STOVL Harrier has been operated successfully alongside US Navy fighters as part of an air wing the carrier USS Roosevelt."

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2009, 05:43
by bjr1028
The landing part isn't that hard, its the aircraft needing 550ft to take off, but only having 300. Remember, unlike the Harrier the F-35B needs a JBD. Operating F-35Bs would require a 5th JBD in the middle of the angled deck 250ft behind the port bow cat. As such, they would require their own landing and takeoff deck configuration separate from other carrier aircraft.

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2009, 06:22
by spazsinbad
bjr1028, you make the claim about 'restrictions'. I don't see it that way. I can envisage a 'smart' JSF takeoff that will use the engine/control 'computer control smarts' to minimise hazards to the deck and maximise takeoff performance in the deck space available. Just because the CVF will have a JBD does not mean one is required - though perhaps in the CVF circumstances it is useful (obviously a smaller carrier). My Harrier contacts question whether the JBD will be necessary but early days for any operational protocol to emerge publically for these sorts of potential operations on CVF or Conventional USN carriers.

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2009, 08:42
by spazsinbad
Hmmm, maybe this 'joint USN/USMC operating environment' is going to disappear anyway:

Navy, Corps shelve shared missions boost By Chris Amos - Staff writer Posted : Monday Aug 11, 2008

"A Navy and Marine Corps plan to integrate Navy and Marine strike fighter squadrons has been put on hold, replaced by a “capabilities-based scheduling approach” that one defense analyst says is a tacit admission that integrating strike fighter communities was a bad idea to begin with.

In 2003, then-Navy Secretary Gordon England, then-Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Vern Clark and then-Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Jones inked an agreement to place a Marine F/A-18 Hornet squadron in each of the Navy’s 10 carrier air wings and its three Hornet squadrons assigned to ground-based, close-air support missions normally flown by Marines, starting in 2012.

The agreement was updated in 2005 and again earlier this year. Each time, Navy and Marine officials strayed further from its original objective.

Marine spokesman Maj. Eric Dent said the need to provide close-air support for ground units in Iraq forced Navy Department officials to pull back from the plan because attempts to adhere to the agreement had “significant negative effects on operations and readiness.”

For now, officials have settled for having a minimum of two Marine Hornet squadrons assigned to carrier air wings, with an additional Marine squadron assigned to a carrier air wing for every Navy squadron fulfilling a unit deployment program. Because there is now just one Navy squadron assigned to a UDP, just three of 13 Marine Hornet squadrons are assigned to carrier air wings. An additional Marine Hornet squadron should be assigned to a carrier air wing by 2012, Dent said.

Another Marine Hornet squadron is permanently forward deployed to Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, Japan, and two additional squadrons are at Iwakuni as part of a UDP. A fourth squadron is deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

In contrast, just one of 15 Navy legacy Hornet squadrons is forward deployed for a shore-based mission — and that is flown from a base in Japan. None of the four Marine Prowler squadrons operates from a carrier, the Marine Corps has yet to buy a single Super Hornet, and the Corps remains committed to a version of the F-35 that will not be able to fly from aircraft carriers — all facts that lead defense analyst Loren Thompson to believe the Navy Department was never serious about tactical air integration.

But Dent insisted that Marine officials support the spirit and substance of tactical air integration.

“This is something that [deputy commandant for aviation] Lt. Gen. [George] Trautman is passionate about,” Dent said. “We are going to live up to our end of the bargain. He thinks it is important to have Marine squadrons embarked upon strike groups, because that is part of our naval character.

“We, both Marine and Navy, have to use a capabilities-based scheduling approach to provide responsive, integrated support to our war fighters. [It will be] globally sourced, across the Department of the Navy, as the strategic environment changes,” he said.

Naval Air Forces spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Charlie Brown said the Navy also is committed to tactical air integration, but stressed that the 2003 memorandum called for continuing updates as the Defense Department requirements change.

Thompson, of the Lexington Institute, said the tactical air integration plan had a different, unstated motivation: to allow the Navy Department to spend less money buying the Hornet’s eventual replacement, the F-35 Lightning, and use that money for other programs.

“It was an excuse for cutting 400 aircraft out of the buy of the F-35,” Thompson said, adding that those savings could make the program more acceptable to lawmakers while allowing the Navy Department to fund other priorities. “The idea being there would be synergies that would allow them to do the same job with less aircraft. They saved a bunch of money by dreaming up a goofy idea that doesn’t work in the real world.”

Thompson said Marine and Navy aviators have different training and orientation, which means they are suited for different missions.

“There’s a very close integration between Marine ground fighters and Marine aviators,” he said. “The Navy aviators are into strike warfare, which is basically bombing from a distance.

“What the Marines are saying, based on experience in Iraq, is that there are operational limitations to integration. It looks better on paper than it works in practice,” Thompson said."

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2009, 23:23
by gf0012-aust
spazsinbad wrote:Hmmm, maybe this 'joint USN/USMC operating environment' is going to disappear anyway:


I attended a briefing on NCW issues given by Norman Friedman about 4 months ago.

He was somewhat disparaging and dismissive of Joint concepts and basically inidcated that trying to get the services to co-operate across common ground and playing nice in the same sandpit was not producing benefits. he regarded as something that was being idealogically pushed and not supported by actual events.

fundamentally his belief was that the services needed to be service centric and for central command not to try and turn them into a "jack of all trades - master of none" type construct.

much to the chagrine of some pilots in the room, he stated that the only service that got the concept of "joint" right was the USN.

There were quite a few squirming in their seats at that comment, :)

He's an interesting man, irrespective of ones doctrinal belief system

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2009, 23:37
by spazsinbad
gf0012=aust, interesting - thanks. http://www.gvsu.edu/english/cummings/caps.htm Is this an influence also? :-) NO CAPS

"NOT "e. e. cummings" by Norman Friedman [Spring 1 (1992): 114-121]
It may at first seem of little import, but for a poet who paid such exacting attention to typography, it must be said once and for all that his name should be written and printed with the usual capital letters in their usual places: "E. E. Cummings.'' Let us dispose, first of all, of the usual reaction when his name is mentioned in conversation: "Oh, isn't he the poet who never uses capitals?"

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2009, 02:34
by spazsinbad
Ski Jump Explained (Forum Graphic):

http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachme ... 1259512375

'Obi Wan Russell': "I get asked to explain the ski jump regularly, since many seem unable to grasp the point. When you leave the end of the ramp, you will only be at about 80 knots and you aren't actually flying yet. But you are still accelerating and the ramp has converted some of your forward momentum into vertical thrust so you gain altitude whilst you are accelerating. Before you reach the top of the arc you will have reached true flying speed (about 130knots, and you will be at about 200ft)."

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthre ... 518&page=4

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2009, 02:37
by spazsinbad
Some wag has added a 'red ski jump for Xmas' to this USMC flat top:

USMC ski jump 'fitted': http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthre ... 518&page=4
&
http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/8493/rampu.png (3Mbs LARGE)

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2009, 21:42
by spazsinbad
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....

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2009, 03:22
by spazsinbad
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:

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2010, 20:48
by spazsinbad
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

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2010, 11:07
by spazsinbad
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)

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2010, 16:15
by bjr1028
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.

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2010, 07:01
by spazsinbad
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."

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2010, 07:10
by gf0012-aust
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.

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2010, 03:14
by spazsinbad
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.

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2010, 05:22
by gf0012-aust
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.

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2010, 06:13
by spazsinbad
I guess we will just have to amuse ourselves until it all blow(flie)s over then....

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2010, 14:46
by bjr1028
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.

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2010, 19:58
by gf0012-aust
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.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2010, 22:15
by spazsinbad
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."

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2010, 19:06
by spazsinbad
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

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2010, 01:45
by spazsinbad
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

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2010, 19:49
by spazsinbad
How USMC will deal with JSF-B heat issues:

Interim Technical Guidance (ITG 2010-01) Maintenance Hangar Design & Planning Guidance for F-35B or C:

http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/NAVFAC/INTCRIT/fy10_01.pdf (0.247Mb)

For USMC:

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2010, 12:56
by spazsinbad
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27000495/Bullhorn-64-8feb10 (1Mb PDF)

Pentagon Report
The issue wasn’t disclosed in Gilmore’s annual’s report released last week. That report said F-35 testing so far raised concerns that engine blasts from the carrier model and Marine Corps short-takeoff and vertical-landing versions could cause deck damage and injure personnel.
The F-35 is the Pentagon’s largest weapons program. The fiscal 2011 defense budget set for release Feb. 1 requests 42 fighters, up from 30 this year. As many as 20 jets are Navy and Marine Corp versions.
Kent said all design changes to strengthen the center fuselage will be incorporated before parts are made for the first production F-35Cs in the fourth initial production contract now under negotiation for 30 aircraft.
This is only a development-phase issue “and a minor one at that,” Kent said. “This is part of our normal airframe development process, and is not a concern for the Navy.”
Cheryl Limrick, a spokesman for F-35 military program manager Marine Corp. Major General David Heinz, didn’t return an e-mail seeking comment today.
The Navy plans to buy as many as 680 carrier and short-take- off versions of 2,456 planned jets.
Deck Damage
The Pentagon’s Gilmore said in his report that the engine and power-systems’ exhaust on the Navy and Marine versions is powerful enough to pose a threat to carrier personnel. The blasts also may damage shields used to deflect heat on the deck, including on the CVN-21 carrier, the Navy’s most expensive warship.
“Early analyses of findings indicate that integration of the F-35 into the CVN-21 will result in damage to the carrier deck environment and will adversely affect hangar deck operations,” Gilmore wrote.
The Navy model’s exhaust area is larger than the Boeing planes’, making the jet-blast deflectors used during launch “vulnerable to warping and failure,” he wrote.
Exhaust from the Marine Corp version’s integrated power system deflect downward and may be “a hazard to flight deck refueling, munitions, personnel and equipment” located on catwalks, the report said.
Lockheed spokesman Chris Giesel said tests conducted with the JSF Program Office and the Navy “are showing positive results regarding compatibility of the F-35’s exhaust with carrier decks and tarmac surfaces. The study will conclude in spring 2010.
Justin Fishel
- FOXNews.com
- February 01, 2010

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2010, 22:07
by spazsinbad
Spanish & RAN LHD eye candy cutaway (with Harriers) you can imagine the F-35Bs...

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2010, 19:16
by spazsinbad
Earlier a mention was made of USN testing of 'Ski Jumps' for USN aircraft. Here is a USN Hornet 'jumping for joy' - what else? :lol:

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2010, 05:51
by geogen
spazsinbad wrote:Spanish & RAN LHD eye candy cutaway (with Harriers) you can imagine the F-35Bs...


IMHO, USN should outsource at least 50% of her future ship selection contracts to either Spanish or Turkish naval building (of whatever type or model). They seemingly know how to both conceive of modern ship designs and then build them, at a reasonable price. Highest respects to LM and GD.

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2010, 22:03
by spazsinbad
F-35 sim demonstrator says that the nozzle goes to 103 degrees during decelleration inflight to hover. Then later shows the thrust vector at 90 degrees. This info included for those wondering about 'reverse thrust' for SRVL landing for example: http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/perabrown/4344 (48Mb .MP4 video)

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2010, 04:44
by Corsair1963
geogen wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Spanish & RAN LHD eye candy cutaway (with Harriers) you can imagine the F-35Bs...


IMHO, USN should outsource at least 50% of her future ship selection contracts to either Spanish or Turkish naval building (of whatever type or model). They seemingly know how to both conceive of modern ship designs and then build them, at a reasonable price. Highest respects to LM and GD.



Like the US can afford to export more work overseas! :roll:

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2010, 05:23
by dport
geogen wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Spanish & RAN LHD eye candy cutaway (with Harriers) you can imagine the F-35Bs...


IMHO, USN should outsource at least 50% of her future ship selection contracts to either Spanish or Turkish naval building (of whatever type or model). They seemingly know how to both conceive of modern ship designs and then build them, at a reasonable price. Highest respects to LM and GD.

I wouldn't make that decision based on some glossy sales brochures. There are very good reasons why our ship designs cost more. For instance, take a walk through a Meko frigate. Then take a walk through our OHP class ships. Then think about which one you would want to be in if it got hit.

In general, with a few exceptions, foreign designs are not as survivable. Nor are they as flexible. Most LHDs outside the US are designed for operations other than war and low intensity conflicts. Our ships can do all that and fight a real war.

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2010, 03:43
by spazsinbad
For the tinny foreign vessels at least the heat issue will not melt their deck candy:

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =AME&s=AIR

"We are very excited about the arrival of JSF," Marine Corps commandant Gen. James Conway said, while acknowledging development problems with the aircraft. "While we're hearing some somber things about the JSF, heat and noise [signatures] are in the general range of the legacy aircraft" the JSF will replace."

And some more info about the Olde Skie Jumpie Testing is added below:

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2010, 11:57
by spazsinbad
Date Posted: 11-Dec-2008 International Defence Review

http://militarynuts.com/index.php?showtopic=1507&st=120

Preparing for take-off: UK ramps up F-35 carrier integration effort

"A range of simulation, modelling, risk-reduction and technology-demonstration activities are under way to optimise the safety and operability of the ship/air interface between the UK's new aircraft carriers and the F-35B Joint Strike Fighters that will operate from them. Richard Scott reports

BAE Systems' lead test pilot Graham Tomlinson is at the controls of the F-35B Lightning II, the short take-off, vertical-landing (STOVL) variant of the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35). Up ahead he sees the wake, and then the large grey bulk, of HMS Queen Elizabeth, the first of the UK Royal Navy's (RN's) two new 65,000-tonne displacement Future Carrier (CVF) vessels.

Flying to Visual Flight Rules (VFR), Tomlinson is in a 'slot' designated by the ship's Flyco (Flying Control) as he prepares to recover to the carrier deck. Overflying the starboard side of Queen Elizabeth at an altitude of 600 ft in wingborne flight, he then banks the aircraft to roll out on a reciprocal heading (approximately 1.5 n miles abeam the ship) to perform the visual circuit.

Towards the end of the turn, having throttled back to bring the aircraft to a speed below 250 kt, Tomlinson presses a single switch on the right-hand sidestick controller to transition the F-35B to STOVL flight mode.

During conversion, the doors covering the lift fan and surrounding the three-bearing swivel duct automatically open and both propulsion effectors vector to an appropriate angle.

At the end of the conversion, the aircraft is configured for semi-jetborne flight. Tomlinson selects landing gear down in readiness for recovery.

He now initiates a final descending turn shortly after passing the stern of Queen Elizabeth, rolling out onto the same heading as the ship at a range of approximately 1.5 n miles. Using the glide slope and line-up cues provided by the ship's visual landing aids, together with helmet-mounted display symbology, the aircraft comes onto a three-degree decelerating approach before being brought to a stabilised hover, at the same forward speed as the carrier, alongside the designated deck landing spot.

Tomlinson now translates laterally, from abeam, to reposition his aircraft over the landing spot, using the longitudinal and lateral deck markings for line-up (the correct hover height is indicated by the Height Indicator and Hover Aid Thermometer [HIHAT] fixed to the forward island).

The aircraft descends vertically onto the flight deck and once safely on board Tomlinson is directed to taxi clear of the landing runway to a specified parking spot.

Of course, it will be some years before the F-35B - the UK's preferred choice to meet its Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) requirement - commences first-of-class flying trials from Queen Elizabeth. Only a single F-35B development test aircraft (BF-1) has flown, and the first steel for Queen Elizabeth will not be cut until early 2009.

Even so, intensive work is already under way to de-risk the ship/air interface between CVF and JCA - notably the recovery manoeuvre and associated landing aids - through modelling, simulation, technology demonstration and risk reduction trials. In addition, wide-ranging studies have been performed to characterise, evaluate and define detailed aspects of the flight deck and aviation support infrastructure so as to optimise the safety and capability of the ship, aircraft and deck parties in what is a highly dynamic and potentially hazardous operating environment.

Management of the CVF/JCA ship/air interface is a joint endeavour between the Defence Equipment and Support organisation's JCA Integrated Project Team (IPT) and the CVF programme (delivered through the Aircraft Carrier Alliance [ACA]), with roles and responsibilities apportioned according to an internal business agreement. While the main human resource supporting this activity actually resides in the ACA, the JCA IPT holds the funding and is responsible for an integration contract flowed through to the Lockheed Martin-led Team F-35 via the US F-35 Program Office (JPO). The main rationale for this arrangement is that the JCA IPT already has a formal relationship with the JPO, whereas the ACA does not.

Commander Andy Lison, CVF Aviation Manager within the Ministry of Defence's (MoD's) Capital Ships Directorate, and today firmly embedded within the Aircraft Carrier Alliance (ACA), is conscious that the transition of the carrier programme from design to manufacture means that the time has come to take some critical decisions. "CVF will be the world's first big deck STOVL carrier, and the first ship to be designed around F-35," he points out, adding: "That presents us with both an opportunity and a challenge."

Touchpoint matrix
The opportunity comes from the ability to optimise the ship for the aircraft, while the challenge arises from the need to manage CVF and JCA vis-à-vis their development programmes and design maturity. Cdr Lison says: "While the aircraft and its accompanying operations and support architecture continue to iterate, we are at a point in the ship programme where we have to stop designing and start building. That demands that we closely manage the ship/air interface and attendant programme risks."

The primary mechanism to achieve this is through the integration contract. "We have developed a 'touchpoint' grid matrix to show where the ship needs data on the aircraft to inform its design," explains Cdr Lison. "What the integration contract enables us to do is to reach forward in the aircraft development programme and get visibility of those data elements that we need to understand the architecture of F-35 and its requirements relative to the ship. These considerations include cooling, power, bandwidth, acoustics, thermal effects, jetwash, logistics footprint, weapons and electromagnetic compatibility.

"We are now at a point in the carrier programme where we have, on a weekly basis, been 'nailing down' the detailed design of the ships. This means we will go with the data we have at each 'touchpoint' today, move forward with the ship, understand the interface, and quantify the residual risk according to how mature the data is."

The vertical recovery vignette previously described has already been 'flown' many times by F-35 test pilots in a high-fidelity simulation environment at BAE Systems' Motion Dome Simulator at Warton, Lancashire. Here, through the use of piloted simulation, a huge amount of qualitative and quantitative data has been gathered, in a safe and repeatable environment, to inform the CVF/JCA integration process well in advance of first-of-class testing and without the need to resort to costly physical mock-ups or flight trials.

Housed in a large-diameter dome, the simulator itself features a cockpit mounted on a six-axis motion platform, with a high resolution outside world image projected onto the dome's interior surface. This differs from conventional practice (where the cockpit is encapsulated inside a smaller dome mounted on top of a motion platform) so as to offer benefits in terms of a reduction in platform payload and corresponding increase in dynamic performance.

The cockpit has been modified to provide a field-of-view, from pilot eye-position, which is representative of the F-35B. Active side-stick and throttle units have also been installed; to the same design as will be used in the F-35 pilot training simulators. In most other respects the cockpit is generic (for example, the head-down multifunction displays are presented on three small LCD panels, rather than on a single large-format display as in the F-35).

Four Canon SXGA+ (1,400x1,050) liquid crystal on silicon projectors are used to project the 'outside world' onto the dome surface, with the image from each projector blended to produce a continuous field-of-view (220 degrees in azimuth by 50 degrees in elevation). Each graphics channel is rendered on a separate dual-processor PC using Nvidia GeForce 8800 GTX graphics hardware.

The outside world visuals are generated using a software application developed by the Simulation Group, interfacing with the Vega Prime Toolset. Vega Prime offers the capability to extend the tool through a series of application-specific 'plug-in' modules (such as a marine module used to generate a realistic seascape, including dynamic sea surface and water wakes).

A three-dimensional visual model of CVF was developed from general arrangement data supplied by the ACA. The level of detail incorporated in the ship model, which includes the location and characteristics of the deck markings and visual landing aids, is an important factor in creating a realistic and immersive cueing environment for the pilot. A number of static F-35Bs and Merlin helicopters have been positioned on the flight deck in a typical 'deck-park' arrangement.

As part of the baseline System Development and Demonstration (SDD) programme, a comprehensive non-linear simulation of the F-35B has been developed using the ATLAS (Analysis, Trim, Linearize and Simulate) tool developed by Lockheed Martin Aeronautics. To develop the real-time simulation, the various ATLAS subsystems have been reused via an interface wrapper.

Simulation success
The only modification to the original SDD simulation has been the addition of a CVF specific ship model. This mathematical model consists of a defined geometry (including deck layout and ski-jump ramp profile), a ship motion model to represent the sea-keeping characteristics of the vessel, and an air-wake model to capture the effects of the ship's structure on the flow field around and downwind of the vessel.

Speaking at the Royal Aeronautical Society's International Powered Lift Conference (IPLC 2008) in July 2008, BAE Systems' F-35B project test pilot Pete Wilson praised the simulation environment. "Legacy simulations were nowhere near good enough," he told delegates. "But the reality of the very high resolution environment created in the Motion Dome Simulator has surpassed both industry and customer expectations. That said, there is still some room for improvement, notably in the areas of air wake and weather."

A number of simulator trials have been 'flown' to date. In December 2007, work was undertaken to assess vertical landings and shipborne rolling vertical landings (SRVLs) so as to inform landing aid development. Investigations into the field of regard offered by the F-35's distributed aperture electro-optical sensor system were also carried out.

Further trials were performed in July 2008. These were predominantly SRVLs to further inform the VLA design process.

The MoD is acutely aware that the ability of the F-35B to meet JCA Key User Requirement (KUR) 4, which sets out a vertical recovery bring back threshold, remains in doubt. The UK requirement calls for a recovery in hot day conditions with a 4,080 lb payload (essentially two precision- guided bombs, two AIM-120 missiles and a fuel reserve). Current projections predict a performance shortfall of about 175 lb, although this could increase to 360 lb if only the US Marine Corps' less stressing Key Performance Parameter is delivered.

As a result, the MoD has been exploring the adoption of the SRVL manoeuvre - essentially a running landing onto the carrier deck - to improve bring-back performance. SRVL exploits the ability of the F-35B to use vectored thrust to slow the speed of the aircraft approach to about 35 kt of closure relative to the carrier (assuming a forward airspeed of 60 kt and 25 kt wind over deck) while still gaining the benefit of wingborne lift. This in turn offers the possibility of a significant increase (estimated at over 2,000 lb) in bring back compared to a vertical recovery. SRVL could also reduce propulsion system stress to increase operational flexibility and propulsion system life.

SRVL manoeuvre
As currently conceptualised, an aircraft executing an SRVL approach will follow a constant glidepath (five to six degrees) to the deck. This angle is about twice that of a normal CV approach, offering increased clearance over the stern and less touchdown scatter. The touchdown position on the axial flight deck is about 150 ft from the stern, similar to that of a conventional carrier.

No arrestor gear is required. Instead, the aircraft brakes are used to bring the aircraft to a stop.

Low-key studies to investigate the SRVL technique were initiated by the MoD in the late 1990s, but the work has latterly taken on a much higher profile after the MoD's Investments Approvals Board (IAB) in July 2006 directed that SRVL should be included in future development of the JCA design to mitigate the risk to KUR 4. Accordingly, the JCA IPT amended the CVF integration contract in mid-2008 to include this requirement.

Addressing IPLC 2008, Martin Rosa, F-35 technical coordinator in Dstl's air and weapon systems department, said the SRVL studies to date had shown "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".

Dstl began early work to examine the feasibility of employing the SRVL manoeuvre in 1999. According to Rosa, an initial pre-feasibility investigation demonstrated the potential payoff of the manoeuvre in terms of increased bring back, but also threw up four key areas demanding further examination: performance (as affected by variables such as deck run, wind over deck, aerodynamic lift and thrust margin); carrier design; operational issues (such as sortie generation rate); and safety.

Further feasibility investigations were conducted in 2000-01 using generic aircraft and ship models. Dstl also ran a two-day safety workshop in late 2001. This showed that there were no "showstoppers, and no SRVL-specific safety critical systems were identified", said Rosa. "Also, the ability to ditch weapons and carry out a vertical landing instead of an SRVL in the event of a failure was seen as a powerful safety mitigation."

During 2002, more representative F-35B information became available which altered assumptions with respect to aircraft 'bring back' angle of attack (from 16 degrees to about 12 degrees, so reducing the lift co-efficient); wing area (revised downwards from 500 ft2 to 460 ft2, reducing lift available on approach at a given speed by 8 per cent); and jet effects in the SRVL speed range (which were significantly greater than those in the hover).

Aggregated, these revised assumptions significantly reduced predicted bring back performance. Even so, the improvement offered by an SRVL recovery was still substantial and MoD interest continued.

In the 2003-04 timeframe, Lockheed Martin became formally engaged in the investigation of SRVL recovery, with the JPO contracting with Team F-35 for a study into methods for Enhanced Vertical Landing Bring Back. Once again, safety and performance characteristics were considered broadly encouraging. "However," pointed out Rosa, "at this stage work on the adaptable CVF design was progressing rapidly.... Consequently the obvious next step was to consider the detailed impacts that SRVL might have on the CVF design."

Back to reality
Accordingly, the CVF IPT (now subsumed into the wider ACA) in 2005 put in place a package of work to investigate SRVL impact on the carrier design.

This comprised three workstrands: analysis to establish the optimal SRVL recovery deck; sortie generation rate modelling; and MITL simulator trials to establish the most appropriate recovery profile, analyse VLAs and measure landing scatter.

Two separate simulation trials were conducted at BAE Systems' Warton facility using a representative CVF ship model and a F-35 representative air and ground model. The results indicated that, at night or in higher sea states (above Sea State 3), an SRVL-specific approach aid was desirable, and Ship Referenced Velocity Vector (SRVV) symbology in the pilot's helmet-mounted display was an enhancing feature.

One significant outcome of the JCA Review Note promulgated by the IAB in July 2006 was the decision to add an SRVL capability into the overall SDD programme. Significant work has been performed since then, including land-based flight trials and extensive simulator-based development and evaluation.

As part of this work, QinetiQ was in 2007 contracted to use its Harrier T.4 Vectored-thrust Advanced Aircraft Control (VAAC) testbed to perform representative land-based flight trials and a ship-based SRVL demonstration. The latter saw the VAAC aircraft perform a series of SRVL recoveries aboard the French carrier Charles de Gaulle in June 2007.

According to the MoD, these flight trials "demonstrated that SRVL was a safe recovery method to the ship at Sea State 6 in day, visual conditions", although it added that Charles de Gaulle is a "particularly stable ship" and there is "no ship motion data to enable comparison to how CVF will react in the same sea conditions".

Other forthcoming work will include further investigations on an SRVL clearance aboard CVF, optimisation of the approach profile, reaching an agreement on the optimal post-touchdown technique, and mitigation for failure cases such as a burst tyre on touchdown.

Work is also to continue to mature the SRVL-optimised VLA arrangements, look at the possible 'tuning' of the F-35 flight control laws, and further study the effect of SRVL on the CVF sortie generation rate, Rosa said, while acknowledging that the "exact scope of capability is only likely to be confirmed after First of Class Flying Trials" aboard CVF.

RAY OF LIGHT: COMPLEMENTARY VLA SOLUTIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE RECOVERY MODES
The purpose of a landing aid system is to assist the pilot during approach and recovery to the ship by day or night. As baselined for STOVL operations (with emphasis on a vertical recovery manoeuvre), the CVF design includes a Glide-slope and Long-range Line-up Indicator System (GLIS), a HIHAT and light emitting diode flight deck lighting. AGI has been contracted by the ACA to supply these as part of a GBP7.5 million (USD11.5 million) contract for the supply of visual landing aids (VLAs) for both fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft.

The GLIS system, based on two night-vision goggle-compliant stabilised Glide Path Indicator (GPI) units, is the primary source of information available to the pilot for establishing and maintaining the correct glide slope during the approach. These GPI units are positioned at either end of the ship, in the port catwalk level with the flight deck. High intensity drop-line lights, mounted on the stern of the ship, provide line-up cues.

Each GPI is essentially a high intensity sectored light projector. The glide slope of the aircraft, relative to the GLIS, determines which coloured light sector is visible to the pilot. If the pilot is flying down the optimum glide slope (nominally three degrees) a steady green light is visible. If the approach is too high a flashing green light is visible. Alternatively, if the approach is too low a red light will be visible. A steady red light indicates a slightly low approach and a flashing red light indicates a very low approach.

HIHAT consists of 11 lights fitted in a vertical stack with two standard deck lights mounted horizontally, one either side of the stack, at the optimum aircraft hover height (which aligns to the fourth vertical light, thus resulting in three lights above this position and seven below).

Light output from each of the vertical lights is designed such that it can only be seen when level with or above the centre line of the light; it cannot be seen from below this level. Thus if the unit is viewed at the optimum hover height then a T shape, consisting of the vertical stack of lights horizontal deck lights, will be seen. Moving above this position will result in more vertical lights being observed and a decrease in height will have the opposite effect, though the horizontal reference will still be visible. The spacing of the lights will also give a clear indication as to the rate of ascent or descent as more lights are illuminated or extinguished, and the rate at which this occurs.

Whilst the HIHAT is primarily intended to be used once the aircraft is over the deck and in the hover phase of the flight, it is anticipated that pilots will acquire the HIHAT at anything up to 0.5 n miles from the ship. The system is intended to complement the information obtained from GLIS and between them will provide a complete visual approach aid for a vertical recovery.

With SRVL now likely to be used as a recovery technique on board CVF, there is an additional requirement to augment the baseline VLA suite with a landing aid appropriate to the SRVL approach manoeuvre. To this end QinetiQ has undertaken research into a new VLA concept, known as the Bedford Array, which takes inputs from inertial references to stabilise against deck motions (pitch and heave).

A trial of the concept was undertaken aboard the aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious in November 2008, with QinetiQ using its Harrier T.4 VAAC testbed to fly approaches to a demonstration Bedford Array mounted on the ship. For the purposes of the trial, the lighting array was installed in the port catwalk adjacent to Illustrious's flight deck. The VAAC Harrier did not actually perform SRVL recoveries to the ship owing to the limited dimensions of the flight deck, but flew representative SRVL approach profiles to the catwalk array (down to a safety height of about 40 ft above deck) to evaluate its ability to accurately indicate an SRVL glide scope aimpoint to the SRVV.

A second lighting array was rigged on the carrier flight deck itself. This was used for a parallel evaluation of the visual acuity of the lighting system on deck.


A NEW ANGLE: OPTIMISING THE SKI-JUMP PROFILE FOR CVF
The origin of the ski-jump ramp now widely fitted to aircraft carriers undertaking fixed-wing STOVL air operations at sea is widely credited to Lieutenant Commander Doug Taylor RN. His thesis, written while studying for a PhD at the University of Southampton in the early 1970s, identified the substantial gains in payload radius achieved if an aircraft performing a short takeoff - such as the Harrier with thrust vectoring - was launched upwards on a semi-ballistic trajectory.

The ski-jump ramp works by imparting an upward vertical velocity and ballistic profile to the aircraft, providing additional time to accelerate to flying speed whilst ensuring it is on a safe trajectory. This additional time is manifested either in a reduced take-off length for a given weight, or increased launch weight (fuel and/or ordnance) for a fixed take-off distance.

This additional performance does not come for free, however, with a significant increase in landing gear loads above those of a standard take off, which are very low compared to a landing. The increase represents the energy transferred to the aircraft as it translates up the ramp; and if the angle and curvature of the ramp are increased to obtain greater performance benefit, so are the loads.

An essential first step for optimising the ski-ramp profile for CVF was to define key performance and load cases (in terms of aircraft configurations and environmental condition thresholds). Other ground rules such as take-off distances, maximum ramp length and height constraints, wind over deck speeds and ship motion factors were also generated prior to the main analysis which was based on legacy experience with Harrier analysis, Team F-35 'best practice', sensitivity studies of performance and loads to identify sensible values and ranges.

Based on predicted F-35B performance and landing gear loads data, the CVF ski-jump was defined as a 12.5 degrees angled ramp, with the profile achieved by combining a nominal profile based on a quartic fit to an optimum cubic transition plus circular arc, a rounded step lead in and an elliptic let down. Analyses have also confirmed that fatigue impact as a result of cyclical loading was significantly less than that for the legacy Invincible-class ramp; and that minimum weapons physical clearance limits were met even in worst cases (combinations of flat tyres and compressed struts).


OPTIMISING HEALTH, SAFETY AND PERFORMANCE IN THE FLIGHT DECK ENVIRONMENT
Extensive modelling and simulation work has been performed to characterise the CVF flight deck environment, bearing in mind that interleaved launch and recovery and simultaneous turnaround (taxiing, parking, servicing, fuelling and arming) activities must co-exist within a constrained four-acre estate. The need to ensure a safe working environment for personnel on deck has come in for particular scrutiny given the jet wash and near-field acoustic impacts associated with the F-35B.

Under contract to the ACA, Frazer Nash Consultancy (FNC) used transient computational fluid dynamic (CFD) modelling to map the jet blast impact of a JCA on launch, and evaluate measures to improve flight deck operational performance with minimal impact to the ship design. This involved evaluating the protection offered by the legacy flat plate Mk 7 Jet Blast Deflector (JBD) and a number of variations to this layout.

CFD modelling was used to simulate the engine power and acceleration of the JCA along the launch runway, with the exclusion zones generated by the hot high-velocity exhausts visualised, and peak values at key personnel locations were monitored throughout the launch.

A CVF model suitable for transient CFD analysis was developed from an existing air wake model. The F-35B was not modelled explicitly; instead the core nozzle and lift fan were represented as surfaces of the correct exit area with a pressure and temperature boundary condition applied. This was calculated from an extensive dataset supplied by Team F-35 through the JCA integration contract and checked by comparing the exhaust mass flow and thrust predicted by the CFD.

Results showed that the large efflux mass flow associated with the F-35B lift fan hits the flight deck at an angle and spreads out sideways and backwards, pushed behind the aircraft and then curling up into vortices either side of the strong central jet from the core nozzle. CFD analysis showed that the JBD provided some protection to the aft flight deck at the start of the launch but was less effective as the aircraft moved down the launch runway. Protection is particularly poor on the port aft quarter of the deck.

FNC subsequently investigated six alternative JBD layouts in an effort to identify a solution offering better protection to personnel on the aft deck. Its optimised configuration afforded a better level of protection for personnel on the port aft flight deck, although an exclusion zone would still be required on the flight deck where the jet wash is deflected outboard and where it propagates around the starboard side of the JBD. Nevertheless, the size of the exclusion zone would not limit flight deck operations.

In the final analysis, the decision has been taken to delete the JBD from the STOVL CVF design. Cdr Lison explains: "We determined from the CFD modelling that the legacy JBD did not offer adequate protection. Alternative designs were considered which offered some benefit, but two considerations persuaded us to delete the requirement.

"First, the nozzle scheduling of the F-35B on take-off has yet to be fully established, and there was a risk that the jet blast would simply 'bounce' over the JBD. Second, the JBD was in a single fixed position on the flight deck, so there was no flexibility with regard to the length of the take-off run."

Work has also been carried out to map the acoustic footprint on deck: noise is a major health and safety consideration, given that deck personnel in close proximity to the JCA on take-off will be subject to increased sound levels above the legacy Harrier. Acoustic shelters are incorporated in the CVF design, while deck personnel in the near field will be equipped with advanced hearing protection devices.

"It's an issue we take very seriously because of the potential for permanent damage to hearing," says Cdr Lison, adding: "We've looked across the Atlantic to the F-35 programme and beyond to a SBIR [Small Business Innovation Research] effort being sponsored by the Naval Air Systems Command. Under these efforts, ATI/Aegisound is developing deep ear insert active noise reduction sets to equip deck crews on US carriers in the near field. Our current intention is to buy into this as appropriate for UK requirements."

Another area of continuing research is flight deck coatings. "We have already conducted trials of some candidate coatings using a sub-scale jet engine in BAE Systems' hot gas lab at Warton," says Cdr Lison. "We are also liaising with the US Office of Naval Research to gain maximum value from combined US-UK efforts."

He adds: "Existing formulations will not withstand the intense heat of the F-35B jet blast, so the ACA, working with paint consultants Safinah, has developed a high level specification for a coating that addresses requirements for corrosion protection, heat and blast resistance, co-efficient of friction, ease of applicability, impact tolerance, and cost at application and through life.

"This specification will be promulgated to paint/coatings suppliers to see what they can deliver. We believe there is a product out there that meets our needs, but not necessarily one that is currently marketed as flight deck paint."

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2010, 15:33
by bjr1028
The JBD thing is going to be a giant hinderance. Not being able to park aircraft behind is going to have a big effect on sortie rates when operating on Nimitz class ships they're going to have no option but a dedicated axial flight deck configuration.

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2010, 19:06
by spazsinbad
No JBD is for CVF. No information on Nimitz class operatons.

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2010, 04:35
by spazsinbad
F-35 Not Too Hot For Carriers (I hope it is not what it means in Ozian) By Colin Clark Friday, March 26th, 2010

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/03/26/jsf-n ... nt64258173

"The STOVL version of the Joint Strike Fighter is not too hot and is not too loud, Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway told DoD Buzz during an editorial board session.

The most troubling operational challenge that appeared to face the F-35B, next to weight, was reports that it would not be suitable for a carrier or other ship because its exhaust would melt the flight deck. Not so, Conway told reporters from Military?.com. The plane, at 1,500 degrees, is just 18 degrees hotter than a Harrier, he said Thursday.

He also debunked persistent reports that the F-35 will blow the ears off of people living near their flight paths, Conway said that noise levels for the plane are “well in range of legacy aircraft” like the F-22 and the F/A-18 E/F. Bottom line, the F-35 ain’t a whisper jet, but communities familiar with existing aircraft shouldn’t have much to worry about.

On the negative side, Conway noted that “we will lose 28 aircraft over the FYDP” but said he thought the “news for us on F-35 is relatively positive” given the recent test successes at Patuxent River...."

[In "Ozian" 'Not Too Hot' means "Not Very Good"] :P

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2010, 07:58
by spazsinbad
Elsewhere on this forum is info about the lecture: (seems to have disappeared?)

F-35 - Inventing the Joint Strike Fighter Dr. Paul Bevilaqua - Lockheed Martin Skunk Works - 12 Oct 2009

http://www.nps.edu/Academics/Institutes ... ighter.pdf (4.5Mb)
_______________________

3 videos of lecture here - I guess the PDF above is useful as notes for lecture?:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... -by-s.html

VIDEO: History of the F-35 by Skunk Works inventor (3 parts) By Stephen Trimble on March 22, 2010

"The DEW Line is pleased to offer a three-part video showing a fascinating (albeit poorly-lit), 1hr lecture on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, presented last week by Skunk Works engineer Paul Bevilaqua at Johns Hopkins University's applied physics laboratory in Laurel, Maryland. Bevilaqua is credited with the invention of Lockheed Martin's shaft-driven lift-fan, the core technology allowing the short-takeoff-vertical-landing (STOVL) F-35B. The first part of the lecture is below, and click on the jump to view the other two parts."

Lecture part 1 .FLV video 78Mb
Lecture part 2 .FLV video 85Mb
Lecture part 3 .FLV video 43Mb
________________________________

total time 65min / total size 206Mb
_______________________________

Here is the 'cool video' clip of the STOVL heating issue being simulated (thanks be to the DEWline)....

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2010, 08:10
by spazsinbad
Here is a direct link to the video if it cannot be seen above (I cannot see it using Win7 & Internet Explorer 8 ):

http://s98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/ ... SimWMM.flv
OR
samesame video:
http://alturl.com/pg7c
______________________

Here is the 10Mb .WMV video (same as above):

http://www.filefront.com/16021099/JSFle ... SimWMM.wmv

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2010, 08:59
by spazsinbad
Narration (lecturer) states that concrete 'spalls' at 1,000 degrees F, while the computer simulation vertical landing shows that the concrete temp does not go above 600 deg F. Graphic a composite of screenshots from relevant video (beginning of part two).

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2010, 04:44
by SpudmanWP
For those of you who might need it, I posted it on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8wSeIz9uL8

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2010, 04:59
by VarkVet
Nice, in future during Red Flag when an F-35B has an IFE and decides to land in my back yard ... I now know it won't kill my Desert Tourtise! :lol:

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2010, 05:21
by beepa
VarkVet wrote:Nice, in future during Red Flag when an F-35B has an IFE and decides to land in my back yard ... I now know it won't kill my Desert Tourtise! :lol:


Nice, finally some light at the end of the troll tunnell. Happy easter Vark.. :cheers: ...btw did u catch the recent flyover....4 varks different sweep to escort the new supers into brisbane....the timer is tickin on the ole girl..

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2010, 05:22
by spazsinbad
SpudManWP, Thanks for Utube upload.

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2010, 20:04
by Angels225
Is the fan nozzle for the F-35B vectored?
If not, is it closed in the ski jump takeoff? Since the in the harrier the pilot rotates his nozzles about 45 or so degrees to the fuselage at the jump. How will the F-35B develop a similar maneuver?

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2010, 20:59
by spazsinbad
"Thrust vectoring can convey two main benefits: VTOL/STOL, and higher maneuverability. Aircraft are usually optimized to maximally exploit one benefit, though will gain in the other."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_vectoring
"Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is currently in the pre-production test and development stage. Although this aircraft incorporates a conventional afterburning turbofan (F135 or F136) which facilitates supersonic operation, the variant for the US Marine Corps and RAF also incorporates a vertically mounted, Low pressure shaft-driven remote fan, which is driven through a clutch during landing from the engine. The exhaust from this fan is deflected by a thrust vectoring nozzle, as is the main engine exhaust, to provide the appropriate combination of lift and propulsive thrust during transition."
_________________

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... /f-35b.htm
_______________

In this very long thread there are many hints about how the JSF-B will be developed in an operational sense - particularly by the RN FAA (with help from USMC). One place to start on this thread would be here: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-210.html

The SRVL technique will apply to take off assist also - with / without jump de ski. Vectoring nozzle will enable both short takeoff, short landing and vertical landing while vertical takeoffs will probably never be done (except for testing and familiarisation for pilot). Nowadays computer controlled nozzling in the JSF-B will make life simple for the pilot. Read this thread for some more hints about this with reference to 'videos on simulators' showing how 'pushing the red freekin' button' will enable this JSF-B uniqueness.

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2010, 01:15
by SpudmanWP
The F-35's nozzle can go from 0 deg (parallel to the plane of travel) to about 95 deg (pointing slightly forward) under the F-35.

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2010, 21:39
by Conan
spazsinbad wrote:Spanish & RAN LHD eye candy cutaway (with Harriers) you can imagine the F-35Bs...


Imagining them on the decks of the LHD's will all you will ever be able to do unfortunately...

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2010, 22:12
by spazsinbad
Hmmm, Conan, that is how JSF-B ops will start for the RAN FAA if it is ever going to happen. All the talk about 'no plan' is fine until there is a plan. There is even talk/imagining of other fixed wing assets being employed on the RAN LHDs (as poor man substitutes for JSF-B). My interest is in advancing the plan for JSF-Bs on RAN LHDs by educating myself about the issues involved to enable that 'plan'. :arrow: :idea: :P

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2010, 03:35
by Corsair1963
spazsinbad wrote:Hmmm, Conan, that is how JSF-B ops will start for the RAN FAA if it is ever going to happen. All the talk about 'no plan' is fine until there is a plan. There is even talk/imagining of other fixed wing assets being employed on the RAN LHDs (as poor man substitutes for JSF-B). My interest is in advancing the plan for JSF-Bs on RAN LHDs by educating myself about the issues involved to enable that 'plan'. :arrow: :idea: :P




Will RN/RAF F-35B Pilots train at Eglin AFB along side USMC Pilots??? :?:

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2010, 04:27
by spazsinbad
Corsair1963, good question. Here is a web page: http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=3609 "Sldinfo’s Robbin Laird interviewed Colonel Tomassetti, 33rd Fighter Wing, Vice Commander, in early January 2010 and discussed the 33rd Fighter Wing’s approach to F-35 training and the nature of the training center."

Preparing for the F35: The 33rd Fighter Wing at Eglin Air Force Base Stands Up a Comprehensive Training Facility

..."SLD: What’s the thinking about involving the partner countries?
Colonel Tomassetti: Right now, there will be partner countries at Eglin, those who are already involved in the program and then whatever foreign military sales happen as we go down range. Exactly how many and which partner countries will appear at Eglin has not quite been determined yet. There will be some. It could be up to and including everybody who’s in the program right now, and we are preparing and planning for it to be of that magnitude. If it’s something less than that, then so be it but right now, we are working towards being able to accommodate every partner country who is involved with the program today and even doing a little planning for all those anticipated foreign military sales that may come later on down the road."
_____________________________

F-35 pilot training on track despite problems By Andrew Tilghman - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Apr 6, 2010

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/04/n ... g_040510w/

"Development of a training pipeline for pilots and maintainers for the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter remains on track despite the recent problems with the jet’s cost and development schedule.

“Our focus has remained the same — to be ready when that first jet arrives,” said Navy Capt. Mike Saunders, deputy commander of the 33rd Operations Group, based at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla.

Saunders is helping oversee the joint command that is standing up the F-35’s first fleet training squadrons for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.

All three services plan to begin flying the F-35 within the next two years, Saunders said.

The first simulators arrived in late March, he said.

The Marine Corps’ training squadron, Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron 501, stood up April 2, making the Corps the second service to formally create a training unit. The Air Force created the 58th Fighter Squadron last year. The Navy’s Strike Fighter Squadron 101 will stand up next year.

The Air Force and Marine Corps have several pilots at Eglin for training. The Navy, which will be the last service to put the F-35 into operation, expects to send its first pilots to the Florida base early next year.

The timeline for the training wing has not changed despite the wrangling among Washington bureaucrats about the shortcomings of the F-35 program, which is run by Lockheed Martin. Pentagon officials added 13 months to the fighter jet’s development schedule and warned that it may cost much more than initially thought.

The 33rd Fighter Wing staff and squadrons have 141 total personnel for all three services. Hangars, academic centers and a dining hall are under construction.

Initial staffers are developing standard operating procedures for the training squadrons, drawing up a curriculum and becoming technically familiar with the engine, software systems and other components of the new aircraft.

“We are really getting down into the devil in the details on this,” Saunders said.

Joint JSF Training
The joint training program for the F-35 at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., will include three separate training squadrons for the Air Force, Marines and Navy.

• Air Force: 58th Fighter Squadron stood up in October. Has seven officers and one enlisted airman. First F-35A expected to arrive this fall.

• Marine Corps: VMFA-501 stood up April 2. Has eight officers and 23 enlisted Marines. First F-35B expected to arrive spring 2011.

• Navy: VFA-101 stands up in October 2011. First pilots expected to arrive in early 2011. First F-35C expected to arrive in early 2012."
_______________

Relevant to operation / some training in UK only: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics ... t_Aircraft

"In November 2005 it was announced that the F-35 main base will be RAF Lossiemouth, Scotland. Lossiemouth was selected due its existing facilities and access to training areas."

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2010, 05:55
by spazsinbad
RAF Official: http://www.raf.mod.uk/no1group/news/ind ... 6191920479

"F-35 in UK Service
In December 2009 the Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) Project Team announced that it had secured funding for a 3rd F-35 test aircraft. The UK’s Test and Evaluation Squadron (TES) starts testing F-35s from Edwards AFB in the Mojave Desert in 2012. The UK Integrated Training Centre (ITC) will start to train maintainers and pilots at Eglin AFB, Florida, from 2014 and will return to the UK in 2019. All UK front line JSF aircraft will be based at RAF Lossiemouth with the first squadron due to be operational from 2017.

Much advantage is being taken of the development of simulators to enhance capability. As well as the F-35 Full Mission Simulators, the UK is procuring a number of two-cockpit Deployable Mission Rehearsal Trainers so that pilots can practice high-end warfighting even when deployed. This will also allow simulators to be linked together for mission rehearsal in large formations. Future developments are also planned that will allow training to be conducted with a mix of live flying, simulator flying and computer-generated aircraft and threats in a joint environment."
_________________

Reference to training at Eglin here also: http://www.f-16.net/news_article3973.html

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2010, 06:54
by Corsair1963
spazsinbad wrote:Corsair1963, good question. Here is a web page: http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=3609 "Sldinfo’s Robbin Laird interviewed Colonel Tomassetti, 33rd Fighter Wing, Vice Commander, in early January 2010 and discussed the 33rd Fighter Wing’s approach to F-35 training and the nature of the training center."

Preparing for the F35: The 33rd Fighter Wing at Eglin Air Force Base Stands Up a Comprehensive Training Facility

..."SLD: What’s the thinking about involving the partner countries?
Colonel Tomassetti: Right now, there will be partner countries at Eglin, those who are already involved in the program and then whatever foreign military sales happen as we go down range. Exactly how many and which partner countries will appear at Eglin has not quite been determined yet. There will be some. It could be up to and including everybody who’s in the program right now, and we are preparing and planning for it to be of that magnitude. If it’s something less than that, then so be it but right now, we are working towards being able to accommodate every partner country who is involved with the program today and even doing a little planning for all those anticipated foreign military sales that may come later on down the road."
_____________________________

F-35 pilot training on track despite problems By Andrew Tilghman - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Apr 6, 2010

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/04/n ... g_040510w/

"Development of a training pipeline for pilots and maintainers for the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter remains on track despite the recent problems with the jet’s cost and development schedule.

“Our focus has remained the same — to be ready when that first jet arrives,” said Navy Capt. Mike Saunders, deputy commander of the 33rd Operations Group, based at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla.

Saunders is helping oversee the joint command that is standing up the F-35’s first fleet training squadrons for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.

All three services plan to begin flying the F-35 within the next two years, Saunders said.

The first simulators arrived in late March, he said.

The Marine Corps’ training squadron, Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron 501, stood up April 2, making the Corps the second service to formally create a training unit. The Air Force created the 58th Fighter Squadron last year. The Navy’s Strike Fighter Squadron 101 will stand up next year.

The Air Force and Marine Corps have several pilots at Eglin for training. The Navy, which will be the last service to put the F-35 into operation, expects to send its first pilots to the Florida base early next year.

The timeline for the training wing has not changed despite the wrangling among Washington bureaucrats about the shortcomings of the F-35 program, which is run by Lockheed Martin. Pentagon officials added 13 months to the fighter jet’s development schedule and warned that it may cost much more than initially thought.

The 33rd Fighter Wing staff and squadrons have 141 total personnel for all three services. Hangars, academic centers and a dining hall are under construction.

Initial staffers are developing standard operating procedures for the training squadrons, drawing up a curriculum and becoming technically familiar with the engine, software systems and other components of the new aircraft.

“We are really getting down into the devil in the details on this,” Saunders said.

Joint JSF Training
The joint training program for the F-35 at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., will include three separate training squadrons for the Air Force, Marines and Navy.

• Air Force: 58th Fighter Squadron stood up in October. Has seven officers and one enlisted airman. First F-35A expected to arrive this fall.

• Marine Corps: VMFA-501 stood up April 2. Has eight officers and 23 enlisted Marines. First F-35B expected to arrive spring 2011.

• Navy: VFA-101 stands up in October 2011. First pilots expected to arrive in early 2011. First F-35C expected to arrive in early 2012."
_______________

Relevant to operation / some training in UK only: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics ... t_Aircraft

"In November 2005 it was announced that the F-35 main base will be RAF Lossiemouth, Scotland. Lossiemouth was selected due its existing facilities and access to training areas."



Very impressive training center to say the least. Which, should drastically cut the cost of training US and Allied future Fighter Pilots. Something the critics have seem to overlooked........... :wink:

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2010, 07:22
by spazsinbad
AFAIK, (I could look it up) the RAAF will eventually train in Oz with aircraft and simulators. I guess the Eglin gig is for initial training for first foreign instructors (or if a country does not have own training facilities then ongoing training).

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2010, 07:28
by Corsair1963
The USAF will eventually have three F-35A Squadron dedicated for training fighter pilots at Eglin AFB.

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2010, 14:06
by Conan
spazsinbad wrote:Hmmm, Conan, that is how JSF-B ops will start for the RAN FAA if it is ever going to happen. All the talk about 'no plan' is fine until there is a plan. There is even talk/imagining of other fixed wing assets being employed on the RAN LHDs (as poor man substitutes for JSF-B). My interest is in advancing the plan for JSF-Bs on RAN LHDs by educating myself about the issues involved to enable that 'plan'. :arrow: :idea: :P


No doubt.

In fact I'd go so far as to predict the FAA will commence flying F-35B's on the same date Air Combat Group's dual F-22A/F-111S "Uber Pig" fleet commences operations and China realising it is out-matched by our 100 fighter aircraft retires the entire PLAAF and adopts an isolationist policy, the re-engined DHC-4 Caribou completes it's upgrade program and the MRH-90, Tiger and Seahawk fleets are all retired in favour of upgraded UH-1H Huey II airframes...

All of this will happen at the same time as our Canberra class LHD's are actually re-manufactured with the appropriate air weapons magazines, fuel bunkerage and the C4I capability for fixed wing air operations is sufficient to actually enable F-35B operations.

All of this should happen just before the end of the Mayan calender in 2012 as well...

Sorry mate, you were about 5 days late with this post...

:D

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2010, 14:53
by spazsinbad
Conan, all you have posted has been said before (apart from your predictions) by gf0012-aust. No big deal. You must be RAAF I reckon.

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2010, 23:53
by VarkVet
beepa wrote:Vark.. :cheers: ...btw did u catch the recent flyover....4 varks different sweep to escort the new supers into brisbane....the timer is tickin on the ole girl..


Nah ... didn't see anything on it. End of an era, out with the old in with the new.

With the money spent, maybe they should have created a "D" variant with sweep wings? "The Fastest Variant" :lol:

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2010, 04:48
by beepa
VarkVet wrote:
beepa wrote:Vark.. :cheers: ...btw did u catch the recent flyover....4 varks different sweep to escort the new supers into brisbane....the timer is tickin on the ole girl..


Nah ... didn't see anything on it. End of an era, out with the old in with the new.

With the money spent, maybe they should have created a "D" variant with sweep wings? "The Fastest Variant" :lol:


try a quick search on youtube of supers arrival in bris....i was up mt cootha talkin to ex vark drivers...was so caught up in the varks and the antics of the hawk chase jet that i almost missed the supers...no big deal im sure the raaf will shove them in our faces in years to come...
now what would they have got with a permenant sweep..delta type...more fuel...less maint..long distance mud maker....damn aust should have got 10 or so bones....we got the tf30's lying around...

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2010, 05:10
by beepa
spazsinbad wrote:Conan, all you have posted has been said before (apart from your predictions) by gf0012-aust. No big deal. You must be RAAF I reckon.


spaz.. no offence but u do remember when gf stated that noone on f16.net knew what they were talking about...apart from dwightlooi?(on sp)...leave the office workers to their own ego's....you have become a great source of information on this site but please dont cut and paste others cut and paste..personally im amazed what i can learn on certian topics by listening to the workforce...not the jerkforce.. :cheers:

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2010, 05:28
by spazsinbad
beepa, you have answered any reason I may offer as to why I'm here. I'm here for the beer and to learn about the JSF (B model specifically). In the process of answering someone elses question I may go find the info myself (because I have not asked myself that same question). Sometimes I fail though because 1) I have been out for a long time and 2) I don't know so I don't pretend to know.

However in offering 'cutandpaste' from elsewhere if that is what you are objecting to above (I'm not quite sure of the point you are making) I'm doing that because I have myself no personal knowledge of JSF to draw upon other that what is publicly available on the interbabble. Few people have personal knowledge I would assume and if they do then they are not talking - which is fair enough. Also I hope I'm meticulous to make it clear that the 'cut and pastes' are not my own and I give the source of this info (unlike some).

Anyway as someone has mentioned many times one can be anyone on these forums. However you can find out about my career in the RAN here: www.a4ghistory.com so whatever I reveal about myself perhaps is 'cutandpasted'? :-)

BTW it is funny to note that lately people 'cut and paste' my work without acknowledgement. SIGH. :P The work at the above URL is for anyone interested and it is freely available for them to use as they see fit. That is why it is there and I'm glad that it ain't printed to be used then as toilet paper. :twisted:

And by this I mean material unique to the PDFs is made available elsewhere but source not given, but it pleasing to have my own information confirmed by me (second hand). :-) It's cool.

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2010, 06:28
by beepa
Soz spad 'cut and paste' was more of a shot at the 'canberra' types who have been to all the meetings, but still offer an opinion based on what they learn on the net. Guys who actually put their time in, like yourself, whom offer up relevant information in an unbiased state should be congradulated for their time and effort....Mabe I can buy u a beer at avalon next year!

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2010, 01:06
by spazsinbad
Watch VAAC melt the deck during an automatic landing a few years ago now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXE4yBXjCpQ

"eyeverve — July 18, 2009 — This harrier is outfitted with a new control system. A variant of which will be put on the F-35B Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter)."
_____________________

VAAC Harrier explanation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhTH9TP6-1c

"eyeverve — July 18, 2009 — A variant of this new control system will be fitted on the F-35B Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter), which should take some of the workload of flying a fixed wing aircraft with the ability to hover off the pilot."

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2010, 06:19
by spazsinbad
AV-8A Harrier Tests (Not an USN view point probably - probably USMC - Go USMC!]

http://ussfranklindroosevelt.com/?page_id=2264

"Her final cruise, which concluded on 21 April 1977, included the embarkation of AV-8A Harriers of Marine Attack Squadron (VMA) 231, the historic “Ace of Spades” squadron, marking the first deployment of Vertical Short Take Off and Landing aircraft on board a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier."
&
"From June 1976 to April 1977, VMA-231 deployed with 14 AV-8As aboard the USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (CV-42). This deployment demonstrated that the Harrier could be completely integrated into normal CV air operations. Almost every conceivable takeoff and recovery option was flown: upwind, downwind, crosswind, and before, during, and after re-spots. The Harrier demonstrated not only that VSTOL operations could be conducted within the rigid framework of cyclic operations, but that because of VSTOL’s inherent flexibility, a carrier can launch and recover at any time and steam wherever desired while achieving a combat capability that does not exist when using only conventional aircraft. A STOVL jet is unrestrained by launch/recovery times and mission permitting, could fill in gaps created by the CV cycle. On 13 January 1977, two other Harriers made bow-on approaches and landing aboard the carrier, marking the first time a fixed wing aircraft had made a bow-on, downwind landing aboard a carrier at sea."

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2010, 14:07
by bjr1028
The F-35B is not a harrier

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2010, 14:16
by spazsinbad
However the VAAC Harrier is / was modified to simulate the JSF-B to test concepts (inflight) for operation of the JSF-B.

http://www.vectorsite.net/avav8_3.html

"Another experimental evaluation program focused on the Harrier was conducted by the British military research establishment. This program was focused on making STOVL flight simpler for the pilot, and involved a modification of the second T.2 prototype with the tortured designation "Vectored-thrust Aircraft Advanced flight Control (VAAC)".

The VAAC Harrier was intended to consider solutions to the "three hands" problem of flying the type, where the pilot must handle throttle, stick, and nozzle angle lever during takeoff and landing. The VAAC Harrier was fitted with a new cockpit and control system to allow the aircraft to be flown by pilots without special training. The control system was installed by the Cranfield Institute of Technology, Britain's foremost academic institution for aviation research. The T.2 was delivered to Cranfield in 1983, the modified aircraft made its first flight in 1985, and Cranfield handed it back to the Royal Aircraft Establishment for tests in 1986.

The aircraft still looked like a normal T.2 externally, except for the replacement of the cannon pods with featureless pods containing test avionics. The rear seat was given the new layout, while the front seat retained the old T.2 control layout. This allowed the aircraft to carry a test pilot in the back seat and a "safety pilot" in the front seat who could take over if the new control system did something outside of the script.

The VAAC Harrier was designed to be easily modified to allow testing of different cockpit layouts, control systems, and software, and it has been through many modifications. As of 1995, the program came under the jurisdiction of the new British "Defence Evaluation & Research Agency (DERA)", which absorbed the RAE, though DERA has now been disbanded into two new organizations -- a commercial organization named "QinteQ" (pronounced "kinetic") and a government organization named the "Defence Science & Technology Laboratory (DSTL)". It is unclear which organization inherited the VAAC Harrier and if it remains in service.

The VAAC Harrier was strictly an experimental program and was not intended as a prototype for another Harrier update as such. However, it proved extremely useful for evaluating technologies to be used in the F-35 JSF."

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2010, 14:43
by spazsinbad
Flight test 'lite': Qinetiq's VAAC Harrier highlights capabilities of Lockheed Martin's STOVL Joint Strike Fighter By Craig Hoyle on August 25, 2006

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fligh ... -vaac.html

"It’s hard to believe the amount of time that has passed since Lockheed Martin won the USA’s Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) contest, but October will see the fifth anniversary of the company’s victory over rival manufacturer Boeing in the most spectacular of “winner takes all” contests. This October will be another massive month for the US-led project, as Lockheed could conduct the first system development and demonstration phase flight of an F-35 – the next-generation combat aircraft which has now been dubbed the ‘Lightning II’.

Like one of my current favourite aircraft – the US Air Force’s Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt II, or ‘Warthog’, the JSF poses a major problem to the enthusiastic, but thoroughly untrained aviator such as me: it only has one seat. This means that although we are probably at least six years away from the type’s entry into service with current potential buyers Australia, Canada, Denmark, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Turkey, the UK and the USA I’m already depressed by the knowledge that I will never get the chance to fly in one.

Thankfully, technology is a wonderful thing and I have now had the good fortune to twice have a go at flying the JSF in the synthetic domain. The first chance came about two years ago when I briefly flew a representative simulator for the JSF as part of a military demonstration here in London, but it wasn’t until just before last month’s Farnborough air show that I got a really good taste of what the new aircraft will be like to operate in one of its most challenging flight scenarios: vertical landing.

The US Marine Corps and the UK Royal Air Force and Navy will be the launch users for the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B, with the type to replace their Boeing AV-8B Harrier II and BAE Systems Harrier GR9/9A ground-attack aircraft from around 2012. You’re 10 times more likely to have an accident flying a Harrier than another fast jet type, says Justin Paines, a development test pilot for UK research and technology company Qinetiq who flew 11 sorties on Lockheed’s X-35 demonstrators before leaving the RAF. And that was before he saw me trying to fly a Harrier simulator at the company’s Bedford site…

I had my first flight in a Harrier earlier this year with the RAF’s 20 Sqn operational conversion unit, and now know it was a good job that I didn’t realise how unruly the aircraft is in the hover before I had a go at the controls. I’m ashamed to say it, but flying the simulator for Qinetiq’s unique VAAC Harrier – the oldest two-seat example of the type flying in the world, with more than 30 years of research work now behind it – was a disastrous failure for me in conventional mode. Within seconds of taking control of the aircraft in the hover it was spiraling wildly on its axis and pitching about like a bucking bronco. And then I crashed it. Twice.

But my visit to Bedford wasn’t intended solely to dent my confidence. Qinetiq had invited me to the site to fly the device under the supervision of Paines and two of the UK Ministry of Defence’s test pilots from Boscombe Down in Wiltshire to show me how much better things will be in the F-35B. Qinetiq has since 1999 used its lone VAAC airframe to assess a variety of flight control laws intended to make a JSF pilot’s life a whole lot easier and is now involved in a flight test campaign to fine-tune the likely final configuration. You might have seen a news report yesterday by ITV science editor Lawrence McGinty, who was also receiving instruction at Bedford but – unlike me – was lucky enough to go on to successfully fly and land the real VAAC Harrier at Boscombe Down.

While it is without question one of the greatest engineering marvels of the first century of manned flight, the Harrier is a confusing beast to fly, with more controls to take care of than the pilot has hands. With the F-35B, however, that problem will be no more, and I was assured that after no more than a quick briefing I would be able to fly and land the VAAC Harrier, this time using its so-called unified control laws. After one dummy run with a test pilot looking over my shoulder I locked myself into the domed motion simulator, strapped myself in to the unique Harrier cockpit and prepared to redeem myself in front of the professionals.

Here’s the really good news for anyone reading this who might be pondering embarking on a career as a fighter pilot within the next decade or so: it really will be easy to fly a JSF in the STOVL configuration. Forget the current requirement to control the Harrier’s attitude with the joystick, its forward speed with the throttle and (and here’s the difficult bit) its nozzle control lever to stop it from falling out of the sky. In the F-35B the left-hand will control the throttle inceptor: push forward and you accelerate forwards, pull back and you decelerate and eventually go backwards – and the bigger the input the greater the response. In the hover the right-hand side-stick will be used to control everything else: push left or right and the aircraft will jink to the left or right, push forwards and it will descend, pull back and it will climb. On my two attempts to enter the airfield circuit and land on a pad using visual markers to line the aircraft up I succeeded in getting the VAAC down safely, albeit at a snail’s pace, which did wonders for my dented confidence.

If the modified Harrier’s performance is anything to go by, the stability offered by the F-35B’s liftfan and roll posts will be truly spectacular, with only slight inputs required to manoeuvre it around an airfield or onto the deck of an aircraft carrier or assault ship. And Qinetiq has already successfully demonstrated the VAAC Harrier’s ability to automatically return to and land aboard a rolling and pitching aircraft carrier with centimetric accuracy, meaning that the F-35B’s safety record should be remarkably better than the STOVL platforms it will replace.

It’s not just in the hover that the F-35B will be different to fly. I’ve always found it difficult to maintain the determined height during a turn, but during my simulator ride I found that on each turn I was gaining a considerable amount of height, as my automatic reaction – to pull back on the stick slightly to maintain my altitude – was not necessary in the new generation aircraft. The flight control system knows how much throttle the pilot has requested and will make adjustments during the turn to make his or her life that little bit simpler and free up valuable time for system management tasks.

My initial attempts to hover the VAAC Harrier had been so spectacularly bad in conventional flight mode that my test pilot guide later quipped in an e-mail: “I’m very confident that you have got a good understanding of the differences of control between the old Harrier and where we are going with the JSF control laws!!”

But if all this technology is going to make it so spectacularly easy for a pilot to fly the STOVL variant JSF, what will the next generation of pilots for these aircraft have to boast about over their peers on conventional platforms like the Eurofighter Typhoon? “That’s easy,” says one test pilot: “we’ll still be able to hover!”

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2010, 15:04
by spazsinbad
VAAC Harrier enabled this: http://www.youtube.com/user/LockheedMartinVideos

F-35B - Taking STOVL to a New Level

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD-J1KksHUQ

"LockheedMartinVideos — April 16, 2010 — Bringing short take off and vertical landing to a whole new level. The F-35B Joint Strike Fighter has advanced the technology of Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL)."

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2010, 15:17
by spazsinbad
Push the Phreakin' (Red) Button: JPALS (Joint Precision Approach Landing System) would be the technology not mentioned here....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4567923.stm

Push button plane landing hailed The 'push button landing' was onto the deck of HMS Invincible

"Landing Harrier jump jets on ships in bad weather can now be done at the touch of a button, British technology firm Qinetiq has announced. It is hoped the technology will allow pilots to fly missions that would not otherwise have been possible.

The system was based on "some very complicated maths which would remain a trade secret", the project's technical manager Jeremy Howitt said.

The technology could also be used on helicopters, frigates and destroyers.

Red button
The first automatic ship landing by "short take-off vertical landing" (STOVL) aircraft was achieved during a test on HMS Invincible.

It is part of the Ministry of Defence's £2bn contribution to America's $40bn Joint Strike Fighter programme.

'It's something Harrier pilots have always wanted - a big red button to push and take you straight to the coffee bar' Pilot Justin Paines

The device works by linking a STOVL aircraft, via satellite and radio, to an aircraft carrier, Mr Howitt said.

It enables the aircraft and the carrier to know the relative location of one another to within 10cm.

Qinetiq pilot Justin Paines, 41, who was on the Harrier jet equipped with the new system said it made things "completely automatic".

In the new procedure, pilots have to press the button to plot a route in, press it again to accept and then a third time to engage.

"We are trying to make the task of recovering the aircraft to the carrier as simple as possible and let pilots focus on their war mission," he added."

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2010, 15:27
by spazsinbad
JSF and STOVL http://www.sae.org/aeromag/techupdate/06-2001/

The VAAC Harrier during the ship-based JSF research program.

The Vectored Thrust Aircraft Advanced Flight Control (VAAC) Harrier operated by Defense Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) has completed the second phase in the Follow-on Research Program (FRP) sponsored by the U.S./UK Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. The aircraft has been operating at sea with the Royal Navy carrier HMS Invincible to test aircraft control concepts applicable to the short takeoff vertical landing (STOVL) variant of the JSF. DERA stated that the first, land-based evaluation phase last year built on the results of previous trials, familiarized new pilots with the advanced control concepts of the VAAC Harrier, "and resolved known deficiencies." The major aim of the second phase has been to assess compatibility of advanced recovery modes, including novel techniques such as translational rate command applied to operations from a ship's moving deck. Two main control modes were tested with two variants of the hover positioning sub-mode, reported DERA. It was the first full evaluation of the control laws at sea. It involved UK, U.S., and Italian pilots performing 85 deck landings in various winds and sea states. One of the pilots had no previous experience in a STOVL aircraft or of shipboard operations. The shipboard operations were used to confirm the few concerns with some of the control modes that had already been raised and also allowed comparisons to be made to identify potential preferences, said DERA. VAAC Harrier Test Pilot Lt. Cmdr. Phil Hayde said the work with Invincible had demonstrated the VAAC's capability for a low workload solution that provided carefree handling and a low risk of cognitive failure. This would ease the training burden and cut costs.

The VAAC Harrier is currently at DERA's Boscombe Down site where evaluations are being performed on the STOVL automatic recovery system on the aircraft. A later phase of the FRP will research advanced control for short takeoffs and an enhancement of one of the control concepts that was investigated at sea.

The two-seat VAAC Harrier features a digital flight control system with advanced programmable fly-by-wire capabilities from the rear seat. This gives the backseat pilot full-authority digital control of the aircraft via a computer interface that allows various flying modes to be developed and installed. Also, modifications to the software and the flying experience can be achieved between flights with pilot systems and behavior comparison and feedback. The digital flight control system also offers STOVL capability without the necessity of what DERA terms "the tricky third control lever, thus, significantly reducing pilot workload." The JSF trials build on previous DERA/NASA research into advanced control laws, but the latest work incorporates the first comprehensive shipboard evaluations.

Rolls-Royce, which has more than 40 years of experience with vectored thrust technology, is involved with both airframe contenders (Boeing and Lockheed Martin) in the JSF program. Both of their concept demonstrator aircraft are powered by derivatives of the Pratt and Whitney F119 engine. The STOVL variants' propulsion systems incorporate specialist components including actuators, nozzles, and, in the case of the Lockheed Martin proposal, a remote fan to provide lift augmentation for short takeoff and vertical landing. Rolls-Royce is contracted directly to Lockheed Martin for the shaft-driven lift fan, but provides its lift devices (roll system and vectoring three-bearing swivel module) through a contract with P&W. Rolls-Royce contracts directly to Boeing for specialist equipment for the direct-lift solution favored by Boeing for its X-32B variant. Rolls-Royce is also collaborating with General Electric on an interchangeable main engine designated F120. Funding has been provided to develop the F120 as a main engine option for the JSF program. Rolls-Royce has a 40% share in the program, with responsibility for the low-pressure compressor, low-pressure turbine, combustor, and gearbox. - Stuart Birch"

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2010, 05:37
by spazsinbad
ITN journalist flies QinetiQ’s VAAC Harrier to demonstrate advanced control system 17 July 06

http://www.qinetiq.com/home/newsroom/ne ... rrier.html

"Demonstrating the prowess of the development of ‘Unified Flight Control’, which is a novel control concept developed for the Short Take Off Vertical Landing (STOVL) Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), an ITN journalist with no previous flying experience last week flew and landed QinetiQ’s unique Vectored-thrust Aircraft Advanced flight Control (VAAC) Harrier, which is a research test-bed for the control system.

Prior to flying the aircraft, the journalist, Lawrence McGinty, spent just one day with the company ‘flying’ its VAAC Harrier simulator under the guidance of ATEC test pilot, Lt Chris Götke RN, who flew in the front seat of the VAAC during the flight."

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2010, 05:47
by spazsinbad
QinetiQ applies relative GPS solution to achieve world's first automatic landing of a STOVL aircraft onto a ship 13 June 05

http://www.qinetiq.com/home/newsroom/ne ... stovl.html

"QinetiQ has applied its relative GPS technology to achieve the world's first automatic landing of a short take-off vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft on a ship, as part of its work for the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) programme. Funded by the US Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) programme and the UK MOD Joint Combat Aircraft Integrated Project Team (JCA IPT), this is a key milestone in an innovative risk reduction programme for the F-35 STOVL aircraft.

QinetiQ Technical Manager, Jeremy Howitt said: "QinetiQ's system is based on GPS technology but it operates in a relative mode, where both ship and aircraft are moving and their position is calculated relative to each other. Whilst there are radar-based systems that can be used to conduct automatic landings of conventional jets aboard an aircraft carrier, these systems are not accurate enough to bring a STOVL aircraft all the way to touchdown."

The ability to land an aircraft automatically onto a ship will enable pilots of F-35 to conduct missions by day or night and in weather conditions that would previously have not been possible. The 'Autoland' technology developed by QinetiQ for F-35 also significantly reduces the workload of pilots at the end of a mission and at a point when to land the aircraft onto the moving platform of a ship is a difficult and critical procedure. QinetiQ is helping deliver this Autoland capability to the US Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) programme.

QinetiQ's risk reduction programme is also helping the US Department of Defense's F-35 Program Office (JPO) understand more about the challenges associated with automatically landing a STOVL aircraft on a ship.

In QinetiQ's system, the ship position and velocity are transmitted via datalink to the aircraft. The flight management system aboard the aircraft calculates the relative position and velocity between the aircraft and the ship, constructs a trajectory between the two bodies and from this provides steering commands to the autopilot. Standard GPS receivers are situated on the aircraft and the ship, with the ship position corrected to take account of the offset between the GPS antenna location and the desired touchdown point.

Andrew Sleigh, QinetiQ MD Defence said: "The achievement takes automatic landing technology to a new level and is the latest advance of a long line in research by QinetiQ and its British predecessors. Our work in the 1950s led to civil aircraft being able to land in all weathers at airports from the 1960s onwards. Today, QinetiQ has achieved a world first by successfully landing a STOVL aircraft automatically and with no pilot control onto the deck of HMS Invincible."

This new pioneering development comes from the British company, QinetiQ, whose predecessors developed the jet engine, invented carbon fibre and have helped reduce aircraft noise and emissions. QinetiQ and its predecessor organisations have been at the forefront of automatic landing systems technology for the last 50 years and this is the latest in a long line of notable achievements.

In 2002, Lockheed Martin selected a novel control concept, known as 'Unified' for the STOVL F-35 aircraft. This concept was pioneered and matured by QinetiQ in partnership with UK MOD, F-35 Programme Office and Lockheed Martin. This system enables the pilot to simply command the aircraft to go faster or slower and up or down whilst the fly-by-wire control system does all the hard work. QinetiQ's autoland technology takes this capability a step further and the autoland technology also opens up the door for operating Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAVs) from ships."

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2010, 00:57
by spazsinbad
Jon Beesley perspective (excerpt - there is much more but not easy to display here) about 'how easy to fly' JSF versions from the 'Commemmorating First Flight PDF' (53Mbs): http://www.zshare.net/download/765117503fa3c3df/

Unread postPosted: 27 May 2010, 10:42
by spazsinbad
Piloting the Joint Strike Fighter Date: 26 May 2010
Testing of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II (joint strike fighter) is well underway. Ian McInnes catches up with Graham "GT" Tomlinson, BAE Systems' lead test pilot for the STOVL variant, to find out how it flies.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/feat ... ture85998/

"Ian McInnes: Having flown the Harrier, what was your initial reaction to the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant of the F-35?

Graham Tomlinson: The Harrier family of aircraft remains a miracle of technology and design which, by the time it retires, will have been hovering for more than half the history of powered flight. It has provided unmatched capabilities and flexibility of basing, with accepted penalties for the pilot in terms of workload and training. But it is also necessary for Harrier pilots to obey some hard-learnt golden rules; break them and it would bite.

The F-35 brings 21st century technology to the table. It retains the flexibility inherent in STOVL aircraft but adds stealth, large increases in performance and capabilities, and – for the first time – offers a STOVL aircraft that looks after the pilot, not the other way round.

Workload is dramatically reduced, training requirements are slashed, and a cocoon of safety protects the pilot from human errors and omissions. The pilot is now able to concentrate fully on the mission tasks in the knowledge that the take-off and landing tasks are trivially easy.

IM: Technical issues aside, did you enjoy flying the aircraft, and what pleased you in particular?

"The F-35 STOVL aircraft looks after the pilot, not the other way round."GT: Early flight tests are all about predicting behaviour. We do that using rigs, simulators, wind tunnels and computer-based analysis, and then confirm that the real behaviour is a close match. We move cautiously in small steps, checking the match through real-time telemetered data to the control team experts. The most pleasing thing from this perspective has been how good our predictions have been.

Purely as a pilot, the most satisfying features have been the rock-solid handling and stability of the aircraft, coupled with brute performance that slightly exceeds our requirements. Pilots always like thrust.

All STOVL aircraft encounter non-linear behaviour close to the ground, caused by hot air bouncing back up and interfering with aerodynamics and propulsion characteristics. I'm greatly encouraged that our experiences of this so far have been as good as we could have hoped; it is far more benign than in the Harrier family. It will undoubtedly remain an area of interest as we expand the wind envelopes for low speed take-offs and landings.

"The most satisfying features have been the rock-solid handling and stability of the aircraft."IM: Did the F-35 training simulation preparation make your flight easier when the real thing came around?

GT: Like many fly-by-wire aircraft, the joint strike fighter uses on-board models of aerodynamic and propulsive effects to decide which flight control surfaces or engine parameters provide the best way to satisfy the pilot's demands. These same models live in our simulators, which provide amazingly accurate representations of the real thing.

In the design years we used the simulators to refine the way the aircraft responds, and this gave us a deep understanding of how the joint strike fighter flies. Now we use the simulators to rehearse missions; it boils down to practice makes perfect. The pilot gets to practice the "monkey skills" he needs to hit test points accurately and consistently, and we hook up the simulator to the control room team so that everyone gets to practice. We emphasise the communications, the rhythm of the mission, the expected areas of interest (the new bits) and we throw in practice failures to create emergency training. It is all very realistic and beneficial.

IM: How much time did you log on F-35 simulation before taking the real aircraft out?

GT: I'd estimate between 1,000 and 2,000 hours; more than enough to feel completely at home in the aircraft before we turned a wheel.

IM: Did any elements of the aircraft's performance surprise you?

GT: I was surprised by how little the aircraft varied from the predictions. Good surprise.

It also surprised me that the aircraft copes so well with the airflow disturbances created by the huge door above the lift fan, which generates destabilising airflow for the rudders and tails.

"The basics of starting up, getting airborne, flying and landing are trivially easy."The upside of the door is that it scoops flow into the lift fan intake and adds significant thrust. The downside is the non-linear flow over the rear of the aircraft at conventional speeds where we convert from a conventional aircraft into a STOVL aircraft. The compromise seems to have been made just about right, as we retain satisfactory control through the conversion process (opening the doors and spinning up the lift fan). This will be another area of interest as we expand the conversion window from our initial heart-of-the-envelope speeds.

IM: Were you happy with the cockpit in this aircraft or will some of it take some getting used too?

GT: All three joint strike fighter variants have identical cockpits. It is a bare cockpit with few switches, focusing on the mission tasks. The basics of starting up, getting airborne, flying and landing the aircraft are trivially easy. The F-35 in STOVL mode flies remarkably like the family of joint strike fighter in conventional mode. A single button commands the conversion, which is then fully automatic.

The mission elements are dominated by a 20x8in touch screen display and by the helmet-mounted display, which replaces the heads-up display of legacy fighters. Voice activation is in the pipeline for some functions, and obviously the legacy Hands On Throttle-And-Stick philosophy has been retained. Getting the best from the mission systems will undoubtedly require a degree of familiarity and practice for the service pilots, but the gut feeling is that the videogame generation will quickly adapt to the full potential of the sophisticated sensor suite.

IM: So what did it feel like to you to fly the F-35 STOVL? Did it seem like just another job or a lot more than that?

GT: You get tied up in the professionalism of the team and don't have much time to think about the job dispassionately. There's a lot to do in flight test because we double and triple check everything, and do everything slowly and steadily with a continuous flow of information between pilot and control room. We also have lots of extra instruments and test kit to shepherd and analyse. So yes, it is just a job when you are actually involved in doing it. It is when you sit back afterwards that you realise what fun it is, how lucky we are as individuals to be involved at this early stage of testing and how the UK's heritage of STOVL aircraft has propelled us to the forefront of testing of this latest incarnation."

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2010, 04:13
by spazsinbad
Investigation of Non-Traditional Non-Skid Technologies for the U.S. Navy - RNers are helping also:

http://www.corrdefense.org/Technical%20 ... 20Navy.pdf (1Mb)

ABSTRACT
"Current deployment of technologically advanced aircraft such as the MV-22 Osprey and the
future deployment of the Joint Strike Fighter F-35B are pushing the envelope of current non-skid
technologies. With these new aircrafts a cast of new performance requirements are emerging, forcing
the U.S. Navy to rethink its position on non-skid technology and how it will be used for flight deck
service. Thermal spray coatings, mechanical surface alterations, alternative coating chemistries,
overlays, and removable or replaceable decking are among some of the technologies being
investigated. Traditional non-skid materials have had a constant struggle to provide sufficient service
life and maintain readiness under current conditions of high traffic, wire wear and impact. However,
future demands for Short Take-off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) and Vertical Take-off and Landing
(VTOL) aircraft will further complicate the issue adding requirements for high temperature resistance
and extreme durability. This paper will focus on the investigation of alternative materials that will
improve the current performance state of traditional non-skid as well as discuss the status of current
ship board demonstrations of non-traditional non-skid materials."
__________

SUMMARY
This program will develop, evaluate, qualify, and install non-skid coatings, which will have a minimum threshold of 15,000 traps and an objective of 20,000 as compared to the Type I requirement of only 10,000 traps. The proposed coatings will have increased thermal resistance: High Heat variant maximum 400oF [204oC] for 90 minutes, Extreme Heat variant maximum 1700oF [927oC] for 7 to 20 seconds, enhanced overall weatherability and chemical/mechanical resistance as compared to the current “legacy” non-skid systems. For example, increased thermal resistance will reduce foreign object damage (FOD) from overheated and subsequently disbonded non-skid coating during JSF aircraft operations. The proposed system will have twice the service life of the legacy system in relation to mechanical resistance from landing aircraft, and thus reduce the down time required for repair of the present system. Lastly, the system will possess superior color retention which will significantly reduce and/or eliminate the need for surface color topping to maintain proper visual contrast ratios. These new coatings will differ in both their chemical and physical properties from the current MIL-PRF-24667 approved coatings."

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2010, 04:44
by spazsinbad
Because the Osprey MV-22B or derivative may be used on a 'ski jump' carrier this PDF is significant alone for that (but not for the ski jump part)

MV-22B OSPREY SHORT TAKEOFF AND MINIMUM RUN-ON LANDING TESTS ABOARD LHD CLASS SHIPS

http://www.vtol.org/f65_bestPapers/test ... uation.pdf (1.2Mb)

ABSTRACT
This paper describes recent ship suitability tests conducted by the V-22 Test Team in March 2008 aboard USS IWO JIMA (LHD 7). This testing encompassed expanding the Short Takeoff (STO) envelopes and developing a new landing technique termed Minimum Run-on Landing (MROL) to extend V-22 shipboard capability beyond Vertical Takeoff and Landing (VTOL) gross weights (GW)....
&
CONCLUDING REMARKS
This paper has provided an overview of the test methodology used in order to conduct V-22 sea trials in support of increased shipboard STO capabilities for the fleet [3]. The objectives of this test were partially met. The STO GW envelope was expanded, although not to the fullest extent of the aircraft capability due to insufficient time at-sea. MROL demonstrated to be a revolutionary and safe way to land aboard ship at GWs heavier than VTOL capability and will continue to be developed and tested. An MROL envelope was not recommended due to insufficient test data; however when more can be gathered, the possibility of granting an envelope to the fleet exists...."

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2010, 16:11
by bjr1028
This would be very valuable to the Navy should it go ahead with the plans to replace the C-2 with the Osprey.

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2010, 22:33
by spazsinbad
For the CVF vaguely I recall an idea to use a V-22 as an AEW aircraft but that idea was shelved, perhaps before the trials (in 2008). Ex-RNers have mentioned this idea; especially when we know an RN pilot is on exchange with an Osprey outfit, can't recall details at moment.
_________________

Ospreys in Flight: A Royal Navy Exchange Officer Perspective Wednesday Jul 08, 2009 Lieutenant Colin Griffiths, Royal Navy, VMM 266 Operations Officer

http://www.navair.navy.mil/v22/index.cf ... ail&id=223

"Having joined the Royal Navy in 1998 and serving with 845 and 846 Naval Air Squadron’s for multiple combat tours as a Commando Helicopter Force [CHF] ‘Junglie’ Sea King Mk 4 helicopter pilot and Helicopter Warfare Instructor, it was in 2007 that I was selected to go on a three year exchange [PEP] tour with the United States Marine Corps (USMC) and would fly the Bell-Boeing V22 tilt-rotor Osprey, with VMM-266 Squadron at MCAS New River, North Carolina. This would be the first UK RN PEP to fly the V22 on the front line, as traditionally the post had always been with the CH46 ‘Frog’ tandem rotor helicopter, being replaced by the V22.

It was in late September 2008 that VMM-266 squadron assumed the mission from VMM-162 for the Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) theatre of operations in Western Iraq (MNF-West), Al Anbar province. From joining the squadron back in October of 2007, through my conversion to all the operational ‘work ups’, we were finally going into an operational combat theater where our skills would be fully tested.

So what is flying the MV-22B Osprey like and especially out on Operations in Iraq?
Most of the landings that are made are to prepared surfaces (either concrete or special matting) which greatly reduces the occurrence of ‘brown out’ reduced visibility landings (RVL). For the occasions where we had to land in RVL conditions, the training we had conducted prior to arrival in Iraq enabled us to complete the landings with confidence in both our and the aircraft’s ability.

Having the significant extra speed, flying at 230kts with 24 fully equipped marines, instead of 90kts in a CH46, that the aircraft brings such benefits; with increased range, like an aircraft, but able to land quickly and almost anywhere like a helicopter. Tactical and strategic advantage for the USMC came into its own. Many of the marine pilots, who have deployed previously to Iraq in legacy platforms, commented on the huge operational benefits of the MV-22B.

The typical tasking that other assault support platforms were conducting, we were able to complete in less than half the time and with half the amount of fuel stops. This greatly increased the efficiency of general support missions in a large area of operations that stretched to around 300 miles in the furthest dimension; the whole Iraq AOA could be covered from our base.

Q: What was a typical day like for a pilot with VMM-266 squadron deployed to OIF?

Depending on which shift you were assigned to (either day or night) then the standard day began with ‘chow’ (USMC term for meal time), then up to the ready room to brief the day’s mission, fly the mission which could be 2 – 6 hours in duration, debrief and then to complete the mission paperwork. It was typically a twelve to fourteen hour workday. Each pilot would not typically fly every day, but sometimes it was as often as 4 to 5 flights a week, which gave plenty of time for carrying out your ground job and for recreation including fitness training. It was a good but often tiring routine and the biggest bonus of being so busy was that the time passed very quickly.

The Squadron conducted a ‘raid’ in January, which was to go into a known insurgent area to capture "individuals of interest" to the Iraqi and US Iraqi governments. The aviation package included a (2) MV-22B assault element, a second MV-22B assault element/Command and Control aircraft, a UH-1N/AH-1W Rotary Wing Escort element, a (2)F/A-18C Fixed Wing Escort/ISR platform, an EA-6B Electronic Warfare element, a (2)RQ-7 Unmanned Aerial System ISR element, and a KC-130J AAR platform. The ground element consisted of around 70 Iraqi Army soldiers and US Marines divided into two 24 man assault teams, and a 20 man QRF "Sparrowhawk."

The command and control MV-22B Osprey also carried the "Sparrowhawk" (Quick Reaction Force) element to prevent "squirters" ie suspects evading the ‘cordoning’ area. In addition to fulfilling the QRF role the Command V22 was also responsible for transporting any detained individuals. The raid force was inserted "on time, on target" and netted a significant weapons cache and one detainee. Both objectives were hit simultaneously and the ‘Sparrow hawk’ was inserted into three different locations to search fleeing vehicles and personnel.

Some personal highlights for me on the deployment included flying the Commandant of the Marine Corps for my Division leader certification flight. This flight leadership designation entrusts a flight leader to lead/control up to four V22 aircraft for assigned missions, day or night. Despite the high priority and status of this tasking it was ‘business as usual for VMM-266 operations department’ in getting maximum value out of all and every opportunity.

I had planned the division movement to include the conduct of two instrument checks and my own division leader assessment flight. This high profile event also required the coordination of press and all supporting details to include a precise arrival and finishing with a ‘Hollywood’ shutdown with all aircraft and with the rotors stopping at the same time before the Commandant departed the aircraft.

The planning and executing the return of the squadron home to MCAS New River, North Carolina, was also my main focus in my role as the future operations officer; in April we put the plan into action. We would fly all 12 planes direct from Iraq to Crete via Turkey some 1100 miles that we would cover in just over 5 hours.
Flying at altitude we were able to take advantage of a higher true airspeed and greatly increased fuel efficiencies and it was great to see the change of scenery from the dusty desert of Iraq for the snow-capped mountains in Turkey. After turkey we ‘went feet wet’ over the Greek Islands and this too was a startling change seeing the ocean for the first time in 7 months. After some well earned rest and relaxation we then flew onto the USS Wasp a USMC LPH and embarked all 12 aircraft and over 100 squadron personnel for the passage through the Mediterranean and across the Atlantic.

Being embarked on a warship was a new experience for quite a few of the squadron personnel, but I had the benefit of being able to compare it to my time on the Royal navy warships including HMS Ocean, HMS Albion and HMS Invincible. The LHD class is a big ship, some 42,000 tons, twice the size of HMS Ocean.
The main difference, I observed, was in the utilization of the flight deck, in that all minor maintenance is carried out on the flight deck on US warships, as opposed to being conducted in the hangar in UK, which is reserved for very specific maintenance requirements. It was a sight to behold all ’12 Ospreys’ folded and ranged/lined up in the starboard ‘bone’. Some things stay the same, such as in the ‘chain gang’, where on Royal Navy LPH the air group accommodation is directly beneath the hanger deck. Here you can often be awoken in the early hours by chains being dragged across the hangar deck. On the USS ship most officer accommodation is directly beneath the flight deck so you get the same kind of noises.
During the embarked time, we conducted training in deck landing practice which is an important skill for a naval aviator and it proved to be a great opportunity to ‘blow the dust off’ in getting the experienced pilots back in the groove of landing on a moving deck and in getting some initial deck landing qualifications for a couple of the pilots and aircrew.

After the crossing the Atlantic it was time for the grand finale; which was the twelve V22 aircraft fly-in to our home base at MCAS New River. This was a great feeling for us and a welcome sight for our families after 7 months deployed and an amazing event to be a part of. We departed the ship some 200 miles off the coast of North Carolina, again highlighting the versatility of this revolutionary aircraft in the case in Ship to Objective Manouevre (STOM) capability; of being truly over the horizon in covering this distance in around 45 minutes. On the way in we flew over an outgoing Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) in a 12 aircraft V formation and used this same formation to overfly the squadron hangar at MCAS New River Air Station before joining for the break in 3 elements of 4 aircraft (a division) where the formation is flown down the runway and max performance turn to bring the aircraft back in for landing in front of the families. Having returned from OIF, the squadron is looking forward with great anticipation to its first afloat Marine Expeditionary Unit deployment and we relish whatever challenges are presented to fulfill our mission wherever we are needed.

It has been an amazing opportunity in being the first non-US tilt rotor pilot to be assigned to a USMC Fleet squadron and to deploy for combat operations in OIF with a frontline Osprey unit. To see this squadron work up from scratch, through training, deploying to Iraq for combat operations and bringing all aircraft and squadron personnel back to the United States has been very fulfilling. This deployment has certainly been interesting, and though not my first rodeo, I have deployed to Iraq three times previously with the RN Commando Helicopter Force, based out of Basra, I have learned a great deal about US combat operations in Iraq and in particular USMC Marine Air Ground Task Force combat operations.

It has been a fine challenge and a great honor to represent the Royal Navy and serve with this ‘band of brothers’ in the ‘Fighting Griffins’ that is VMM 266 out in Al Anbar province, Iraq.
Lieutenant Colin Griffiths Royal Navy"

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2010, 23:03
by spazsinbad
Check 'Cygnus' anime avatar: http://www.timawa.net/forum/index.php?topic=23102.0

"Toss
In June 2007 FightGlobal reported that US Navy was seeking to gain support for a demonstration of the Thales Cerberus maritime surveillance radar for the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey, potentially expanding the role of the US Marine Corps and US Air Force tiltrotor programme beyond the transport mission.

The so-called Totally Organic Sensor System (TOSS) would demonstrate that the Westland Sea King ASaC.7's Cerberus airborne surveillance and control sensor could be modularised and installed on a wide range of navy and USMC aircraft, starting with the V-22. The UK Royal Navy would be a joint participant in the TOSS joint concept technology demonstration, if the project is approved.

The US Navy's Naval Sea Systems Command is still searching for a second service to sponsor the project to make the project eligible for a "joint" funding programme, says Ken Moritz, a business development director for Bell Boeing.

The USN is interested in using Cerberus-equipped V-22s for the expeditionary strike group mission. The project is a potential opportunity to drive additional sales of the V-22 for the maritime surveillance role, Moritz says.

The TOSS project also seeks to develop a modular kit for several additional types of US military aircraft.

So far, the Cerberus radar is not a part of the upgrade roadmap for the V-22. The Block B model, which adds a ramp gun, hoist, refuelling probe and reliability improvements, has been finalised. The Block C configuration remains in the definition stage, with proposals to add an internal gun embedded in the fuselage, a new radar and an improved environmental control system. The US Navy also has identified a requirement for a Block D upgrade programme, focusing initially on integrating the assault directed infrared countermeasures suite.

In March 2008 Aviation Week said that Boeing was proposing a three year joint capability technology demonstration (JCTD) with extensive support from the RN. The kit requires very minor modifications to the V-22 - the addition of CV-22-type sponson tanks, power connectors, intercom and a Link 16 antenna - and the radar needs a rigid radome (the Sea King ASaC.7 radome is inflatable.)"

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2010, 23:58
by spazsinbad
2008 Osprey News (Bell Boeing): http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/milita ... N_2008.pdf (3.7Mb)

RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2010, 00:55
by geogen
A future VLO 'Joint-op', catapult-launch 'Small Carrier' could be a justified ship to begin replacing the 8 ship CVN fleet with a targeted delivery perhaps around 2020. Some combination of nuke powered and conventional/hybrid 'renewable-powered' Small Carrier could be argued.

imho, the objective should be to deploy a total of about 26 combat a/c (comprising two types at most, e.g., F/A-XX (or block V F-35C) and UCAV), plus a complement of rescue/ASW helo/unmanned helo. A full self-defense/self-escort armament capability should be built into the design, or don't do it at all. Perhaps something on a scale of an initial 20 ship doctrine could be studied. God speed.

RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2010, 05:02
by spazsinbad
geogen, perhaps these new mini USN carriers would have an EMALS catapult going up a ski jump? If EMALS works out OK then this is a possibility whenever... Even have less of an incline (this would be worked out EMALS+RAMP).

Anyway here is a bit of info about JSF STOVL testing: "Flight-testing will be conducted at Fort Worth, Edwards AFB and NAS Patuxent River. Additionally, the STOVL and CV variants will undergo sea trials aboard American, British and Italian aircraft carriers."

http://www.aerotechnews.com/edwardsafb/ ... e-Fighters

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2010, 08:10
by bjr1028
spazsinbad wrote:For the CVF vaguely I recall an idea to use a V-22 as an AEW aircraft but that idea was shelved, perhaps before the trials (in 2008). Ex-RNers have mentioned this idea; especially when we know an RN pilot is on exchange with an Osprey outfit, can't recall details at moment.


It was shelved for two reasons.
1) Cost. The British government is notoriously cheap and the USN wasn't going to spend billions to convert Naval aviation to inferior performing STOVL aircraft.

2) Simulations showed problems in flight performance with a radar dome. The only options where to come up with something revolutionary or switch to a vastly inferior system like searchwater or HEW-784 with a fraction of the range and target tracking ability the big dish would have.

spazsinbad wrote:Check 'Cygnus' anime avatar: http://www.timawa.net/forum/index.php?topic=23102.0

"Toss
In June 2007 FightGlobal reported that US Navy was seeking to gain support for a demonstration of the Thales Cerberus maritime surveillance radar for the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey, potentially expanding the role of the US Marine Corps and US Air Force tiltrotor programme beyond the transport mission.

The so-called Totally Organic Sensor System (TOSS) would demonstrate that the Westland Sea King ASaC.7's Cerberus airborne surveillance and control sensor could be modularised and installed on a wide range of navy and USMC aircraft, starting with the V-22. The UK Royal Navy would be a joint participant in the TOSS joint concept technology demonstration, if the project is approved.

The US Navy's Naval Sea Systems Command is still searching for a second service to sponsor the project to make the project eligible for a "joint" funding programme, says Ken Moritz, a business development director for Bell Boeing.

The USN is interested in using Cerberus-equipped V-22s for the expeditionary strike group mission. The project is a potential opportunity to drive additional sales of the V-22 for the maritime surveillance role, Moritz says.

The TOSS project also seeks to develop a modular kit for several additional types of US military aircraft.

So far, the Cerberus radar is not a part of the upgrade roadmap for the V-22. The Block B model, which adds a ramp gun, hoist, refuelling probe and reliability improvements, has been finalised. The Block C configuration remains in the definition stage, with proposals to add an internal gun embedded in the fuselage, a new radar and an improved environmental control system. The US Navy also has identified a requirement for a Block D upgrade programme, focusing initially on integrating the assault directed infrared countermeasures suite.

In March 2008 Aviation Week said that Boeing was proposing a three year joint capability technology demonstration (JCTD) with extensive support from the RN. The kit requires very minor modifications to the V-22 - the addition of CV-22-type sponson tanks, power connectors, intercom and a Link 16 antenna - and the radar needs a rigid radome (the Sea King ASaC.7 radome is inflatable.)"


The Cerberus system on the TOSS is ideal for what the marine corps requirements are.
1) Its a palleted system that does not require a dedicated aircraft. The osprey can get back to ferrying marines and cargo as soon as the pallet is pulled. The Pallet could also be fitted to a H-92 or AW-101

2) While the air to air capability is important to the Marines, lessons learned from the ASAC.7's ground deployments are even more beneficial. Unlike more powerful dedicated air to air radars, searchwater has air to ground tracking modes. In essence, it can act as a mini forward deployed JSTARS giving Marine ground commanders real time tracking of the entire battlefield.

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2010, 01:53
by spazsinbad
OLD NEWS for sure however early in the thread there were questions [bjr1028: "The F-35B is not a harrier."] about VACC Harrier simulating the STOVL F-35, so here is some background info: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-270.html

Lockheed Martin JSF Program Conducts Side-Stick Flight Test Aboard UK's Harrier 20 Nov 1998

http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stor ... 228&EDATE=

"FORT WORTH, Texas /PRNewswire/ -- Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) recently completed 20 hours of flight testing in the United Kingdom to support development of the STOVL (Short Take Off Vertical Landing) variant of the Royal Navy Joint Strike Fighter.

The flights were conducted with Britain's Defence Evaluation Research Agency (DERA) Vectored-thrust Aircraft Advanced Control (VAAC) vehicle, a modified Harrier. The evaluation program tested side-stick control of the aircraft in various STOVL tasks at flight speeds from hover to 200 knots. The testing confirmed that a side stick provides satisfactory control of a STOVL aircraft at the low speeds where the aircraft is airborne.

A total of 36 flights were conducted at the flight test facility at DERA Boscombe Down in the United Kingdom. Test pilots from Lockheed Martin, British Aerospace, the United States Marine Corps and the British Royal Air Force participated in the evaluation.

The test was divided into two phases: a calibration phase where test control laws and stick characteristics were validated followed by an evaluation phase. Evaluation tasks included pattern work, approach and final transition tasks, and precision and aggressive hover tasks.

DERA, a research organization funded by the UK Ministry of Defense, provided the aircraft for the flight test. The VAAC Harrier is a two-seat T-4 trainer fitted out with a fully digital flight control system for advanced STOVL control research. VAAC is equipped with an integrated sensor suite and an advanced flight control computer that can be easily altered to provide varied levels of augmentation for STOVL control law research. Basic flight safety is provided by the VAAC's front seat pilot, who can take control of the aircraft at any point during a test should the need arise.

The VAAC was modified for this test to provide the functionality of Lockheed Martin's JSF STOVL aircraft. Modifications included installation of a side-stick controller in the rear cockpit; alteration of the rear cockpit throttle to provide HOTAS -- Hands On Throttle And Stick -- functionality; and modification to VAAC's fly-by-wire controls to provide JSF STOVL aircraft-type responses.

The side-stick system used in the evaluation was manufactured in Buffalo, New York, by Calspan, an Operation of Veridian. The variable-feel side stick is powered by the aircraft's hydraulic system and controlled by a dedicated Calspan computer located in the cockpit. Characteristics of the stick, such as break-out force, force and deflection gradients, and dynamic attributes, can be varied in real-time, in flight, by the VAAC's flight control computer.

A major portion of the flight test evaluation was dedicated to providing variations in side-stick characteristics to gather an assessment of side-stick control for STOVL flight, and to gather data for the development of the sidestick controller for the JSF Concept Demonstrator Aircraft scheduled to fly in 2000."

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2010, 23:40
by spazsinbad
Hmmm, must be easy to transition to the F-35B then: (easy for the RAAF Hornet pilots to transition when required) :D :twisted:

Gunboat Diplomacy, Royal Navy Task Force Sets Sail for the USA Thursday, 17 June 2010

http://www.the-daily-politics.com/news/ ... or-the-usa

"Interoperability between the United States Navy and the Royal Navy has been the 'buzz word' of the deployment....
HMS Ark Royal embarked 12 MAG -14 AV8B harriers from the USMC and, the Royal Navy will be sending twelve fixed wing pilots to the United States to be trained to fly the USN F-18 jets in preparation for the Joint Strike Fighter F35Bs, which will be embarked in the UK's new Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers."

Image

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2010, 05:54
by bjr1028
spazsinbad wrote:Hmmm, must be easy to transition to the F-35B then: (easy for the RAAF Hornet pilots to transition when required) :D :twisted:

Gunboat Diplomacy, Royal Navy Task Force Sets Sail for the USA Thursday, 17 June 2010

http://www.the-daily-politics.com/news/ ... or-the-usa

"Interoperability between the United States Navy and the Royal Navy has been the 'buzz word' of the deployment....
HMS Ark Royal embarked 12 MAG -14 AV8B harriers from the USMC and, the Royal Navy will be sending twelve fixed wing pilots to the United States to be trained to fly the USN F-18 jets in preparation for the Joint Strike Fighter F35Bs, which will be embarked in the UK's new Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers."

Image


Makes a lot of sense. The SRVL is going to have a skill set similar to an arrested landing. Marine corps (as well as spanish and italian) harrier pilots already are already familiar since they have to carrier qualify in a t-45 to get their wings. All current RN and RAF pilots have only done vertical landings. Plus, if the F-35B gets cut, it doesn't leave the RN completely high and dry.

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2010, 06:36
by spazsinbad
bjr1028, I don't believe the F-35B will be 'if... cut' as you put it, and RN/RAF Harrier pilots do carry out 'rolling landings' ashore, but they are a lot trickier than testing (VACC Harrier) and JSF-B SRVL simulation (with rolling landings ashore also) suggests so far will be the case for the JSF-B SRVL. I would speculate also that these RN Harrier pilots will learn to keep their Air to Air skills, rather than plod with the RAF with their 'AG only' skillset. Just sayin'. :twisted: :D [JSF-B will have a 'Fleet Defence' role in RN on CVFs also.]

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2010, 14:21
by spazsinbad
JSF carrier trial puts VAAC Harrier testbed on a roll DATE:17/04/07 SOURCE:Flight International

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... -roll.html

"Consideration of the aerodynamic performance of JSF together with the available deck area of CVF design has shown that significant benefits could be realised by extending the principles of land-based RVL to shipborne operations," says the Ministry of Defence, adding: "The UK is keen to exploit this opportunity."

Following initial UK studies, the US JSF programme office sponsored a more detailed analysis of the SRVL concept with Lockheed in 2004-5, culminating with a simulator trial at NASA's Ames Research Center in California in late 2005. The MoD says the "increasing maturity of this body of analysis and simulation indicates SRVL could be performed safely by JSF on CVF, although the effects of equipment failures and adverse conditions require further investigation".

The VAAC testbed will perform a series of flight trials, potentially using a large-deck aircraft carrier such as the French navy's FNS Charles de Gaulle, and concluding with a final evaluation of a preferred SRVL approach and landing using a "dummy deck" at Boscombe Down around November [2007]."

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2010, 14:28
by spazsinbad
2. Lockheed Martin Continues Joint Strike Fighter Tests at SimLabs NASA SimLabs News January 2006 Newsletter Volume 6, Issue 1

http://www.simlabs.arc.nasa.gov/newslet ... 01_06.html

"Lockheed Martin continued evaluations of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft in SimLabs’ Vertical Motion Simulator (VMS) by recently completing four weeks of simulation experiments. The unique motion & acceleration capabilities of the VMS are ideally suited to evaluate the handling qualities of several variants of the F-35....
The STOVL configuration was the primary variant studied. This configuration required high fidelity motion cues to evaluate tasks that included bolter and ski ramp take-off. A bolter is an aborted carrier touchdown that requires full thrust to take-off after the abort. The ski ramp take-off is a short deck take-off at full thrust using a ramp at the end of the deck. Both maneuvers require high vertical acceleration cues to simulate accurately....
As part of this study, representatives from the United Kingdom Ministry of Defense evaluated a Shipboard Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) procedure as one more determinant in their choice between the variants mentioned above. The procedure is tied to a new aircraft carrier design under consideration and will have significant cost ramifications on the carrier design. For the SRVL procedure, touchdown dispersion and ramp clearance under various shipboard and environmental conditions were evaluated. Several aircraft controls handling issues were identified that need further investigation giving designers the opportunity to improve the system while the vehicle is still under development."

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2010, 14:40
by spazsinbad
FIRST SIMULATED LANDINGS ON NEW ROYAL NAVY CARRIERS 14 Jul 2008 | Ref. FI010/2008

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... tems05.htm

"...This work aims to develop the capability of the short take off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant of the F-35 Lightning II, the UK replacement aircraft for the Harrier, and has been identified as a significant step forward to enhancing the capabilities of the UK armed forces in the future.

The SRVL manoeuvre is a development of a land based technique used currently by the Harrier aircraft and involves the aircraft landing on the carrier with a low-speed approach instead of vertically. This enables STOVL aircraft to land with heavier a payload. BAE Systems has successfully tested this technique at its dedicated flight simulation facility at Warton."

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2010, 14:58
by spazsinbad
And now – new stealth jumpjet makes first hover landing Posted on March 19, 2010 by alan

http://www.ilkda.com/wordpress/2010/03/ ... r-landing/

"Following yesterday’s initial hover, the new F-35B Lightning II – world’s first supersonic stealth jumpjet – has now made a vertical landing. British test pilot Graham Tomlinson said the aircraft is much easier to set down than today’s Harrier.
“Today’s vertical landing onto a 95-foot square pad showed that we have the thrust and the control to maneuver accurately both in free air and in the descent through ground effect,” said Tomlinson, a former RAF Harrier jockey and now lead test pilot for the F-35B. The first three jumpjets are in flight tests at Naval Air Station Patuxent River in Maryland.
The vertical landing was a venture into the unknown for the F-35B, as its design is radically different from the Harrier and it had not previously hovered low enough for surface effects to come into play.
Tomlinson has previously said that the F-35B is easier to handle in the hover than a Harrier: apart from more sophisticated control systems, he says that the forward lift fan, driven by a shaft from the engine and mounted in a vertical tunnel behind the cockpit*, blasts cool air downward as the swivelling jetpipe nozzle at the back of the plane blows fiercely hot jet exhaust.
In the Harrier, hot exhaust roiling up from the ground can get sucked into the jet’s engine intakes, causing unpredictable power blips, but Tomlinson has said that the F-35B’s fanshaft air acts as a “dam”, causing the hot exhaust to stay to the rear and letting the engine operate more consistently. He told reporters that the “cobblestones” felt during a hover landing were “very light” compared to his days flying Harriers.
“The low workload in the cockpit contrasted sharply with legacy short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) platforms,” he added.
Tomlinson also gave it as his assessment that data from the landing yesterday indicated the F-35B will be able to make vertical landings still carrying 5,000lb of fuel and weapons. This will mean that it can come in to a hover landing on ships at sea still armed with air-to-air missiles, a vital requirement if the plane is being used as a patrol fighter to protect a fleet.
The US Marines, the main planned buyer of the F-35, will be using it primarily as a strike plane – but the Royal Navy, which will have no other jets, will also use it as air cover for the fleet and will need it to get back on deck without dumping weapons. The Sea Harrier’s inability to do this in hot climates** was the reason the legendary fighter was taken out of service some years back, limiting the Royal Navy today to Harrier GR9s that have no fighter radar and carry only short-range Sidewinder missiles as opposed to the Sea Harrier’s arse-kicking beyond-visual-range AMRAAMs.
The Royal Navy have even gone so far as to develop a new landing profile for jumpjets which they call Shipboard Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL), where a Harrier or F-35B can come down still going forward fast enough to use wing lift as well as engine/fan thrust – and yet slowly enough to halt before falling off the side of the ship, even without use of arrester wires.
Senior naval aviators have told The Reg that the Royal Navy will probably use SRVL regardless of the F-35B’s vertical landing performance, as it will allow still more load to be carried and will mean that engines don’t have to be run at maximum redline power in the hover so much.
That said, rolling SRVL landings will take up a lot more room on a carrier’s deck than hovering ones, and jumpjets have had to land on other ships than carriers in the past, so the RN may yet be glad to have the full vertical-landing option.
Despite yesterday’s success, however, serious question marks still hang over the F-35B and indeed over the whole F-35 programme (there are also A and C versions of the jet, intended for runway and catapult-carrier operations).
Today, though, worried Pentagon project bureaucrats and manufacturers in the US and UK*** will simply be happy to have some good news to tell us for once. ®
Bootnotes
*The big fliptop lid covers the top of the fan tunnel; the small dorsal doors behind it let extra air into the engine for high-thrust hover operations. There are more doors on the underside to let the jet exhaust twist downward and to cover the bottom of the fan tunnel when not in use.
**Jet engines lose thrust when sucking hotter air."

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2010, 16:57
by lampshade111
Does that 5000 pound of fuel and weapons include the internal fuel? If so, how could the F-35B possibly get in the air without a "less than short" take-of?

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2010, 17:35
by bjr1028
spazsinbad wrote:bjr1028, I don't believe the F-35B will be 'if... cut' as you put it, and RN/RAF Harrier pilots do carry out 'rolling landings' ashore, but they are a lot trickier than testing (VACC Harrier) and JSF-B SRVL simulation (with rolling landings ashore also) suggests so far will be the case for the JSF-B SRVL. I would speculate also that these RN Harrier pilots will learn to keep their Air to Air skills, rather than plod with the RAF with their 'AG only' skillset. Just sayin'. :twisted: :D [JSF-B will have a 'Fleet Defence' role in RN on CVFs also.]


The shore doesn't, move, roll, or pitch.

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2010, 22:07
by spazsinbad
bjr1028, :twisted: :D Nor does it (the runway) turn into the wind and accelerate. :shock:

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2010, 03:56
by spazsinbad
Navy: Price tag to alter ships for JSF at least $70 million apiece
Ship will be available in 2012 Inside the Navy June 14, 2010 Dan Taylor and Jason Sherman

http://www.mikemooney.com/uploads/DMR_6-16-10.pdf (274Kb)

"The Navy estimates it will cost at least $70 million to modify each large-deck amphibious ship to accommodate the Marine Corps’ F-35B variant of the Joint Strike Fighter, including infrastructure modifications and efforts to mitigate engine heat from the short-take-off, vertical-landing JSF variant, according to a senior Marine.

Required ship alterations are scheduled to be identified in order to support the first operational F-35B Marine Expeditionary Unit deployment in 2014, two years after the service’s goal to have its first JSF unit operational -- a previously unreported milestone. Lt. Gen. George Trautman, deputy commandant for aviation, detailed the schedule for JSF ship integration efforts in written responses delivered last month to the House Armed Services Committee following a March 24 hearing.

Should the Marine Corps’ first JSF unit need to deploy before being fully integrated with other elements of the MEU, an L-class ship modified for JSF operations will be be available beginning in 2012, according to Trautman.

Naval Sea Systems Command, according to the three-star general, has identified $27 million worth of “cornerstone” modifications necessary for the L-class ships to accommodate the F-35B, alterations that are funded in the fiscal year 2011 spending request or programmed in the Navy’s FY-11 to FY-15 investment plan, according to Trautman. Not yet funded, but estimated to require $43 million per hull, are additional alternations needed to account for external environmental impacts, according to Trautman.

The “cornerstone alts,” according to a source familiar with NAVSEA plans, include carving out new areas on the ship to accommodate a Special Access Program Facility space, the Autonomic Logistics Information System infrastructure and a mission rehearsal trainer. In addition, alternations are required to integrate the F-35C, the Navy JSF variant, into Nimitz- and Ford-class aircraft carriers. Changes would include aircraft electrical servicing station modifications, ready room and aircraft intermediate maintenance department upgrades, space for battery storage and more.

The other category of ship modifications concerns what the Navy and Marine Corps designate “external environmental impacts” caused by high temperatures from the F-35B’s engine exhaust plumes. These effects will be the focus of development testing set to begin this fall “to assist in defining shipboard mitigation required to meet” the Marine Corps’ goal of having its first JSF unit operational by 2012, “such as relocating systems, material changes and shielding,” according to Trautman.

This fall, the Navy will proceed with a $1.4 million project that would cover the amphibious ship Wasp (LHD-1) with hundreds of sensors to accurately measure the effects of the fierce downwash from the Marine Corps’ F-35B, according to the offices involved in the effort.

Crews will modify the Wasp from Sept. 30 through Feb. 3, 2011, by installing nearly 500 sensors to measure the thermal, pressure and acoustic environment on the flight deck caused by the JSF STOVL’s hot downwash, which some are concerned could warp the deck or damage essential equipment nearby, according to a June 8 statement issued in response to questions from Inside the Navy provided jointly by the Naval Sea Systems Command Surface Warfare Directorate and the JSF program office.

The JSF program will foot the bill for the instrumentation package, which will be installed in advance of at-sea developmental testing of the aircraft in mid-March of 2011, according to the statement.

“The testing is planned to be conducted with two aircraft, which will perform vertical landing operations to Spot 7 and 9, short take-off operations and work within NATOPS [Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization] operating procedures for establishing hovers and translations to the desired landing spots,” the statement reads. Spots 7 and 9 are the aft-most landing spots on the port side of LHD-class ships.

“The testing will be conducted in a build-up approach with pilot qualifications first and one aircraft in the pattern followed by two-aircraft operations, with most landings occurring at Spot 7, which is the primary landing spot,” the statement continues. “The aircraft operations will serve to expand the operating envelope of the F-35B for follow-on testing.”

The program tentatively plans to use test aircraft BF-1 and BF-4 for the testing. BF-1 flew for the first time while using full vertical lift earlier this year.

JSF Integrated Test Force at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD, is responsible for gathering the shipboard data, with NAVSEA in support.

Rear Adm. Mike Manazir, acting director of air warfare (N88), told reporters May 24 at the Pentagon that the service has already captured data at Pax River by blasting a square of ship deck-representative material and a bare metal piece with the downwash.

“We have sent that to NAVSEA right now,” he said. “They’re going through the actual specific analysis as to what the impingement does.”

Crews will place temporary coverings over vulnerable systems on board the Wasp while testing the heat and downwash effects of the JSF STOVL, Manazir said.

The Navy is also examining the effects of the F-35C carrier variant, which does not have a lift fan but uses the same engine as the STOVL plane, the rear admiral said. The service is testing the engine at Eglin Air Force Base, FL, and examining the data at Naval Air Warfare Center Lakehurst, NJ.

“Aboard the aircraft carrier, the F-35C exhaust impingement on the jet blast deflector has also been studied,” he said. “The aircraft obviously has a common engine, the F135, and so we took an airplane out at Eglin and did tests against just a flat plate. We’ve taken the data off of that and we’ve delivered it to Lakehurst.

“Lakehurst is going to take fleet representative JBDs [jet blast deflectors] and the cooling structure that’s associated with that,” he continued. “They’ll install it at Lakehurst, and we’re going to do tests against that jet blast deflector and those units will be able to be installed on a ship at a future date.”

Manazir said the problem is not the heat pattern on the JBD, but the fact that the F-35 and the F/A-18E/F Super Hornets launch less than a minute apart and place a heat load on different places on the JBD.

“It means we have to have a slightly different cooling structure, which probably will involve extra piping in the JBD, but not that much of a change,” he said.

Trautman said that while alterations necessary to accommodate the JSF and its associated equipment are similar for L-class ships and aircraft carriers, the environmental effects of each F-35 variant pose different challenges.

“Environmental effects differ due to the unique take-off and landing characteristics of each variant,” according to Trautman. “The L-class F-35B integration challenges represent the most difficult situation for STOVL operations, when combined with the more robust CVN design and ship structure we anticipate less effort required for F-35B carrier operations.”

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2010, 02:52
by spazsinbad
Italy To Get New Amphibious Ships Jun 25, 2010 By Andy Nativi Genoa

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... line=Italy To Get New Amphibious Ships

"The Italian navy has received the go-ahead to procure two 20,000-ton amphibious assault ships (LHDs), with the possibility of a third ship, configured with extensive aviation facilities (LHA).

The preliminary LHD project is funded and will take 12 months for completion. It will be followed by a project definition phase requiring eight months and leading to a contract. Delivery of the first ship comes within 30 months after that. If everything goes to plan, the first LHD arrives in late 2014.

LHDs will replace two 8,000-ton San Giorgio-class LPDs, commissioned in 1987 and 1988. The LHA will eventually replace the carrier Garibaldi, which is being dedicated to amphibious and helicopter roles now that the Cavour carrier is in service.

The new LHDs will be 190 meters (623 ft.) long, feature a well dock that holds four LCACs (landing craft air cushions), and have a hangar with dedicated maintenance area where six medium-heavy helicopters can be recovered. The flight deck will provide six landing spots and be served by two elevators, one at the stern, the other forward of the island. It will thus be possible to launch air-assault operations, lifting a reinforced rifle company with each wave and rapidly moving personnel and equipment to the deck. Helicopter capacity will be 12-15, depending on mix.

Capabilities also include four smaller LCVP (landing craft, vehicle, personnel) vessels and two motorboats, all in dedicated spaces with cranes under the port flight deck.

The LHD can accommodate 760 troops, including an aviation detachment and staff personnel, in addition to a ship’s crew of only 200, a result of shipboard automation. The vessel will normally carry a reinforced marine battalion and aviation personnel, and be able to add an amphibious task force and landing force command, which will rely on extensive C4I spaces and systems. The basic space earmarked for the command staff is 500 sq. meters (5,380 sq. ft.).

The ship has a large garage deck with a capacity of 360 tons. The vehicles reach the garage from the well dock or through a large starboard door. The garage floor and ramps can support a 60-ton tank. The roll-on/roll-off concept permits rapid loading and unloading of cargo and vehicles, which can also be parked on the flight deck.

The navy has not yet selected a propulsion system. The general specification calls for a top speed of 20 kt. and range of 7,000 nm. at 16 kt., which translates to 45 days’ endurance. Basic proposals are built around a combined diesel and diesel scheme, with four diesels, each 6,000 kw., driving a shaft and variable-pitch propeller. Engine power will be 20-24 megawatts. There will also be powerful bow thrusters. A diesel-electric or pod configuration is being considered. The pod is popular, but would limit the size of the well deck.

The LHDs will have a large electricity generating capability, with four diesel generators in the 2.5-megawatt class.

A peculiarity of the design is that the ships, at least the first, will have civil protection as the primary operational role. The requirement is taken seriously and dictates many capabilities—for instance, large electricity generation and water purification capacity, including deployment of flexible hoses for ship-to-dock or ship-to-ship water transfer.

The LHD will have a hospital that treats 54, with 1,000 sq. meters of dedicated space. The hospital can expand by using space dedicated to the marines’ mess and loading medical containers in part of the hangar. The C4 spaces can be used as a command center for civil protection authorities.

The navy has not entered into discussions about the sensor suite and combat system. The LHD will have an extensive combat management and command system, multirole search and navigation radar, and electronic warfare protection system including decoy launchers.

The ship will have several 25-mm. gun mounts and machine guns, and possibly one or more Oto Melara 76/62-mm. SR guns in the Strales configuration for missile defense.

To minimize costs, the LHDs will be built to commercial standards, modified somewhat to improve survivability, but without full military specifications. Tradeoffs between cost and survivability are being assessed. According to one estimate, the ship can be built for €300 million ($369 million), excluding combat systems."

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2010, 04:49
by spazsinbad
Good explanation of the F-35B STOVL engine arrangements in either this online article [dated Dec 2009] or associated downloadable PDF:

A Flexible Jet Fighter Article - Issue 41, Dec 2009 Neil Mehta

http://www.ingenia.org.uk/ingenia/issue ... /Mehta.pdf (0.5Mb)
&
http://www.ingenia.org.uk/ingenia/artic ... ?Index=576 (same article online)

Excerpt: "STOVL
For short take-off, the 3BSM is swivelled downwards, the roll post nozzles are opened and the clutch is engaged, the power of the main engine is increased and the LiftFan begins to produce thrust. As the F-35B accelerates it is lifted into the air by downward thrust from a combination of its LiftFan, the 3BSM and two roll-posts and within seconds it reaches the point where its wing provides all the lift it needs to fly conventionally. At this point, the drive to the LiftFan is disengaged, the 3BSM is swivelled rearwards and the roll post nozzles are closed allowing 100% of the main engine’s power to be delivered through the rear nozzle.

As the F-35B prepares for a vertical landing, thrust from its main engine is decreased, the clutch is engaged and the LiftFan begins to spool-up to close to 100% speed in readiness to provide downward thrust the moment it is required. But although the LiftFan is rotating at 100%, it must produce the absolute minimum of vertical thrust to avoid creating an unwanted pitch-up effect on the aircraft during the critical approach-to-landing phase.

This is an entirely novel challenge. Normally a fan running at 100% speed will produce 100% thrust. The LiftFan, however, must only begin to deliver its thrust when the pilot selects nozzles-down for short take-off or vertical landing.

Our solution has been to use the guide vanes at the front of the LiftFan’s inlet. We have designed these to operate at variable angles, constantly adjusting to optimise airflow into the LiftFan’s intake. As the F-35B slows for its transition from forward flight to hover, the LiftFan’s transmission system is engaged and within 10 seconds spools-up to 100% speed in readiness for instant power delivery. Its inlet guide vanes are closed, reducing airflow and minimising thrust. At the instant when downward thrust is needed from the LiftFan, the guide vanes begin to open. For 100% thrust they open fully."

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2010, 04:31
by spazsinbad
Ski-jump take-off for light combat aircraft Tejas Anantha Krishnan M / DNA June 27, 2010

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_sk ... as_1401783

"Bangalore: The Naval Air Station in Goa is quietly readying a first-of-its-kind facility in India for flight tests on the light combat aircraft (LCA) Tejas naval variant.

The shore-based test facility (SBTF), when fully-operational, will be the third such test facility in the world after the US and Ukrainian navies. “After the initial flight tests, we will shift all action to SBTF.

The ramp for the take-off area will be ready by the last quarter of 2011 and the landing area in 2012. A full-fledged telemetry unit is also coming up in Goa,” sources in the Indian Navy told DNA.

The sources said the SBTF simulates an aircraft carrier with ski-jump take-off and arrested recovery landing wherein the incoming aircraft is brought to a standstill after touchdown when a hook attached to its underbelly engages a taut arrester wire placed across the landing path.

“It’s recreating a ship on the shore. The one that’s coming up in Goa is based on the Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC) that’s being built at Cochin Shipyard. The SBTF is constructed with the same measurements of IAC,” sources said. All the specialised equipment for the facility is being supplied by the Russians, while the steel structure is being made by Goa Shipyard and civil engineering work by R&D Establishment (Engineers) in Pune."

http://www.topnews.in/files/tejas.jpg

Image

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2010, 04:38
by spazsinbad
Photos of Chinese aircraft jumps point to continued development of carriers

http://www.east-asia-intel.com/eai/2009/08_26/list.asp

"Satellite photographs have revealed for the first time that China has constructed a ski-jump aircraft carrier launch system at an in-land base, an indication that Beijing is moving ahead with plans for strategic naval power projection forces. The ski-jump ramp was located at Xian-Yanliang — a high- altitude location about 500 meters above sea level. A ski-jump style launch system is used on some Russian carriers. U.S. carriers use steam piston driven jet launchers.

http://www.east-asia-intel.com/eai/2009 ... /skij1.jpg

Image

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2010, 22:04
by spazsinbad
What is interesting - of course - is news that LM will be 'testing' F-35C - either in reality or simulation - for skijump use. Go TEAM! :D

Indian Navy Fighter RFI: Lockheed To Respond With Both F-35B & C June 28, 2010

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/06/in ... gle+Reader

"Lockheed-Martin plans to respond to the Indian Navy's recent RFI for a new generation carrier-based figher with two parallel dockets on the STOVL F-35B and the carrier variant F-35C. While it was initially thought that the F-35B would be the variant offered (since it appeared a logical replacement for India's Sea Harrier jump jets), Lockeed-Martin Biz Development (India) VP Orville Prins told me and a few other journalists today that Lockheed-Martin is conducting simulation and analysis studies to support the team's supposition that the F-35C -- built for a steam catapult launch off aircraft carriers -- is also capable of short take-offs from ski-jumps. The simulation and analysis will take into account various stress and strain parameters. The RFI to Lockheed-Martin simply requested information on the F-35 as a potential future carrier-based asset for the Indian Navy, and did not specify a variant. While LM has provided the Navy with programme-level briefings it will shortly begin a round of technical briefings on both the F-35 variants it plans to offer.

Prins cannot ever resist a swipe at the Saab folks. Asked about the other potential contenders in the Indian Navy fighter competition, he scoffed, "The Sea Gripen? What are they talking about? That's a paper plane."

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2010, 22:42
by bjr1028
Anything is capable is taking off from a ski-jump. You just have to be willing to pay the price of taking about twice as long to take off and in the case of STOBAR carrying fewer aircraft because the ski jump and larger takeoff area make large portions of your deck unsuitable for parking aircraft.

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2010, 23:16
by spazsinbad
bjr1028 said: "Anything is capable is taking off from a ski-jump." This would be true if all aircraft had suitable undercarriages to take the strain of the ramp changing incline at start. I guess you have not considered prop clearance in the case of prop aircraft. I have read however that the old model E-2 was tested for ski jumps (perhaps not all ski jumps are the same though).

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/masc.htm

"The E-2C Hawkeye demonstrated its ability to launch from a ski-jump during the 1980s..."

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2010, 09:26
by spazsinbad
THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL FEBRUARY 2009 VOLUME 113 NO 1140

CVF ski-jump ramp profile optimisation for F-35B A. Fry, R. Cook and N. Revill

http://www.raes.org.uk/pdfs/3324_COLOUR.pdf (0.6Mb)

"2.2 Principles of the ski jump
The ski jump ramp works by imparting an upward vertical velocity and ballistic profile to the aircraft, providing additional time to accelerate to flying speed whilst ensuring it is on a safe trajectory. This additional time is manifested either in a reduced take-off length for a given weight, or increased weight (i.e. launch performance) for a fixed take-off distance as in a ship based STO.

The additional performance does not come for free, with a significant increase in landing gear loads above those of a standard take off (which are very low compared to a landing). The increase represents the energy transferred to the aircraft as it translates up the ramp; and if the angle and curvature of the ramp are increased to obtain greater performance benefit, so are the loads. This is tolerable up to a point because the gear strength is defined by landing events and thus has the ability to accept the increased take-off loads, but loads act as an upper boundary on permissible ramp size, as illustrated in Fig. 5.

The ideal landing gear vertical load time history for a ski jump ramp STO is sketched in Fig. 6, with a rapid increase to a steady maximum where the area underneath the curve represents the energy imparted by the ramp. However, the actual loads are different, and reflect the complex dynamic response of the gear components as they enter and travel up the curvature of the profile.

References 1, 2 and 3 describe in further detail the principles behind the ski jump and its advantages as part of a STO manoeuvre compared to a flat deck launch and the design of the profile is described later. It should be noted that non-STOVL aircraft can benefit from a ski jump manoeuvre, as illustrated by the Russian use of ramps with conventional type aircraft from their carriers. STOVL aircraft are unique however because of the flexible and complex manner in which the thrust and control effectors generate combinations of thrust and forward speed in conjunction with the speed dependent wing lift.

3.0 RAMP DESIGN PROCESS
Figure 7 illustrates the overall concept adopted for the design of the CVF ramp and this was strongly influenced by the documentary evidence and guidance from previous ramp design tasks. References 4 to 7 and the acknowledgements reflect drawing on past experience and knowledge, and the team’s contribution was to then optimise it to the F-35B aircraft using TJSF analysis tools."
_________________________

"7.0 CANDIDATE RAMP DEFINITION
The CVF candidate ramp was defined as a 12·5 degree angled ramp with the profile achieved by combining a nominal profile based on a quartic fit to an optimum cubic transition plus circular arc, a rounded step lead in and an elliptic let down. Definitive performance and landing gear loads data were generated to demonstrate the resulting capability and compliance with the metrics.

9.0 CONCLUSION
The paper has covered all the principles and processes used in designing a candidate ski-jump ramp profile for the CVF, optimised for the F-35B.

With loads metric eventually dictating the choice of exit angle and the ramp profile shape, this demonstrates the importance of developing and defining the optimisation metrics.Compared to the CVS ramp, the candidate ramp offers comparable performance but with acceptable loads.

The key issues involved in converting a mathematical profile to a physical structure have been explained.

The team and customer are now taking this profile forward as part of the continuing integration of the F-35B aircraft onto CVF."

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2010, 22:35
by spazsinbad
THE JSF STOVL PERFORMANCE PROCESS FROM SMALL-SCALE DATABASE TO FLIGHT TEST DEMONSTRATION

http://pdf.aiaa.org/downloads/2002/CDRe ... 274d1857TR

ABSTRACT
"This paper discusses the STOVL performance calculation process that was executed during the Joint Strike Fighter Concept Demonstration Phase. It includes a discussion of the performance methods themselves and the inputs required to run them. The X-32B and X-35B STOVL Concept Demonstrator Aircraft are used as case studies.

Lessons learned from the development of their STOVL performance related databases are discussed. The pre-flight test STOVL performance calculations are compared with the flight test demonstrated performance. To the extent possible, the paper provides a comparison between the small-scale and full-scale STOVL database elements, such as hot gas ingestion and propulsion induced aerodynamics. This background, along with the experiences of other predecessor programs, will provide the point-of departure for STOVL performance estimates during the JSF System Development and Demonstration (SDD) Phase, as well as performance estimates for any future STOVL aircraft development programs."
_________________

"The STO [Short Take Off] deck run starts at brake release, which typically occurs at the maximum thrust that the brakes can hold. This is an input. The engine spool-up characteristics from this throttle setting to maximum power are considered during the acceleration portion of the deck run. Weight on main and nose gear is calculated, and must be monitored to maintain adequate deck handling characteristics. The code can represent both flat deck, typical of current generation US Navy ships, as well as any geometry of ski jump. Ski jumps are currently used by the navies of two of the JSF international participants, the UK and Italy. The code can be run with hard gear or with a gear dynamic model. The output is both tabular and graphical time history type values for all parameters. A typical product of STO analysis is the gross weight verses deck run chart, represented by the cartoon on the right side of Figure 2."
___________________

"Section III: X-35B
The first and most important observation relative to the X-35B background is that it is not directly relevant to the F-35B. The F-35B features a fundamentally similar shaft driven lift fan lift/propulsion system, and similar geometry. The X-35B was designed to meet a relatively narrow set of demonstrator type requirements, and used “off the shelf” components where possible to save money and streamline schedule. As such, the X-35B aircraft differs significantly in detail from the F-35B. There is no discussion of the F-35B in this paper- only experiences with the X-35B are presented."
________________

"Figure 31. X-35B Outwash Flowfield
The Figure 31 flow speed footprint is for a hover height just above landing gear touchdown. This is not an operationally representative hover height, but provides a useful indication of the major flowfield characteristics of the X-35B when IGE [In Ground Effect]. The lift fan influences the flowfield around the aircraft nose. The peak flow speed levels in this region are high, but the ground sheet profile distribution with height above the deck is thin. There is an energetic reinforcement zone just off the aircraft wing, which is due to the interaction of the lift fan flow and core nozzle flow. This is the dominant flow characteristic of the X-35B, as it has a much thicker ground sheet profile than the nose and tail regions. The core nozzle flow near the tail also has a relatively thin profile with height above the deck. Consistent with the temperature levels in the jet exhausts, the thermal environment in the lift fan flow dominated forward quadrants is relatively benign."

Unread postPosted: 18 Jul 2010, 01:50
by spazsinbad
This video is on another thread [http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-14295.html] on this forum along with story (BBC Reporter Lands F-35B on carrier via simulator) but it is worthwhile repeating his info / video here:

How to land the new Joint Strike Fighter 16 July 2010

"The BBC has been given exclusive access to film the world's most advanced fighter jet - the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, built by Lockheed Martin for the US and UK military.

Britain had planned to buy around 150 aircraft for the RAF and Royal Navy - but with each plane costing at least £70m, that number is likely to fall.

Jonathan Beale visited the US Navy's Patuxent River Air Base in Maryland where he was given a chance to try his hand at landing the fighter [vertically on a carrier] in a simulator."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10652019
OR
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10654822 (second video on page so scroll down)

RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2010, 04:18
by thumper1308
Well aparantly the US Navy doesnt want them, or need them.

We have actual Air-Craft Carriers, for fixed wing operations!!

RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2010, 04:23
by thumper1308
Being in the Navy, and stationed on a air-craft carrier, and talking to alot of engineers working on the F-35 hat-trick, now of course out of that phase, but anyway never once, was the possibility, of the "ramps" mentioned.

They do help, for countries, who don't have REAL carriers.

Hehe!!


BUT we have real carriers, and our amphib's, are that, Marine transport, and the Fixed wing operations on board are in for support!

RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2010, 04:30
by spazsinbad
thumper1308, no argument. However you may note that there is a lot of commentary nowadays about 'smaller USN carriers' needed - rather than the 'too expensive CVNs' underway, being built today. Not my part of ship though - that is an issue for the USN and Americans.

You seem to have forgotten that the USMC will have F-35Bs on the 'Marine Transport FlatTops'. Or not? Are we hearing that for the first time as news? :D

RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2010, 04:38
by spazsinbad
Navy: Price tag to alter ships for JSF at least $70 million apiece — Ship will be available in 2012
– Inside the Navy June 14, 2010 by Dan Taylor & Jason Sherman

http://www.mikemooney.com/uploads/DMR_6-16-10.pdf (286Kb)

""The Navy estimates it will cost at least $70 million to modify each large-deck amphibious ship to accommodate the Marine Corps’ F-35B variant of the Joint Strike Fighter, including infrastructure modifications and efforts to mitigate engine heat from the short-take-off, vertical-landing JSF variant, according to a senior Marine. Required ship alterations are scheduled to be identified in order to support the first operational F-35B Marine Expeditionary Unit deployment in 2014, two years after the service’s goal to have its first JSF unit operational — a previously unreported milestone....

...Trautman said that while alterations necessary to accommodate the JSF and its associated equipment are similar for L-class ships and aircraft carriers, the environmental effects of each F-35 variant pose different challenges.

“Environmental effects differ due to the unique take-off and landing characteristics of each variant,” according to Trautman.

“The L-class F-35B integration challenges represent the most difficult situation for STOVL operations, when combined with the more robust CVN design and ship structure we anticipate less effort required for F-35B carrier operations.”

RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2010, 04:46
by spazsinbad
Whole Article TEXT: http://www.mikemooney.com/uploads/DMR_6-16-10.pdf (286Kb)

Ship will be available in 2012
Navy: Price tag to alter ships for JSF at least $70 million apiece Inside the Navy June 14, 2010
by Dan Taylor and Jason Sherman

"The Navy estimates it will cost at least $70 million to modify each large-deck amphibious ship to
accommodate the Marine Corps’ F-35B variant of the Joint Strike Fighter, including infrastructure
modifications and efforts to mitigate engine heat from the short-take-off, vertical-landing JSF
variant, according to a senior Marine.

Required ship alterations are scheduled to be identified in order to support the first operational F-
35B Marine Expeditionary Unit deployment in 2014, two years after the service’s goal to have its
first JSF unit operational -- a previously unreported milestone. Lt. Gen. George Trautman, deputy
commandant for aviation, detailed the schedule for JSF ship integration efforts in written
responses delivered last month to the House Armed Services Committee following a March 24
hearing.

Should the Marine Corps’ first JSF unit need to deploy before being fully integrated with other
elements of the MEU, an L-class ship modified for JSF operations will be be available beginning
in 2012, according to Trautman.

Naval Sea Systems Command, according to the three-star general, has identified $27 million
worth of “cornerstone” modifications necessary for the L-class ships to accommodate the F-35B,
alterations that are funded in the fiscal year 2011 spending request or programmed in the Navy’s
FY-11 to FY-15 investment plan, according to Trautman. Not yet funded, but estimated to require
$43 million per hull, are additional alternations needed to account for external environmental
impacts, according to Trautman.

The “cornerstone alts,” according to a source familiar with NAVSEA plans, include carving out
new areas on the ship to accommodate a Special Access Program Facility space, the Autonomic
Logistics Information System infrastructure and a mission rehearsal trainer. In addition,
alternations are required to integrate the F-35C, the Navy JSF variant, into Nimitz- and Ford-class
aircraft carriers. Changes would include aircraft electrical servicing station modifications, ready
room and aircraft intermediate maintenance department upgrades, space for battery storage and
more.

The other category of ship modifications concerns what the Navy and Marine Corps designate
“external environmental impacts” caused by high temperatures from the F-35B’s engine exhaust
plumes. These effects will be the focus of development testing set to begin this fall “to assist in
defining shipboard mitigation required to meet” the Marine Corps’ goal of having its first JSF unit
operational by 2012, “such as relocating systems, material changes and shielding,” according to
Trautman.

This fall, the Navy will proceed with a $1.4 million project that would cover the amphibious ship
Wasp (LHD-1) with hundreds of sensors to accurately measure the effects of the fierce
downwash from the Marine Corps’ F-35B, according to the offices involved in the effort.

Crews will modify the Wasp from Sept. 30 through Feb. 3, 2011, by installing nearly 500 sensors
to measure the thermal, pressure and acoustic environment on the flight deck caused by the JSF
STOVL’s hot downwash, which some are concerned could warp the deck or damage essential
equipment nearby, according to a June 8 statement issued in response to questions from Inside
the Navy provided jointly by the Naval Sea Systems Command Surface Warfare Directorate and
the JSF program office.

The JSF program will foot the bill for the instrumentation package, which will be installed in
advance of at-sea developmental testing of the aircraft in mid-March of 2011, according to the
statement.

“The testing is planned to be conducted with two aircraft, which will perform vertical landing
operations to Spot 7 and 9, short take-off operations and work within NATOPS [Naval Air Training
and Operating Procedures Standardization] operating procedures for establishing hovers and
translations to the desired landing spots,” the statement reads. Spots 7 and 9 are the aft-most
landing spots on the port side of LHD-class ships.

“The testing will be conducted in a build-up approach with pilot qualifications first and one aircraft
in the pattern followed by two-aircraft operations, with most landings occurring at Spot 7, which is
the primary landing spot,” the statement continues. “The aircraft operations will serve to expand
the operating envelope of the F-35B for follow-on testing.”

The program tentatively plans to use test aircraft BF-1 and BF-4 for the testing. BF-1 flew for the
first time while using full vertical lift earlier this year.

JSF Integrated Test Force at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD, is responsible for gathering
the shipboard data, with NAVSEA in support.

Rear Adm. Mike Manazir, acting director of air warfare (N88), told reporters May 24 at the
Pentagon that the service has already captured data at Pax River by blasting a square of ship
deck-representative material and a bare metal piece with the downwash.

“We have sent that to NAVSEA right now,” he said. “They’re going through the actual specific
analysis as to what the impingement does.”

Crews will place temporary coverings over vulnerable systems on board the Wasp while testing
the heat and downwash effects of the JSF STOVL, Manazir said.

The Navy is also examining the effects of the F-35C carrier variant, which does not have a lift fan
but uses the same engine as the STOVL plane, the rear admiral said. The service is testing the
engine at Eglin Air Force Base, FL, and examining the data at Naval Air Warfare Center
Lakehurst, NJ.

“Aboard the aircraft carrier, the F-35C exhaust impingement on the jet blast deflector has also
been studied,” he said. “The aircraft obviously has a common engine, the F135, and so we took
an airplane out at Eglin and did tests against just a flat plate. We’ve taken the data off of that and
we’ve delivered it to Lakehurst.
“Lakehurst is going to take fleet representative JBDs [jet blast deflectors] and the cooling
structure that’s associated with that,” he continued. “They’ll install it at Lakehurst, and we’re going
to do tests against that jet blast deflector and those units will be able to be installed on a ship at a
future date.”

Manazir said the problem is not the heat pattern on the JBD, but the fact that the F-35 and the
F/A-18E/F Super Hornets launch less than a minute apart and place a heat load on different
places on the JBD.

“It means we have to have a slightly different cooling structure, which probably will involve extra
piping in the JBD, but not that much of a change,” he said.

Trautman said that while alterations necessary to accommodate the JSF and its associated
equipment are similar for L-class ships and aircraft carriers, the environmental effects of each F-
35 variant pose different challenges.

“Environmental effects differ due to the unique take-off and landing characteristics of each
variant,” according to Trautman. “The L-class F-35B integration challenges represent the most
difficult situation for STOVL operations, when combined with the more robust CVN design and
ship structure we anticipate less effort required for F-35B carrier operations.”

RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2010, 10:06
by spazsinbad
How much thrust / heat in the F-35B IPP? Gotta love the video clip:

JSF Heat Woes Getting Fixed Naval Open Source INTelligence July 19, 2010

http://nosint.blogspot.com/2010/07/jsf- ... fixed.html

"Changes are being made to the integrated power package (IPP) on the Marine’s F-35(B) that should limit heat damage to carrier decks and other surfaces, Lt. Gen. George Trautman, deputy commandant for aviation, told DoD Buzz in an exclusive interview one day before the start of the Farnborough Air Show.

In addition, the heat buildup from the STOVL drive shaft will be addressed in LRIP 4, although negotiations on that are still underway so costs for that are not set yet.

“We have made the decision to adjust the IPP,” he said Sunday, reshaping the nozzle so that the enormous [QUE?] thrust comes out in an oval shape instead of the more highly focused circle now used.

It takes a “slight adjustment” to the IPP. The oval “will resolve that problem for almost all surfaces,” he said."
______________

Original link here?: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/07/18/jsf-h ... -trautman/

RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2010, 13:25
by spazsinbad
FARNBOROUGH: BAE to ramp up work on JSF production By Craig Hoyle SOURCE:Flight International DATE:13/07/10

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... ction.html

"...Considerable work has already been conducted to prepare for the UK's future operation of the F-35B. Qinetiq's VAAC Harrier test aircraft supported the development of its flight control laws, and also tested a shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) technique. This will enable the STOVL type to return to the carrier's deck at a greater landing weight, allowing unused stores to be kept on the wing, rather than jettisoned before landing.

Developed for the UK as an alternative to making a vertical landing, the concept also has the backing of the USMC, which plans to adopt the procedure when operating its F-35Bs from the US Navy's Nimitz-class aircraft carriers.

Now installed at Boscombe Down in Wiltshire, Qinetiq's simulator for the VAAC Harrier - being adapted for additional use by the Empire Test Pilots' School - perfectly demonstrates the generational advance brought by the F-35B.

Flying an approach to the RN's new aircraft carrier in sea state six should be a daunting prospect for a novice pilot. But a single button press slows the aircraft to 60kt (110km/h) and automatically configures its flaps and nozzle deflection, making it a matter of merely flying an approach angle of 6-7° towards a series of white lights on the deck...."
&
"...Achieved by making a single button press, the F-35B's transition from forward flight to the hover is a world away from the multitude of control demands placed on a Harrier pilot today.

"All the conversions done have been faultless," says Tomlinson, who on 18 March made the first vertical landing using test aircraft BF-1. "There's a lot of drag when you open that lift fan door, and you as the pilot notice that. But we've got plenty of power. When you spin up that [Rolls-Royce] lift fan you've got 40,000lb of thrust available: that more than compensates."

Flight testing of the F-35B - the first of three JSF variants to enter service - is at a "careful, cautious and considered" pace. "We're matching the predicted line," he says.

One key aspect of UK-specific testing will start at Patuxent River next year, and involves the use of a "ski jump" to assist with take off from the Royal Navy's Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers.

F-35Bs have already demonstrated short take-off performance for operations from the USMC's Wasp-class amphibious assault ships, and Tomlinson comments: "The ski jump worries me less. The aircraft even knows when it's on a ski jump, so all the pilot needs to do is to put the power on at the start of the run."

RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2010, 11:10
by spazsinbad
URL to original LARGE Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lockheedma ... 438420763/

Cropped 1st STO F-35B with the SKI JUMP in view at Pax River.

RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2010, 04:10
by spazsinbad
Very good CVF Alliance website with videos: http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.co.u ... brary.aspx
&
Graphics: http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.co.u ... -main.aspx

All at: http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.co.uk/

BIG version of Graphic Below [CVF & ThroughDeckCruiserComparo]:

"Never mind the quality - Feel the WIDTH!"

http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.co.u ... rosyth.jpg

RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2010, 06:03
by bjr1028
Too beautiful a ship to be neutered like that.

RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2010, 06:35
by spazsinbad
bjr1028, wot? CVF neutered with Shornets? :D

Re: RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2010, 13:32
by bjr1028
spazsinbad wrote:bjr1028, wot? CVF neutered with Shornets? :D


Too slow, no armor, no defensive missiles systems, a helicopter AEW system which may not be sufficient against threats, not enough aircraft to suit the bigger deck, and ironically for a STOVL design an ability to rapidly launch aircraft because nobody wanted to invest in a more advanced jet blast deflector.

RE: Re: RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2010, 14:16
by spazsinbad
bjr1028. Difficult to please as always. Not every country can afford CVNs (heck probably not the US soon enough). I have read that it was discovered during computer modelling of flight ops on CVF that a jet blast deflector was a hindrance, restricting takeoffs and not providing much protection in any event. I'm guessing that unlike some computer animations seen (with full afterburner takeoffs) that most often a STO will take place with the nozzle deflected down at an angle for a run up the ski jump. I guess we will see. Funnily enough having a lot of deck space makes it easy to conduct flight ops. Things will be different on a CVF for sure. The RN FAA will make it all work very well and teach the rest a thing or two. They have done that already. Go the Brits.

RE: Re: RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2010, 05:43
by spazsinbad
Chinese Ski Jump Facility:
34deg 38min 55.85sec NORTH
109deg 14min 55.12sec EAST
elevation 1,256 feet

"Airfield outside Xian, in China’s Shaanxi province, for pilots to practice take-offs and landings as if they were flying carrier-based aircraft. The tip of the runway, shown at top right, is warped up at an angle of 14 degrees just like an aircraft carrier to assist take-offs.” [reddish ski jump length is 190 feet down centreline]

http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201008180284.html
___________

The "Chinese Ski Jump KMZ Google Earth.zip" attached is really a .KMZ file for Google Earth which when renamed to .KMZ (from fake .ZIP extension) will take you to the Ski Jump if you have Google Earth installed.

RE: Re: RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2010, 06:26
by spazsinbad
J-15 prototype was finished, China started aircraft carrier pilot training Text verbatim from web page

http://www.global-military.com/j-15-pro ... ining.html

“According to 21, reported the latest issue of the Canadian “Chinese Defense Review” magazine, said China has launched aircraft personnel training project, training centers may be located in Huludao. The article said that as China’s first ship-borne fighter aircraft F-15 manufactured prototype, China will build test base for the Navy, similar to Ukraine’s Navy carrier fighter NITKA as test center. Reported that China’s naval pilot training center, carrier-based fighter aircraft flight test center is most likely located in Liaoning Huludao area. Huludao already have, “Chinese Navy Flight School,” which is the famous 91 065 troops. Navy helicopters, bombers, transport aircraft pilot training in this. Han and that the future China is likely to fly in the Naval Acad-emy’s structure, the building of carrier-based fighter aircraft flight test center, there may be an independent building a new naval flight test center. But Huludao Xingcheng, Jiyuan Navy land-based aircraft carrier construction of the airport did not find signs of the runway test center. Han and the founder of Ping Kefu said, “building a new trial airport is very expensive, equal to land the aircraft carrier construction. At present, only Ukraine, United States, the existence of such a test center.” At the same time that the Chinese F-15 fighter flight carrier is facing difficulties because there is no Navy pilots in the flight test center where, in Shaanxi, the Air Force Flight Test Center Yanliang J-15 only testing flight control systems, radar, weapons use and so on.”

http://www.global-military.com/wp-conte ... k-jump.jpg

Image

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/2086/v ... mmay22.jpg

Image

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2010, 20:31
by bjr1028
spazsinbad wrote:The RN FAA will make it all work very well and teach the rest a thing or two. They have done that already. Go the Brits.


You mean that time when they lost 2 brand new type 45 destroyers, two frigates, a couple RFA vessels, and would have lost several more if the Argies had set the fuse on their bombs right? Every person killed and every person lost can be attributed to the loss of the Phantoms and the RN's AEW and while it was billed as the great triumph of STOVL, very few realize how close the Brits were to losing. If the Argies would have waited two months or set their fuses right, we'd be talking about the Malvinas and the biggest fiasco this side of jutland. You cheap out, people end up dying.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2010, 21:51
by spazsinbad
bjr1028, one fights with what one has. What the Brits will have will be excellent.

Probably in the future the USN will stop building CVNs because they have become too expensive. What you the USN have left will be excellent and then the USN will start building more affordable aircraft carriers IMHO.

I'm impressed that the Brits won - despite all the things you say - are you not impressed? What may have been and what might have been and WHAT HAPPENED are not the same thing. OhMiGosh! Brits won! :twisted: Go the Brits.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2010, 08:52
by spazsinbad
At moment this is speculation so no need to get too heated about it - we'll see what happens in a few months when things decided:

Britain forced to borrow U.S. jets to fly from our NEW aircraft carriers as cutbacks bite By Tim Shipman 25th August 2010

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

"Britain will be forced to borrow U.S. warplanes to fly from the Royal Navy's new aircraft carriers because of defence cuts, the Daily Mail can reveal.

The Navy's Harrier Jump Jets - the aircraft that won renown in the Falklands conflict - are to be retired early leaving the two new carriers with no aircraft when they come into service.

Under the plans, the U.S. Marines would be invited to fly from the British carriers in joint operations and the Navy is also examining the prospect of leasing aircraft from the Americans.

Major costs savings are necessary because the Treasury budget for the carriers only covers the costs of building an empty shell - leaving no money for the aircraft to fly from them.

A senior military source said: 'The U.S. Marines have the aircraft. Their aircraft would fly from the British carriers. Or we could borrow some from them.

'The Treasury are happy to pay for the carriers but there's an issue over the cost of the aircraft.'

The carriers are due to enter service in 2014 and 2016 respectively and the remaining Harriers, famous for their ability to take off and land vertically, are currently due to be retired in 2018.

But bringing that date forward, which would save more than £1billion and could happen as early as the end of next year, would leave the Navy with a capability gap that would have to be filled by the Americans before Joint Strike Fighter aircraft become available in 2018...."

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2010, 11:28
by madrat
Sounds like a cruel April Fools joke...

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2010, 03:37
by bjr1028
Does the MOD understand we don't have the excess aircraft to lend them?

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2010, 03:50
by spazsinbad
bjr1028, I don't think the UK MOD have a clue. All the speculation is just that - in two months a declaration of war between the UK Armed Forces will occur once the real decisions are made. (I jest.) I think it is clear by now that either via creative leaking or journalism the British press love to speculate or create/ beat up stories until they die a natural frothy death. One day the real story will appear - only to be ignored - no longer interesting. Reality never is.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2010, 19:49
by spazsinbad
History - PAR at Sea by Royal Naval Air Traffic Control 08 September 2010

http://en-gb.connect.facebook.com/note. ... 7081861245

"CCA – The STOVL Era
When Ark Royal was decommissioned in 1979, the replacement Invincible class “through-deck cruisers” were not equipped with precision radar, possibly because these ships were originally conceived to carry helicopters. When the first of class entered service it was designated by NATO as CVS (Anti-Submarine Aircraft Carrier), and carried Sea Harrier FRS1 aircraft, the fit for CCA was non-existent.

Lt Cdr Chris Morris recalls “(when) I joined HMS Invincible at Barrow she was fitted with the very latest Radar Recovery Aid – my Chinagraph; I did not even have a Centreline until we physically refitted one of the Radar heads so that the Ships Head Marker pointed astern”.

The radar in question was a Kelvin Hughes Type 1006, designed for ship navigation, which operated in the India band (3cm wavelength). But aircraft returns did not show up well, so to overcome this significant disadvantage Naval aircraft were fitted with ‘I Band’ transponders, which enhanced their radar response.

To help pilots land vertically on the correct spot on deck a marvelously simply devise was designed and bolted onto the ship’s main mast. Known as ‘The Bedford Christmas Tree’, it comprised nothing more than a few clamps bolted onto two pieces of metal joined in a ‘T shape’. By aligning the red light with the others, and comparing his position over the flight deck centerline, a precise landing could be made on 4 Spot, the normal landing point located amidships....

...It took some years to develop a precision approach system, and the RN preference was the pilot interpretted Microwave Aircraft Digital Guidance Equipment (MADGE). There were advantages to using MADGE as it could be used under the strictest emission control (EMCON) conditions and it provided navigation information to the pilot out to 30nms (56kms) from the ship.

At 15nms range the pilot would receive landing guidance information similar to Instrument Landing System (ILS). The major drawback with MADGE was that it was not adopted globally; therefore aircraft from other forces, including the RAF, were not able to use this to recover to British Carriers.

When the Naval Harrier squadrons merged with the RAF’s to form Joint Force Harrier on 1st April 2000. The RAF did not carry MADGE or I Band Transponders so had no reliable means of recovery onboard in bad weather conditions; a predicament shared with Naval Squadrons using the same aircraft after the Sea Harrier FA2 went out of service.

Although the GR7/9 carried TACAN unfortunately the ships did not. The TACAN shortfall was resolved when the lightweight, portable AN/TRN26(M), used by the RAF’s Tactical ATC Team, was fitted onboard; however it was not until 2007 that CCA regained a precision radar in the form of SPN720 fitted onto HMS Ark Royal and HMS Illustrious.

The RN had not been over quick to restore this capability, as this radar was first installed at sea in 1984 onboard the Argentinean Aircraft Carrier Veinticinco de Mayo, although it should be noted that the version installed was considerably more advanced than these first sets.

But radar was not the only option for future development. A number of flight trials were conducted by Qinetiq during the 1990s into the use of GPS for aircraft recovery to ships. This work led to the development of the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS) capability that is intended for the F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter; and using that system a Qinetiq Harrier demonstrated the first fully automatic shipboard recovery and vertical landing onto HMS Invincible in 2007."

RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2010, 02:26
by spazsinbad
Something for the heat. 1Mb PDF: 2009 DoD Corrosion Conference

Investigation of Non Traditional Non Skid Technologies for the US Navy

http://www.corrdefense.org/Technical%20 ... 20Navy.pdf

"SUMMARY
This program will develop, evaluate, qualify, and install non-skid coatings, which will have a minimum threshold of 15,000 traps and an objective of 20,000 as compared to the Type I requirement of only 10,000 traps. The proposed coatings will have increased thermal resistance: High Heat variant maximum 400degF [204degC] for 90 minutes, Extreme Heat variant maximum 1700degF [927degC] for 7 to 20 seconds, enhanced overall weatherability and chemical/mechanical resistance as compared to the current “legacy” non-skid systems. For example, increased thermal resistance will reduce foreign object damage (FOD) from overheated and subsequently disbonded non-skid coating during JSF aircraft operations. The proposed system will have twice the service life of the legacy system in relation to mechanical resistance from landing aircraft, and thus reduce the down time required for repair of the present system. Lastly, the system will possess superior color retention which will significantly reduce and/or eliminate the need for surface color topping to maintain proper visual contrast ratios. These new coatings will differ in both their chemical and physical properties from the current MIL-PRF-24667 approved coatings."

RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2010, 04:37
by spazsinbad
This news is also here earlier: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... c&p=183572

Thought it appropriate to add news to the this thread also.

Lockheed gets funds for UK F-35 landing modification By Craig Hoyle DATE:08/10/10 SOURCE:Flight International

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... ation.html

Lockheed Martin has received a $13 million contract to incorporate a shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) capability with the short take-off and vertical landing F-35B, with the work to be performed on behalf of the UK.

The US Navy announced details of the Joint Strike Fighter award on 6 October, just two weeks before the UK's coalition government will disclose the details of its Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) process. This has assessed the nation's long-term military requirements, including major equipment acquisitions such as the F-35 and two future aircraft carriers.

Lockheed will be the main recipient of work under the new deal, with a 58% stake. BAE Systems will get 35% and Northrop Grumman 7%, the US Department of Defense says, with work to be completed by October 2013.

Developed by the UK, the SRVL technique will enable the F-35B to return to an aircraft carrier's deck carrying more weapons or fuel than possible when making a vertical landing.

Approaches would typically be flown at 60-70kt (111-129km/h) and with a flight path angle of
6-7°. An algorithm is used to calculate the optimum approach profile for given sea conditions, while the best landing point will be highlighted by using deck lighting.


Qinetiq has supported previous development work, including the use of its VAAC Harrier demonstrator aboard the Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious.

A research simulator installed at the UK Ministry of Defence's Boscombe Down site in Wiltshire has also been used to model the SRVL performance of the F-35B with the UK's 65,000t Queen Elizabeth-class future aircraft carrier design.

The US Marine Corps has also shown interest in potentially using the SRVL technique with its own F-35B fleet.

The UK should receive its first of three test examples of the F-35B next year. It has previously outlined a Joint Combat Aircraft requirement for up to 138 production examples for the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy, but the SDSR could potentially reduce this number in the face of massive budgetary pressure."

RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2010, 22:53
by spazsinbad
Royal Navy running-jump method confirmed for F-35B - Supersonic stealth jumpjet to learn Brit trick by Lewis Page 11 Oct 2010

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/11/f35b_srvl_deal/

"A US military contract announcement suggests that the UK Ministry of Defence still plans to purchase the F-35B stealth jumpjet for operations from the Royal Navy's new aircraft carriers. Lockheed, maker of the aircraft, has received an $18m deal to integrate the UK-developed "Shipboard Rolling Vertical Landing" (SRVL) method into the new fighter.

According to the US announcement, made last week and flagged up first by Flightglobal.com, Lockheed will be partnered with the UK side of BAE Systems plc for the task of ensuring that the F-35B can get down on a ship at sea using SRVL. BAE is already involved in development of the jet, and in fact the lead test pilot for the F-35B, Graham Tomlinson, is a BAE employee.

The idea of SRVL is that the F-35B will not set down vertically supported solely by thrust from its lift fan and downward-swivelled jetpipe. Rather it will come down still moving forward slowly, supplementing the vertical thrust with lift from its wings. The forward speed would still be slow enough that there would be no need for arrester wires and a tail hook.

This should allow an F-35B to set down on a carrier deck while carrying a larger amount of fuel and weapons than would normally be possible. The Royal Navy is well-known to be anxious about this issue as it led to the early departure of the late, great Sea Harrier fighter.

The Sea Harrier had been upgraded in the early 1990s to carry heavy AMRAAM missiles, making it probably the UK's most powerful fighter at the time (bearing in mind that the the only other contender then was the lamentable Tornado F3). In the cold northern seas where the RN had expected to operate against the Soviets, the upgrade worked.

In hot weather, however, jet engines lose thrust and the Sea Harrier was unable to make a vertical landing with AMRAAMs still aboard and a safe margin of reserve fuel. Thus, for fighter patrols say above the Persian Gulf, it would have been required to dump its expensive weapons after every flight. This was an unacceptable weakness, and in the end that RN scrapped the Sea Harrier and shifted to operating the bomber-version Harrier used by the RAF.

The F-35B has much more hover power than the Harrier did, and programme officials have repeatedly insisted that it should be able to land vertically with safety fuel and 2 AMRAAMs. Nonetheless, the UK MoD has done trials to develop the SRVL method using a test Harrier and computer modelling.

The Royal Navy is quite sure that it wants to proceed with SRVL for the F-35B. Senior naval aviators have previously told the Reg that it will be the preferred method of landing regardless of the F-35B's eventual performance as it will allow more weaponry or fuel to be brought back to the deck and will also ease maintenance as the jet's engine won't have to be run so much at full redline power in the hover.

Much though the US Navy is listed as the contracting authority for F-35B SRVL, the $18m in question comes from the MoD. However, events may be outpacing the movements of transatlantic bureaucracy.

The F-35B is stalled in flight tests at the moment, as the sole flying example is grounded due to a door hinge issue. The programme was already badly delayed and subject to cost overruns, and it is clear that the price of early F-35Bs to be delivered within the next few years is likely to be ruinously high.

Unfortunately this is just when the Royal Navy will need jets: although it has been delayed, the first of the two new carriers will be delivered in 2014 under current plans. It is widely acknowledged that the MoD, now in the middle of a massive budget-cutting exercise, cannot afford enough jets for the two ships at early-production prices: perhaps not any point in the manufacturing run, the F-35B being one of the most complicated aircraft in the world.

This has led to speculation that the new British carriers may be fitted with catapults so as to allow the purchase of cheaper aircraft. Such speculation has been lent some weight by reports of RN pilots training in catapult launch and arrested recovery landings, and of ongoing electromagnetic catapult work by British firms.

Last week's SRVL announcement would seem to suggest that the original jumpjet plan remains on track: but in fact the length of time it typically takes to organise such a deal and get it approved by the US government is such that it may reflect the thinking of some months ago.

RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2010, 22:25
by spazsinbad
USMC reply to USN AFJ recent article against F-35B:

Flexible future - The F-35B will give the Marine Corps unprecedented basing options
BY MAJ. TYLER BARDO AND MAJ. CHAD VAUGHN

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2010/10/4765181

"In a AFJ article titled “Hovering at a precipice,” [July/August] http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2010/07/4679496 Lt. Cmdr. Perry Solomon challenged the merits of the F-35B Lightning II and the Marine Corps’ commitment to building an aviation force composed entirely of short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft. Solomon introduced a healthy dialogue about the challenges the Marine Corps faces with the acquisition of the F-35B, but his argument lacked the necessary background of how the Marine Corps fights and why an all-STOVL force is such an important component of Marine Corps war-fighting doctrine...."

RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2010, 11:54
by spazsinbad
JSF To Develop Landing Technique For U.K. Carriers Oct 15, 2010 By Graham Warwick

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... adline=JSF To Develop Landing Technique For U.K. Carriers

"While the future of the U.K. Royal Navy’s two new aircraft carriers is uncertain, Lockheed Martin has been awarded a $13 million contract to incorporate shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) capability into the F-35B for the U.K.

SRVL will increase the payload that the F-35B can bring back to the carrier by 2,000-4,000 lb. above what is possible with a Harrier-style vertical landing, reducing the need to dump unused weapons or fuel before recovery.

The maneuver involves landing at a slow forward speed so that some wing lift is available to supplement lift provided by the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing (Stovl) propulsion system.

The two Queen Elizabeth Class carriers are designed around the STOVL F-35B. The ships are already under construction and planned for service entry in 2016 and 2018, but threatened by the new U.K. government’s strategic defense review.

Development of the recovery technique by the Joint Strike Fighter team, Qinetiq and the U.K. Defense Science & Technology Laboratory required several potential safety hazards to be overcome, says Richard Cook, BAE Systems SRVL project lead. He spoke at last week’s International Powered Lift Conference in Philadelphia.

These included risks of the aircraft hitting the stern of the carrier on approach; the deflected main engine nozzle striking the deck on touchdown; exceeding the gear strength; and insufficient stopping distance after touchdown.

The result was development of a flexible SRVL maneuver in which the pilot flies a constant Earth-referenced glideslope to touchdown on the moving deck, at which point the aircraft de-rotates and brakes.

The maneuver uses a shipboard visual landing aid called the Bedford Array. This is an array of lights on the deck centerline that provides a glideslope indication stabilized for ship heave and pitch.

The lights illuminate based on ship motion to provide a stabilized aimpoint for the pilot. This array is used in conjunction with a special velocity-vector symbol and glideslope scale on the pilot’s helmet-mounted display.

Aligning the helmet symbology with the aimpoint provided by the lights on the deck allows the pilot to clear the ship’s aft ramp and touch down at the planned point with the specified descent rate, Cook says.

Flight tests of the SRVL were conducted on the French Navy carrier Charles de Gaulle using the Vectored-thrust Aircraft Advanced Control testbed Harrier, which was programmed with F-35B’s control laws.

Cook says the U.K.’s threshold and objective bring-back payload goals are “conditionally achievable” with SRVL, with further development required through flight trails of the F-35B and tests with the first Queen Elizabeth carrier."

RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2010, 23:20
by spazsinbad
Excerpt 12 pages from main PDF (URL below - other pages not relevant) with some text paragraphs for encouragement to interested readers:

Acquisition of Capabilities through Systems-of-systems: Case Studies and Lessons from Naval Aviation by Dr Michael Pryce

http://acquisitionresearch.net/_files/F ... 09-010.pdf

"Aircraft and aircraft carriers form symbiotic system for the delivery of capability. A view of aircraft carriers as mere infrastructure, a floating runway and hangar for the aircraft it carries, misses much of its importance. In order to understand how to acquire such capabilities, we need to understand the interactions between the aircraft carrier and its aircraft. In this paper, the prosaic issues that matter in operating aircraft from ships will be illustrated. This is not to diminish the modern need for digital interoperability, etc., but rather to illustrate how matters such as simply being able to move aircraft around the deck and hangar of a ship in an effective manner can have significant effects on capability....

...it is the intention of the Royal Navy to replace these vessels [Invincible Class] in the next decade with two much larger ships, under the CVF programme.

These vessels are intended to employ the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), in particular the STOVL F-35B Lightning II version of the JSF. They will, therefore, be able to build upon the experience of STOVL operations at sea built up over many years by the Royal Navy, while at the same time benefitting from being able to design both systems in parallel in order to maximise the capabilities they can provide.

One clear lesson that has been adopted on the CVF programme is that a large ship is helpful in operating even STOVL aircraft, as it gives much more space for moving aircraft around, which has been a problem in past operations and studies. Based on the idea that “air is free and steel is cheap,” this appears to be a welcome move, albeit one that may seem to reduce the need for using STOVL aircraft at all. Indeed, the CVF design has been developed so that it can be adapted for the later adoption of CTOL aircraft, including the CTOL version of the JSF. However, this would require not only a significant shift in UK procurement policy but also a re-assessment of all the lines of development for the CVF and JSF. As Figure 2 showed, the costs are distributed differently for the different types of aircraft, although basing them on versions of the JSF should reduce such differences.

Nevertheless, the current plan to deploy STOVL aircraft on the CVF means that the experience built up on the Harrier will be of use. This does not just depend on the service use of the Harrier, but also on research programmes that have used the aircraft. Most notable among these is the VAAC Harrier programme, which has been used to develop the flight control aspects of the STOVL JSF. In the Harrier family, the control of the aircraft was difficult because the pilot had a high work load when hovering the aircraft. For the JSF, the intention is that this can be reduced significantly, requiring much less training and greater flight safety, at the cost of a more complex flight control system.

Tests with the VAAC Harrier have revealed that the control system that came to be preferred from land-based trials needed some modifications when applied at sea (Denham, Krumenacker, D’Mello & Lewis, 2002). In addition, the VAAC Harrier has been used to develop the proposed Shipboard Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) technique that will allow the JSF to land at low speeds on the CVF, significantly increasing the “bring back” payload while reducing engine “wear and tear” (Rosa, 2008). While this should allow savings in terms of reduced maintenance as well as operations of the aircraft at higher weights and the deliverance of greater capability, there may be issues to address that may offset these savings in other lines of development, such as training for pilots and deck crew, and the development of additional deck lighting patterns and deck parking arrangements (Hodge & Wilson, 2008).

Further benefits from previous experience with the Harrier, and studies into replacing it, are shown by the adoption of a “ski jump” ramp for take-off. Despite the fact that the CVF is much larger than the Invincible class and that the JSF has a completely different propulsion system, the ramp still gives the same benefits as it did on earlier ships: boosting capability by increasing payloads and enhancing safety, as well as freeing up more deck area for aircraft parking and recovery (Fry, 2008; Rolfe, 2008)...."

RE: Re: ELP

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2010, 03:25
by spazsinbad
OLD NEWS but relevant to long running SRVL research (Jan 2006):

NASA SimLabs News Volume 6, Issue 1 http://www.simlabs.arc.nasa.gov

2. Lockheed Martin Continues Joint Strike Fighter Tests at SimLabs January 2006

http://www.simlabs.arc.nasa.gov/newslet ... 01_06.html

"Lockheed Martin continued evaluations of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft in SimLabs’ Vertical Motion Simulator (VMS) http://www.simlabs.arc.nasa.gov/vms/vms.html [amazing setup] by recently completing four weeks of simulation experiments. The unique motion and acceleration capabilities of the VMS are ideally suited to evaluate the handling qualities of several variants of the F-35. The JSF is a next-generation supersonic combat aircraft designed to reduce costs by utilizing a common design with variants to meet a wide range of needs serving the U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Marines, as well as several international partners. Two variants were recently evaluated in the VMS: The Short Take-off Vertical Landing (STOVL) configuration and the Conventional Take-off and Landing / Carrier Variant (CTOL/CV).
The STOVL configuration was the primary variant studied. This configuration required high fidelity motion cues to evaluate tasks that included bolter and ski ramp take-off. A bolter is an aborted carrier touchdown that requires full thrust to take-off after the abort. The ski ramp take-off is a short deck take-off at full thrust using a ramp at the end of the deck. Both maneuvers require high vertical acceleration cues to simulate accurately.
A secondary variant was the CTOL/CV. For this variant, most of the effort was aimed at first flight readiness and tasks such as formation flying or offset approaches requiring a high level of motion fidelity to ferret out any issues with the control system.
As part of this study, representatives from the United Kingdom Ministry of Defense evaluated a Shipboard Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) procedure as one more determinant in their choice between the variants mentioned above. The procedure is tied to a new aircraft carrier design under consideration and will have significant cost ramifications on the carrier design. For the SRVL procedure, touchdown dispersion and ramp clearance under various shipboard and environmental conditions were evaluated. Several aircraft controls handling issues were identified that need further investigation giving designers the opportunity to improve the system while the vehicle is still under development."

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2010, 04:08
by outlaw162
Flew the VMS for an unrelated study in 2008. Though the imposing physical structure of the thing is impressive, the bottom line for that study was that it was no more or less capable than the latest Level D full motion simulators for providing realistic motion cues in any axis.

Just a lot more audible creaky noise and more expensive to operate.

OL

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2010, 04:22
by spazsinbad
I'm guessing that now it is more about uptodate computer simulations. These I would like to see in the F-35 sim setups.

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2010, 07:30
by spazsinbad
Naval Aviation Vision January 2010 "Future Carrier Air Wing"

http://nae.ahf.nmci.navy.mil/downloads/ ... ACE_sp.pdf ( 3.2Mb)

Graphic below (from PDF) is not to scale for each flat deck

USMC "Future Aviation Combat Element" 2032:

"The notional aviation combat element of the future will consist
of the following aircraft:
6 short takeoff/vertical landing aircraft (F-35B with Next Generation Jammer [NGJ])
• 12 tilt-rotor aircraft (MV-22)
• 4 heavy-lift helicopters (CH-53K)
• 4 attack helicopters (AH-1Z)
• 3 utility helicopters (UH-1Y)
Aviation combat elements are task organized by MAGTF commanders. As such, the exact composition will vary depending on mission requirements."

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2010, 13:48
by underhill
Interesting graphic SSB.

So if the Marines go in and fight the war on their own, they have six fighters per LHA - versus the 30-some which the UK assessed as being necessary to protect the fleet against air attack and mount offensive operations, on a sustained basis.

If they want to carry more than that, they have to offload V-22s and CH-53Ks, but then get stuck with a load of men and materiel and no way to get them off the boat.

But in the more likely scenario where the MAGTF is accompanied by a CVN, the investment in STOVL adds six aircraft to the 49 (44 fighters and five Growlers) on the CV.

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2010, 13:53
by spazsinbad
'underhill' I don't believe the USMC base their calculations on what the RN were going to do with their F-35Bs on CVF. How can you think they have the same conops?

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2010, 15:54
by underhill
I am not saying that. I'm just wondering how much use six fighters are.

The UK arrived at its carrier size because they wanted to do what the Marines say they want to do - provide a self-contained force that could act in the face of a relatively modern, high-level threat. To do that the Brits wanted to maintain a CAP, while still being able to perform CAS or BAI. That drove them to a certain sortie rate, number of aircraft and hangar/ship size.

So what do you do with six aircraft? You certainly can't do CAP and anything else. So if there's an air threat you still need the carrier group.

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2010, 22:16
by spazsinbad
underhill, I'm guessing the the USMC know. Probably their CONOPS need explanation. There has been some clues on this forum where this SLD (Second Line of Defence) website is mentioned - amongst others: [Examples of USMC thinking re F-35B]

"The F-35B in the Perspective of Aviation History:

http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=7742

"...However, with the very real computer revolution moving with light speed into the 21st Century there is now a fourth design dynamic at work — the man-machine interface.

With the very real capability of three dimensional sensing and being able to distribute information to other warfighers, airborne and on the ground or at sea the relationship of the individual pilot to knowledge of the bigger air battle is truly revolutionary—this is brand new and to undergo further developments.

For example one of the most important capabilities of the F-35B not yet exploited is the distributed information capability. The least experienced fighter pilot to the most experience all flying into the air battle in yet to be developed formations are all equally capable of having the same knowledge and situational awareness.

Consequently in the formation if one pilot gets inside the opponents OODA loop (observe orient decide act) all are capable of having that same joint knowledge. The revolutionary point is the enemy can splash an individual F-35B, but cannot kill the knowledge gained by all: that aspect of modern warfare is truly unique 21st Century technology brought to an air battle.

Conversely, on the offensive if one F-35B picks up an enemies airborne vulnerability such as an aircraft system or weapon frequency emission or stealth breakdown it can be sent to all. Thus, another unique aspect of F-35B 21st Century capabilities is that every Lightning II is a real time intelligence collection system. The entire engagement is also captured electronically for immediate and direct refinements to tactics and analysis at the Marine Air Weapons Training Squadron during the air battle.

Fleet wide information sharing among services and allies may be a huge factor in winning an air campaign...."
______________________

The F35B Pilot’s New Helmet And DAS: A huge Leap In Air-Ground Decision-Making Sharing

http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=9192

"...SLD: So that the DAS system works closely with the helmet and it creates a new environment for the pilot to operate in. You also were alluding to something I find interesting, which is this whole relationship between the classic tactical fighter and a specialized war battle manager, who’s on electronic warfare aircraft. In fact those specializations will be broken apart by the F-35.

Lieutenant-Colonel Dehner: Absolutely. The classic tactical fighter was defined by the strike package where I’m going to have aircraft that will deliver weapons; I’m going to have fighters that will either clear the way or protect them while they go in. And then I’m going to have electronic attack aircraft to provide another level of support. In contrast the F-35, by design, will be able to do all three of those things with either the same aircraft or the same little family of aircraft. So, you can prioritize different roles such as : the two on the front are the fighters today, the third is going to pick up electronic attack, and the fourth is going to do the strike. But depending on how we’re configured, we can actually flex that real time. “Hey, looks like the fight is actually more on your side. So, we can actually shift that focus of effort to the other aircraft.” So, it just allows us an extremely flexible platform.

But with all that increased capability, you still have the same human beings that are flying aircraft similar to what we did 50 years ago. Now, you just have to essentially build up those pilots a different way. You take all the very classic training techniques; teach them how to actually fly the aircraft, teach them how to use the aircraft as a weapon and then, you’ve got to go down a different route that’s more or less teaching them to be an information manager, because this aircraft really is an information sponge. This aircraft just creates this little information hub in the sky. And the pilots, their job is to be effective for their primary mission, but then also decide how to get this information to other people, not just other pilots but also to the ground, because maybe they’re in a better spot to be more effective?..."

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2010, 22:49
by spazsinbad
Another example of USMC conops thinking:

Flexible future - The F-35B will give the Marine Corps unprecedented basing options BY MAJ. TYLER BARDO AND MAJ. CHAD VAUGHN

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2010/10/4765181

"...To understand why the Marine Corps desires an all-STOVL force, it is important to first have a basic understanding of how the Marine Corps structures its combat power. The MAGTF is a flexible, expeditionary, task-organized unit capable of operating across the spectrum of conflict. Through the detailed integration of combined arms under one commander, the MAGTF has the self-sustaining capability to apply power to a wide variety of scenarios — from a non-combatant evacuation operation to high-intensity combat. Seamless integration between the components of the MAGTF is essential to success. In order to successfully support the Ground Combat Element, the MAGTF’s Air Combat Element must be capable of supporting each of the six functions of Marine aviation:

å Offensive air support.

å Anti-air warfare.

å Electronic warfare.

å Assault support.

å Control of aircraft and missiles.

å Aerial reconnaissance.

Expeditionary operations are inherently challenging in that the war fighter often operates with force structure and external support limitations. As an expeditionary force, the Marine Corps must capitalize on the strengths of maneuver warfare. One of the most important of these strengths is tempo; by generating tempo, we look to gain an advantage over our adversary by attacking at the time and place of our choosing. In the context of tactical aviation, higher sortie generation rates translate into greater support to ground forces for a given unit over a given period of time. The critical variable for sortie generation, given a constant number of aircraft, is time. Sortie rates are affected by the time required to transit to the objective and are further reduced by additional time spent behind a tanker, in a holding pattern, and diverting to alternate airfields...."
&
"...From a sea-basing perspective, the dispersion of carrier-based STOVL aircraft creates a dilemma for the enemy while providing additional combat capability to the supported commander. During Desert Storm, 20 Harriers aboard the amphibious assault ship Nassau operated from a 750-foot flight deck, which resulted in a 15-minute transit time and 40 minutes of on-station time with no in-flight refueling. As the war progressed north, AV-8Bs would launch from ships in the Persian Gulf, fly a mission and then proceed to an FOB in Kuwait to rearm and refuel. After flying a second mission, these aircraft would return to the ship. These combined sea and shore operations doubled the sortie-generation rate for ship-based aircraft, halved shipboard workload and ordnance expenditure, and minimized shipboard resupply concerns. Also, because the aircraft returned to the ship, the force protection requirement ashore was significantly reduced.

During recent operations in Iraq, coalition airfields were at maximum capacity and the Navy was unable to source any more big-deck carriers into the Persian Gulf. Operating Harriers from amphibious assault ships put an additional 60 tactical aircraft at the disposal of the combatant commander...."
&
"...F-35B AND THE MAGTF
The F-35B will provide the next generation of tactical air support to the MAGTF. In one aircraft, the MAGTF commander will now have the capability to support an extraordinary range of potential operations and cover five of the six functions of Marine aviation. The Marine Corps will possess an aircraft that combines the ability to generate tempo through STOVL operations with the performance and survivability required against advanced threats.

Critics often point to the smaller unrefueled combat radius of the F-35B when compared with the F-35A and C models. In comparisons to current Navy and Marine fourth-generation strike/fighter aircraft, however, the F-35B meets or exceeds legacy combat radius while retaining fifth-generation capabilities that enable mission performance unattainable by legacy aircraft (see chart). The smaller F-35B combat radius is a calculated and acceptable trade-off for the Marine Corps, given the increased basing flexibility that a STOVL aircraft provides.

Another criticism often levied against the F-35B is that it has a smaller internal payload than the other variants. The F-35A and C can each carry two 2,000-pound-class munitions internally, along with two AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles. The F-35B’s internal weapons carriage allows for two 1,000-pound-class munitions plus two AIM-120s. This smaller STOVL internal loadout reflects a Marine Corps decision to prioritize basing options and operational flexibility over internal ordnance. This is an acceptable trade-off considering that 1,000-pound-class weapons can kill 95 percent of campaign target sets. Finally, it is critical to point out the discussion of internal weapons carriage applies only during the early stages of a campaign when the enemy retains an operational integrated air defense system, against which the low-observable capability of the F-35 is so important. Once low-observable capability is no longer required, the F-35B will be able to carry more than 15,000 pounds of internal and external weapons. This includes 5,000-pound-class munitions on each of the inboard external pylons and 1,500-pound-class munitions on each of the middle external pylons. This combination of internal and external stores provides ample close-air support firepower for Marines engaged with the enemy.

The F-35 program is still in the systems development and demonstration phase and much of its capability is classified; thus there is a good deal of information about the airplane that remains in development or is inappropriate for this forum. What we know based on the testing we have seen to date, however, indicates that sensor performance/fusion, aerodynamic performance and survivability are all on track and the F-35B continues to meet or exceed all of its design key performance parameters. Bottom line: It is clear the F-35B offers a lethal combination of aircraft, system and weapons performance that will surpass the fourth-generation aircraft it is replacing.

FLEXIBILITY RULES
Basing flexibility is the driving factor behind some of the calculated trade-offs in the F-35B’s performance. No longer does the Marine Corps need two different aircraft to operate throughout the spectrum of potential bases. Instead, the F-35B will provide Marine aviation with the capability to conduct launch and recovery operations aboard amphibious assault ships, aircraft carriers, forward operating bases or conventional land bases. The tangible benefits of flexibility are the fact that there are eight times as many 4,000-foot runways as 10,000-foot runways in the Central Command, Africa Command and Pacific Command regions and twice as many flight decks available to the F-35B compared with conventional carrier-based aircraft. One aircraft will now be able to do an afterburner takeoff at maximum takeoff weight of 60,000 pounds (including 15,000 pounds of ordnance) from a fixed base, execute the mission and then do a vertical landing on the confined deck of an amphibious ship. Expeditionary and flexibility go hand in hand...."

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2010, 22:28
by spazsinbad
Bill Sweetman does not like the F-35B (nor any other F-35 but divide and conquer is a good strategy):

The Next JSF Debate Posted by Bill Sweetman at 10/25/2010

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... d=blogDest

"Is the F-35B - and, by extension, Marine tactical aviation - at risk?

The conventional wisdom on that question was expressed by my tactful colleague Robert Wall: "What are you smoking?" The Marines have, for the last 30 years at least, been very successful at getting what they want through Congress, and something that they want very much is their own tacair. The Harrier's short-take-off, vertical landing performance, from the early 1970s, relieved the Marines from total dependence on the navy's big-deck carriers.

With their corporate memory haunted by Guadalcanal (when Adm Frank Jack Fletcher pulled carriers away from the island as a Japanese fleet approached) the Marines deftly maneuvered into a position where their new STOVL jet has become the leading edge of a massive international program - and they are not about to give it up.

As noted last week, the UK's decision to abandon the B removes one prop from the program - the fact that any Pentagon action against the B would result in the DoD getting nastygrams from State. But it also doesn't indicate a lot of British confidence in the program.

The UK government can try as hard as it likes to blame the magnitude of last week's cuts on its predecessor, but it also knew very well that its actions with the carriers would expose it to criticism and even outright ridicule: to scrap the UK Harrier force and the last carrier, to finish the first new carrier with only helicopters, spend a lot of money to finish the second ship (late) with catapults (risky) and then mothball the first ship after a few years in service.

There had to be a very powerful reason to do that. My speculation is that, at some point in the defense review discussions, defense minister Liam Fox looked someone in the eye and asked them if they could guarantee that the F-35B would fly, would be reliable in service and not break the bank in terms of acquisition and sustainment costs, and that the US would never cancel it - and the answer was not the right one.

But the UK's pull-out comes as the Marine role is being reassessed. In a recent Armed Forces Journal paper, two Marine officers respond to earlier criticism of the B (from a Navy aviator) [see references above]. The piece serves to remind us of why the F-35B exists: because the Marine Air Ground Task Force "has the self-sustaining capability to apply power to a wide variety of scenarios — from a non-combatant evacuation operation to high-intensity combat."

That's precisely the doctrinal issue that is in question now. The "self-sustaining" role of the MAGTF was a Marine dream in the 1950s and 1960s, which was gradually realized - at least in doctrine and theory - with the arrival of the AV-8A Harrier, the Harrier II and (finally) the Harrier II Plus with radar and AMRAAM.

But is the MAGTF to remain self-sustaining? More likely, its new role will be joint - so in a "high-intensity" environment, it would be accompanied by a carrier group.

In that case, according to Navy documents, the most aviation-capable type of amphib - the new LHA-6 USS America or later - would add six jets to the [separate USN] carrier's nominal 49 (44 tactical fighters and five Growlers).

Helpful, yes, but decisive? You could add more JSFs to the amphib, but that would mean trading off the workhorse V-22 transports - probably one-for-one, since the F-35B and V-22 are about the same size.

The Marine plan for JSF calls for F-35Bs on the CV decks too - that's why the most widely quoted split of the 680-aircraft "department of the Navy" JSF buy includes 420 Bs, far more than is needed to replace AV-8Bs. Those aircraft would be able to flex among carrier and amphib decks and austere fields ashore.

But as reported earlier, deputy Navy secretary Robert Work - reviewing the future role and structure of the Corps - is not convinced that extensive forward basing will work when insurgents are armed with guided rockets and mortars. The forward base is a big. soft target - indeed, it always was, but back when the RAF conceived the idea, in the Cold War, it was protected from Russian missiles and special forces by secrecy. The actual sites for off-base Harrier operations were pre-surveyed, but there was no visible preparation, and with the reconnaissance technology of the day the sites would be hard to locate.

The Marines in AFJ talk about "countless battlefield examples" of forward-based airpower, but cite only three times this has been used in the 35-year history of Marine Harriers. In the most recent,"basing AV-8Bs at FOB Dwyer during the fight for Marjah resulted in 65 percent of their sortie duration being spent on station. In comparison, aircraft based at Kandahar spent 55 percent of their sortie duration on station."

Again - is that decisive? And is it worth the very large sums still to be spent on acquisition and operation of the F-35B?" Ask the USMC.

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2010, 04:35
by spazsinbad
Commandant's USMC Vision of 2025 in 2009 PPT (10.5Mb):

http://www.marinecorpscouncil.com/brief ... 090418.ppt

"Commandant's Update- Marine Corps Council Brief FINAL 090418.ppt"

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2010, 20:37
by spazsinbad
Why STOVL F-35B had to be abandoned by the RN FAA, however it will be a future option perhaps. SRVL development contract with LockMart will continue that research & development otherwise for the USMC and others I gather....

More About Landmark 50-year Anglo-French Defense Treaties by Christina Mackenzie at 11/2/2010

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... d=blogDest

"Adding detail to Bill's post Entente Cordiale, Meet Special Relationship here, in a nutshell, are the main elements of the “Declaration on Defense and Security Co-operation” signed today by British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
There are 17 points of agreement which include:

Combined Joint Expeditionary Force - The tri-service CJEF will not be a standing force but be available ''at notice for bilateral, NATO, European Union, United Nations or other'' operations. It is expected to include units from the Parachute Regiment, the Royal Marines and Special Forces and when deployed would take its orders from one commander, either British or French. Combined land and air exercises will begin in 2011 with ''progress towards full capability in subsequent years''.

Aircraft Carriers - The UK will fit ''cat and trap'' to its future aircraft carrier so that combat aircraft from each country can use each other's carriers with the aim that at least one carrier will be available at all times. By the early 2020s that should allow the creation of a ''UK-French integrated carrier strike group''.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2010, 07:39
by spazsinbad
H/T to 'solomon' for this LHD Navantia Utube video find:

LHD "Juan Carlos I" NAVANTIAshipyard 13 Nov 2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... ZMhd8rG6UA

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2010, 23:53
by spazsinbad
An Update on the Eglin F-35 Training Facility An Interview With Colonel Arthur Tomassetti 18 Nov 2010

http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=12819

"We look to what’s going on, on the airfield. You’ll notice, probably much different from when you were here last time, there’s a lot of clearing of trees and everything, going on. Basically, what we’re trying to accommodate now is this parking apron that goes in front of the Navy and Marine Corp hangar, this addition to the taxiways, the large aircraft loading area and last chance checks area. Across the taxiway, there are 2 hover pads so that the STOVL airplanes can perform their vertical landings, here at Eglin main.

All that construction is under way up at Duke field, which is one of the outlying fields that we will use; basically, we’re setting up an LHA dummy deck, which is similar to what sits at the field near Cherry Point and the field near Yuma, Arizona, that currently, the Harrier pilots use to practice shipboard operations, before actually going out to a ship.

So basically, you take the top of a LHA/LHD, you lay it on the ground, and people can operate their airplanes, on approach to landing, and on takeoff. There is a tower set up, so the landing signal officer has the right perspective to view the airplanes, to control the approaches and takeoffs; and it gives the airplane the right perspective of things to look for, when operating in a shipboard environment. So that’s being put into place up at Duke Field. It should be up and operational by mid-summer of next
year."

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2010, 23:03
by spazsinbad
English Language (rather than Spanish otherwise available at URL in thread entry above here) Narration Videos

Strategic Projection Ship "Juan Carlos I"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NAgt3Ow ... re=related

LHD [for Australian & Spanish Navies]

Length overall: 230.8 m
Length between perpendiculars: 205.7 m
Moulded beam: 32.0 m
Depth to flight deck: 27.5 m
Full load draft: 7,1 m
Full load displacement: 27.560 t
Speed in full load condition: 21 kn
Garage area: 2.000 m2
Hangar area: 1.000 m2
Crew: 1,443
Range: 9,000 nm @ 15 kn
_______________________

Canberra Class Initial Spanish LHD L61 on left in photo below

http://www.navy.gov.au/Canberra_Class

RIGHT CLICK ON URL below TO "Save Target As"

http://www.navy.gov.au/w/images/LHD_Intro.flv (30.6Mb) [Oz Accent] :D

http://www.navy.gov.au/w/images/Lhd_spain.jpg

"Spanish LHD, SPS Juan Carlos I, alongside the Spanish Carrier, SPS Principe de Asturias. The RAN’s LHD is based on the SPS Juan Carlos I."

Image

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2010, 01:38
by spazsinbad
Helicopter Visual Approach System (HELIVAS) perhaps useful for F-35Bs on LHA/Ds

http://www.agiltd.co.uk/
OR
http://www.agiltd.co.uk/visual_landing_aids/helivas/


Particularly: Stabilised Glide Slope Indicator (SGSI)

http://www.agiltd.co.uk/visual_landing_aids/sgsi/

"The SGSI projects a beam of light, with coloured sectors, from the aft face of the ship. This beam is stabilised to remove the effects of the ships’ roll and pitch and provides the helicopter pilot with visual information relating to his approach angle. The coloured sector of the beam seen by the pilot will indicate to him if his approach is above, below or on the correct glide path.

The SGSI is compliant for use with Night Vision Devices (NVD), as defined in STANAG 1445.

There are various beam configurations available, to suit different naval requirements, all of which may be designed to also comply with NVO's."
___________

Glide-Slope and Long Range Line-Up Indicator System (GLIS)

http://www.agiltd.co.uk/visual_landing_aids/glis/

"The GLIS System has been developed by AGI to satisfy a requirement for an NVG compliant system that replaces DAPS.

This system may be used by pilots flying with NVDs, who are making their final approach to an aircraft carrier or such similar sized naval vessel.

The two SGSI projectors, situated one fore and one aft on the port side of the flight deck, provide a long range line-up indication. Intensity calculations indicate that the viewing distance would be a minimum of 2nm with a similar prevailing Met Vis. Operational experience has shown that the viewing distance is often considerably greater, with reports of 5nm not being uncommon. The beam projected by the two SGSIs is vertically colour-coded, as well as incorporating different occulting rates in the upper and lower sectors. On the correct glide slope, both SGSIs shall indicate a steady green signal to the pilot. Deviation from the correct glide path, results in one or the other projectors being seen as a flashing colour, the flashing rate of which is dependent upon whether the deviation is high or low. The system may be used with equal effectiveness either with or without NVD and has been described as an intuitive replacement for DAPS."
______________

Height Indicator & Hover Aid Thermometer (HIHAT)

http://www.agiltd.co.uk/visual_landing_aids/hihat/

"The HIHAT system is a lighting solution developed for installation on aircraft carriers or other similar sized vessels, that will provide a clear, intuitive and NVD friendly indication of hover height and relative ship movement, to the pilot, in the side hover position. The viewing angle of the system is significantly wider than other similar traditional systems currently in service. For optimum performance, it should be mounted on the side of the ship’s island, overlooking the flight deck, in a location that will allow visibility to a minimum number of 3 deck landing positions."
_________________

Stabilised Horizon Reference System (SHRS)

http://www.agiltd.co.uk/visual_landing_aids/shrs/

"The Stabilised Horizon Reference System is nominally 3m in length, with a fixed reference light at each end to indicate roll movement of the vessel. It remains horizontal, irrespective of the ship's roll motion. This provides the pilot with a 'True Horizon' reference whilst those lights fitted to the ships superstructure continue to show the ships actual angle of roll."
__________________________________________

http://www.agiltd.co.uk/visual_landing_ ... ochure.pdf (0.5Mb)

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2011, 03:41
by spazsinbad
http://www.navair.navy.mil/lakehurst/nlweb/ieeerevc.pdf (204Kb)

"Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System - EMALS
Michael R. Doyle, Douglas J. Samuel, Thomas Conway, Robert R. Klimowski
Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Lakehurst, NJ 08733

Abstract: With the proliferation of electromagnetic launch systems presently being designed, built, or studied, there appears to be no limit to their application. One of the intriguing applications is electromagnetically catapulting aircraft from the deck of an aircraft carrier. The U.S. Navy had foreseen the substantial capabilities of an electromagnetic catapult in the 1940's and built a prototype. However, it was not until the recent technical advances in the areas of pulsed power, power conditioning, energy storage devices, and controls gave credence to a fieldable electromagnetic aircraft launch system. This paper presents the U.S. Navy's Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) being developed in partnership with Kaman Electromagnetics (Hudson, MA). It addresses the EMALS's present design and the technologies involved, as well as the ship and operational impacts, advantages, disadvantages, and compatibility issues for today's and tomorrow's carriers....

...One of the major advantages of electromagnetic launch is the ability to integrate into the all electric ship....

...Perhaps the most interesting aspect of electromagnetic launch is the flexibility it offers in the way of future aircraft and ship designs. An electromagnetic launcher could easily be sized down to perform as a launch-assist system, augmenting the short takeoff of a STOVL aircraft. It can also be easily incorporated into the contour of a ramp, which provides a more efficient fly-away angle for the aircraft being launched. This reduces the required endspeed, the commensurate energy supplied, as well as the stresses on the airframe. Overall, an EM launcher offers a great deal of flexibility to future naval requirements and ship designs....

...The EMALS offers the increased energy capability necessary to launch the next generation of carrier based aircraft. The steam catapult is presently operating near its design limit of approximately 95 MJ. The EMALS has a delivered energy capability of 122 MJ, a 29% increase (see Fig. 6) [below]. This will provide a means of launching all present naval carrier based aircraft and those in the foreseeable future...."

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2011, 19:51
by spazsinbad
Compact Carrier Considered January 13, 2011

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnava ... 10113.aspx

"There has recently been some talk in the U.S. Navy among some senior uniformed personnel and serious strategists about the long-term impact of UAVs. A few people are suggesting the era of the 100,000 ton carrier may be over. With smaller UAVs likely to comprise as much as half of all the aircraft on a carrier, and increasing automation of many ship functions, some strategists are thinking about something in the range of 65,000 (about the size of the Charles de Gaulle or the new Queen Elizabeths) to 85,000 tons (a bit more than the full-load displacement of the old JFK, the last non-nuclear carrier, and a little smaller than the Enterprise’s 93,000 standard).

Meanwhile, the navy is facing budget cuts, and growing costs for new ships. The first of the new Ford-class (CVN-21) aircraft carriers will go for at least $14 billion (this includes R&D for the entire CVN-21 class). The current Nimitz-class carriers cost $4.5 billion each. Both classes also require an air wing (48-50 fighters, plus airborne early-warning planes, electronic warfare aircraft, and anti-submarine helicopters), which costs another $3.5 billion. Thus the thinking is that smaller carriers will be cheaper to build and operate (smaller crews) and carry the same number of warplanes (because most of them will be smaller UAVs).

Meanwhile, the cash crunch is getting serious. So the navy also wants to decommission its oldest aircraft carrier, the USS Enterprise (CVN 65) three years early, in 2012. Originally, the Enterprise was going to stay in service until the USS Ford was ready in 2015. But changes in aircraft weaponry, namely smart bombs and targeting pods, have reduced the need for eleven carriers. The navy believes ten will get the job done. Plus, the Enterprise, as the world's first nuclear powered carrier, will also be the first to be decommissioned. That will mean removing eight nuclear reactors. Unlike later nuclear carriers, which had only two reactors, the Enterprise was designed so that one reactor replaced one of the steam boilers of a non-nuclear power plant. The navy has decommissioned nuclear powered surface ships before, having retired nine nuclear powered cruisers in the 1990s. This was done because these ships were more expensive to operate and upgrade. So the costs and savings are known.

The Enterprise was an expensive design, and only one was built (instead of a class of six). While a bit longer than the later Nimitz class, it was lighter (92,000 tons displacement, versus 100,000 tons). The Enterprise was commissioned in 1961, almost 40 years after the Langley entered service (1923). In the two decades after the Langley, the first U.S. carrier, went to sea, there were tremendous changes in carrier aviation. While the innovation slowed after World War II, major changes continued into the 1950s (jet aircraft, nuclear propelled carriers, SAMs). But in the ensuing half century there has been no particular innovation in carrier design. This has not been a problem because the carriers have proven useful, at least for the U.S. Navy (the only fleet to use large carriers.) Only the U.S. has a constant need to get air power to any corner of the planet in a hurry. But no navy has been able to give battle to the U.S. carrier force since 1945. The Soviets built new weapons and made plans to do so, but that war never occurred. China is beginning to build carriers, but is not committed to having a lot of them. Many naval planners worry that the next war will find carriers coming off second best to nuclear submarines and missiles. As in the past, we'll never know unless there's a war to test any new theories about how you give battle to aircraft carriers.

Smart bombs, shipboard automation, computer networks, UAVs and major advances in electronics have created another burst of change for carriers. The USS Ford will incorporate many of those innovations. But the biggest change was the predictable precision of the JDAM (GPS guided bomb). Unlike dumb (unguided) bombs, JDAM can precisely hit the target in any weather. Even in clear weather, it would take over 100 dumb bombs to obtain the same effect. This is a big deal for a carrier, which only has a few dozen bomber aircraft, and limited quantities of jet fuel and bombs. But with one F-18 now able to do the work of a hundred, carriers suddenly became far more powerful. Thus the navy would rather save some money, and retire the Enterprise early. The Nimitz, due to retire in 2024, might also be stricken five or more years early. The navy knows it needs more money for new tech, like combat UAVs operating from carriers. These are smaller and burn less fuel than manned fighter-bombers, further increasing the combat capabilities of existing carriers, or a new class of smaller class of carriers, in effect, "mini-Fords." The subject has generated a lot of rancor in the Pentagon, and no press releases at all."

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2011, 22:48
by neptune
[quote="spazsinbad"]Compact Carrier Considered January 13, 2011

...Perhaps the Navy will add EMALS and AAGs to the decks for the America Class LHAs. This would allow them to launch and recover the UAVs. At 45,000 tons they are larger than the new Brit. Carriers. Wow!, what a change from the Nimitz class 100,000 ton to the America class 45,000 ton. :devil:

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2011, 22:55
by spazsinbad
neptune said: "At 45,000 tons they are larger than the new Brit. Carriers." Not so. New Brit. carriers weigh in at 65,000 tons according to above news article. Same 'weightage' said here: http://www.armedforces.co.uk/navy/listings/l0012.html

Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2011, 04:42
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:neptune said: "At 45,000 tons they are larger than the new Brit. Carriers." Not so. New Brit. carriers weigh in at 65,000 tons according to above news article. Same 'weightage' said here: http://www.armedforces.co.uk/navy/listings/l0012.html


Sad but true, I plead guilty to believing a bad graphic. The mighty Brit. carrier is 65k, Thank You for the Correction :oops: :)

RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2011, 21:41
by spazsinbad
'Interesting' observation by USMC Head Honcho (also ex-Jet Jock: https://slsp.manpower.usmc.mil/gosa/bio ... PE=General):

Marine Corps Commandant Visits F-35 Test Facility
News Release Number: EPEOW201101131 Jan/13/2011

http://www.navair.navy.mil/NewsReleases ... w&id=4479#

"PATUXENT RIVER, Md. -- Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. James Amos, Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford and Lt. Col. Fred Schenk and Lt. Col. Matt Kelly of the F-35 Integrated Test Force inspecting a F-35B test aircraft on December 17, 2010. Earlier that week with reporters, Gen. Amos said, "The programmatic health of the STOVL variant of the F-35 is a matter of great national interest. Right now, we have 11 aircraft carriers and 11 "big deck" amphibious ships - so our nation effectively has 22 carrier-type capital ships to do our nation's bidding. We need to put fifth generation aircraft on all 22 of those ships if we are to maintain operational flexibility for the National Command Authority and the Combatant Commander." Photo courtesy Lockheed Martin.

http://www.navair.navy.mil/NewsReleases ... 8x10_1.jpg

Image

RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2011, 23:50
by Meteor
The LHA is not an aircraft carrier in the sense that a CVN is. It's primary mission is carrying a battalion of Marine infantry and placing them ashore. In order to do this is has facilities for 1800 infantrymen, space for a number of helicopters, and it carries a variety of landing craft. It has a well deck, no catapults, no arresting gear, and is only capable of about 22 knots, much slower than a CVN task force. In order to land troops it has to essentially stop. It carries no AEW or ASW aircraft, is expected to operate in concert with an amphibious task force, and to be protected by AEGIS class air defense ships, submarines, and a regular attack carrier or two.

From what I understand, an LHA will normally operate with a maximum of 6 AV-8Bs, an aircraft with a much lighter weight, smaller size, lesser fuel requirement, and a smaller thermal and acoustic footprint than an F-35B. With 6 fighters aboard, 4 might be flyable at any one time. That is not nearly enough to generate a defensive CAP 24/7, or even a continouos CAS presence over the battlefield. I'm also under the impression that in order for the AV-8B to operate with a combat load off an LHA, the entire deck has to be cleared so that the fighter can do a rolling takeoff, and the ship has to be moving at speed to generate a wind over the deck. Racing around at flank speed with a clean deck in order to launch fighters is not in keeping with the primary mission of landing all the troops carried onboard.

RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2011, 00:25
by spazsinbad
My impression is (from other sources about a briefing given to USMC troops elsewhere - I think it was in San Diego where he told them their accommodation would be lacking due money going to F-35B) that the USMC Commandant is referring to use of F-35Bs with new CONOPS from flat tops. Even one F-35B will be very useful airborne - if only for ISR use (networked etc.) on front line. Concentrating on old ways of doing things with much less capable Harriers is not the new paradigm with F-35Bs & the more the merrier I would imagine.

Previous page on this thread has a good USMC viewpoint (amongst many others online) of USMC use of F-35B in 'Armed Forces Journal' article/discussion.

Flexible future - The F-35B will give the Marine Corps unprecedented basing options
BY MAJ. TYLER BARDO AND MAJ. CHAD VAUGHN

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2010/10/4765181
___________________

The SLDinfo website has quite a few USMC views on usage of F-35B (some mentioned on previous page in this thread)

RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2011, 06:49
by madrat
It seems odd that the Marines want a version of F-35 that cannot be launched by catapult. I'd hope they could create a rail system based off EMALS to launch planes from amidships and not from the deck. The F-35B launched from an EMALS could then reach much closer to the normal takeoff weight of an F-35A. Recovery should also include rolling recoveries using arrestor wires. If the F-35B never truly became a VTOL system it would help save the mission for them operating from the LHD's. Launching an underloaded VTOL-only F-35B off an LHD is a terrible waste of resources.

And if they are going to lug around F-35B's on the LHD's then the latter should also carry some kind of airborne radar picket. I don't see why they couldn't field an AEW system from helicopters like the British; AEW would be solely for supporting F-35B in a secondary air defense role. It's not like they really need to carry E-2's. You're really only augmenting detection of the surrounding fleet anyhow.

RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2011, 07:11
by bjr1028
The Marines are considering a palletized version of the searchwater.

RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2011, 07:54
by spazsinbad
madrat, I don't know where you have the idea that a fully loaded F-35B cannot takeoff from a USMC flat top. The Key Performance Parameters require this capability. Likely these aircraft will do some kind of short takeoff - one of the first things proven in the flight testing of the F-35B.

Yes the possibility of adding an EMALS catapult to an LHD would be there but you watch the USN supporters NAYSAY this idea. Likely an EMALS will have to wait for a future flat top or a big refurbishing of one. Why - a ski jump could be added with the EMALS to make it more efficient (and shorter stroke length). We all know where that idea will go though... :twisted:

RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2011, 07:56
by spazsinbad
Before my broadband is slowed/shaped to dialup speed here are some light reading sites for potential USMC use of F-35B in a role not always talked about perhaps. The info is out there though...

Strike Fighter Partners With Pilot By Robert K. Ackerman October 2006

http://www.afcea.org/signal/articles/te ... &zoneid=56

"The F-35 is designed with open-architecture mission systems that feature information fusion. It has no stovepipes, Rubino declares. All of the aircraft’s information is fused through one integrated core processor that can combine data from radar, infrared and electro-optic sensors. This processor can perform more than 1 trillion computations per second, and the pilot can tailor the fused information from the aircraft’s integrated sensor suite to whatever form best suits a situation.

And, this fused situational awareness picture is not limited to input from onboard systems. Pilots can include information from Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) and Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JointSTARS) aircraft, among many air- and land-based platforms.

The flip side is that the F-35 also can serve as an intelligence collection platform. Its Link-16 datalink system allows it to downlink vital intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) information to other platforms and headquarters, including space-based assets. A prognostic health and management system allows the aircraft to downlink mechanical issues automatically to its base as it returns from a mission.

All told, the aircraft has more than 120 information exchange requirements ranging from fellow fighter aircraft to ships and ground-based vehicles, Rubino relates. This permits the aircraft to feed ISR data to weapon systems such as a Patriot missile battery. The aircraft also will be compatible with future systems such as the Joint Tactical Radio System, or JTRS, and the Army’s Future Combat Systems.

The F-35 has its own unique datalink system—the multi-array downlink, or MADL. It is a low-probability-of-intercept/low-probability-of-detection point-to-point datalink. It permits rapid exchange of diverse information with other F-35s at fairly long ranges, Rubino allows, and this provides greater flexibility for conducting operations.

For example, one F-35 could be flying with all of its active sensors in full roar collecting information and building a complete picture for another F-35 operating in a silent stealth mode. The MADL would allow the active F-35 to transfer the fused information to its silent partner some distance away."
___________________

Marines Tap Other Services’ Information Technologies By Robert K. Ackerman May 2007

http://www.afcea.org/signal/articles/te ... &zoneid=37

"The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program (SIGNAL Magazine, October 2006) has a Marine Corps variant, and the Corps is working with the Air Force on the many networking aspects that advanced platform brings to the force. The F-35’s combat capabilities are complemented by an advanced sensor suite that makes the aircraft an ISR platform. Connectivity development relates to JTRS and wideband networking, and the Corps wants to be able to leverage these capabilities fully. Gen. Allen allows that this may require networking across the battlespace in a manner that currently cannot be conceived.

“We have to take it [the F-35] as a completely different concept than the way we do combat now,” he declares. “From a network perspective, the fact that you literally have almost a ‘router in the sky’ that can actually network itself—can change missions on the fly—requires that we look at it not just as an upgrade but as a significantly new capability for network-centric operations in the air.”

The Corps is working on an architecture for that router-in-the-sky combat aircraft, the general continues. Because the F-35 is such an innovative concept and a potentially robust capability, planners will be working on its architecture carefully for several years to come, he adds.
________________

Programmable System Guides Jet to New Heights By Henry S. Kenyon June 2008

http://www.afcea.org/signal/articles/te ... zoneid=234

"Avionics package offers stealthy fighter enhanced, secure communications and mission flexibility.

The U.S. military’s newest combat aircraft, the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, is designed as a multirole platform capable of carrying out a range of missions for different services and foreign allies. Its brains are an advanced software programmable avionics package that can be rapidly reconfigured for new operations. The package manages the aircraft’s navigations, communications, electronic warfare, and identification friend or foe functions. Although it was developed for use in fighter aircraft, the electronics package can potentially be installed in a range of airborne and ground-based vehicles."
&
"The F-35’s avionics system consists of a variety of software-programmable channels. Depending on the particular mission need, each channel can be programmed for a specific function. Phan notes that the JSF can perform more than 30 different system functions. Its identification friend or foe (IFF) system has five different modes to classify and identify friendly aircraft. Communications functions range from basic ultrahigh/very high frequency to single channel ground and airborne radio system (SINCGARS) and Have Quick. The aircraft also supports several datalinks for communications and situational awareness such as Link 16 and a specialized multi-array datalink (MADL) for stealthy communications between aircraft. He shares that MADL is scheduled to become the standard method for data transfer between the F-35 and F-22.

MADL was developed specifically to maintain JSF’s stealth capability. It is a K-band, narrow beam point-to-point datalink. Phan explains that when aircraft share data with each other via their datalinks, they can be tracked. He says that MADL is stealthy because it uses a narrow beam to communicate with other aircraft, making it very difficult to track an F-35 via its emissions.

The JSF’s software programmable communications system is written to the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) software common architecture standard."
______________

On the horizon for F-22 and for F-35 and others perhaps?

Phased Array System Opens New Horizons By Henry S. Kenyon July 2006

http://www.afcea.org/signal/articles/te ... zoneid=188

"Modified radar operates as a data modem and sensor to move information in seconds."

RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2011, 20:11
by spazsinbad
Interesting possibility revealed I guess:

Jeep Carriers

http://www.neptunuslex.com/2011/01/13/j ... ent-675137

Navig8r - January 14, 2011: "The first Jeep carrier is already under construction. LHA 6 is a copy of LHD 8 without a well deck and with expanded hangar deck and aviation facilities. It can carry 22 STOVOL varients of JSF. Since it will not have cats or traps, UCAVs would be problematic. LHA 7 will be a copy of LHA 6, but the design for LHA 8 is still fluid. While some are considering putting the well deck back, others are thinking about EMALS/AAG [Advanced Arrestor Gear]. That would give it the ability to handle UCAVs.

Maybe I’m a linear thinking ‘shoe, but I can’t figure out why we would build an amphib that can’t deliver anything heavier than an unarmored HMMV to the beach. Maybe that was a clever ploy to get a pocket carrier authorized by the bean counters."

RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2011, 07:50
by spazsinbad
Precis of more guff about origins of SRVL (for CVF) on this forum.... Scroll down the page at URL below (or read on)...

SRVL for CVF: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... c&p=172178

Date Posted: 11-Dec-2008 International Defence Review

http://militarynuts.com/index.php?showtopic=1507&st=120

Preparing for take-off: UK ramps up F-35 carrier integration effort
EDITED
"A range of simulation, modelling, risk-reduction and technology-demonstration activities are under way to optimise the safety and operability of the ship/air interface between the UK's new aircraft carriers and the F-35B Joint Strike Fighters that will operate from them. Richard Scott reports....

....SRVL manoeuvre
As currently conceptualised, an aircraft executing an SRVL approach will follow a constant glidepath (five to six degrees) to the deck. This angle is about twice that of a normal CV approach, offering increased clearance over the stern and less touchdown scatter. The touchdown position on the axial flight deck is about 150 ft from the stern, similar to that of a conventional carrier.

No arrestor gear is required. Instead, the aircraft brakes are used to bring the aircraft to a stop.

Low-key studies to investigate the SRVL technique were initiated by the MoD in the late 1990s, but the work has latterly taken on a much higher profile after the MoD's Investments Approvals Board (IAB) in July 2006 directed that SRVL should be included in future development of the JCA design to mitigate the risk to KUR 4. Accordingly, the JCA IPT amended the CVF integration contract in mid-2008 to include this requirement.

Addressing IPLC 2008, Martin Rosa, F-35 technical coordinator in Dstl's air and weapon systems department, said the SRVL studies to date had shown "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".

Dstl began early work to examine the feasibility of employing the SRVL manoeuvre in 1999. According to Rosa, an initial pre-feasibility investigation demonstrated the potential payoff of the manoeuvre in terms of increased bring back, but also threw up four key areas demanding further examination: performance (as affected by variables such as deck run, wind over deck, aerodynamic lift and thrust margin); carrier design; operational issues (such as sortie generation rate); and safety.

Further feasibility investigations were conducted in 2000-01 using generic aircraft and ship models. Dstl also ran a two-day safety workshop in late 2001. This showed that there were no "showstoppers, and no SRVL-specific safety critical systems were identified", said Rosa. "Also, the ability to ditch weapons and carry out a vertical landing instead of an SRVL in the event of a failure was seen as a powerful safety mitigation."

During 2002, more representative F-35B information became available which altered assumptions with respect to aircraft 'bring back' angle of attack (from 16 degrees to about 12 degrees, so reducing the lift co-efficient); wing area (revised downwards from 500 ft2 to 460 ft2, reducing lift available on approach at a given speed by 8 per cent); and jet effects in the SRVL speed range (which were significantly greater than those in the hover).

Aggregated, these revised assumptions significantly reduced predicted bring back performance. Even so, the improvement offered by an SRVL recovery was still substantial and MoD interest continued.

In the 2003-04 timeframe, Lockheed Martin became formally engaged in the investigation of SRVL recovery, with the JPO contracting with Team F-35 for a study into methods for Enhanced Vertical Landing Bring Back. Once again, safety and performance characteristics were considered broadly encouraging. "However," pointed out Rosa, "at this stage work on the adaptable CVF design was progressing rapidly.... Consequently the obvious next step was to consider the detailed impacts that SRVL might have on the CVF design."

RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2011, 12:45
by madrat
Spazinbad-

The F-35B carries several tons less than the F-35B. It has around 5000 pounds less fuel by design and has a significant lower overall maximum takeoff weight. The idea that it couldn't cope with conventional takeoff and landing stresses with it's modified bulkhead design makes me feel like the F-35 is turning out to be too much about what it cannot do. And it's less and less about what it can now.

RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2011, 12:53
by spazsinbad
madrat, not sure you make a good case for what you perhaps are trying to say. I get it. You don't like the F-35B. However those intending to use it do like it. You make a mountain out of a molehill with your comment about the bulkhead. This problem has been fixed. Only you are seeing what it cannot do. Make a list of things it can do compared to any other aircraft; not least of all the other variants. Be surprised or Be cynical. Your choice.

RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2011, 17:15
by madrat
Actually I do like the F-35B. I just don't think the USMC or anyone else should over sell its vertical landing component. I'd much rather see an F-35B that only VL when winchester and perform short field landing when loaded than carry on a charade that isn't going to happen. Repackage it as a very short takeoff and landing catobar-compatible warplane rather than a conventional vtol Marines-centric plane without catobar support. (The Marines corp is getting pie in the face over this debacle.) This charade will get the program cancelled and it may just cause a chain reaction effect through the other two versions. If the USMC is hell bent on a half baked F-35B, that doesn't meet their original goals, then I'm all for cancelling it now and center work around making the other two versions the best they can be for their respective services. As it has metered out so far the F-35B has been an ankle weight upon the others.

RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2011, 18:43
by spazsinbad
madrat, the F-35B is meeting the goals set if by that you mean Key Performance Parameters (KPP). How the VSTOL capabilities are used operationally is up to the USMC. They have a lot of flexible landing and take off capability to utilise. That is clear. No problem.

Re: RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2011, 07:22
by elp
spazsinbad wrote:madrat, the F-35B is meeting the goals set if by that you mean Key Performance Parameters (KPP). How the VSTOL capabilities are used operationally is up to the USMC. They have a lot of flexible landing and take off capability to utilise. That is clear. No problem.


KPPs have to be certified by something more than wishful thinking by the PowerPoint warriors.

That being OPEVAL etc. Still a lot of time before we know what result that will deliver; given all of the out-of-sequence work that is going on.

RE: Re: RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2011, 07:58
by spazsinbad
One of the first taekoff tests were a series of STOs. Have not heard that these were not satisfactory. There are comments by test pilots out there how well these went in the F-35B - because the STO is as important as the VL (or SRVL if needed). Being a self admitted PowerPointMaker 'elp' - you would know a lot I guess.

RE: Re: RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2011, 21:07
by spazsinbad
Russian sold secrets for China’s first carrier - Ukraine sends him to prison
By Reuben F. Johnson - The Washington Times - Monday, February 14, 2011

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... t-carrier/

"KIEV | Ukrainian authorities have imposed a six-year prison term on a Russian man convicted of spying for China who was assigned to steal military secrets for Beijing’s program to build and operate aircraft carriers.

The Russian national, Aleksandr Yermakov, was blocked from attempting to transfer to China classified data that would have significantly accelerated the Chinese army‘s effort to field its own operational aircraft carrier, according to reports in the Ukrainian newspaper Segodnya and other news outlets.

China's military announced last year that it had begun construction of its first aircraft carrier, confirming Pentagon and U.S. intelligence reports that Beijing was seeking the power-projection platform that requires highly skilled pilots who can take off and land from the relatively short space of a carrier deck at sea.

U.S. and defense and intelligence officials said China‘s deployment of an aircraft carrier would pose significant problems for U.S. plans to defend democratic Taiwan if the communist mainland were to use force to retake the island, which broke away after China‘s civil war.

“It not only extends the range of Chinese strike aircraft that would take out [Taiwanese] military installations, but it also would complicate U.S. Navy assistance of the [Republic of China‘s] defense if the mainland should attack,” said a naval officer and Chinese carrier program specialist assigned to the Pentagon.

China‘s intelligence service directed Yermakov to steal classified information about Ukraine‘s Land-based Naval Aviation Testing and Training Complex, or NITKA, its Russian acronym, according to reports.

The facility is in the Crimea near the city of Saki and was built when Ukraine was a part of the Soviet Union. It remains the only training complex of its kind in the world.


The NITKA base is vital for states that operate one of the Russian-designed carriers equipped with ski-ramp takeoff decks, instead of the flat decks used on U.S. and French aircraft carriers.

The only two ski-jump carriers are the Russian navy‘s Admiral Kuznetsov and its sister ship, the Varyag, acquired by China from Ukraine in 1998 and initially announced in China for use as a floating casino. Russia continues training its pilots in Ukraine while building a similar facility in the Krasnodarsky Krai region of Russia that is expected to be completed in 2012.

...

Chinese intelligence promised to pay the Russian father-son team “$1 million for the delivery of documentation on this training facility and its operations in the form of drawings, digital photos, information on flash drives,” the SBU said. As preparation for the operation “Yermakov‘s son made several trips to the [People's Republic of China] where he visited People’s Liberation Army Navy facilities and met with their representatives.”

The SBU and diplomatic sources told Segodnya, the Ukrainian newspaper, that in addition to “digital data, drawings, and construction documents, the Russian duo had prepared some 1,500 pages of documents to hand over to Chinese intelligence.” This information had a value “to the national interests of Ukraine in the hundreds of millions of dollars.”

China’s navy acquired the Varyag from the Ukrainian Nikolayev shipyards in 1998 for $20 million using a Chinese tourism company as a cover for the sale.

The original Chinese buyers promised that the ship would be turned into a casino and entertainment complex to be moored at the former Portuguese enclave of Macau, but the ship eventually was moved to China‘s Dalian shipyards, where it has been undergoing a refit for several years.

Chinese military officials have been quoted in China‘s state-run press as saying they plan to create a carrier-naval aviation capability; but “the Chinese need their own NITKA” for training their own carrier pilots, according to Ukrainian news reports, “and they have already begun building their own complex.”

U.S. intelligence officials said the first indications of China‘s plan for building aircraft carriers were land-based short takeoff and landing drills going back a decade.

The Chinese are building a massive carrier pilot training base at Xingcheng, in the northeastern province of Liaoning. Other facilities for training of carrier personnel and engineering support specialists have been built in Xian, Shanxi province. The Xingcheng facility has features that duplicate the design of NITKA in Ukraine."

RE: Re: RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2011, 05:06
by spazsinbad
Possible Xingcheng NavAv Airfield sites (my guess only - zoom in using Google Earth):

Image
Image

RE: Re: RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2011, 04:50
by spazsinbad
AFAIK the first (& only) Harrier 'SRVL' as told by pilot:

David Morgan: The Sea Harrier's Baptism of Fire

http://www.globalaviationresource.com/r ... rganp1.php

"For many the Falklands War of 1982 was the Sea Harrier's finest hour. Lt Cdr David Morgan
DSC served with 899 NAS during the conflict and tells that story in a vivid memoir entitled
"Hostile Skies". David has kindly agreed to provide three features for GAR's Harrier series and
here is the first, telling the incredible story of the attack on Port Stanley on 1st May 1982....

...Once back in the overhead of Hermes, I circled at a height of 5,000 feet whilst Flt Lt Ted Ball came up to
inspect the damage. After a fruitless inspection of the left side of the aircraft, he swapped over to the
right side and after a few seconds said 'Ah yes... you have got a bloody great hole in the tail'. I moved
the control surfaces to and fro and was told that they appeared to be working correctly but there was a
distinct possibility that the reaction controls, critical for vertical landing, might have taken some damage.
I therefore let everyone else land before setting myself up to carry out a rolling landing. This entails
running the aircraft onto the deck with a certain amount of forward speed and is not an approved
manoeuvre as there is a distinct danger of running over the side into the sea. It does, however, reduce
the reliance on the reaction controls and might give me the option to overshoot and try again if the
controls jammed.

I selected my undercarriage and flaps to the landing position, tightened my lap straps and set myself up
for a straight-in approach to the back end of the ship, from about one mile out. As I got closer,
everyone on the flight deck started to creep forwards to get a better view of the impending arrival. This
worried me somewhat as, if I had lost control, I might have taken a lot of people with me. I transmitted
a short call to that effect to the ship and the flight deck crews soon got the message and headed rapidly
for the comparative safety of the catwalks on either deck edge!

I stabilised the speed at 50 knots and adjusted the power and nozzle angle to give me a gentle rate of
descent towards the stern of the carrier. Slight adjustments were required to compensate for the rise
and fall of the deck but I managed to achieve a good firm touchdown about 50 feet in and braked
cautiously to a halt before following the marshaller's signals to park at the base of the ski-jump. As the
chain lashings were attached and I started my shutdown checks, I became aware that I was sweating
profusely, despite the biting 30 knot wind whipping in through the open cockpit canopy. The adrenalin
flow also made it difficult to unstrap and undo the various connections to the ejection seat, before
standing up to leave the cockpit. Outside, on the windswept and slippery deck stood a crowd of people
staring at my tail. Having given a thumbs-up to Bernard Hesketh, the BBC cameraman, I walked a little
unsteadily round the tail of the aircraft to inspect the damage...."

RE: Re: RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2011, 05:21
by 1st503rdsgt
I actually like the idea of having an F-35B/jeep carrier option. 4 LHAs could be a tougher target than 1 CVN, but they'd have to develop a V-22 AWACS to make the concept viable.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2011, 21:42
by neptune
1st503rdsgt wrote:I actually like the idea of having an F-35B/jeep carrier option. 4 LHAs could be a tougher target than 1 CVN, but they'd have to develop a V-22 AWACS to make the concept viable.


Oh my Gosh; a V-22 with a MESA onboard :idea: :D

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2011, 01:11
by quicksilver
The US Marines argue that F-35Bs on Gators provide the US with 22 TACAIR capable ships for no other investment than has already been made or planned.

I guess it's only in the US that one enjoys the luxury of referring to a 40,000 ton ship (with 5th Gen TACAIR no less) as a 'JEEP' carrier. :salute:

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2011, 02:08
by 1st503rdsgt
quicksilver wrote:The US Marines argue that F-35Bs on Gators provide the US with 22 TACAIR capable ships for no other investment than has already been made or planned.

I guess it's only in the US that one enjoys the luxury of referring to a 40,000 ton ship (with 5th Gen TACAIR no less) as a 'JEEP' carrier. :salute:


A quick check reveals that there are about 8-10 STOVL carriers out there operated by nations on decent terms with the U.S. The F-35B would increase their capability by a whole order of magnitude, easing U.S. security obligations.

Of course, "jeep carriers" can't carry out near the volume of sustained operations as a proper CV, but putting 3-4 together might work over short periods and also present the enemy with a more difficult target in confined waters (like the Gulf).

As I said earlier though, there would have to be an AWACS version of the V-22 to make this concept viable (along with other things I haven't thought of I'm sure).

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2011, 02:39
by spazsinbad
Perhaps this thread will become more relevant?

F-35 Shoots Down AWACS and JSTARS

Scrap AWACS, JSTARS; Plough Dough Into F-35, Wynne Says
By Colin Clark@DODBuzz; Monday, January 31st, 2011 12:52 pm
Posted in Air, Intelligence, International, Policy

"Former Air Force Secretary Mike Wynne wants the Air Force to get rid of large surveillance and reconnasisance aircraft such as AWACS and JSTARS, which are vulnerable to attack because of their huge radar cross-sections, and take the money saved and shove it into the Joint Strike Fighter program.

Wynne made his arguments on the website Second Line of Defense, run by the international defense consultant Robbin Laird. I spoke with Wynne this morning. His essential argument is that large aircraft such as these, while possessing excellent capabilities, are so vulnerable in time of war that the enormous amounts of money spent paying the large crews needed to fly and maintain these systems would be better spent making F-35s into the flying intelligence and targeting networks that they are designed to be.

“The F-35s are far more survivable and therefore effective,” he said. Combine F-22s and F-35s with a capability like Gorgon Stare and you would have a difficult to beat combination of highly survivable intelligence gathering and offensive capabilities...."

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2011, 03:18
by 1st503rdsgt
spazsinbad wrote:Perhaps this thread will become more relevant?

F-35 Shoots Down AWACS and JSTARS

Scrap AWACS, JSTARS; Plough Dough Into F-35, Wynne Says
By Colin Clark@DODBuzz; Monday, January 31st, 2011 12:52 pm
Posted in Air, Intelligence, International, Policy

"Former Air Force Secretary Mike Wynne wants the Air Force to get rid of large surveillance and reconnasisance aircraft such as AWACS and JSTARS, which are vulnerable to attack because of their huge radar cross-sections, and take the money saved and shove it into the Joint Strike Fighter program.

Wynne made his arguments on the website Second Line of Defense, run by the international defense consultant Robbin Laird. I spoke with Wynne this morning. His essential argument is that large aircraft such as these, while possessing excellent capabilities, are so vulnerable in time of war that the enormous amounts of money spent paying the large crews needed to fly and maintain these systems would be better spent making F-35s into the flying intelligence and targeting networks that they are designed to be.

“The F-35s are far more survivable and therefore effective,” he said. Combine F-22s and F-35s with a capability like Gorgon Stare and you would have a difficult to beat combination of highly survivable intelligence gathering and offensive capabilities...."


I'm not sure what to say. I guess I had it stuck in my head that all AWACS platforms had to be dedicated to the purpose from airframes able to handle several crew-members (preferably those built for transport). But with a good up-link system, I suppose its possible for fighters to just fly around with their radars on and let people on the ground handle all the data flow.

Of course, using fighters for AWACS patrol might lead to issues of endurance and maintenance cost, but I'm not sure how the V-22 would stack up to the F-35B in that area. I assume that the Navy continues to use the E-2 Hawkeye instead of a modified Superbug for that very reason though.

Still, I suppose that Wynne's idea might be the most cost/time effective route to having a usable "jeep carrier" option.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2011, 16:14
by aaam
1st503rdsgt wrote:I actually like the idea of having an F-35B/jeep carrier option. 4 LHAs could be a tougher target than 1 CVN, but they'd have to develop a V-22 AWACS to make the concept viable.


Couple of things to keep in mind:

The purpose of USMC airpower is to support the troops on the ground. While organic fixed wing may fly off their ships initially, the objective is for them to go ashore as soon as sufficient ground is held, not continue shipboard ops.


Second, 4 LHAs are not a tougher target than one CVN, they're easier. Plus, they're a lot more expensive.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2011, 19:21
by spazsinbad
A long and now outdated article with some 'for' and 'against' STOVL includes these paras: (there are many other USMC authored articles online that would say similar things)

Challenging the STOVL Myth by Dr. Ezio Bonsignore, Editor-in-Chief of MILITARY TECHNOLOGY (MILTECH) 10Sep2009

http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/397 ... 291936d882

"...It is highly instructive at this point to take a look at the rationale for the F-35B as formulated by the US Marine Corps, i.e. the world’s leading expeditionary force.

The USMC requirement for the JSF programme mandated a multi-mission aircraft capable of operations from austere shore facilities as well as amphibious ships and other sea bases. Such basing flexibility is fundamental to the expeditionary nature of the Marine Corps, and indeed is the only reason why the Marines want a STOVL aircraft. Basing flexibility not only provides the foundation for forward basing which improves responsiveness, but also increases the number of airfields from which to conduct operations, thus allowing for more assets to be brought into theatre.

This sounds very close to the STOVL rationale as being expressed by the RAF and AMI. But the USMC’s doctrine, “Operational Manoeuvre From The Sea” (OMFTS) seeks to avoid establishing a traditional logistics base ashore from which to conduct follow-on operations. Rather, manoeuvre forces will move directly from the ships to their objectives with a minimal footprint. Accordingly, OMFTS calls for the majority of firepower, to include aviation, to remain afloat and only go ashore if necessary. This means that the Corps’ F-35Bs, like the current AV-8Bs will operate primarily from naval ships - where they can be more easily provided with fuel, ordnance, and maintenance without becoming a logistical burden - versus land bases. While forward-basing the aircraft ashore as early as feasible would arguably look like the best way to improve operational effectiveness, the USMC opine that sustainability considerations rather dictate for them to remain onboard.

This approach is aptly underlined by the evolution of the US Navy amphibious assault ships, from the LHA to the LHD, LHD-8 and now LHA-6 designs with progressively expanded aviation capabilities. More specifically, the new AMERICA class, with no deck well but able to operate up to 24 F-35Bs are dedicated STOVL carriers but in name, even though due to deference toward the “real” carriers they will not be fitted with a sky[sic]-jump...."

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2011, 19:53
by spazsinbad
Flexible future - The F-35B will give the Marine Corps unprecedented basing options
BY MAJ. TYLER BARDO AND MAJ. CHAD VAUGHN - Oct 2010

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2010/10/4765181/

"...From a sea-basing perspective, the dispersion of carrier-based STOVL aircraft creates a dilemma for the enemy while providing additional combat capability to the supported commander. During Desert Storm, 20 Harriers aboard the amphibious assault ship Nassau operated from a 750-foot flight deck, which resulted in a 15-minute transit time and 40 minutes of on-station time with no in-flight refueling. As the war progressed north, AV-8Bs would launch from ships in the Persian Gulf, fly a mission and then proceed to an FOB in Kuwait to rearm and refuel. After flying a second mission, these aircraft would return to the ship. These combined sea and shore operations doubled the sortie-generation rate for ship-based aircraft, halved shipboard workload and ordnance expenditure, and minimized shipboard resupply concerns. Also, because the aircraft returned to the ship, the force protection requirement ashore was significantly reduced.

During recent operations in Iraq, coalition airfields were at maximum capacity and the Navy was unable to source any more big-deck carriers into the Persian Gulf. Operating Harriers from amphibious assault ships put an additional 60 tactical aircraft at the disposal of the combatant commander...."

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2011, 20:23
by spazsinbad
Another 'take' on the 'AWACS' issue:

The F-35B and USMC Con-Ops:”You are truly a fully networked, battle space integrator”

http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=7456

"The F-35B will replace multiple assets for the USMC in their core operations. It has been described by the current Commandant of the USMC as the centerpiece of the future MAGTF (Marine Air-Ground Task Force). USMC Aviator Bob Fitzgerald (Ret) explains why in an interview with SLD on March 18, 2010.

Bob Fitzgerald: I retired about two years ago. And I was the director of aviation plans and policy inside HQMC Aviation and so was responsible for crafting the Marine Corps aviation vision, which is parallel and complementary to, but is not the same as, the marine aviation transition strategy. The strategy, and its individual elements, which include the F35B, describe the capability sets and posture to execute DCAir’s long range vision.

I have been a Harrier pilot for about 25 years with almost 3,000 hours in a Harrier. I also had an opportunity to fly the Prowler as the CO of MAG-14. So I have unique experience with the transition from AV-8A to AV-8B, being involved in its growth from Day Attack to Night Attack to the AV-8B II+ radar jet and the introduction of the lighting pod and the integrated capabilities of the Harrier, but also with the electromagnetic spectrum exploitation of the Prowler.

And in fact, that’s what we want to do with the F35B. The JSF is really a fusion of the EA6’s extraordinary EM capabilities, and the Hornet’s long-range afterburning, supersonic, fourth generation capabilities, with the ground attack, STOVL capabilities of the Harrier, all combined into a single cockpit.

SLD: So, from your point of view, the experiences you’ve had with the transition within the Harrier force and transition within the Prowler force are important operational experiences that you’ve actually taken forward to the new aircraft.

Bob Fitzgerald: Absolutely right. And as we pace the threat and as we understand the evolving national security environment and the engagement responsibilities our Corps has in the littorals, the F35 is going to embody all of the unique characteristics and capabilities of our integrated TacAir force into a single platform.

SLD: So the F35-B is not simply replacing the Harrier as many claim. It’s a much broader replacement effort. Can you speak to that?

Bob Fitzgerald: It’s certainly understandable why they would think that [the F35-B is simply replacing the Harrier], because the focus is again, on a fifth generation afterburning capable aircraft that can take off and land vertically. And so the natural tendency is to describe it in its STOVL attributes. But it’s much more than that.

In fact, this is an EC-130, F-18 and Harrier, all rolled up into one. So what you have is a supersonic, 5th generation, EC130-Prowler-Hornet-Harrier, all rolled up into one. It’s the computing processing power; it’s the sensors, it’s the integrated weapons suites and communication systems, combined with the stealth technology that enables persistent presence on the battlefield. To do all the things we do across all six functions in marine aviation, and all 6 warfighting functions of the MAGTF. And it brings the expeditionary flexibility of STOVL operations, which doubles the number of airfields and decks that we can take off, land, and operate from.

SLD: Can you speak to the technology that’s on the aircraft? For example, could you talk a little bit about from an operational point of view with regard to what the impact of the Distributed Aperture System (DAS) brings to the operation?

Bob Fitzgerald: The DAS is an incredible leap in technology for us. And while it was initially designed for protection of the aircraft—and it will certainly do that—what this does though is we’re able to extend that capability across the battlespace, truly integrating the MAGTF in the Single Battle.

What that’ll do is allow not only identifying threats to the aircraft, but we’ll be able to see threats to other elements of the MAGTF. The system will allow us to quickly identify where the threats are, pinpoint those locations, and not only highlight Point of Origin and Expected Point of Impact to the MAGTF, but we’ll have unprecedented opportunity to counter that strike from assets across the MAGTF. So F-35 can self-engage, or we can transfer that target off to another aircraft, or we can assign that target to another firing element inside the MAGTF, with incredible speed.

So, by fusing that kind of capability across the MAGTF in the single battle—the rear, the deep, and the close fight—we have an opportunity to connect all the elements of the MAGTF, not only for force protection, but for precision engagement, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. So the battlefield becomes very dangerous for the bad guys immediately, while giving great confidence to our friends and allies.

SLD: Could you talk to the machine-to-machine aspect of the DAS and associated systems? What that really means to future procurement, future operations?

Bob Fitzgerald: That machine-to-machine piece is what’s going to provide the decisive engagement capability we’re looking for: bringing strategic agility, operational flexibility and tactical supremacy to the single battle. The speed of intel-sharing, threat-data processing, and decision making will allow us complete the kill-chain, the target-to-weapon system pairing very rapidly, very accurately. The F-35 is not a traditional intel- consumer or intel-dependent weapon but an intel-generator and battlespace manager for the MAGTF.

We’re transitioning from platform-centric operations to network centric operations, and the F-35B is the key node in our MAGTF system of systems which brings this integrated capacity. Not only can we Right-Configure our force protection posture real-time, across the MAGTF, but we can engage threats either as they’re presenting themselves, or even before in some cases, to engage them with the appropriate weapons system across the MAGTF. And we’ll do it at unprecedented speeds, because again, it will be machine-to-machine interaction, with all Blue Forces linked on the network, as opposed to identifying and prosecuting a threat in the traditional way—the way we’ve done it for the last 30 years.

This response time is very critical when considering the future battlefield, with sophisticated hybrid threats that are very dangerous, that are very elusive, that can blend in with noncombatants and hide themselves amongst the civilian population, where collateral damage is extremely important. This is where speed, precision, proportionality are critical to strategic success—where protecting the population is equally, if not more important than engaging the threat, just as we’re seeing in Afghanistan.

This machine-to-machine interface with F35 is going to allow us to outpace the threat and engage the adversary with precision, with the right weapon, with very specific yield, from very specific quadrants. And at the same time limiting, if not eliminating collateral damage and civilian casualties, which is extremely important when we’re trying to separate the threat from the population and bring stability and security to the region.

SLD: Can you speak to the difference that an integrated capability brings to your ability to rethink operational capabilities as opposed to sequential upgrades which are not integrated inherently into the legacy tactical aircraft.

Bob Fitzgerald: Absolutely. This is going to fundamentally change the way we conduct operations across all phases of combat operations. Modernizing legacy platforms, while important, pretty much limits you to just accelerating traditional tactics, because you’re limited by your technology. With these next generation capabilities and the machine-to-machine interface which exponentially increases our tempo, and our ability to influence actions across the electromagnetic spectrum, we can influence the battle space in ways we’ve never been able to before.

SLD: Or rather, than relying on specialized aircraft that may or may not be there.

Bob Fitzgerald: Exactly right. Expeditionary means being able to execute and sustain with organic capabilities. While we certainly expect to integrate with out of theatre, national, and joint/coalition partners and platforms, we don’t want to put operations or our Marines at risk by being limited due to other priority tasking or bandwidth limitations or physical locations of critical assets.

So if the bad guys are operating anywhere in the battle space, not only will we know it, not only can we influence that, but we expect to have unfettered access on our own, which gives us unprecedented non-kinetic capabilities, which we’ve only been starting to explore with. But we can finally fuse the non-kinetics with the kinetics in a time and place of our choosing in ways that outpace anything that we expect the threat the put on the battle space.

SLD: And certainly, the fact that you’re subsuming multiple platforms will have a significant impact on the logistics problems, the fact that you’re now supporting one aircraft, or in the case of bringing the Osprey plus the F-35 gives you a much smaller footprint to have a much greater capability.

Bob Fitzgerald: It certainly does. And that’s part of the key performance parameters for the F35—the ability to generate sorties. You hit the nail on the head when you talk about our logistics sustainability, and our ability to conduct and sustain and surge operations for extended periods because of the smaller footprint over legacy platforms. And this will be coupled with increased system reliability. We’re expecting to see component “Time Between Failures” to be reduced by 30% and “Combat Turn Around Times” to increase by another 30%, all of which means more combat sorties generated.

But we’re also going to have unprecedented connectivity with joint and coalition forces.

Nine countries and thirteen services will be operating the same basic airframe. So within that, we will have the unprecedented ability to train, operate, integrate and reduce the footprint across the joint and coalition force.

SLD: Shaping joint and coalition mental furniture is a key part of 21st century operations.

Bob Fitzgerald: You’re exactly right. We’ve always had exchange officers. And they’ve always been critical to not only sharing ideas and tactics, but also building long-term partnerships. But in this case, we’re taking it to a next logical step in that we’re flying the same aircraft. So, not only do we share tactics across tactical airframes, but now we’re flying the same airframe. So that when we form the coalition in response to crises, we expect our combat power, our response force to be able to respond even more quickly, and even more appropriately, because we will have procedures, processes, tactics, systems, logistic support processes that all fall in on each other and accelerate our ability to respond to threats.

Ideally, this will facilitate our ability to respond to crises before they become conflicts, and then to shape the battle space, again, because even with a small initial shaping force such as a MEU, you bring a tremendous range and depth of combat power from an integrated MAGTF with F35B’s that begin to stress and shape the battle space with next generation technologies.

SLD: One of the challenges facing the defense and political community is the difficulty grasping the impact of new technologies of rethinking con-ops. And the Osprey’s a good example of new systems being ahead of con-ops.

I think we’re having the same problem with F-35, the DAS will generate way too much information to handle for our current needs. Now, does that mean that we then go backwards and buy something that fits our current mental furniture? Or do we take advantage of what the new technology can provide us? So are we moving forward or going backwards. You can’t stay in place in this business.

Bob Fitzgerald: That’s exactly right. We’re tackling that issue across the force. The F-35B will be no different, in that the new capabilities (such as the DAS) will generate much more information than our current system is equipped to manage and exploit. The answer does not lie in muting the capabilities so that they conform to legacy systems and our current understanding and mental picture of integrated operations. We have bright young Marines crafting next generation concepts, intent on taking advantage of what the new technology can provide us. You can’t stay in place in this business. You’re either moving forward or going backwards, and I’m pleased to say that I’ve served in an organization with a history of innovation and fresh ideas.

And so we’re generating the support systems: the computers, the meta tagging, the data recalling, the ability to manipulate and share, and the machine-to-machine interface that is essential to exploiting all of this combat power, and all of this information sharing. You’re absolutely right; we cannot overlay a manual process over this high technology information exchange system. This is an unprecedented computerized capability, and we’ll need the support infrastructure that exploits that. And that’s what we’re in the process of doing.

SLD: And I think the built-in integrative capability of the aircraft coupled with shaping new con-ops can provide significant ability to shape a smaller footprint for the deployed force.

Bob Fitzgerald: You’re absolutely right. We’ve never had the kind of operational flexibility in such a small footprint before. So, unlike the past, with its traditional overlay of force, and linear growth in capabilities, we now have exponential capabilities. So a much smaller force now brings exponential growth in combat power through integration: data sharing, technology sharing, speed of decision-making, and precision weapons. It is not commonly realized that the F-35B has 400 percent of the EA-6 Prowler’s processing capability.

So you can deploy large deck carrier capability to a significant extent from an amphibious L-Class ship. And that enhances our ability to shape and influence the battlespace across the littorals, across the Naval battle force, and deep inland. And this kind of combat power isn’t resident in only discreet areas, but rather its spread across the areas.

And now you’re just adding this enhanced capacity to the force, for the CoCom, and its resident from the smallest force up to the largest force. So you’re not signaling, as you alluded to, your strategic intent with force size, rather you have the full spectrum at your disposal at any force size. So you can start to shape and influence operations at the lowest level across the spectrum, as well as the highest level.

SLD: Let me ask you a final question. You’ve had a lot of Harrier experience and because folks often insist on seeing the F-35B as a Harrier replacement, why don’t you just tell folks what the difference between flying a Harrier and 35-B will be.

Bob Fitzgerald: Mostly in cockpit management. The Harrier is a combat-proven, but first generation STOVL platform; a manual, mechanical aircraft that requires a great deal of hands-on flying from the pilot. As the aircraft matured we added more sophisticated capabilities, but it’s a third generation aircraft, with limited growth potential.

The F35, because of the enhanced technologies and unprecedented reliability of the systems in the aircraft, you are less of a mechanical pilot and now more of a battlefield operating systems manager. And you can do it at 8.5 Gs, at supersonic speeds, through persistent presence on a sophisticated battlefield.

You are truly a fully networked, battle space integrator. You are able to develop the combat situation and push real-time SA (imagery, data, threat communications) directly from your aircraft into the network, and [you] can directly engage threats or direct engagement from others with a full range of non-kinetic to kinetic options.
———-
***Posted on April 28th, 2010."

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2011, 00:35
by spazsinbad
33d Fighter WingF-35 Brief Maj Michael “Jeb” Ebner, 58 FS, USAF

www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010targets/Ebner.pdf (2.3Mb) dated 26 Oct 2010

Info about training facilities and such like, the first graphic would be an old pic [only my guesswork being in the land of Oz] of the LHA Deck at Duke Field, [looks like the YUMA iteration probably - see next page] a new[?] one is under construction I gather (see earlier page - more info to follow):

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-360.html

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2011, 01:30
by spazsinbad
Simulated ship landing site at Bogue Field near Cherry Point with the outline of an LHA

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2011, 01:42
by bjr1028
spazsinbad wrote:Simulated ship landing site at Bogue Field near Cherry Point with the outline of an LHA


It puzzles me why they chose Beaufort for the FRS center. Cherry Point has all the training facilites.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2011, 01:58
by bjr1028
spazsinbad wrote:33d Fighter WingF-35 Brief Maj Michael “Jeb” Ebner, 58 FS, USAF

www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010targets/Ebner.pdf (2.3Mb) dated 26 Oct 2010

Info about training facilities and such like, the first graphic would be an old pic of the LHA Deck at Duke Field, a new one is under construction I gather (see earlier page - more info to follow).


There isn't an old LHA deck at Duke field. Though it is used by Navy aircraft from Pensacola and Whiting field hence being one of the few air force facilities with carrier field landing markings.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2011, 02:11
by spazsinbad
bjr1028 said: "There isn't an old LHA deck at Duke field." My bad. I should have put GUESS in the above thread entry (since corrected). On an earlier page is a graphic from a similar PDF showing the 'new' location of the LHA deck at Duke Field. Photo replicated here: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-360.html

http://attach.high-g.net/attachments/eg ... 11_356.gif

Image

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2011, 02:58
by spazsinbad
Duke Field as seen on 22 Feb 2007 via Google Earth & via SLD info - quote by 'Turbo' Colonel Arthur Tomassetti

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-360.html

"We look to what’s going on, on the airfield. You’ll notice, probably much different from when you were here last time, there’s a lot of clearing of trees and everything, going on. Basically, what we’re trying to accommodate now is this parking apron that goes in front of the Navy and Marine Corp hangar, this addition to the taxiways, the large aircraft loading area and last chance checks area. Across the taxiway, there are 2 hover pads so that the STOVL airplanes can perform their vertical landings, here at Eglin main.

All that construction is under way up at Duke field, which is one of the outlying fields that we will use; basically, we’re setting up an LHA dummy deck, which is similar to what sits at the field near Cherry Point and the field near Yuma, Arizona, that currently, the Harrier pilots use to practice shipboard operations, before actually going out to a ship.

So basically, you take the top of a LHA/LHD, you lay it on the ground, and people can operate their airplanes, on approach to landing, and on takeoff. There is a tower set up, so the landing signal officer has the right perspective to view the airplanes, to control the approaches and takeoffs; and it gives the airplane the right perspective of things to look for, when operating in a shipboard environment. So that’s being put into place up at Duke Field. It should be up and operational by mid-summer of next year [2011]."

http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=12819

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2011, 03:05
by spazsinbad
F-35 STOVL Simulated Carrier Practice Landing Deck, Duke Field, FL

http://www.l3stratis.com/index.php?opti ... &Itemid=54

"As part of the new Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) Flight Training mission located at Eglin Air Force Base, FL, the U.S. Marine Corps pilots will be trained to fly the Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) version of the newest fighter jet platform. The jet will be flown from a special airfield that will be a complete working simulation of an LHD/LHA-7 Assault ship. The simulated landing deck must be able withstand the extremely high temperatures generated by the vertical thrust of the aircrafts’ engines.

L-3 STRATIS Cost Engineering Services was tasked by the design team of Baskerville Donovan under their design contract to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, to develop independent government cost estimates for this unique project. L-3 worked closely with the design engineers to develop project construction cost estimates for all phases of the design--even before a design solution for the high temperature concrete was determined for the $23 million project. The project was successfully awarded by the Mobile District in May, 2010 to R.C. Construction Co., Inc., Greenwood, MS"

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2011, 03:46
by spazsinbad
MCAS YUMA proposed ALF=Auxiliary Landing Field location: http://www.usmcjsfwest.com/Resources/Do ... osters.pdf (3.4Mb)

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2011, 21:30
by spazsinbad
India perhaps will be a potential F-35B customer?
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-15184.html
&
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =AME&s=AIR

INS Vikramaditya Starts Dock Trials in Severodvinsk by M Pyadushkin at Mar/4/2011

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... dcc8-42d0- bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3afb0bb4ff-b769-4e48-a584- d62348554bbe&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
OR
http://alturl.com/rw8ix

"From March 1 Kiev-class Vikramaditya (ex-Russian Admiral Gorshkov) aircraft carrier started dock trials, reported the Severodvinsk-based Sevmash facility that is retrofitting the ship for the Indian Navy. According to Sevmash’s head of construction Dmitry Strelchenko, the most difficult and important part of the trials will be the testing of the main propulsion system.

In addition, the manufacturer will check the ship’s electronic warfare system, including the Indian-made ones, and the flight deck facilities. “The goal of the dock tests is to prepare the ship’s systems and equipment for the next important stage – factory sea trials that are scheduled for the end of 2011”, said Strelchenko.

India agreed to take the 44,500-ton aircraft carrier for free in 2004, paying only $800 million for its modernization and another $700 million for 16 MiG-29K ship-based fighters. The refurbishment included removal of all the weaponry from the ship’s foredeck. It was extended and received a ski-jump to allow operation of MiG-29K STOBAR aircraft. Initially Vikramaditya was to be delivered to the Indian Navy in 2008, but the Russians side suggested a price increase due to underestimated cost and volume of the modernization work. The new price was finalized at $2.3 billion in March 2010 while the new delivery date was set for 2012.

Meanwhile the Indian Navy has already received 16 MiG-29K fighters to be based at Vikramaditya and in March 2010 converted into a firm order with the option for another 29 aircraft."

http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0 ... 7.Full.jpg

Image
INS Vikramaditya at Sevmash (credits Maxim Vorkunkov/Sevmash)

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2011, 20:36
by spazsinbad
Marines Use Helium Balloons to Talk to Harrier Jump Jets Over Libya

http://defensetech.org/2011/03/26/marin ... -in-libya/

"The Marines debuted another new technology last week in the fight against Gadhafi’s forces when the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit aboard the USS Kearsarge used a high-tech balloon to relay messages to the ship’s AV-8B Harrier jump jets flying strike missions over Libya, beyond the range of the ship’s transmitters.

Normally, the ship would have to pass messages to a nearby E-3 AWACS jet that would then send those messages along to the Harriers. However, the helium balloon-based Lofted Communications System carried aboard the Kearsarge fills that role without leaving the Marines reliant on an AWACS.

Here’s how it works; depending on how far the Marines need to send messages, they send up a tethered or untethered balloon carrying a communications relay device capable of passing radio messages and encrypted information hundreds of miles to the Harriers.

All of this saves a ton of cash and keeps the dozens of airmen aboard an AWACS out of harm’s way, or frees them up to fly other missions."

http://images.defensetech.org/wp-conten ... -Comms.jpg

Image

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2011, 00:41
by spazsinbad
Harrier Ops Making Case for F-35B
U.S. Marines: Libya Missions Show STOVL Jets' Value
By TOM KINGTON Published: 28 March 2011

http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=6072569&c=FEA&s=CVS

"ABOARD THE USS KEARSARGE - When U.S. naval strike jets hit targets in Libya in the predawn hours of March 20, they weren't flying from aircraft carriers.

Instead, the U.S. Marine Corps' short-takeoff, vertical-landing AV-8B Harrier IIs did the job from this amphibious assault ship. And that, said the senior Marine commander aboard, shows why his service needs the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter, the STOVL plane whose developmental problems have landed it under a two-year "probationary period" and made it a favored target of some budget-cutters.

"It would be lovely to have an aircraft carrier here, but there are not enough to go round," said Col. Mark Desens, the commander of the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, which operates the AV-8Bs aboard the Kearsarge. "What we do have is the opportunity to do a lot of things with this vessel, and we are accomplishing a tremendous return on investment with these six STOVL jets."

As the Libyan operation was coming together in the days leading up to the attack, the Wasp-class vessel was the only U.S. Navy vessel with a substantial flight deck near the Mediterranean Sea. Smaller than a full-sized Nimitz or Ford-class aircraft carrier equipped with catapult launchers, the Wasp-class ships can host STOVL aircraft alongside a host of helicopters.

By the time air strikes began, the six Harriers were just a small part of the 200-plus coalition aircraft assembled for the operation. But because the Kearsarge was far closer to Libya than the French and Italian air bases used by jets from other allied countries, the Harriers could fly not one but two sorties per night.

Analysts and sources said their performance has been a godsend for partisans of the F-35B. As the cost of the Joint Strike Fighter program ballooned, the knives came out for the STOVL version. Last fall, the United Kingdom abandoned its plans to buy the F-35B, leaving Italy and the U.S. Marine Corps as the only remaining buyers. Italy is nervous about the aircraft's fate since its new aircraft carrier, the Cavour, is built to host STOVL aircraft only.

For the Marine Corps, losing the strike jet would require a wholesale rethinking of their approach to combat. It would neuter the planned amphibious assault ship America, which is being built without a well deck, almost purely as a STOVL platform. It might even prevent the Marines from carrying out forced-entry amphibious landings, their raison d'etre recently blessed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Will the STOVL jets' role in Operation Odyssey Dawn boost the case for the F-35B? "I would think so. We were here and we were ready to go," Desens said.

Big Improvement
Desens and others noted that the F-35B would be a vast improvement over the Harrier. Not only does it carry more weapons and fuel, its sensors allow it to target enemy air defenses and vacuum up intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance data and feed it back to the fleet.

"When you look at the capabilities of the F-35B and how much it expands the tool box, that aircraft is going to push us way out in front of any future potential threats out there," the colonel said.

The plane is such a leap forward that it brings the capabilities of amphibious assault ships closer to those of aircraft carriers, said Daniel Gouré, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, Arlington, Va. "In a sense, you're doubling the number of aircraft-capable ships in the U.S. Navy with the F-35B, because there are more than a dozen amphibs," Gouré said.

That means more sovereign flight decks that can launch military operations without potentially difficult negotiations over basing.

"A vessel is sovereign. With an AV-8B or an F-35B, you get an immediate ability to start impacting a wide range of things," Desens said. "As you look down the road, the need for a STOVL jet sells itself, because you are not going to get more aircraft carriers. An F-35B costs a lot less than a carrier."Desens noted that a STOVL jet can also move ashore with troops as they push farther away from the beachhead, landing and flying from far smaller patches of ground than regular fixed-wing planes.

"You have tremendous operational flexibility if you are going to do a projected land war, like Iraq and Afghanistan, where those jets were sea-based and then we put them ashore as we moved north, meaning we could turn around a lot more sorties," Desens said. "Put that together and why wouldn't you want a STOVL?"

4 A.M. Launch
On the first night of Odyssey Dawn, four of the Kearsarge's six Harriers took to the skies at 4 a.m. to join other U.S. and allied aircraft halting government forcesadvancing on rebel-held Benghazi.

"We had been planning with intelligence before the Benghazi sortie, and we had a picture of the [government] positions on the highway" leading to the eastern Libyan city, said one Marine pilot, Capt. Michael Wyrsch, who was flying his first operational mission.

Covering the 150 miles to Benghazi in about 15 minutes, the pilots saw explosions from attacks on the loyalist military vehicles that were launched by U.S. Air Force F-15s and F-16s already on the scene.

The Harriers engaged the middle section of a convoy of about 50 vehicles, including Russian-built T-72 tanks, armored personnel carriers and artillery pieces, which were spread along several kilometers of the highway.

Dropping six GPU-12 laser-guided bombs, the Harriers destroyed four tanks, one refueling truck and an infantry fighting vehicle.

"We had indications of anti-aircraft radar activity, but were not fired on," Wyrsch said.

At 10 p.m. on March 20, four Harriers took off for a second sortie to locate and attack the remnants of the same convoy, which had been reinforced by new vehicles outside the city of Ajdabiya. Using night-vision goggles, the pilots dropped 12 GPU-12s, destroying mobile artillery and rocket launchers.

"The best use of these aircraft is against tactical equipment, frequently tanks and heavy army equipment," said Rear Adm. Peg Klein, the commander of the expeditionary naval force.

Harrier raids were suspended on the third night of operations, when two Ospreys were scrambled to pick up the pilot of an F-15E who had ejected near Benghazi after his fighter jet apparently suffered a mechanical failure.

Two Harriers from the Kearsarge arrived on the scene before the Ospreys and flew low over a "suspect" group of armored vehicles. They dropped two GPU-12s on the vehicles, and according to a military source, fired their cannons as well.

Media reports claimed that between five and 10 local citizens were injured by gunfire in the area around the time of the rescue. The Marines declined to comment on the reports of woundings, saying an investigation was underway.

The Ospreys came in at 250 mph and under 1,000 feet of altitude, following laser designation provided by an accompanying Harrier that had a GPS reference.

"We were looking at a needle and avoiding populated areas," one pilot said.

They landed and retrieved the F-15 pilot.

A second F-15 crew member whose GPS device was not transmitting was met by locals sympathetic to the rebels and later handed over to the U.S. military.

Speaking of the Osprey, Desens was unfazed by doubts over the effect of JSF jet blast on flight decks.

"Take the V-22, where we had a concrete issue with the exhaust close to the deck. We used hotplates, but you don't see that now because we have found techniques to create deflection. I don't know if we would do that with the F-35, but I am sure we would find a solution because when you have a capability that is worth that much, you will figure out a way to solve that problem," he said.

Bottom line, Desens said: The benefits of the F-35B will far outweigh any difficulties.
Dave Majumdar contributed to this report."

RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2011, 01:04
by neptune
[quote="spazsinbad.... I don't know if we would do that with the F-35, but I am sure we would find a solution because when you have a capability that is worth that much, you will figure out a way to solve that problem," he said. Bottom line, Desens said: The benefits of the F-35B will far outweigh any difficulties..."[/quote]

Can Do..not nit pick! :D

RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2011, 01:50
by 1st503rdsgt
The F-35B will give LHA ships like the USS Kearsarge a quantum leap in capability over what they have now, giving TACAIR possibilities to 10 more platforms in the U.S. Navy alone. There are also political advantages to be gained because the non-nuclear powered LHAs are much less intimidating and controversial overseas than the CVNs, meaning LHAs can get into places where a Nimitz class would too provocative. In 2008, there was talk of sending a carrier into the Black Sea in a show of support for Georgia, but carriers aren't allowed through the Bosphorus.

RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2011, 02:05
by spazsinbad
Good point about the Phosphorus. I wonder what the situation is with the LHAs? Anyone? Buehler? Anyone? :D

RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2011, 04:29
by spazsinbad
TakeOffs - Harrier STOs - can be dangerous from flat decks - more so than vertical landings.

Harrier crashes off ship, pilot reported OK By Gidget Fuentes - Mar 30, 2011

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/20 ... en-033011/

"An AV-8B Harrier jump jet crashed Tuesday in the Gulf of Aden shortly after taking off from the amphibious assault ship Boxer, military officials told Marine Corps Times.

The pilot ejected and wasn’t seriously injured, according to Marine Corps and Navy officials.

The Harrier is assigned to the Camp Pendleton, Calif.-based 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit, which is operating in the U.S. 5th Fleet region aboard three ships with the Boxer Amphibious Ready Group. It took off from the ship at 5:19 p.m. local time, but “immediately after take off the aircraft rolled right and (the pilot) ejected,” officials said.

The pilot, flying with the call sign of “Evil Eye 55,” was picked up by a Navy MH-60S Seahawk helicopter within about seven minutes of the incident. Once returned to the Boxer, the pilot “walked off the aircraft under his own power.”

The squadron is investigating the cause of the crash.

The 13th MEU and Boxer ARG left California in February on a scheduled deployment to the Middle East and Western Pacific regions. The 4,000-member naval force arrived in the 5th Fleet region on March 25."

RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2011, 14:20
by underhill
So four Harriers launched at 4 am and dropped six weapons on targets that had already been located, IDd and attacked by landbased tacair.

16 hours later, four more sorties were generated.

The next day, two more sorties succeeded in whacking some noncombatants.

A paid DC hack for LockMart says that this proves the case for the F-35B.

RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2011, 14:39
by spazsinbad
So the USMC should go home then?

RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2011, 22:07
by neptune
[quote="spazsinbad"]..[b]Harrier crashes off ship, pilot reported OK[/..[quote]

Harriers are still falling out of the sky and the Marines have the audacity to want a new a/c; no less than the intensely complex F-35B. :twisted: This automatically makes them an accomplice to the unscrupulous LM; therefore demeaning anything originating in their military world as crass publicity. :oops: Now, we have had one F-15 and one AV-8B fall out of the sky, it’s only a little more difficult to deny we need new a/c. Oh!, hope is here!, :!: they can spin this into the infamous “fighter gap” is now two planes wider; what was I thinking!; me of faint heart. :idea:

RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2011, 22:16
by spazsinbad
neptune, everything is spinnable these days via the interbabble. I'm wondering if the F-35 is spinnable? SOMEONE thinks so when the generators fail. <sarcasm> sigh :D

RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2011, 00:18
by underhill
"So the USMC should go home then?"

Not saying that. But as long as you insist on carrying STOVL, LCACs, helicopters, Marines and equipment on the same ship, the number and effectiveness of the STOVL force will be limited.

RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2011, 00:44
by spazsinbad
underhill, That LOAD may be however still useful as indicated in news report. However it was extrapolating into future with use of F-35B and the makeup of that LOAD can also vary as you well know by now.

Also the Harrier aircraft are tasked by HQ - which may have no bearing on their availability for tasks.

If you bother to read another thread about rescuing USAF F-15 pilots you will see the actual story rather than your spin:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-15.html

Another account here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 21588.html

"... the Harriers dropped two 500-pound laser-guided bombs near the crash site in what a senior Marine officer described as a "precautionary" measure to warn off people who might have been approaching the aviator on the ground.

"My understanding is [the pilot] asked for ordnance to be delivered in between where he was located and where he saw people coming toward him," said a senior Marine officer, citing preliminary reports."

RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2011, 16:41
by spazsinbad
Must Every Carrier be a Supercarrier? 31 March 2011

http://blog.usni.org/2011/03/31/must-ev ... ercarrier/

"In Defense News, US Marine Colonel Mark Desens, CO of 26th MEU currently operating off the coast of Libya, had some very interesting and incisive comments regarding the need for the F-35B STOVL variant of the JSF.

Desens and others noted that the F-35B would be a vast improvement over the Harrier. Not only does it carry more weapons and fuel, its sensors allow it to target enemy air defenses and vacuum up intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance data and feed it back to the fleet.

“When you look at the capabilities of the F-35B and how much it expands the tool box, that aircraft is going to push us way out in front of any future potential threats out there,” the colonel said.

Read the full article here. [Also 'top' of this page] http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =FEA&s=CVS

But what really jumps out from Col Desens’ comments is the possibility that a smaller aircraft carrier with such a weapon as the F-35B could have efficacy as an alternative to the traditional supercarrier that has been the sole contestant in the US Navy’s aircraft carrier building arena since the commissioning of the Forrestals in the late 1950s.

More from Colonel Desens:
“It would be lovely to have an aircraft carrier here, but there are not enough to go round,” said Col. Mark Desens, the commander of the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, which operates the AV-8Bs aboard the Kearsarge. “What we do have is the opportunity to do a lot of things with this vessel, and we are accomplishing a tremendous return on investment with these six STOVL jets.”

He continues:
“With an AV-8B or an F-35B, you get an immediate ability to start impacting a wide range of things,” Desens said. “As you look down the road, the need for a STOVL jet sells itself, because you are not going to get more aircraft carriers. An F-35B costs a lot less than a carrier.”Desens noted that a STOVL jet can also move ashore with troops as they push farther away from the beachhead, landing and flying from far smaller patches of ground than regular fixed-wing planes.

“You have tremendous operational flexibility if you are going to do a projected land war, like Iraq and Afghanistan, where those jets were sea-based…”

The nuclear-powered Nimitz-class super-carrier has been the symbol of US Naval power and influence for nearly four decades. However, the price tag for such vessels will continue to rise. The first of its class USS Gerald R. Ford is projected to cost upwards of $10 billion. While the Nimitz-class is expected to soldier on for several more decades, operating costs of the 102,000-ton, 5,000-sailor behemoths will continue to be a serious concern in this era of fiscal austerity.

With each crisis anywhere on the globe that involves US interests, the question that is invariably posed is “where are the carriers?”; the latest instance being a mere two weeks ago off Libya. But, does every situation in which the question is asked have to be answered with a Carrier Battle Group built around a CVN? Is it necessary to bring the extremely high-end solution to low- and medium- threat problems? Is that now what we see with billion dollar warships chasing pirate skiffs off Somalia?

During the Second World War, smaller flattops provided air assets to amphibious assaults and other operations in what we now describe as the Littoral, such as is being conducted in Libya at present. There were myriad reasons for this, but the predominant was the desire not to risk the trump cards, the Fleet Carriers, in confined waters and within range of enemy land-based weapons systems, any more than necessary. One would think a 21st century corollary of that rule is still a good idea in today’s A2/AD environment, particularly as we look to the western Pacific.

With the building of the America (LHA-6) class of amphibs, it is possible that the Navy has itself a hull form that could be adapted for the role of smaller aircraft carrier. At 45,000 tons, 844 feet long, with a beam of 106 feet, the Americas will be very similar in dimension, though with a higher displacement, to the famous Essex-class carriers of World War II, one might hesitate to label such a “light carrier”. Perhaps, in a redux of previous nomenclature, the former term “attack carrier” (CVA) seems most descriptive. As General Amos, Marine Commandant, noted in January of this year in a speech to the Surface Navy Association, the America class LHA is already “maximized for aviation” already. So let’s take the next step of logic.

An adaptation of that warship class, one dedicated to Naval and USMC STOVL aviation assets, one that does NOT have an amphibious mission, doesn’t require billeting for 1,700 Marines and their equipment, that doesn’t have a requirement for V-22 or attack helicopters as a part of its organic air component (but still capable of handling them if desired), a warship like that could prove exceedingly handy and valuable to a fleet which may be looking at a shortage of its heavyweights.

Of course, the obvious argument about efficiency of sorties is a consideration, but would a warship with a complement of STOVL fighters of the capabilities expected of the F-35B create a new baseline for measuring such efficiency of sortie generation? Would 60-65 aircraft still remain the minimum aircraft complement for efficient operation? I would love to see some projections using the F-35B to that end. The speed of the Americas might have to be enhanced, as the 22-knot capability may or may not be sufficient, but options may be available for more powerful propulsion systems to achieve desired speeds.

In addition, operating costs of such a ship would very likely be significantly less. A crew of 1,000-1,200 Officers and Sailors, with a suitably-sized air component is less than half that of the 4,500-5,000 complement of the Nimitz/Ford CVNs.

If the number of CVNs in commission shrinks to 9 or even 8 in the coming decade, which is a distinct possibility, we are left with a shortage of assets to cover a world-wide commitment. When the question is asked again, as it will be, “Where are the carriers?” there are two answers that we should take great pains to avoid.

The first is “Rusting away in Philadelphia.”

The second is “Busy elsewhere, and not coming.”

A STOVL-dedicated CVA based on the America-class LHA may provide a cost-effective and combat capable alternative to the CVBG that may or may not be available when we need it. If we are to maintain a global power projection presence, as the Maritime Strategy asserts, the approach offered here deserves more scholarship than it has been given."

RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2011, 00:57
by spazsinbad
See the practice facilities locations on previous page of this thread...

Harrier squadron to join 22nd MEU April 01, 2011 DREW C. WILSON

http://www.jdnews.com/articles/squadron ... rrier.html

"HAVELOCK — The Ace of Spades is off again.

Six AV-8B Harriers from Marine Attack Squadron 231 left Cherry Point Friday morning for an extended mission with the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit.

The planes made the 15-minute flight offshore to land on the deck of the USS Bataan, which is bound for the Mediterranean and possible action in Libya.

Marines from the 22nd MEU will be taking over for the 26th MEU, which has been engaged in operations in support of United Nations Resolution 1973 instituting a no-fly zone ever the embattled country of Libya.

Major Ben Hutchins, boat officer in charge of the VMA-231 Harriers during the deployment, is a veteran of four prior deployments in Japan, Iraq and Afghanistan.

If the 22nd MEU ends up sending assets into Libya it will be the first time Hutchins, who has some 1,750 flight hours in the Harrier, has flown in that country in his 15-year Marine Corps career.

“I’ve done four combat tours in support of the ground troops and in support of both operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom so it’s been a very reliable and good airplane for us,” he said.

Anytime a MEU deploys it means Harriers will be challenged with making vertical landings on the deck of an amphibious ship.

“It is different,” Hutchins said. “The ship’s about 800 feet long, and we’re sharing that with about 34 different other aircraft.”

Some of the six pilots will be landing on a ship for the first time.

“They’re very well-versed in that skill set now, and it’s just a matter of maintaining their skill proficiency whenever they get out to the ship,” Hutchins said. “ … We do vertical landings back here all the time at home field. Now it’s just putting it down on a ship doing about five to 10 knots, so it’s not too bad.”

One of the pilots doing his first landing on a ship is Capt. Eric Sherrer.

“It adds a different dimension to the flying. It’s a little bit more difficult than flying into a conventional airfield,” Sherrer said. “It’s something that only the Navy Marines do, and we’re excited to do it.”


It will be Sherrer’s second deployment. His first was in Afghanistan and he’s eager to head to North Africa.

“It’s a great opportunity to go out there to support the Marines and sailors as well as the other joint forces that are out there doing good things around the world … It’s what we trained to do and it’s just a good thing to get out there and support the other services that are doing the good work out there,” Sherrer said.

VMA-231 just received word that it had been designated Squadron of the Year by the Marine Corps Aviation Association, a distinction the unit has held before.

“It’s phenomenal,” Sherrer said. “VMA-231. We really are the first and finest. It is a phenomenal squadron. We have good leadership and phenomenal Marines that do a great job in keeping the aircraft running.”

The unit is leaving earlier than planned for the deployment with the 22nd MEU, which could last anywhere from seven to 11 months."

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2011, 07:22
by popcorn
I'd just assumed all this time that USMC Harrier pilots undergo vertical landing training on ships.. turns out not to be the case.

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2011, 08:21
by spazsinbad
They will practice at some stage but because vertical deck landing is more or less the same ashore and afloat there is less need to practice on a boat. However they always need to practice vertical landings and AFAIK they do at the end of every sortie mostly. Here is an interesting 'gnarly' RN look at Vertical Landing with the Harrier (the low fuel will not apply to the F-35B due to increased bring back but once again there are many variables). The entire article is worth a look. Sharkey Ward is a character indeed.

‘The Fast Jet Pilot’ by ‘sharkeyward’ from “Flying from our new Carriers—The RN or the RAF Ethos”

http://thephoenixthinktank.wordpress.co ... -carriers-–-the-rn-or-the-raf-ethos/

“The aviator who is finally responsible for the safety of the aircraft and its crew is the pilot. For the sake of brevity, this section now concentrates upon the fast jet pilot but it is important to note that helicopter aircrew have to deal with many similar challenges when embarked.

For the fast jet pilot, operations on board a carrier during peacetime operations represent significantly greater challenges to his expertise and dedication than those faced by his counterpart ashore. For example, conventional deck landing into arrestor wires by day is an art in itself requiring 100% concentration and extremely precise control of speed, aircraft attitude and glide path (in the vertical as well as the lateral sense). The touch-down area where the tail hook of the aircraft catches the arrestor wire is extremely small and any lapse in concentration can cause pilots to miss the wires completely or, catastrophically, impact the stern of the ship. As if this was not enough, the flow of the wind over the deck often creates "a hole" just behind the ship. This has to be anticipated by the pilot by applying a small amount of power. Failure to correct can result in disaster. Too much correction will result in missing the wires and the aircraft "bolting" down the deck and having to go around once more. In calm, benign sea conditions this can still represent a major challenge to an inexperienced carrier deck pilot. In rough seas with the ship pitching, rolling and heaving, the challenge becomes much greater. Conducting night deck landings in poor weather represents the most difficult and challenging flying task that any military pilot will face in any environment.

Vertical deck landings as conducted by the Harrier or the F-35B present something of a paradox when it comes to the ease of execution. For fair weather landings by day with a clear horizon and a calm sea in temperate climates, vertical deck landing is unquestionably easier than conventional deck landings into arrestor wires especially for an ab-initio pilot embarking for the first time. However, experienced pilots in either discipline do not find deck landing in such good conditions a challenge. In foul weather by day in temperate climes with the ship pitching, rolling and heaving and with limited visibility (and therefore a poor horizon for the Harrier pilot to refer to) the stress factor for each discipline rises. The conventional deck lander has to disregard the movement of the ship (this is not as easy as it sounds) and rely totally on the ship's deck landing sight for controlling his approach path and landing. The Harrier pilot also has to disregard the movement of the ship and come to a steady hover in relation to the real world as opposed to the flight deck — again, this is not easy when there is no discernible horizon to refer to and as the ship you are trying to land upon is "bobbing around like a cork".

In hot weather (whether fair or foul) by day, the vertical lander has an additional problem, that is he will normally be returning to the deck with enough fuel for just one landing. There is no room for error and he knows that if he fails to complete his landing in one attempt, he will lose his aircraft. This alone causes a higher stress level in good conditions and the fouler the weather gets, that stress level can increase exponentially especially for the inexperienced deck pilot.

If we now progress to night vertical landing in other than perfect conditions (a calm sea with a bright moon and a clear horizon), the stress and difficulty factor can go off the clock, as they say, particularly for all but the most adept and experienced night deck landing pilots. The findings from the night deck trials carried out by test pilots from Boscombe Down and British Aerospace, Dunsfold during the introduction to service of the Sea Harrier were that "night deck landings of the Sea Harrier would probably be beyond the capability of the average frontline pilot". Two front line pilots in 801 Squadron prior to the Falklands (the author of this paper and the then Flight Lieutenant Ian Mortimer, Royal Air Force, who had been embark-ed with the Squadron continuously from the beginning) demonstrated that this finding was not necessarily accurate. However, as a result of the al-most complete lack of embarkation of Joint Force Harrier squadrons, full all weather night deck qualification has probably not been achieved by any pilot in the last decade. (The emphasis here is on "full all weather": that is to say being competent in foul weather by night — not just benign conditions.)

A further significant challenge/stress factor for carrier aviators is that they will often be flying with no diversion airfields available: that is to say,their only chance of returning on board without getting wet is to be fully competent in their navigation and the pilot's deck landing ability....”

Re: RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2011, 09:24
by 1st503rdsgt
spazsinbad wrote:[b]Must Every Carrier be a Supercarrier?


I would say no. True, CVNs provide the economy of scale necessary for sustained, high-intensity mission loads; and nuclear propulsion gives a great deal more strategic and tactical flexibility over more conventional means. But CVNs are fast becoming high-profile targets in the modern threat environment (pending development of some new gee-wizz defensive armament), and their presence can sometimes be seen as politically destabilizing.

In certain situations, a larger number of small carriers might be used to present an enemy with a more diffuse target, and individually, they may attract less attention when some TACAIR capability is needed, but political discretion is desired.

I'm sure the USN is terrified of the prospect that the utility their precious supercarriers might someday come into question (probably the reason why LHA America was designed without a ramp), but the F-35B represents an opportunity to test some new doctrines that could prove useful in the future. For the record, I still believe in the CVNs, but do think they could use some help from our own fleet of LHAs and from allies already equipped with STOVL type carriers.

RE: Re: RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2011, 23:14
by spazsinbad
In celebration of the first AUTOMATIC Vertical Landing - beginning of April 2011 - here is a former Italian Fighter Pilot's view of the easiness of flying the F-35B in (surprise) VL mode etc.

How does the F-35 JSF fly and fight? December 21, 2010

http://cencio4.wordpress.com/2010/12/21 ... and-fight/

"In May 2006, I wrote an article about my experience flying with the F-35 using the Lockheed Martin’s JSF Cockpit demonstrator. Since the article was written only in Italian and many foreign readers have been following my recent comments and articles about the F-35B, the Harrier and the STOVL debate, I thought it could be interesting for them to read it in English, especially because I describe also the way the aircraft flies and the way it transits from horizontal to vertical flight. I will also add the slide which were presented during the press briefing that preceeded the cockpit demo that I received from LM some weeks after my “flight”: even if they are some 5 years old, they provide an interesting look into some of the technologies introduced by the JSF.
Have a good read.

Today (May 9, 2006) I had the opportunity to travel in the future (even if it was a short-range trip, let’s say fifteen years ahead) as I attended an orientation session with the JSF cockpit demonstator. Under the supervision of a Lockheed Martin F-16 pilot, I virtually flew the F-35, a 5th generation highly advanced fighter which makes the so-called “sensor fusion” a reality and provides the pilot a stunning situational awareness, while still allowing for simple handling. The first feeling that I had when I was aboard the simulator, hosted by the Comando Squadra Aerea of the Aeronautica Militare (Italian Air Force, ItAF) at Centocelle, Rome, was that of being in front of a popular flight simulator from Digital Image Design: “Super EF-2000?. SEF2000 is a PC game that came out in 1997 and that I enjoyed a lot in 1998-99. The graphics for that time was excellent, the scenario’s complexity was good, the only flaw was the being too “easy”. It was basically a game and not a real flight simulator like Microsoft Flight Simulator or Falcon 4.0. The flight model was realistic but the plane was too easy to fly even for a newbie and the information provided by the avionics was too “user friendly”, rather different from those actually provided by aircraft of the 3rd generation.

Well, I found the same easiness, the same “at a glance” symbology right in the JSF. The aircraft does not have a HUD (Head Up Display), but has one big touch screen that can be configured at will by tapping the screen with your fingers (like a PDA). The information normally presented to the pilot in the HUD are “projected” directly into the pilot’s helmet that is capable, through the sensors of the aircraft, to see in all directions through any surface. The pilot then has the impression of flying into the air (without an aircraft surrounding him) and can visually track the enemy aircraft with is sight not hampered by the tail or wing of his plane. Then, during a hypothetical dogfight the pilot is able to follow the enemy aircraft through the cockpit mounts, as if suspended in space. For the rest, as mentioned above, the symbolism is clear enough: the red triangles represent the enemies, the white are “unknown” and the greens are friendly aircraft.

The JSF is able to share all its information via a network with the other elements of the flight or with AWACS and Rivet Joints. The menu can be browsed with a cursor moved by a small joystick located on the throttle. In short, everything pretty straightforward for someone like me, used to work at the computer; an experience somewhat “shocking” for those pilots who are accustomed to the analogue Starfighter-style cockpits. Obviously, with the JSF the pilot should focus on mission and information management, rather than worrying about “flying the aircraft”. By means of the DAS, the pilot can see all the electronic emissions on the 360 degress around the aircraft. He may even know the search and tracking frequency of the ground radar.

Of particular interest was the opportunity to test the hovering capabilities of the aircraft, that is in fact also available in the STOVL version that interests both the Marina Militare (Italian Navy) and the Aeronautica Militare (Italian Air Force, ItAF). The pilot, by means of a switch manages the transition from conventional flight to the Harrier-style, so to speak. The aircraft autonomously directs the nozzle and reduces the speed to the IAS (Indicated Air Speed) previously set through a dedicated button on the throttle (which is also operated in automatic mode). Once in “vertical” mode, the aircraft is extremely simple to fly, even thanks to the camera underneath the fuselage that allows the pilot to see downwards, and to decide where to place the wheels. Moving the stick forward or backward the aircraft climbs or descends: with a couple of attempts, you can also manage to maintain the desired vertical speed. With the rudder, you can point the aircraft nose wherever you want and even a novice can land with some precision and without major problems.

The only difficulty I encountered during the flight was distinguishing between all the switches on the throttle, that pushed up with the little finger, allowed me to select the autothrottle. As for the rest, airplane is a real dream, extremely easy to be piloted and able to provide the pilot with all the information he might need, in the preferred layout."

RE: Re: RE: Not so. New Brit. carriers

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2011, 23:55
by spazsinbad
This recent DANGER ROOM article has excerpts from the USMC AV-8B NATOPS Manual:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/12 ... -jump-jet/

"This guide to the American AV-8B demonstrates both the complexity and the awesomeness of the Harrier. We've edited down the 714-page document to the best diagrams and most interesting segments."

9Mb Zip File of JPGs from above: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dange ... arrier.zip

Otherwise the 36Mb PDF AV-8B NATOPS can be downloaded here: http://info.publicintelligence.net/AV-8B-000.pdf

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2011, 05:51
by aaam
Some thoughts, for what they're worth.

Landing a STOVL aircraft onboard ship is harder than landing it on land, but nowhere near as hard as landing a CTOL aboard ship. To illustrate, whenever a pilot, no mater how many hours transitions from one aircraft type to another he must, in addition to all other training, perform 12 day landings and six night arrested landings to be carrier qualified in the new type. If staying with the same type, within the last six months said pilot, no matter how many hours total or in type must have completed six day and four night arrested landings or they lose their qualification It's really hard to do! By contrast, the training to bring a STOVL aboarrd is much simpler, mostly handling th a/c around the ship. There's no requirement for the constant practice required for CTOLs. Those USAF types who've done an exchange tour with the USN, know how much they've got to go through to get ready for the boat. By contrast, RAF types that are to operate from RNs carriers can deploy without major training programs, even if they've only operated from shore for a long time. With the RN switching to teh F-35C, they're going to have to spend an inordinate amount of time and money to regain the corporate knowledge and experience they gave up two generations ago (and their planes won't last as long).

While coming aboard in bad weather in a STOVL is harder than when it's CAVU, it's still easier than coming aboard in a CTOL in the same conditions. And that deck pitches just as much for a CTOL as it does for a STOVL. During the Falkands War, there was a lot of talk about how unfortunate it was the RN no longer had their big carriers (and it was). But one thing that didn't get much visibility was that for a significant portion of the time and locations where the Harries flew, naval CTOLs would have been unable to operate.

The low fuel state is often misunderstood when STOVLs operate from ships. The reason they have so little fuel is because they don't need as much. CTOL operations like to have 25% fuel remaining when they break over the ship. STOVLs, on the other hand, don't bolter. For them, a fouled deck does not stop operations ("Land 75 feet further forward") and they don't have to circle while a wire is being replaced. On shipboard operations, that extra reserve they don't need translates into more fuel available for the mission, which brings their at-sea ranges closer to that of their CTOL counterparts that need the reserve.

Regarding CVNs versus smaller carriers. First, stealing the Marines' ships to operate as smaller carriers defeats the very purpose for which the ships were designed and built. But in a larger sense I'd say the smaller carrier situation has bigger problems. To begin with, having an equivalent force of a/c distributed amongst smaller carriers, is [u]Hideously[u] more expensive. Second, there's nothing to indicate such a force would be harder for an enemy to deal with or less vulnerable. In reality, it's likely such a force would be much more vulnerable.

Just my 3 cents (inflation) worth.

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2011, 06:20
by spazsinbad
aaam, good summary of the requirements for NavAv. Perhaps if you last point can be viewed in a different way - that the small carrier is not trying to be a large carrier but an assist to a group; or as indicated in the Libya thread as an alternative to using the much better CVN asset (which perhaps is not available or whatever). Flexibility with more assets is good IMHO. Probably generalising in such a way is always difficult. If you read through this long thread there are many pros and cons for small carriers. For some navies there is no option but to use STOVL on small carriers. Like the F-22, CVNs are made from 'unobtainium' for other than 'USAians'. :D

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2011, 07:47
by 1st503rdsgt
aaam wrote:Regarding CVNs versus smaller carriers. First, stealing the Marines' ships to operate as smaller carriers defeats the very purpose for which the ships were designed and built. But in a larger sense I'd say the smaller carrier situation has bigger problems. To begin with, having an equivalent force of a/c distributed amongst smaller carriers, is [u]Hideously[u] more expensive. Second, there's nothing to indicate such a force would be harder for an enemy to deal with or less vulnerable. In reality, it's likely such a force would be much more vulnerable.

Just my 3 cents (inflation) worth.


First off, the USN can't steal what it already owns; Marines are still part of the Navy department. Second, at least 2 of the new LHAs are being constructed without well decks, which makes them aviation assets by default; besides, even the well-deck ships are capable of altering their aviation components for attack or sea-control when necessary. Third, although I'm not sure how the economics would work out, anyone who's been in a shooting war knows that, in certain situations, several small targets are a lot more difficult to deal with than a single large one, even when the small targets are easier to kill.

And what makes the LHAs so much more vulnerable anyways? CVNs aren't exactly bristling with defensive armament; they rely on escorts for protection as much as an LHA would. Of course, the effectiveness of 4 LHAs in place of 1 CVN is pure speculation, and the CVN would still be more efficient, assuming it doesn't get hit (which would remove almost all your airpower at once).

However, as has been stated above, the small carriers' biggest advantage (when combined with the F-35B) is political. Most naval forces don't have the resources to purchase/build full-sized CATOBAR ships. STOVL carriers are an option for some, but being limited to helos and a few Harriers can be off-putting to the whole concept. The F-35B will encourage the construction/use of small carriers by making them into viable TACAIR platforms again. This opens up more options for dealing with trouble-spots where a low profile is necessary, either by using an LHA or by getting help from an ally with a similarly capable ship.

In any case, I don't advocate the wholesale conversion of America's assault carriers into pure TACAIR platforms. We have plenty of CVNs for the time being, and the LHA/LHD ships have their own roles in the fleet. Still, it couldn't hurt to experiment.

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2011, 02:42
by aaam
spazsinbad wrote:aaam, good summary of the requirements for NavAv. Perhaps if you last point can be viewed in a different way - that the small carrier is not trying to be a large carrier but an assist to a group; or as indicated in the Libya thread as an alternative to using the much better CVN asset (which perhaps is not available or whatever). Flexibility with more assets is good IMHO. Probably generalising in such a way is always difficult. If you read through this long thread there are many pros and cons for small carriers. For some navies there is no option but to use STOVL on small carriers. Like the F-22, CVNs are made from 'unobtainium' for other than 'USAians'. :D


Thanks.

When we're talking about ships this size, "small" is a relative term. the Essex class CVs might even be considered small carriers today. My main point was simply to highlight some of the factors in STOVL vs. CTOL operations. I actually like STOVL, BTW, it has more advantages than most people realize. You're right, there are only a few nations that can afford CVNs or conventional large CVs; for some navies small carriers are the only choice and for them you have to go STOVL. But if you do have the choice, bigger is better even when operating STOVL.

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2011, 02:49
by spazsinbad
aaam said: "...bigger is better even when operating STOVL." Yes - the long gestation of the RN CVF to the relatively large size makes that point - which also translates into a change to conventional deck ops easier (also part of any CVF plan). I think once the F-35B is being operated by USMC - being cross decked on all and sundry - there will be a lot more support for the small STOVL carrier concept.

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2011, 03:19
by aaam
1st503rdsgt wrote:
aaam wrote:Regarding CVNs versus smaller carriers. First, stealing the Marines' ships to operate as smaller carriers defeats the very purpose for which the ships were designed and built. But in a larger sense I'd say the smaller carrier situation has bigger problems. To begin with, having an equivalent force of a/c distributed amongst smaller carriers, is Hideously[u] more expensive. Second, there's nothing to indicate such a force would be harder for an enemy to deal with or less vulnerable. In reality, it's likely such a force would be much more vulnerable.

Just my 3 cents (inflation) worth.


First off, the USN can't steal what it already owns; Marines are still part of the Navy department. Second, at least 2 of the new LHAs are being constructed without well decks, which makes them aviation assets by default; besides, even the well-deck ships are capable of altering their aviation components for attack or sea-control when necessary. Third, although I'm not sure how the economics would work out, anyone who's been in a shooting war knows that, in certain situations, several small targets are a lot more difficult to deal with than a single large one, even when the small targets are easier to kill.

And what makes the LHAs so much more vulnerable anyways? CVNs aren't exactly bristling with defensive armament; they rely on escorts for protection as much as an LHA would. Of course, the effectiveness of 4 LHAs in place of 1 CVN is pure speculation, and the CVN would still be more efficient, assuming it doesn't get hit (which would remove almost all your airpower at once).

However, as has been stated above, the small carriers' biggest advantage (when combined with the F-35B) is political. Most naval forces don't have the resources to purchase/build full-sized CATOBAR ships. STOVL carriers are an option for some, but being limited to helos and a few Harriers can be off-putting to the whole concept. The F-35B will encourage the construction/use of small carriers by making them into viable TACAIR platforms again. This opens up more options for dealing with trouble-spots where a low profile is necessary, either by using an LHA or by getting help from an ally with a similarly capable ship.

In any case, I don't advocate the wholesale conversion of America's assault carriers into pure TACAIR platforms. We have plenty of CVNs for the time being, and the LHA/LHD ships have their own roles in the fleet. Still, it couldn't hurt to experiment.


When I'm talking "stealing", I don't mean that a bunch of sailors are going to sneak in in the dead of night, throw the LHA in a sack and make off with it. I'm referring to using the ships to fulfill regular Navy needs/desires at the expense of the Marines' missions by operating them as general purpose mini-carriers. It would be like ACC deciding it didn't want to fly its expensive bombers in lightly defended airspace to deliver GBU-28, GBU-43s (MOAB) or MOPs (don't know the designator). So, they go over to AMC and say, we're going to grab 10 of your C-17s to drop these. Oh, by the way, you still have to to meet your air lgoisitcs requirements". The AF already "owns" the C-17s.


Regarding the three LHA(R)s now called "LHA-6s" and picking up the numbering system from where the original Tarawa class LHAs left off. Those LHAs, BTW, had a well deck, and they formed the basis for the LHDs, which formed the basis for the "new" LHA-6 class. The decision to extend the hangar on these ships and eliminate the well deck is quite controversial, remembrances of the LPHs still floating around. Going further on this would be off topic.

But regarding vulnerability, like I said in a previous post, "small" is a relative term when we're talking about these sizes of ships. It is absolutely no harder to hit a 45,000 ton (or even a 20,000 ton) ship than it is to hit a 90,000 tonner. If you have multiple ones in the same general area, as you would if substituting these for a CVN, you offer a greater likelihood of at least one getting hit. While the CVNs have somewhat more ship mounted defenses, they bristle with another kind of defense: lots of fighters. Compared to the LHA, the CVN is faster, more maneuverable cam maintain high speed for a long time without having to worry about what if the bad guys sink the oilers and force it out of fuel. It's armor and radar is much, much better. I could go on, but this is not met to denigrate the LHAs at all. Their design is based on a different mission and is not intended to engage in air or sea combat. A CVN, on the other hand, [u]is, and this is reflected in its design (and cost). That's why it's less vulnerable.

Of course, LHD/As do what they do better than a CVN. My concern is not the occasional presence or supportive air op when you don't want to tie up a CVN (BTW, they are great for humanitarian support), my concern is that the original reason these ships exist and availability for that will get pushed to the background if we start trying to make them into what they're not.

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2011, 05:33
by 1st503rdsgt
Ok aaam,

I think we're actually already in agreement on most of your points. The USN has the resources to build and maintain as many CVNs (by far the better TACAIR platform) as it needs for the foreseeable future, so there is really no need for them to develop a new small-carrier concept like Zumwalt's "sea control ship." LH types can serve in a pinch, but they have their own separate mission. That said, I'm still curious about the F-35B's potential to change naval aviation doctrine and the way we work with allies that have only STOVL carriers.

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2011, 15:09
by spazsinbad
Been meaning to add this old video to the pile... Pilot Eye View of Take Off & Vertical Landing (SILENT)

AV8B Harrier cockpit footage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFeTlIiF ... re=related

"Uploaded by USMCAV8R on Apr 23, 2007

landing and takeoff in harrier jet filmed with my helmet mounted camera. This is a ship short takeoff and a vertical landing on the ship."

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2011, 15:27
by spazsinbad
Some 'Argy-Bargy' here for digestion... [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/argy-bargy]

The ARG: A Core National Capability April/20/2011
The Amphibious Ready Group: A Core National Capability
An Interview With Colonel “Ozzie” Osborn, Former 15th MEU Commander

http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=17088

"04/20/2011 – Second Line of Defense during its interview with Colonel “Ozzie” Osborn discussed the flexibility of the Amphibious Ready Group and Marine Expeditionary Unit team. Colonel Osborn provided an overview of capabilities now in play with a disaggregate/distributed Ops ARG/MEU and the potential expansion of those capabilities with the addition of new enablers. These enablers are the F-35B Lighting II, the MV-22 Osprey, the CH-53K Super Stallion, the LPD-17 and robotics. Colonel Osborn was the 15th MEU commander during its last operational deployment...."

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2011, 14:06
by spazsinbad
In the spirit of SVRL for F-35B here is the story (incomplete) about the 'running, jumping & standing still' OSPREY MV-22B: [Another good PDF: www.g2mil.com/TRAAC_Shipboard_OPS.pdf]

MV-22B OSPREY SHORT TAKEOFF AND MINIMUM RUN-ON LANDING TESTS ABOARD LHD CLASS SHIPS

http://www.vtol.org/f65_bestPapers/test ... uation.pdf (1.2Mb)

ABSTRACT
This paper describes recent ship suitability tests conducted by the V-22 Test Team in March 2008 aboard USS IWO JIMA (LHD 7). This testing encompassed expanding the Short Takeoff (STO) envelopes and developing a new landing technique termed Minimum Run-on Landing (MROL) to extend V-22 shipboard capability beyond Vertical Takeoff and Landing (VTOL) gross weights (GW)....
&
CONCLUDING REMARKS
This paper has provided an overview of the test methodology used in order to conduct V-22 sea trials in support of increased shipboard STO capabilities for the fleet [3]. The objectives of this test were partially met. The STO GW envelope was expanded, although not to the fullest extent of the aircraft capability due to insufficient time at-sea. MROL demonstrated to be a revolutionary and safe way to land aboard ship at GWs heavier than VTOL capability and will continue to be developed and tested. An MROL envelope was not recommended due to insufficient test data; however when more can be gathered, the possibility of granting an envelope to the fleet exists...."

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2011, 00:47
by 1st503rdsgt
Spaz,

The document you posted on that other thread made me think. Instead of building new LHAs or modifying those existing for F-35B/V-22 operations, might it be possible to turn over 1 or 2 older CVNs to the Marines as the Ford class comes online? These ships are expensive to operate, but removing the catapult and arresting gear could reduce some of those costs, and the ships already have ample volume to use in a support capacity (though they lack well decks). In any case, it couldn't hurt to see whether it's possible to extend the useful life of these older ships by converting them to the STOVL "LHN" role. :idea: :?:

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2011, 00:54
by spazsinbad
Rumours I see online suggest the old oil fuelled CVs are rusty hulks - really at the end of their useful lives. Perhaps the USS Enterprise could be such a model for 'conversion' in the future. It also is at the end of life. It may be used for trials for example much the same way old CVs were used decades ago to trial the USMC early Harriers:

AV-8A Harrier Tests (Not an USN view point probably - probably USMC - Go USMC!]

http://ussfranklindroosevelt.com/?page_id=2264

"Her final cruise, which concluded on 21 April 1977, included the embarkation of AV-8A Harriers of Marine Attack Squadron (VMA) 231, the historic “Ace of Spades” squadron, marking the first deployment of Vertical Short Take Off and Landing aircraft on board a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier."
&
"From June 1976 to April 1977, VMA-231 deployed with 14 AV-8As aboard the USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (CV-42). This deployment demonstrated that the Harrier could be completely integrated into normal CV air operations. Almost every conceivable takeoff and recovery option was flown: upwind, downwind, crosswind, and before, during, and after re-spots. The Harrier demonstrated not only that VSTOL operations could be conducted within the rigid framework of cyclic operations, but that because of VSTOL’s inherent flexibility, a carrier can launch and recover at any time and steam wherever desired while achieving a combat capability that does not exist when using only conventional aircraft. A STOVL jet is unrestrained by launch/recovery times and mission permitting, could fill in gaps created by the CV cycle. On 13 January 1977, two other Harriers made bow-on approaches and landing aboard the carrier, marking the first time a fixed wing aircraft had made a bow-on, downwind landing aboard a carrier at sea."

US Marines eye UK JSF shipborne technique DATE:15/06/07 SOURCE:Flight International

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... nique.html

"A shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) technique being developed by the UK for the Lockheed Martin F-35B is being eyed by the US Marine Corps as a way to facilitate operation of short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) Joint Strike Fighters from US Navy aircraft carriers.

The F-35B is scheduled to replace USMC Boeing F/A-18s and concerns have arisen that integration of the STOVL JSF with conventional US Navy fighters will disrupt carrier landing operations.

The F-35B lacks a hook and will have to approach the ship, hover and land vertically, potentially slowing deck operations.
The rolling vertical landing technique is being developed to increase the F-35B's bringback payload when operating from the UK's planned CVF large-deck carriers.

An SRVL approach exploits the ability of the STOVL JSF to use vectored thrust to slow the aircraft while retaining the benefit of wingborne lift.

For the USMC, the technique would allow a conventional approach to a short landing on the carrier and could ease integration of the F-35B with US Navy F/A-18E/Fs." [or JSF-Cs]

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2011, 01:11
by 1st503rdsgt
spazsinbad wrote:Rumours I see online suggest the old oil fuelled CVs are rusty hulks - really at the end of their useful lives. Perhaps the USS Enterprise could be such a model for 'conversion' in the future. It also is at the end of life. It may be used for trials for example much the same way old CVs were used decades ago to trial the USMC early Harriers:


That's the rub. A great deal would depend on when the ship was last refueled and how deteriorated the hull is. The Big E also has some design quirks and is a good deal older than the other CVNs (about 14 years). I was thinking of the older Nimitz carriers, but it's still a rather crazy idea. I just wonder if any feasibility studies have been done.

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2011, 01:44
by spazsinbad
ENTERPRISE has just been refuelled and due for paying off in a year or so (depends on a lot of things now to do with US Budget I guess). Similar to the ROOSEVELT testing years ago, it makes sense to at least have the aircraft mixed for a short time to see what happens (perhaps on ENTERPRISE). Who knows.

LHA testing of the B model later this year will mean a lot for any other testing; with current testing at PAX River ongoing. Early days eh.

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2011, 21:09
by bjr1028
spazsinbad wrote:In the spirit of SVRL for F-35B here is the story (incomplete) about the 'running, jumping & standing still' OSPREY MV-22B: [Another good PDF: www.g2mil.com/TRAAC_Shipboard_OPS.pdf]

MV-22B OSPREY SHORT TAKEOFF AND MINIMUM RUN-ON LANDING TESTS ABOARD LHD CLASS SHIPS

http://www.vtol.org/f65_bestPapers/test ... uation.pdf (1.2Mb)

ABSTRACT
This paper describes recent ship suitability tests conducted by the V-22 Test Team in March 2008 aboard USS IWO JIMA (LHD 7). This testing encompassed expanding the Short Takeoff (STO) envelopes and developing a new landing technique termed Minimum Run-on Landing (MROL) to extend V-22 shipboard capability beyond Vertical Takeoff and Landing (VTOL) gross weights (GW)....
&
CONCLUDING REMARKS
This paper has provided an overview of the test methodology used in order to conduct V-22 sea trials in support of increased shipboard STO capabilities for the fleet [3]. The objectives of this test were partially met. The STO GW envelope was expanded, although not to the fullest extent of the aircraft capability due to insufficient time at-sea. MROL demonstrated to be a revolutionary and safe way to land aboard ship at GWs heavier than VTOL capability and will continue to be developed and tested. An MROL envelope was not recommended due to insufficient test data; however when more can be gathered, the possibility of granting an envelope to the fleet exists...."


Definitely something that will be put into practice as the Osprey assumes the COD role.

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2011, 04:30
by spazsinbad
Corrosion Prevention & Control S&T
Mega Rust Conference 2010 - 08 June 2010
Airan J. Perez - Office of Naval Research

http://www.mcwl.usmc.mil/docs/EW10_Seabasing_Web.pdf (3.5Mb)

Extract of five pages attached which deals with the planned? F-35B (& C?) 'High Performance Non Skid Coatings' deck paint called THERMION - Aluminum Ceramic Thermal Spray (TH604). Other deleted pages are about ship below waterline issues and the like.

Thermion me up Scottie! :D

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2011, 10:37
by spazsinbad
Centerfield Short Take Off/Vertical Landing (STOVL)

http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/index ... 38819A5C10

"The Centerfield STOVL (Short Takeoff/Vertical Landing) was completed in 2009, to support the developmental testing of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) F-35B STOVL aircraft. Located in the centerfield area at NAS Patuxent River, the STOVL Centerfield Facility consists of an AM-2 Expeditionary Airfield (EAF), an AM-2 Vertical Takeoff and Landing (VTOL) pad within a painted LHD deck outline, a Ski Jump, and a grated Hover Pit.

The EAF and VTOL Pad AM-2 surfaces are representative of current US Marine Corps austere/forward deployed basing capabilities. These surfaces will be used to test F-35B compatibility during Short Takeoff (STO), Vertical Landing (VL), and Slow Landing (SL).

The Ski Jump, built to match the profile of the UK HMS Invincible Class Ships, will provide a land-based test site for unique ship compatibility. The Hover Pit was constructed during the X-32/X-35 concept demonstration phase of the JSF Program and has supported operations with British Sea Harrier aircraft.

The Hover Pit also provides a means to perform STOVL mode engine runs without ground effects by ducting exhaust thrust away from the aircraft through a series of vanes below the top grating of the pit."

http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/img/u ... 0Site1.jpg

Image

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2011, 04:46
by neptune
[quote="spazsinbad"]...The F-35B is scheduled to replace USMC Boeing F/A-18s ..quote]

Not to nitpick but....USMC flys 8 sqds with about 96 Harriers vs. 14 sqds. with about 168 Hornets; and we now know that both the F35-B/C will be flown by the USMC. 8)

I'm not trying to detract from the thread about the SRVL. Good post :) , just a point of clarification. All Marines aren't on PO-GO sticks! :lol:

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2011, 05:32
by spazsinbad
neptune that quote (not mine above) was from the middle of 2007 in FrightGlobularInterStellar. :D There will now be a lot of 'outdated' info on a lot of things on the web. Here is a nice quote probably worth repeating here:

Lockheed Martin rebuts F-35 critics on cost, progress By: Chris Pocock July 19, 2010

F-35B Sets STOVL Milestones

“When asked how the F-35B compared to the Harrier in terms of ease of takeoff/landing, Tomlinson replied:

“It’s chalk and cheese–and so it should be!

This is a single-button operation with no special controls–much easier than the Harrier. For short takeoffs you just power up; the system takes care of everything else. On the ski-jump, for instance, the system detects the change in deck angle and doesn’t apply any rotation as it would on a flat deck.

http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-ne ... ess-25359/

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2011, 21:45
by aaam
spazsinbad wrote:ENTERPRISE has just been refuelled and due for paying off in a year or so (depends on a lot of things now to do with US Budget I guess). Similar to the ROOSEVELT testing years ago, it makes sense to at least have the aircraft mixed for a short time to see what happens (perhaps on ENTERPRISE). Who knows.

LHA testing of the B model later this year will mean a lot for any other testing; with current testing at PAX River ongoing. Early days eh.


ENTERPRISE is being retired a few years early as part of the defense drawdown. She was originally supposed to stay in service until the FORD replaced her.

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2011, 21:59
by aaam
1st503rdsgt wrote:Spaz,

The document you posted on that other thread made me think. Instead of building new LHAs or modifying those existing for F-35B/V-22 operations, might it be possible to turn over 1 or 2 older CVNs to the Marines as the Ford class comes online? These ships are expensive to operate, but removing the catapult and arresting gear could reduce some of those costs, and the ships already have ample volume to use in a support capacity (though they lack well decks). In any case, it couldn't hurt to see whether it's possible to extend the useful life of these older ships by converting them to the STOVL "LHN" role. :idea: :?:


What generally determines a NIMITZ class ship's life is her refueling. When you buy the ship, you're also bought 23 years worth of fuel, and at the refueling you've bought another 23 years or so. So, to take a NIMITZ at the end of her fuel would require an incredible expense to extend her life. Since the Administration has slowed carrier construction to the point where new ones will not be coming online as fast as the existing ones approach the end of their 2nd "load" of fuel, it's not likely the USN would be willing to give up some of the remaining years.

Second Line of Defense Articel on USMC aviation strategy

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2011, 03:09
by popcorn
F-35Bs and V-22s playing together .. nice!

http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=17319

Gamechanger : The Evolving Amphibious Ready Group

An Interview With General “Dog” Davis



Flight deck crew members prepare an MV-22 Osprey with Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 266, 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, for take off during flight operations aboard USS Kearsarge, April 23, 2010 (Credit: 26th MEU)



05/02/2011 – Recently, Second Line of Defense looked at the role of the ARG and the evolution of the ARG in the years ahead. A key point was that the newly empowered ARG with an Osprey, F-35B, and CH-53K helo would become a gamechanger. The flexibility of the ARG was laid out by the former 15th MEU commander, “Ozzie” Osborn. The evolving role of the ARG was discussed by Vince Martinez. The USMC planning for a newly configured ARG was discussed by Ed Timperlake. And the capabilities of the newly empowered ARG was introduced by Robbin Laird. We argued that “[the] force can of course secure an airfield for humanitarian airlift; the picket fence of the F-35s replace the AWACs and can guide coalition airpower into Libyan airspace to support agreed upon missions. The USAF does not need to move a large air operation into place to send combat air; the USN does not need to move a large aircraft carrier battle group into place to prepare to strike Libya.

What the newly equipped ARG does is provide a significant shaping function for the President. And this shaping function allows significant flexibility and, is in fact, a redefinition of the dichotomy between hard and soft power. The USN-USMC amphibious team can provide for a wide-range of options for the President simply by being offshore, with 5th generation aircraft capability on board which provides 360 situational awareness, deep visibility over the air and ground space, and carrying significant capability on board to empower a full spectrum force as needed.”...........

RE: Second Line of Defense Articel on USMC aviation strategy

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2011, 04:23
by spazsinbad
Ideas in this now ten your old PDF are not going to be put into practice any time soon. However they may become relevant if/when the US Budget necessitates some scaling down of capacity for new flat decks of any variety. Already new L ships have not been made with these ideas expressed here in mind (ski jumps and angled deck). Anyhoo...

Marine TACAIR and the STOVL Penalty: Myth or Menace MAJOR JOHN O. JORDAN, U.S.M.C. 12 Apr 2001

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Lo ... =ADA401159 (124Kb)

"Abstract
The goals of the STOVL Program, which include basing flexibility, mission effectiveness, and
survivability, can be met by means that (1) Do not require STOVL Capable Aircraft, (2) Exist within the
current capabilities of military aviation, and (3) Surpass the capabilities of STOVL. Conventional land and
carrier based aircraft have demonstrated the capability to function better than STOVL Aircraft from Sea
and from forward deployed sites in combat. Simple, relatively inexpensive gear such as Ski-Ramps and
Arresting Gear can further enhance the capability of conventional aircraft at a cost that is potentially less
than developing and maintaining STOVL."

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Title: Marine TacAir and the STOVL Penalty: Myth or Menace?
Author: Major John O. Jordan, United States Marine Corps
[b]Thesis:
The goals of the STOVL program, which include basing flexibility, mission
effectiveness, and survivability, can be met by various means that (1) do not require
STOVL capable aircraft, (2) exist within the current capabilities of military aviation, and
(3) surpass the capabilities of STOVL.

Discussion: The Harrier program was originally designed to fill a need within the Marine
Corps for a TacAir platform capable of operating from a large variety of sites, both on
land and at sea. In addition, the aircraft needed to be survivable, supportable,
maintainable, and capable of generating sorties at a rapid rate in support of the Marines
on the ground. Historically, the STOVL program has faced many difficulties, as
witnessed by the safety, survivability, and warfighting capability of the Harrier. The
aftermath of the Harrier program has left many wondering about the utility of any
STOVL program. As the Harrier Review Panel (HaRP) said, the AV-8B is a singleengine
aircraft that is challenging to fly, difficult to maintain, a low priority within the
Department of the Navy, and lags other aircraft in warfighting capabilities. Marine Corps
decision-makers look to the Joint Strike Fighter to alleviate the shortcomings of the
Harrier program, and to make Marine Aviation the all-STOVL force that our 21st
Commandant had envisioned.

The JSF program was designed as a means of streamlining the acquisition,
development, production, and support process within the military aviation services. The
main goal of the program is to cut costs within the process, primarily by maintaining a
high degree of commonality in an aircraft that will meet the needs of the Air Force, the
Marines, and the Navy. The Marine Corps has stated a need for a STOVL version of the
JSF as a replacement to the AV-8B and the F/A-18. Designers from Boeing and
Lockheed Martin have attempted to answer the questions of the HaRP, but the evidence
suggests that the STOVL JSF will still suffer some consequences of its design that will
not be common to the other two JSF variants.

Conventional land and carrier based aircraft have demonstrated the capability to
function better than the Harrier, from the sea and from forward deployed sites in combat.
Simple, relatively inexpensive gear such as ski-ramps and arresting gear can further
enhance the capability of conventional aircraft at a cost far less than developing and
maintaining STOVL. The Harrier’s trump card is its ability to operate from amphibious
shipping.

Recommendations: True warfighting flexibility can only be attained by enabling all of
the TacAir assets in both the Navy and Marine Corps to operate from very short runways
and L-class ships. By modifying amphibious shipping to accommodate the carrier based
JSF, the Navy-Marine team can employ not only the very few fixed wing assets of the
MEU, but in fact all of the tactical air power of the Carrier Battle Group in the littorals
where the carrier cannot go. This can all be achieved with today’s technology and at less
expense than developing a third, unique version of the JSF."
_______________________

On one of the last pages there is this statement which is just wrong: "Additionally, requiring an aircraft to land vertically consumes fuel that would otherwise translate into increased combat radius." At least the RN FAA Harriers came back with minimum fuel to land first time/every time successfully. Why not USMC? See below. I suspect the Major above is not a Harrier pilot? Only my guess.

Navy argues against Marine variant of JSF - Corps defends JFF STOVL against assertions outlined in document
By Christopher P. Cavas Apr 30, 2007:

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/20 ... f_070430m/

“USN [statement] * Carry only 70 percent as much fuel as the F-35C.

Marines [answer]: That advantage will be reduced by the F-35C’s heavier weight, by the -B’s ability to fly from forward bases, and by the fact that the STOVL version doesn’t need to carry backup fuel in case it can’t trap aboard a carrier.

RE: Second Line of Defense Articel on USMC aviation strategy

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2011, 18:48
by spazsinbad
First landing of a Harrier in the Juan Carlos I [Spanish LHD same as Oz LHDs x 2 soon] 04 of May of 2011

http://au.babelfish.yahoo.com/translate ... =Translate

Translation from Spanish to English by BabelFish:
The cover of `Juan Carlos I' received for the first time the taking of an airplane “Harrier” AV8B Extra of the Ninth Squadron of Airships of the Navy. To 19:51 h. of Monday 2 of May the first taking of an airplane was realised successfully in the cover of `Juan Carlos I', `Cobra 23 ', piloted by lieutenant commander Manuel Rodriguez Giner.

The LHD of the Spanish Navy, that is realising its cruise of resistance, in which the necessary operations of flight for the Sea and air Certification are framed, on board takes Unidad Aérea Embarcada (UNAEMB) composed by three helicopters of 5ª and 6ª Squadrons and an airplane “Harrier” AV-8B Extra. The ship carries, in addition, a compound landing party percent navy infants, vehicles of the Third of Navy, as well as two amphibious assault aircrafts LCM-1E of the Naval landing party.

The successful landing marks a new landmark in the process of Sea and air Certification of the Juan Carlos I, whose first taking of helicopters it took place 8 of February on the part of lieutenant commander Emilio the past Medina Flour mill, Head of 5ª Squadron, who took in spot 3 of the cover to the controls of WALRUS 08 (SH-3D “Seaking”). This first taking, Squadron followed others of helicopters of 6ª (Hughes 500) and of 3ª Escuadrilla (AB-212). The flight deck of the LHD “Juan Carlos I” has been designed to operate, to send, to receive and to support, as much by day as at night, to airplanes and helicopters like the AB-212, SH-3D, and the airplanes AV-8B Harrier II Extra, that are modernizing by the Spanish Navy through the EADS branch, Cassidian, in San Pablo (Seville).

The conversion to version AV-8B Extra implies the installation of a new motor Rolls Royce Pegasus 408A, the implementation of improvements in the structure and the positioning systems and communications and in the main systems of avionics."

http://www.defensa.com/images/stories/n ... arrier.jpg

Image

And that SKI JUMP!: http://www.defensa.com/images/stories/noticias/harr.jpg

Image

RE: Second Line of Defense Articel on USMC aviation strategy

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2011, 05:39
by spazsinbad
THERMION Extract actually is from the 3.5Mb PDF here: (my error getting URLs mixed up)

Corrosion Prevention & Control S&T
Mega Rust Conference 2010 - 08 June 2010
Airan J. Perez - Office of Naval Research

http://www.nstcenter.com/docs/PDFs/MR20 ... emieux.pdf

RE: Second Line of Defense Articel on USMC aviation strategy

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2011, 16:06
by neptune
Looks like the Wasp sailed Apr 27 after BAE Systems' Portsmouth finished PMA for JSF tests. I hope the Thermion –Aluminum Ceramic Thermal Spray (TH604) holds up, testing looked good. If the "Bee" is ready to swarm aboard, June would be a good month to get started. Good Luck to the Wasp and the "Bee". :)

I wonder if the Themion is used on the JBDs on the CVNs? I see the Bush is using space shuttle tiles :roll: , we'll see.

RE: Second Line of Defense Articel on USMC aviation strategy

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2011, 09:11
by spazsinbad
Word (reliable? I have no idea) from another forum says that two BFs go to sea in October, with WASP deck recoated already.

RE: Second Line of Defense Articel on USMC aviation strategy

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2011, 19:58
by spazsinbad
Flying the Sea Harrier: a test pilot’s perspective By Peter Collins, Flight International 20/04/09

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... ctive.html

“Royal Navy Cdr Nigel "Sharkey" Ward and the Royal Air Force's David Morgan gained their place in British military folklore by flying the navy's British Aerospace Sea Harrier FRS1 fighter with distinction during the 1982 Falklands War.

Flight International's UK test pilot Peter Collins offers a rare insight on flying the "SHAR", having sailed south aboard the rapidly completed aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious as the combat action drew to a close.

Freshly posted to Germany as an RAF Harrier GR3 ground-attack pilot, Collins was recalled to the UK after the war broke out and diverted to the Fleet Air Arm for a short tour flying the Sea Harrier. Type conversion was con-ducted with 899 NAS at RNAS Yeovilton in Somerset between June and July 1982.

"My first memory is of my first FRS1 familiarisation flight, including 'Ski Jump' launch," says Collins. "The FRS1 cockpit wasn't like the GR3's at all, with the engine and critical aircraft systems instrumentation on the left [rather than the right], to allow space for the Blue Fox radar display. There was no Sea Harrier T-Bird [two-seat trainer] and no simulator training; just a quick cockpit self-assessment in the last FRS1 left in the UK. And then go: taxi up to the very bottom of the ramp, gaze upwards at what looked like Mount Snowdon (the ramp was set at the maximum angle of around 18°), remember some words of wisdom from somewhere, pause, slam the throttle, depart the lip, take nozzles and fly away. Piece of cake!"

Collins then moved aboard HMS Illustrious – aka "Lusty" – with 809 NAS for the voyage to the South Atlantic. The vessel arrived in the Falkland Islands Protection Zone in late August, with its SHARs flying combat air patrol sorties to plug a gap until a new landing strip could be completed for the RAF.

Recalling one experience, Collins says: "It was a perfect day, but Lusty was heaving in a massive swell and the flight deck was pitching through 6°. I manoeuvred into my launch position while Flyco [Flying Co-ordination] had a think about it. Through my forward canopy the entire world alternated from completely bright blue to completely bright green (the sea was alive with plankton) as the ship pitched through more angles than I had ever seen before. Refusing the launch is mutiny: it has to be done by the pilot slamming the throttle as the deck starts to pitch down. Thankfully Flyco scrubbed the launch!" Illustrious returned home after two months of duty, with Collins having logged a total of 66 deck landings.

"I am immensely proud of my short time with the Fleet Air Arm," says Collins. "I wish them every continued success as a uniquely professional element of our fighting services.”

RE: Second Line of Defense Articel on USMC aviation strategy

Unread postPosted: 24 Jun 2011, 04:06
by spazsinbad
Libyan Operation Continues To Make Case For STOVL F-35 Author: Daniel Goure, Ph.D.
Date: Thursday, June 23, 2011

http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/libya ... a=1&c=1171

"The ongoing NATO air campaign in Libya is providing two interrelated lessons for the future of the Alliance as a military instrument. The first is you play with what you pay for. Or in the case of NATO it might be stated if you don’t pay you cannot play. The lack of investment by this country’s European allies has led to shortages of everything from targeteers, refueling aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles and combat search and rescue helicopters to precision munitions.

The second, related lesson is the value of VSTOL/STOVL aircraft. When a U.S. F-15 went down in April, it was a combination of V-22s and Harrier jump jets operating from a Navy amphibious warfare platform in the Mediterranean that rescued one of the two crewmen. Since the time the U.S. withdrew combat forces from the operation, Harriers have continued to prove their worth in the hands of U.S. allies. Defense News carried a very interesting article in its June 20 edition about the Italian Navy’s operation of Harriers from the aircraft carrier Garibaldi. The Italian Harriers have been used for both air superiority and strike operations employing Litening II targeting pods and both Paveway II and JDAM precision munitions. The ability to operate close in to Libya’s shores both enhances responsiveness and reduces costs.

The U.S. and Italian experience employing their Harriers makes the case for the STOVL Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35B. As the head of Italian naval aviation, Rear Adm. Paulo Treu, observed “Having a carrier in 2020 that uses legacy aircraft in a threat situation means having a carrier you cannot use. Carrier-based Harriers are a valid instrument for intervention for Italy, whether far from home or close by as in Libya. If Italy wants to keep this capability it needs the JSF.”

Pity poor Britain, which decided to cancel its acquisition of the F-35B in favor of the conventional carrier variant. An equally good aircraft, the F-35C requires a full deck carrier. The British are building two, one to use and one to mothball. But because the Cameron government has decided to retire the British Harriers, the two existing carriers will only operate helicopters until such time as they are decommissioned.

So today it is the Italian navy that is providing responsive air assets for the Libyan campaign using Harriers launched from its aircraft carrier. Britain is forced to fly Tornado and Typhoon jets from Italian airbases with all the refueling that requires and the wear and tear on pilots and aircraft. This conflict signals the end of Great Britain as a naval power. It also underscores the value to NATO and its members of having a weapons system as flexible as the F-35B in future conflicts."

RE: Second Line of Defense Articel on USMC aviation strategy

Unread postPosted: 24 Jun 2011, 05:21
by 1st503rdsgt
Good article, I never really understood why the UK decided to ditch small carriers in light of what the F-35B has to offer. Like the QE class, the Italian carrier was also designed with the F-35B in mind, but its size represents more realistic expectations of what a European nation can afford to operate. Some in the US are also taking this into consideration, as can be seen in the article below.

Are Aircraft Carriers Slowly Becoming Obsolete?
By David Axe June 22, 2011 | 10:41 am | Categories: Navy


For seven decades, they’ve been the ultimate symbol of American power. When conflicts break out across the globe, U.S. Navy aircraft carriers — fast, mobile and each packing more firepower than most countries’ entire air force — have been the first responders, more of than than not. “When word of crisis breaks out in Washington, it’s no accident the first question that comes to everyone’s lips is: where is the nearest carrier?” Bill Clinton famously said.

But today’s 1,000-foot-long, nuclear-powered supercarriers and their air wings are expensive, costing up to $15 billion just to build. Plus, the latest anti-ship missiles could render them vulnerable to attack. It’s for those reasons that one influential Navy officer is proposing the Pentagon rethink its approach to building and deploying carriers.

Instead of today’s small number of gigantic carriers, the Navy of the future should operate a larger number of smaller flattops, Capt. Jerry Hendrix asserts in the pages of Proceedings magazine. “Moving away from highly expensive and vulnerable supercarriers toward smaller, light carriers would bring the additional benefit of increasing our nation’s engagement potential.”

It would also spread out U.S. naval air power instead of concentrating it in just a few places, where it can be more easily knocked out.

Hendrix’s controversial argument is the subject of my first piece for AOL’s new military website.


To be clear: no one, including Hendrix, is claiming big carriers will become totally obsolete overnight. Besides the U.S., Britain, India and especially China are all building brand-new large carriers, though none quite as big as America’s 11 Nimitz- and Enterprise-class ships, each displacing around 100,000 tons. Hendrix insists the Navy keep some of its nuclear supercarriers as a “heavy surge force” capable of steaming into action during a major crisis.

Outgoing secretary of defense Robert Gates echoed that sentiment in a speech last year.

But for routine patrols, the Navy should have a larger number of smaller flattops. Hendrix doesn’t propose a specific number, but he does point out that three, 40,000-ton light carriers could be had for the price of one supercarrier.

A light carrier is viable because of a shift in the way air power is used. During the Cold War, the Navy’s focus was generating at many fighter sorties as possible within the first few days of a full-scale conflict. After all, big shooting wars weren’t expected to last very long. Supercarriers are optimized for that kind of “big and fast” fighting.

Today, conflicts tend to be drawn-out, low-intensity affairs requiring fewer but longer sorties by sea-launched planes. Carriers don’t need to embark as many fighters, or launch them as often. That’s why a smaller carrier is possible, according to Hendrix.

He believes the future light carrier is already taking shape at a shipyard in Mississippi, though the Navy doesn’t call the vessel that. America, the first of a new class of amphibious assault ships, “has the potential to be a new generation of light aircraft carrier,” Hendrix writes.

America, slated to enter service is designed to carry more than a thousand Marines into battle, shuttling them ashore with V-22 tiltrotors. Like previous assault ships, America can carry Harrier jump jets (pictured) and, eventually, the Marines’ vertical-landing F-35B Joint Strike Fighter. The difference is how many fighters America can carry: up to 30, compared to the four or five Harriers routinely embarked on today’s assault ships and around 50 F/A-18 Hornet fighters on each supercarrier.

Unlike many observers, Hendrix has high hopes for the late, over-budget F-35 — particularly the B model, which has been the most troubled of the three variants. “I’m concerned about the cost overruns on JSF, but I see that this [plane] could be very important in the future,” Hendrix tells Danger Room.

Armed, carrier-launched drones could complement the F-35B, Hendrix adds. The Northrop Grumman X-47B, the world’s first’s carrier-capable combat Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, flew for the first time in February. The Navy wants a follow-on killer drone to start populating carrier decks before 2018.

Small flattops carrying drones and stealthy jump jets would help “adapt the fleet away from its current course to a new design for a new era,” Hendrix writes. But he admits his proposal faces stiff opposition from the Navy’s entrenched supercarrier boosters. “A lot of people don’t like the America,” he tells Danger Room.

Even Gates was forced to backtrack after his speech last year criticizing the Navy’s over-reliance on huge flattops. “I am not going to cut a carrier. Okay?” Gates said. “But people ought to start thinking about how they are going to use carriers in a time when you have highly accurate cruise and ballistic missiles that can take out a carrier.”

To Hendrix, that means having more carriers. And that means they need to be smaller.

RE: Second Line of Defense Articel on USMC aviation strategy

Unread postPosted: 24 Jun 2011, 11:15
by madrat
Gates is thinking light carriers are the future, but that's obsolete thinking. Stealth carriers will fill the void, not light carriers. Stealth carriers will be smaller, but they will never be light. The larger the carrier the more efficient use of resources. There is a lot of ocean to hide in and until our enemies shrink the oceans considerably the carrier has a role.

I personally think they should focus on dispersing USMC F-35B to guided-missile destroyers and frigates. Save the flattops for more important roles. Create a foldout platform, rail system, or helicopter-buddy procedure for them to take off and recover from a position not on the limited deck space so that a helicopter can still operate from the same ship.

Re: RE: Second Line of Defense Articel on USMC aviation stra

Unread postPosted: 24 Jun 2011, 23:19
by 1st503rdsgt
madrat wrote:I personally think they should focus on dispersing USMC F-35B to guided-missile destroyers and frigates.


I'm thinking you don't know very much about any of these 3 weapon systems. Do a little research on these platforms before you make comments. I'm actually a little embarrassed for you.

RE: Re: RE: Second Line of Defense Articel on USMC aviation

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2011, 04:07
by madrat
Wow, an attempt at ad hominem. You should feel embarrassed but for your own reasons. Light carriers are an inefficient use of resources which is why the USN avoids them. That has been argued out ad nauseum. You win wars with logistics and the light carrier although cheaper to buy is a nightmare to keep supplied.

RE: Re: RE: Second Line of Defense Articel on USMC aviation

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2011, 04:52
by psychmike
Madrat: I'm a little confused. If small carriers are inefficient as you state, how would dispersing fighters onto even smaller ships be a good idea? Would each destroyer and frigate carry commonly used spare parts? Would engine, avionics, etc. technicians be assigned to these smaller ships to deal with routine after-flight maintenance? Would the smaller ships be able to carry adequate aviation fuel and munitions? I'm not sure that such relatively small ships would be able to realistically support a high performance jet.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Second Line of Defense Articel on USMC aviat

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2011, 05:02
by 1st503rdsgt
madrat wrote:Wow, an attempt at ad hominem. You should feel embarrassed but for your own reasons. Light carriers are an inefficient use of resources which is why the USN avoids them. That has been argued out ad nauseum. You win wars with logistics and the light carrier although cheaper to buy is a nightmare to keep supplied.


Trying to cover up the stupidity of your F-35s-on-a-DDG/CG suggestion with a shrill, Latin-filled response is just a band-aid for your hurt ego. I know that CVNs represent a better economy of scale when it comes to intensive TACAIR operations. The article I posted says as much. What's being explored on this thread is whether or not smaller carriers might have some advantages in certain situations.

If you insist on behaving like an Admiral scared of losing funding for the FORD class, then I suggest you go start your own thread about why supercarriers "rule" and light carriers "suck."

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2011, 12:12
by underhill
Everyone here (together with the author of the Proceedings article and Mr Axe) should be looking at the evolution of the UK carrier.

Starting with a clean sheet of paper, the UK looked at missions, and concluded correctly that the carrier was a self-licking lollipop unless it could sustain CAP and mount offensive ops at the same time. It also needed space for AEW of some kind.

That drove SGR, which drove air wing size, which given the size of the JSF and its personnel, fuel and ordnance requirements, determined the size of the ship.

By the way, the LHA/LHD class are not aircraft carriers - the basic design precedes the USMC Harrier. LHA-6/7, with the well deck removed to support fuel-hog JSFs and V-22s more realistically, are a garbage compromise and LHA-8 will revert to the well deck.

The good news here is that the B is clearly in trouble, which is why someone has paid Goure to shill for it.

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2011, 12:49
by madrat
503,

The F-35B just needs to be ferried in to range of the shore. In all honesty it's not worth taking up deckspace on the big flattops. And it's too resource thirsty for the other flattops. Why shackle the aircraft and helicopter carriers for a fighter that doesn't belong on either? Seriously, guy, you're too emotionally tied to the whole idea of F-35B.

And for the record my idea for a light carrier is solely for sending COIN-related aircraft into parts of the globe where it's purely a low intensity conflict situation. I'm arguing that we need a sustainable force to attack terrorists in an effort to keep our country from spending too much money on the WoT.

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2011, 13:05
by quicksilver
underhill wrote:Everyone here (together with the author of the Proceedings article and Mr Axe) should be looking at the evolution of the UK carrier.

Starting with a clean sheet of paper, the UK looked at missions, and concluded correctly that the carrier was a self-licking lollipop unless it could sustain CAP and mount offensive ops at the same time. It also needed space for AEW of some kind.

That drove SGR, which drove air wing size, which given the size of the JSF and its personnel, fuel and ordnance requirements, determined the size of the ship.

By the way, the LHA/LHD class are not aircraft carriers - the basic design precedes the USMC Harrier. LHA-6/7, with the well deck removed to support fuel-hog JSFs and V-22s more realistically, are a garbage compromise and LHA-8 will revert to the well deck.

The good news here is that the B is clearly in trouble, which is why someone has paid Goure to shill for it.


Yep, and they came up with a 65K ton design that was a fraction of the cost of a FORD -- and yet, still not affordable.

Gates' question was about the relevance of all that 'sustained CAP" and 'AEW of some kind' in a world where ballistic missiles were the primary threat against that ship. And, of course, if the answer is, 'not every scenario will have the ship facing that kind of threat' -- then the next question is, "why do we need the $14B option?"

The history of UK 'carrier' design is all about money -- what the nation can afford to buy. Unless something changes, with FORDs at $14B per, the US story is following the same arc.

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2011, 13:40
by underhill
I'm not saying that you could not build a cheaper carrier than the Ford.

However, the US won't do that due to:

1 - Political inertia/momentum. The carrier-building constituency is powerful and dedicated and will always maximize the cost/risk of a new carrier.

2 - Much of the LCC of the carrier is manpower. The USN mans its ships up the wazoo to do damage control. (Since most of the time, the carrier is not on fire, the crew get insanely bored, hence the difficulty of command and the recent rash of senior officer sackings.) But if you want a 5000-man carrier, reducing tonnage and switching to gas turbine won't save you much over the ship's 40-year lifetime.

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2011, 14:55
by sferrin
underhill wrote:The good news here is that the B is clearly in trouble, which is why someone has paid Goure to shill for it.


Why is the idea of the B being in trouble good news?

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2011, 15:05
by underhill
Because it is a misbegotten piece of carp, and the sooner it is put out of its misery the better for as all (particularly for the JSF program as a whole).

It has comprehensively and rather expensively demonstrated that a STOVL. LO, supersonic fighter is not worth what it adds to a nation's military capability.

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2011, 15:16
by sferrin
underhill wrote:Because it is a misbegotten piece of carp, and the sooner it is put out of its misery the better for as all (particularly for the JSF program as a whole).

It has comprehensively and rather expensively demonstrated that a STOVL. LO, supersonic fighter is not worth what it adds to a nation's military capability.


Apparently the DoD doesn't agree. Nor does the USMC. Sorry.

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2011, 15:26
by underhill
Oh, the USMC doesn't accept that its major program is stuffed? Color me shocked.

And as far as the DoD is concerned, the version is still on probation. Everything else comes from the USMC propaganda mill and its supporting cliques.

Yes, the fact that FT has picked up is good news - because had it not done so, cancellation was a certainty. However, its miserable range and weapon load and astronomical acquisition and O&S costs will kill it, as they drove the Brits to bail out.

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2011, 16:59
by shingen
How much war winning load can be carried STOVL? What sensors and networking capability are better carried by a STOVL platform than anything else? Did anyone ask that before they started JAST or did they just add "Harrier Replacement" on to the list of stuff it needed to do?

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2011, 18:37
by SpudmanWP
It all comes down to Sortie rate. For the A/B/C it it 3.68/6.51/4.05.

As you can see, the forward-deployed F-35B can almost do twice the missions as a rear-deployed F-35A (1.77x) or F-35C (1.61x).

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2011, 21:29
by underhill
Spudman - Absent conditions and assumptions that is utter meaningless bilge.

Shingen - It's a long story, but where we have ended up is that the USAF and Navy are getting modified versions of a Marine aircraft.

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2011, 21:48
by 1st503rdsgt
madrat wrote:503,
And for the record my idea for a light carrier is solely for sending COIN-related aircraft into parts of the globe where it's purely a low intensity conflict situation. I'm arguing that we need a sustainable force to attack terrorists in an effort to keep our country from spending too much money on the WoT.

So, you're suggesting that we cancel F-35B and the Harrier in favor of airframes like the OV-10?


As for you underhill,

Why so angry? You hate light carriers; you hate supercarriers. Is there any course of action (not involving regression to crossbows) that would make you happy? You've done nothing but complain on this thread. Why don't you tell us your ideas to fix whatever's pi$$ing you off?

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2011, 23:30
by sferrin
1st503rdsgt wrote:
madrat wrote:503,
And for the record my idea for a light carrier is solely for sending COIN-related aircraft into parts of the globe where it's purely a low intensity conflict situation. I'm arguing that we need a sustainable force to attack terrorists in an effort to keep our country from spending too much money on the WoT.

So, you're suggesting that we cancel F-35B and the Harrier in favor of airframes like the OV-10?


As for you underhill,

Why so angry? You hate light carriers; you hate supercarriers. Is there any course of action (not involving regression to crossbows) that would make you happy? You've done nothing but complain on this thread. Why don't you tell us your ideas to fix whatever's pi$$ing you off?


Me thinks he's a fan of the Eurocanards. In that case I'd be pissed too as his favorite jet is already obsolete. :lol:

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2011, 23:31
by sferrin
underhill wrote:However, its miserable range and weapon load.


Miserable range and weapon load compared to what?

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2011, 01:22
by quicksilver
shingen wrote:How much war winning load can be carried STOVL? What sensors and networking capability are better carried by a STOVL platform than anything else? Did anyone ask that before they started JAST or did they just add "Harrier Replacement" on to the list of stuff it needed to do?


Oh please, that's utter nonsense. Even Sweetman said so in his book ("Ultimate Fighter" -- Zenith Press 2004). See discussion of the Common Affordable CALF pages 37-48. From page 108 I quote -- "Despite its origins in a program called the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter the JSF is no lightweight..."; From page 100, "The F-22 has four tails because it had to meet requirements for both stealth and agility...The F-35 has four tails because it has to land on a carrier...". From page 101, "The hard fact is, though, that the four tail layout is not the lightest or most efficient layout for the STOVL or CTOL airplanes."

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2011, 02:58
by shingen
quicksilver wrote:
shingen wrote:How much war winning load can be carried STOVL? What sensors and networking capability are better carried by a STOVL platform than anything else? Did anyone ask that before they started JAST or did they just add "Harrier Replacement" on to the list of stuff it needed to do?


Oh please, that's utter nonsense. Even Sweetman said so in his book ("Ultimate Fighter" -- Zenith Press 2004). See discussion of the Common Affordable CALF pages 37-48. From page 108 I quote -- "Despite its origins in a program called the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter the JSF is no lightweight..."; From page 100, "The F-22 has four tails because it had to meet requirements for both stealth and agility...The F-35 has four tails because it has to land on a carrier...". From page 101, "The hard fact is, though, that the four tail layout is not the lightest or most efficient layout for the STOVL or CTOL airplanes."


What about all the space for the fan?

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2011, 14:07
by underhill
Why so angry? You hate light carriers; you hate supercarriers. Is there any course of action (not involving regression to crossbows) that would make you happy? You've done nothing but complain on this thread. Why don't you tell us your ideas to fix whatever's pi$$ing you off?

I don't hate supercarriers - I have mixed feelings. They're very useful but they cost too much and institutional inertia has long prevented anyone from doing anything about it.

I don't hate light carriers. But you can't have a light carrier with a fighter that's bigger than an F-4. Or a well designed light carrier that's also an LHA/LHD.

Fix? Determine how many JSFs the USAF can afford to buy and operate, which will be well south of 1,000. The fallout from that will be that the B is ridiculously expensive, while the Super Hornet, versus the C, becomes the 80-plus per cent solution for 50-minus per cent of the price.

If you want Marine air, think of a smaller A-10 with big flaps and thrust reversers operating in STOBAR mode. Or a Harrier III with an off-the-shelf engine core and fly-by-wire.

What does pi$$ me off is that the longer we delay the inevitable drawdown the more it will cost.

Miserable range and weapon load compared to what?

Pretty much anything in the same empty weight and price bracket.

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2011, 14:51
by sferrin
underhill wrote:If you want Marine air, think of a smaller A-10 with big flaps and thrust reversers operating in STOBAR mode. Or a Harrier III with an off-the-shelf engine core and fly-by-wire.


The first can't operate off amphibious assault ships (the whole reason for STOVL) and the latter is a pipe dream.

underhill wrote:Pretty much anything in the same empty weight and price bracket.


So basically you have no relevant arguement. Surprise surprise.

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2011, 16:22
by underhill
Someone's cranky-pants are a little tight today.

I should have suggested Sea Gripen but you would have had a stroke.

How hard would it be to install arrest gear (much smaller than a 140-kt, 50 klb+ CV fit) on an LHA/D? Easier than making the deck heatproof...

Aircraft in the same weight and price band? Typhoon, Rafale, Shornet, all of which can beat 450nm and 3000 pounds without too much trouble.

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2011, 16:33
by quicksilver
shingen wrote:
quicksilver wrote:
shingen wrote:How much war winning load can be carried STOVL? What sensors and networking capability are better carried by a STOVL platform than anything else? Did anyone ask that before they started JAST or did they just add "Harrier Replacement" on to the list of stuff it needed to do?


Oh please, that's utter nonsense. Even Sweetman said so in his book ("Ultimate Fighter" -- Zenith Press 2004). See discussion of the Common Affordable CALF pages 37-48. From page 108 I quote -- "Despite its origins in a program called the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter the JSF is no lightweight..."; From page 100, "The F-22 has four tails because it had to meet requirements for both stealth and agility...The F-35 has four tails because it has to land on a carrier...". From page 101, "The hard fact is, though, that the four tail layout is not the lightest or most efficient layout for the STOVL or CTOL airplanes."


What about all the space for the fan?


Fuel. That's why the A and C jets have so much range on internal fuel only.

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2011, 22:31
by 1st503rdsgt
underhill wrote:Why so angry? You hate light carriers; you hate supercarriers. Is there any course of action (not involving regression to crossbows) that would make you happy? You've done nothing but complain on this thread. Why don't you tell us your ideas to fix whatever's pi$$ing you off?

I don't hate supercarriers - I have mixed feelings. They're very useful but they cost too much and institutional inertia has long prevented anyone from doing anything about it.

I don't hate light carriers. But you can't have a light carrier with a fighter that's bigger than an F-4. Or a well designed light carrier that's also an LHA/LHD.

Fix? Determine how many JSFs the USAF can afford to buy and operate, which will be well south of 1,000. The fallout from that will be that the B is ridiculously expensive, while the Super Hornet, versus the C, becomes the 80-plus per cent solution for 50-minus per cent of the price.

If you want Marine air, think of a smaller A-10 with big flaps and thrust reversers operating in STOBAR mode. Or a Harrier III with an off-the-shelf engine core and fly-by-wire.

What does pi$$ me off is that the longer we delay the inevitable drawdown the more it will cost.


No... words. :lmao:

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2011, 06:14
by bjr1028
madrat wrote:Gates is thinking light carriers are the future, but that's obsolete thinking. Stealth carriers will fill the void, not light carriers. Stealth carriers will be smaller, but they will never be light. The larger the carrier the more efficient use of resources. There is a lot of ocean to hide in and until our enemies shrink the oceans considerably the carrier has a role.

I personally think they should focus on dispersing USMC F-35B to guided-missile destroyers and frigates. Save the flattops for more important roles. Create a foldout platform, rail system, or helicopter-buddy procedure for them to take off and recover from a position not on the limited deck space so that a helicopter can still operate from the same ship.


And they would do what on destroyers and frigates? They'd have to be lifted off by cranes. The F-35B is STOVL, not VTOL.

SpudmanWP wrote:It all comes down to Sortie rate. For the A/B/C it it 3.68/6.51/4.05.

As you can see, the forward-deployed F-35B can almost do twice the missions as a rear-deployed F-35A (1.77x) or F-35C (1.61x).


The sortie rate is nothing but hype and it leaves out the fact that it can't be systematized because the B's inherently higher maintenance rate. The F-35B will be a good airplane, but STOVL comes with a lot of best case scenario hype. Real world, STOVL's big advantage is that you can theoretically get a bigger plane on a smaller ship.

underhill wrote:Someone's cranky-pants are a little tight today.

I should have suggested Sea Gripen but you would have had a stroke.

How hard would it be to install arrest gear (much smaller than a 140-kt, 50 klb+ CV fit) on an LHA/D? Easier than making the deck heatproof...


Very hard considering they would have to rebuild the ship to do it. Which they wouldn't by the way because its a troop transport, not a carrier. The Harriers are a bonus.

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2011, 06:31
by madrat
Yes, the F-35B is a STOVL. The USN is not set up for STOVL operations, they are geared for CATOBAR. The USMC is trying to force their way onto the deck space that really should be occupied by aircraft revolving around CATOBAR operations. The F-35B can perform VTOL without carrying much more of a load than fuel. The USMC basically needs to hitch a ride to the scene or fly them in which adds to the wear and tear. My point is that the F-35B plays no role in the current USN force structure.

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2011, 09:14
by spazsinbad
madrat said: "...The USMC is trying to force their way onto the deck space that really should be occupied by aircraft revolving around CATOBAR operations...." No longer. The USMC decided to buy a bunch of F-35Cs and make a committment to use them with the USN whilst also the USMC will buy a bunch of F-35Bs. Did you miss that news?

madrat said: "...The F-35B can perform VTOL without carrying much more of a load than fuel...." VTOL=Vertical Take Off & Landing. The F-35B is not going to be operated as a Vertical Take Off aircraft except one would imagine in an emergency. Yes VTOs will be performed in the testing cycle now underway. I could point to the KPPs for F-35B for STO but you know them. The F-35B was designed as a STOVL aircraft. Short Take Off Vertical Landing....

USMC and USN aircraft always hitch a ride to the scene on their respective flat decks or yes they fly there. You lost me on your final point. AFAIK the USMC will fly their F-35Bs for themselves. That is the point.

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2011, 11:54
by underhill
madrat - You are right about the LHA/LHDs being troop (+materiel) carriers but it would be interesting to look at what could be accomplished in straight-deck ops with a relatively lightweight STOL design.

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2011, 12:52
by sferrin
underhill wrote:Someone's cranky-pants are a little tight today.

Hey, I'm not the one who starts screaming for his binky everytime someone disagrees with me.

underhill wrote:I should have suggested Sea Gripen but you would have had a stroke.


Yeah, there is such a thing as too much laughter. :lmao:

underhill wrote:How hard would it be to install arrest gear (much smaller than a 140-kt, 50 klb+ CV fit) on an LHA/D? Easier than making the deck heatproof...


Yeah, that must be why they had arresting gear and cats on the Kievs. Oh, wait. . . Maybe you could explain how they do a bolter on a straight deck.

underhill wrote:Aircraft in the same weight and price band? Typhoon, Rafale, Shornet, all of which can beat 450nm and 3000 pounds without too much trouble.


My mistake. I should have said "useful aircraft".

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2011, 15:58
by underhill
My mistake. I should have said "useful aircraft".

Of course. Totally useless aircraft, all of them.

Much better off with an F-22 that can drop two JDAMs on someone else's coordinates when it isn't grounded.

Or an F-35 that can't do squat operationally for another seven years, if nothing else goes wrong (hahaha!)

Your chauvinism is showing (over the waistband of your cranky pants).

Bolter? You do clear-deck operations (which absent a JBD is how you'll do F-35 STO).

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2011, 16:40
by shep1978
underhill wrote:Or an F-35 that can't do squat operationally for another seven years,


That's rich coming from someone who was suggesting the Sea Gripen (snigger) would be a wonderful aircraft to have just a few posts back.

You're just not putting the thought into your trolling thesedays are you. :wink:

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2011, 16:49
by shingen
Question for Underhill:

I want to know what kind of force structure you advocate. How should the US build the capability to do all of the nation building, low intensity conflict and possible conflict with a well armed, or even competent foe? Would you support a force with lots of A-10's, some kind of bomb truck, lots of UCAVs and then a few silver bullets? What would you do with the 4th gen planes in the US inventory, upgrade, build more?

Like to get an answer, not trying to troll you.

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2011, 17:08
by underhill
I wasn't serious about the Sea Gripen - just trying (with some success) to wind up Sferrin. Not really a straight-deck jet.

Shingen - Now, Gripen NGs for the Guard and Reserve, for homeland defense and CAS...

The answer starts by getting rid of the FifthGenerationTM horsepuckey and thinking capabilities. Overall, airpower in the future will need high-end and low-end capabilities.

High-end to go against threats that are designed against F-35s, not just defensively but asymmetrically (like an ASBM that pushes the carrier back beyond fighter range). Lower end for nation-building and security.

We're still building F-18s, and will do so until 2015. Today's Eagle is an incredible weapons platform, and survivable with standoff weapons and advanced EW. Could we recap some forces with an F-16 similar to Israel's? Would it really cost as much as an F-35?

But we also may need the long-range strike family, including extreme LO (which will still be hard to beat).

F-35-class VLO is not worthless. But as long as we are thinking China, neither it nor most other tac aircraft can get there from land bases, because when it started we were just beginning to stop thinking Europe (500nm) and thinking MidEast (700 nm).

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2011, 17:16
by shingen
Why Gripen instead of F-16?

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2011, 17:21
by underhill
Operating costs and a mature but advanced approach to networking.

Plus with the F414 EPE it will go like a scalded-ass ape.

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2011, 20:34
by m
U - Now, Gripen NGs for the Guard and Reserve, for homeland defense and CAS...

Don’t understand why you suggest the Gripen NG?
The US and flying a European jet as also one of there main fighters.
Don’t think this will ever happen.
A f16 advanced would be a more plausible option.

Secondly why suggesting a fighter also in development, as the F35 is?
A demonstrator, but a NG still is not yet build.
When the Swedish don’t succeed in selling the NG, there even is quite a change
no Gripen NG will be build.
As stated by the Swedish government al least one significant order is needed
to produce the NG version.
In your opion the F35 is a risk, but isn't the Gripen a risk too?

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2011, 21:29
by hobo
Operating costs and a mature but advanced approach to networking.

Plus with the F414 EPE it will go like a scalded-a$$ ape.



Yes, faster planes are really cool. That is what we need. Faster. (Hello, fanboy?)

and another new/incompatible datalink would be a really welcome addition too.


Tell me in your mind(since that is what we are talking about here) how much "faster" a Gripen NG would be than a late model F-16, and what exactly do you think that would enable a Gripen to do that the F-16 couldn't?

I mean if the Gripen is a scalded ape, what is the F-16? A startled cat? Can you maybe convert your fanboy units over into something useful for those of us who don't rely on animal analogies when thinking about fighters?



Anyway, I think everyone can get behind this wonderful plan for an immature, but marginally faster plane with an incompatible datalink. Those are game changing capabilities right there and the ape feature sounds cool too.

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2011, 21:46
by spazsinbad
How about youse take this NON Naval Aviation talk to another thread. Thanks.

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2011, 23:46
by sferrin
hobo wrote:
Operating costs and a mature but advanced approach to networking.

Plus with the F414 EPE it will go like a scalded-a$$ ape.



Yes, faster planes are really cool. That is what we need. Faster. (Hello, fanboy?)

and another new/incompatible datalink would be a really welcome addition too.


Tell me in your mind(since that is what we are talking about here) how much "faster" a Gripen NG would be than a late model F-16, and what exactly do you think that would enable a Gripen to do that the F-16 couldn't?

I mean if the Gripen is a scalded ape, what is the F-16? A startled cat? Can you maybe convert your fanboy units over into something useful for those of us who don't rely on animal analogies when thinking about fighters?



Anyway, I think everyone can get behind this wonderful plan for an immature, but marginally faster plane with an incompatible datalink. Those are game changing capabilities right there and the ape feature sounds cool too.


Since the subject of speed and the F-16 came up. . . There's an article in Code One magazine in which some Edwards AFB F-16 test pilots were talking about the performance of the F-16. They looked at taking back some of the time-to-climb records (from the Flanker no less) and figured they could bust the F-104's low altitude record as well. They were told, in a nutshell, "don't you DARE!" (I'm guessing the time-to-climb records would have been some of the lower altitude ones since to go after the higher ones you need to be going FAST to get up there. The Streak Eagle broke Mach 2.2 in one of it's record flights.)

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2011, 00:04
by spazsinbad
B/S for NavAV.

Re: RE: Second Line of Defense Articel on USMC aviation stra

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2011, 12:39
by Conan
spazsinbad wrote:First landing of a Harrier in the Juan Carlos I [Spanish LHD same as Oz LHDs x 2 soon] 04 of May of 2011


Word coming out of the D+I conference on at present is that 2x LHD is about to become 3x LHD...

All of the same design and size. It's hinted at in the latest Defence Capability plan update where the sealift Ship project suddenly ballooned in budget up to $2b.

Still no F-35b's though I'm afraid and as the 3rd will be built to the same specifications as the original 2...

:(

Largs Bay will be operating alongside the expanded fleet until her LoT though, so ADF amphibious capability gets a pretty large overall boost...

RE: Re: RE: Second Line of Defense Articel on USMC aviation

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2011, 13:51
by spazsinbad
Nice. Thanks. How about a fast mover?

Big cat steams on to the radar for crisis work - Bruce Stannard June 27, 2011

http://www.smh.com.au/national/big-cat- ... 1glqc.html

"THE Defence Department is considering acquiring a 112- metre wave-piercing catamaran as part of a new regional rapid-reaction strategy for the Royal Australian Navy.

The $100 million jet-powered vessel, now nearing completion in Hobart, will be capable of speeds of up to 40 knots, delivering a 1000-tonne payload within hours to any destination within 2000 nautical miles of the coast.

Designed and built by Incat Tasmania, the as-yet-unnamed vessel has completed immersion tests and is expected to be ready for official sea trials within two or three weeks. The ship could be operational within a month if defence approves its acquisition.

An identical sister ship, now operated as a ferry, played a vital relief role when chartered by government authorities for use in the tsunami crisis, quickly moving many tonnes of emergency supplies and relief workers to devastated cities in Japan's north-east.

Japanese authorities are believed to be so impressed with the vessel's performance that they are considering buying several more identical vessels.

High-ranking navy officers are understood to have held talks with their counterparts in Japan on further co-operation.

The jet cats, which can reach Fiji from Australia in less than two days or Christchurch within 24 hours, could reach any part of the natural disaster-prone Indonesian archipelago within hours.

The vast aluminium hulls, with a beam of 31 metres, are not only able to carry prodigious quantities of emergency supplies, but also act as floating hospitals and can easily navigate shallow waters.

Equipped with helicopters and roll-on, roll-off ramps, they can quickly discharge large volumes of humanitarian aid and play a vital reconnaissance and recovery role.

Three of the vessels have served with the US Navy and the US Army. The RAN was slow to recognise their value until the Timor crisis in 1999 when an 86-metre jet cat ferry, previously running between Melbourne and Hobart, was leased by the navy. Renamed HMAS Jervis Bay, the ship earned the nickname Dili Express as she transported personnel and materiel over the Timor Sea continuously for the two years of the emergency.

If the navy does acquire the latest 112-metre jet cat, the vessel is expected to be based in Sydney or Darwin.

Incat's chairman, Robert Clifford, confirmed that the proposal was being considered by defence.

"Ideally, we could have rapid response sister ships, one in Japan and the other in Australia, sharing responsibility for attending to the kind of emergency situations that develop up north,'' Mr Clifford said. ''Defence has been considering the proposal for two months and we would like to think that they are warmly disposed to the idea."

RE: Re: RE: Second Line of Defense Articel on USMC aviation

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2011, 14:23
by m
Retaining the 13 degree ski-jump would imply this is not without a reason.
(In case of a completely flat deck the ships have more parking place)
Although not now, in a later stage, the F35B may be will be ordered by Australia?

As long as Australia has got no F35B’s, still in a joint operation with the US, the ships
can also be used by US F35B’s

Re: RE: Re: RE: Second Line of Defense Articel on USMC aviat

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2011, 16:23
by Conan
m wrote:Retaining the 13 degree ski-jump would imply this is not without a reason.
(In case of a completely flat deck the ships have more parking place)
Although not now, in a later stage, the F35B may be will be ordered by Australia?

As long as Australia has got no F35B’s, still in a joint operation with the US, the ships
can also be used by US F35B’s


The reason is that Australia was too tight-fisted to actually pay to have the design modified and the bow ramp removed. The Royal Australian Navy seriously considered having it removed, but in the end it was cheaper to simply leave the design as is. '

There is no plan to operate F-35B's from the Canberra Class LHD's. Plans can change as Spaz has pointed out many times, but it would be an unprecedented change for the Australian Navy. Never has a major capability been removed from service completely without replacement and then returned to service in a new form decades later.

Even this third LHD if the rumour is true is not a new capability acquisition, but rather a replacement for an existing project, the planned "Sealift" ship.

ADF has said til it is blue in the face that there is no plan to acquire F-35B and it would take a major reversal of nearly 3 decades of political will on both sides of our Political arena NOT to have a carrier capability.

Anything that has been decided can be undecided, but the change would literally be enormous in Australia's case and the mere fact that we have boats with a flat deck now doesn't change that fact

Re: RE: Re: RE: Second Line of Defense Articel on USMC aviat

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2011, 16:37
by Conan
spazsinbad wrote:Nice. Thanks. How about a fast mover?


As a temporary solution yes. Over the longer term when we will already have Largs Bay and 3x LHD's (assuming that happens), plus the new fleet of faster LCH's? Unnecessary.

The problem with Cats are that they are fast during calm weather and slow or non-existant during rough weather. They carry a light cargo load compared to traditional amphibious ships and they cost a heap in fuel costs per nm travelled.

They also aren't a naval ship of any kind and require a helo (for light cargo and passengers) or a wharf (and for anything heavy). They can't carry landing craft nor can they land men, materiel or vehicles onto a beach, except by helo, but if you fit a helicopter, plus landing pad, some sort of hangar (even a temporary one) plus air traffic management capability your cargo load goes out the window even further.

If RAN acquires this Cat and fits it with a landing platform etc, it won't be carrying 1000t, it'll probably halve that. Compare that to Largs Bay for instance which has 2.5 times the vehicle lane metres (1200 compared to 567) and can carry up to 24x 24 TEU containers or 12x 40 TEU containers, has 2x 30 tonne cranes attached integrally, can carry 2x landing craft in a well dock, 2x Chinook sized aircraft on it's flight deck and has the deck strength to carry 24x M1A1 Abrams class main battle tanks (65 tons) and it can take all this at 18 knots, 8000nm through rough seas and sustain this force whilst it's there. Plus the Largs Bay is capable of being as well armed as Kanimbla and Manoora were (for self defence only - Phalanx close in weapon stations and anti-surface guns).

Now these cats can take 1000 troops, whereas Largs Bay is only equipped to carry 356 (or up to 700 in overload conditions) but these 1000 passengers are sitting on seats with few toilets, no showers and "take away food stand" style amenities, ie: short trips only.

Largs Bay has proper cabins (for 356) with showers, toilets, bunk beds and all the amenities a warship should have, including galleys, recreational rooms and gyms etc.

Effectively the Cat is nothing more than a civilian ferry. Fast yes. Can be useful for certain missions yes. But it's not a replacement for a proper amphibious ship.

Three of the vessels have served with the US Navy and the US Army. The RAN was slow to recognise their value until the Timor crisis in 1999 when an 86-metre jet cat ferry, previously running between Melbourne and Hobart, was leased by the navy. Renamed HMAS Jervis Bay, the ship earned the nickname Dili Express as she transported personnel and materiel over the Timor Sea continuously for the two years of the emergency.


RAN was slow? When did the US Navy start running their HSV's about 1999 wasn't it? When was HMAS Jervis Bay commissioned? About 1999 wasn't it?

The reason RAN was so "slow" is that these aren't a replacement for a true amphibious ship and if we hadn't bought the POS Kanimbla and Manoora and had bought a new amphibious ship in the early 1990's when we needed to, HMAS Jervis Bay would never have served ADF. We needed the Dili Express only because we didn't have anything else available at the time...

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Second Line of Defense Articel on USMC a

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2011, 22:28
by spazsinbad
Conan, thanks for your comprehensive reply.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Second Line of Defense Articel on USMC aviat

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2011, 10:23
by Corsair1963
Conan wrote:[Anything that has been decided can be undecided, but the change would literally be enormous in Australia's case and the mere fact that we have boats with a flat deck now doesn't change that fact



Enormous.......hardly and things change all the time. Hell, how many times did we hear that the Ex-Varyag would never return to service with the PLAN! How about that Japan would never aquire Aircraft Carriers! As a matter of fact how many times did we hear the merits of STOVL F-35B's over F-35C's on the UK's forthcoming CVF's. Yet, they all happened.......

Sorry, the odds are the F-35B is a real option for the RAN/RAAF.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Second Line of Defense Articel on USMC aviat

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2011, 14:28
by Conan
Corsair1963 wrote:
Conan wrote:[Anything that has been decided can be undecided, but the change would literally be enormous in Australia's case and the mere fact that we have boats with a flat deck now doesn't change that fact



Enormous.......hardly and things change all the time. Hell, how many times did we hear that the Ex-Varyag would never return to service with the PLAN! How about that Japan would never aquire Aircraft Carriers! As a matter of fact how many times did we hear the merits of STOVL F-35B's over F-35C's on the UK's forthcoming CVF's. Yet, they all happened.......

Sorry, the odds are the F-35B is a real option for the RAN/RAAF.


Both sides of Australian politics and the ADF Head Shed have been against the re-introduction of a fixed wing Fleet Air Arm for nearly 30 years now.

Sure, whatever. Why not think it's a real option for ADF simply because we're buying a couple of flat tops? Clearly no other considerations would go into the decision to reintroduce something we haven't operated in 3 decades. Nope, the only consideration is whether or not we have something for an aircraft to land on at sea...

:roll:

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2011, 16:06
by wrightwing
underhill wrote: F-35-class VLO is not worthless. But as long as we are thinking China, neither it nor most other tac aircraft can get there from land bases, because when it started we were just beginning to stop thinking Europe (500nm) and thinking MidEast (700 nm).


How far inland(China), do you reckon that the USN would need to operate fixed wing aircraft? It's not as if in any conceivable conflict, that a regime change scenario would be realistic. In any likely conflict, you'd see a combination of systems used, to degrade China's ability to threaten CBGs.
There'd likely be a lot of TLAMs fired from SSNs, to take out a number of threats. Then you have to figure that various other ships in the CBG would also fire TLAMS. Add in F-35Cs armed wish JASSM/ERs/JSOW/ERs(and you could minimize the threats in relatively short order). When you look at this combination, you have to factor in the range of the aircraft and weapon system, to get a feel for the real radius of coverage. Even if the carrier were parked 400-500nm off the coast, that'd still allow the F-35C the ability to get 200-300nm inland, and the JASSM-ER would be able to reach targets tat were 800-nm inland(or more). There'd also be non-kinetic means of dealing with other threats/threat enablers, along with AEGIS pickets protecting the fleet.

Mind you, this doesn't take into account all of the capabilities that the USN can bring to the fight, not to mention the USAF.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Second Line of Defense Articel on USMC aviat

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2011, 08:30
by Corsair1963
Conan wrote:
Both sides of Australian politics and the ADF Head Shed have been against the re-introduction of a fixed wing Fleet Air Arm for nearly 30 years now.

Sure, whatever. Why not think it's a real option for ADF simply because we're buying a couple of flat tops? Clearly no other considerations would go into the decision to reintroduce something we haven't operated in 3 decades. Nope, the only consideration is whether or not we have something for an aircraft to land on at sea...

:roll:


Sorry, the whole point is things change! While, today Australia may not be so inclined to go purchase F-35B's for it's forthcoming LHD's. Yet, in another decade. When China fields at least one or two Large Carriers of its own. Followed by Japanese and South Korean Mid Sized Carriers equipped with F-35B's. Australia may very well change its mind. To say that is not possible or even highly unlikely. Is well laughable in my opinion.......

Re: RE: Re: RE: Second Line of Defense Articel on USMC aviat

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2011, 09:22
by Conan
Corsair1963 wrote:
Sorry, the whole point is things change! While, today Australia may not be so inclined to go purchase F-35B's for it's forthcoming LHD's. Yet, in another decade. When China fields at least one or two Large Carriers of its own. Followed by Japanese and South Korean Mid Sized Carriers equipped with F-35B's. Australia may very well change its mind. To say that is not possible or even highly unlikely. Is well laughable in my opinion.......


Things certainly do change. The third LHD if it arrives demonstrates that most clearly.

However RAN force planning goes out to 2030 at the current time and there isn't any anything in that planning to suggest fixed wing solutions are being considered at all, let alone "likely".

The reason is the Government's attitude towards the idea politically and thinking that the fact that some other nations might have them is going to influence that thinking is what is laughable.

We PAID for Thailand's carrier back in the 1990's and I still don't see RAN's carrier anywhere...

I don't disagree with their utility and would love to see F-35b's operating off a proper RAN flat top, however the Canberra LHD's as currently designed are not that ship.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Second Line of Defense Articel on USMC aviat

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2011, 09:46
by Corsair1963
Conan wrote:Things certainly do change. The third LHD if it arrives demonstrates that most clearly.

However RAN force planning goes out to 2030 at the current time and there isn't any anything in that planning to suggest fixed wing solutions are being considered at all, let alone "likely".

The reason is the Government's attitude towards the idea politically and thinking that the fact that some other nations might have them is going to influence that thinking is what is laughable.

We PAID for Thailand's carrier back in the 1990's and I still don't see RAN's carrier anywhere...

I don't disagree with their utility and would love to see F-35b's operating off a proper RAN flat top, however the Canberra LHD's as currently designed are not that ship.



Well, the RAAF never planned on purchasing the Super Hornet. Yet, with the delay of the F-35 and the age of the F-111 and F/A-18 Hornet Fleets. The Austraila Governement decided to purchase the Super Hornet as a Stop Gap. Then with the advanages of the Growler. Australia is considering it as a strong option. Even getting its current Super Hornets. Wired to take its Jammers and possibly convert them from exsisting stocks......Which, all leads to my point that THINGS CHANGE. Regardless, believe what you want.


Respectfully

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Second Line of Defense Articel on USMC a

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2011, 10:19
by spazsinbad
From 2008 there is a good historical overview of the issues with no hint of the RAN/RAAF operating F-35Bs from the LHDs. However it is mentioned that the USMC is likely to do so when appropriate. Read on....

A HISTORICAL APPRECIATION OF THE CONTRIBUTION OF NAVAL AIR POWER 2008
by Andrew T. Ross and James M. Sandison
with an introduction by Jack McCaffrie (former TACCO S-2E/Gs, CDRE rtd.)

http://www.navy.gov.au/w/images/PIAMA26.pdf

Introduction pages 11-13
"...The second line of criticism of the larger amphibious ships is that they represent part
of a Navy agenda to regain its status as an operator of aircraft carriers.49 The far more
prosaic reality is that the plan to acquire two large amphibious ships is a response to
an Army generated and government approved requirement for the transport, landing
and support ashore of a battalion group and their equipment.

This writer is aware of no Navy agenda to re-introduce an aircraft carrier capability,
yet there are elements of the accusation that merit some reflection. The acquisition of
the amphibious ships recognises the need for an expeditionary capability in the ADF.
To dominate the maritime battlespace and to project power in defence of Australia and
its interests, the ADF must be able to conduct sustained operations at considerable
distances from home bases. Even operations in the waters to the near north of Australia
can be categorised as being at considerable distance from home bases and so the
term ‘expeditionary’ does not apply only to operations in distant parts of the region
and beyond.

Wherever they are deployed, but depending on the potential threat, however, the
amphibious ships would expect to be escorted by Aegis-fitted air warfare destroyers
and other surface combatants to provide protection against submarine, surface or air
threats during transit and in the area of operations. The surface combatants would also
be able to provide air defence and naval gunfire support to ground forces, especially in
the early part of an operation and while they remained relatively close to shore.
Depending on the threat type and level, the air defence capability could also include
support from airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft and tactical
fighters – which might also conduct ground support operations. The presence of these
aircraft could depend on the availability of air-to-air refuelling (AAR) and of friendly
airfields near the area of operations. The five AAR aircraft being acquired under
project AIR 5402, depending on the nature and location of operations, could be both
reliant on the availability of friendly airfields and hard-pressed to support intensive
air operations.

Those who see the amphibious ships as an answer to years of suspected silent but
intense Navy prayer might be granted one point. If Australia is to embark on a genuinely
expeditionary approach to the use of military force it must surely be prepared to
consider a tactical air capability in its deployments. RAAF tactical aircraft, such as
the F/A-18 or the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) in future, will not always be needed,
either because the threat level or type will not demand their presence, or because they
will be provided by another Service – in our case this would most likely be one of the
US Services if we are part of a coalition force.

Nevertheless, in cases where tactical aircraft are needed and will not be provided by
another country’s forces, RAAF aircraft must be a part of the expeditionary force. They
could be needed as part of the air defence shield for the deploying ships and for the
ships and ground forces in the area of operations. They could also be tasked for attack
missions in support of the ground forces. If air support of this kind is needed, the
RAAF would in present circumstances need access to one or more overseas air bases,
depending on the location of the area of operations. This kind of access can be difficult
to arrange and in some cases may not be achievable. It would also depend on a very
significant logistics support effort, which might itself depend on sea transport.
An alternative solution to the provision of tactical aircraft for expeditionary operations
could involve the operation of STOVL JSF aircraft from one or both of the large
amphibious ships. For this to be a viable option, the amphibious ships would need to
be capable of operating the aircraft. The Spanish design meets this requirement and the
ship is fitted with a ski jump. Additionally, the ships would need to be able to embark
and operate the JSFs as well as the helicopters embarked for troop lift. Clearly, only a
limited number of JSFs could be embarked and thus the air defence or attack capability
provided would also be limited. Nevertheless, in conjunction with the AEW&C aircraft
and the air warfare destroyer’s Aegis air defence capacity, the aircraft could provide
a credible capability in many scenarios.

This suggestion that the RAAF could operate STOVL JSFs from the amphibious ships
is in line with the UK situation in which the Royal Air Force will fly STOVL JSFs from
the Royal Navy’s new attack carriers. In this sense then it is not in any way a return
to the ‘glory days’ for the RAN but simply a way to ensure that air support is always
available for expeditionary operations, through making full use of the capabilities of
the amphibious ships and of two versions of the JSF aircraft. Even if the idea is not
taken up, however, selection of the Spanish amphibious ship design will enable allied
or coalition partner STOVL aircraft to operate from the ships. US Marine Corps STOVL
JSFs would be the most likely partners.


Conclusion
The recent government decision to acquire two large ‘flat-top’ amphibious ships for the
RAN will provide the ADF with an unprecedented capability to project military force
from the sea. Acquisition of any kind of ships for the RAN, but especially large ones,
often generates criticism, informed and otherwise. The acquisition of these amphibious
ships is no exception, with some commentators seeing them as simply ‘too big’ and
others seeing in them some devious Navy plan to reintroduce aircraft carriers.
The attached 1978 Central Studies Paper, supported by some more recent material
in this introduction, aims to meet these criticisms and to provide a rationale for the
acquisition of these ships. The paper itself shows that in the years up to 1976 there
were many instances in which the capability proved to be invaluable in both peacetime
and wartime or warlike operations. This introduction provides more contemporary
examples to reinforce the point. It also shows that several countries either have
already introduced amphibious ships of the LHD type to their navies, or have plans to
do so. Finally, the introduction provides some thoughts as to how the expeditionary
force capabilities of the ADF could be extended with the embarkation of STOVL JSF
aircraft in these ships.
"

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Second Line of Defense Articel on USMC a

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2011, 10:28
by Corsair1963
Well, after the F-35B enters service with the Italian and Spainish Navies. Don't be surpsied if Japan and South Korea follow. (and posssibly Australia too)


IMHO

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Second Line of Defense Articel on USMC a

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2011, 11:35
by spazsinbad
Most would be aware perhaps that another recent thread had thoughts on this topic of 'NO F-35Bs for RAN/RAAF - but they likely will operate from LHDs via USMC or allies F-35Bs' so I'm not trying to rehash that topic here nor there [http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-15671-start-60.html] but.... What I'm suggesting is that when the LHDs are in use and USMC F-35Bs - or even Harriers - are jumping off the ski jump then...:

Navy keeps very quiet while it waits for the last laugh August 4, 2007

"WHEN Brendan Nelson announced last month a $3 billion order for two giant amphibious landing ships, it was widely seen as a victory for the "expeditionary force" school of strategy, emphasising overseas punch for the Australian Army.

The Defence Minister himself went on to proclaim the "final nail in the coffin" for the "Defence of Australia" strategy adopted under Bob Hawke's Labor government in the 1980s, which stressed navy and air capability to fight off threats in the country's approaches and resulted in the army contracting to a niche force.

[...]

Woolner expects the subject to come up once the air force starts getting its new F-35 aircraft.

"They'll say how about buying some V/STOL versions, they'll be really cheap because we can get the maintenance and support done out of the RAAF fleet, they wouldn't be like a little orphan fleet, we'd only need a few, and gee, it would add so much to our power projection.


[...]

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/navy-k ... 56129.html

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Second Line of Defense Articel on USMC a

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2011, 11:48
by spazsinbad
Aircraft carrier on navy's secret $4bn wish list
By Ian McPhedran From: The Daily Telegraph March 25, 2008

"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.

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.

[...]

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2011, 17:39
by Conan
1. The Strategic Projection Ship, which provides the basis for the Canberra Class are designed to carry the Harrier for limited durations. The Amarda intends to use it for training and qualification purposes when the Principe de Asturias is in dock. The SPS is not a replacement nor a substitute for that vessel even in the Armada.

2. The Juan Carlos is designed to support the Harrier. Not the F-35b. Please read the extensive writings available on how the US Navy ships are being modified to handle the F-35b to get some idea of the differences in operating the two aircraft.

3. The Australian Canberra Class is a modified SPS vessel. It does not have the fuel bunkerage or air weapons magazines to support a fixed wing capability that even the Juan Carlos has and which in Juan Carlos form is far below the capability inherent in the Principe de Asturias.

4. There is no material anywhere publicly that confirms that the Canberra Class will even be able to accommodate (ie - the deck) vertical landings of Harriers. They are certainly not capable of accommodating the F-35b's in their current form. The presence of a flat top, does not itself mean that it is capable of supporting F-35 vertical landings, as the modifications to USN ships and the creation of special landing pads at NAS Patuxent River shows.

4. Quoting media organisations that have and continue to call M113 armored personnel carriers - "tanks", ANZAC Class frigates as "battleships" and Canberra Class LHD's as aircraft carriers does little to promote your point of view.

5. What some members of a service want and what they get are two completely separate things. No-one in the Army wanted MRH-90's, yet they got them. No-one in Navy wanted Australianised F-105's for the Air Warfare Destroyer, but they got them too.

Why don't you hunt around and post Plan Blue? It's at least a publicly released future planning document that runs out to 2030? At least you'd be posting some RAN documentation then...

Of course you'd also be posting documents which show the RAN is making no plans whatsoever for "operating" fixed wing aircraft of any kind.

Even better would be Plan Green, but as it's classified it might be a little hard to get your hands on. But it hardly matters. It doesn't have F-35b's in it either...

You might have noticed that out of a wish list of 3 things for the 2010 White Paper, Navy has so far got 1 of the things it wanted, but part of the trade off for getting JASSM for the RAAF and Tactical Tomahawk Block IV or whatever the long range strike missile ends up being (could be a vertical launched JASSM variant down the track) for RAN, was that RAAF had to lose the F-111's. Fortunately we had a huge budget surplus at the time and Government was able to decide to replace the Hornet and SOW capability with Hornet, SOW and Super Hornet, but there is no doubt to get capability ADF has to trade off existing capability in return.

What possible capability could ADF afford to trade off for a multiple-billion fleet of F-35b's and hundreds of millions in modifications for our amphibious ships, plus the enormous on-going cost of maintaining a carrier like capability?

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2011, 22:47
by spazsinbad
All very interesting Conan, however I have read news reports about the 'Juan Carlos' LHD class that it was specifically designed to opoerate the F-35B (how those specifications were known at time of design/building). Once again I'll stress that yes I agree that there are no current plans to operate RAN/RAAF F-35Bs on our two new LHDs. However I'll stress that USMC will want to use the flat decks to see what the issues are. Makes sense to me if not to you. The first quotation at top of this page (on my computer) "A HISTORICAL APPRECIATION OF THE CONTRIBUTION OF NAVAL AIR POWER 2008" indicates same from a NAVY source. In NAVY circles this will be unremarkable exercise so to speak. I'll look forward to the day for the video and news reports.

There is a lot of hoohaa as indicated earlier on in this thread about concrete landing pads and heat stress on flat decks for F-35B use. The truth will be known in our spring (US fall) soon enough. Unsurprisingly older USN LHAs will need to be modified because they were laid down well before F-35B details were known (WASP launched 1987 - Juan Carlos launched 2008 with construction starting 2-3 years earlier respectively).

Old Australian newspaper reports were cited to show that having F-35Bs or a third RAN LHD are not new ideas, albeit not taken up as we both now stress again. Yet people will jump on this thread and ask 'how about it'. Sigh.

No surprise to me that the ADF do not get the equipment they would like - some of the time. I believe the RAAF are very happy to be getting the F-35As in due course though. So some things do work out.

Yeah newspaper reports can be crap but you'll agree reporters get their ideas from ADF sources. Some are better than others. I did not bother to post a Canberra Times report from around 2007-8 (I think) that gleefully claimed the new RAN LHDs would have not only a ski jump but catapults.

There are other reports/ideas about how a bunch of RAAF F-35Bs could be operated from RAN LHDs in a co-operative fashion using the flat deck as a 'bare base'. But as the RAAF (for the moment) are not buying any F-35Bs and the RAN certainly are not I'll just point to one such reference to that idea here:

http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cg ... additional

(I was searching for this notion that Australia bought an aircraft carrier for Thailand) 1.3Mb PDF 'Sea control & maritime power projection for Australia: maritime air power and air warfare' by Richard T. Menhinick - University of Wollongong 2003. 'The Aircraft Carrier Debate' section on pp.109-122 has an overview of non-replacement for HMAS Melbourne back in the early 1980s.

pp. 137 to 142 express the idea of LHDs as 'mobile bare bases'. On page 141:

"As stated aircraft carriers for Australia could be viewed more properly in the context of mobile bare bases. They would build on the positive attributes of Australia's current fixed bare bases, but overcome the limitations of these bases, by being able to bring air power to the area of operations, should the strategic and tactical situation require it. Evolving aircraft technology permits the possibility of Australia being able to operate an air dominance aircraft from a maritime platform. Noting the seameless force statement of 'Force 2020', the RAAF could operate an air dominance and air strike combat air group from the mobile bare base exactly as it does today from land bases. The RAN does not need to re-create a fixed wing fleet air arm. The operation of air dominance aircraft in what the RAAF does already. Australia should just move the base to sea as necessary. The RAN would operate the ship, steam it to where it is required and maintain it. The RAAF could be responsible for the fixed-wing air group, including maintenance and training.

This approach builds on the UK use of RAF GR7 Harrier aircraft from the 'Invincible' class aircraft carriers off Yugoslavia. In fact between 2002 and 2006 the RN's Sea Harriers will be removed from service. This will result in the three 'Invincible' class aircraft carriers deploying solely with RAF fixed wing aircraft. As already stated the British are moving to provide a two carrier fixed wing air dominance and strike capability to permit expeditionary warfare from 2012. Australia seems not to have studied this aspect of operations. It is time to investigate this option with a view to operating either a common aircraft variant from land and mobile sea bases or even a different variant should that be the preferred and logical outcome.

There would of course be significant challenges. It is some 20 years since the RAN operated fixed wing aviation at sea. It would be a period of 30 to 35 years (2012/17) by the time Project Air 6000 platforms could be commissioned into service. To be effective at sea aircrew would need to be educated in maritime operations. This includes a basic understanding of how ships work, both at sea and in harbour. This includes issues such as standing watches, conducting damage control training, ship safety training and survival at sea. Issues such as obtaining experienced Carrier Air Group Commanders to command the air element would be taxing. The development of the 'shipside' such as the ship's Commander Air, its head of the Air Department, and the team responsible for the shipboard side of training and operations would also be demanding. The RAN and RAAF would need to build this up over the next few years, by exchange postings to overseas forces operating aircraft at sea. Given the 'Force 2020' proposals and vision this should be possible. Noting Project Air 6000's impact on Australian strategy and its very significant budget, this proposal should be investigated in a meaningful and open fashion.

The benefits that could flow from such an approach are more diverse than just the direct strategic options such a capability provides. Less obvious effects perhaps could be an increase in the retention of aircrew, with them being given better opportunities to serve in operational environments away from Australian bases than occurs at present. Other effects may include... operations free from considerations of diplomatic issues of third nation land based air operations...." [Remember this was written in 2003.]

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2011, 03:55
by popcorn
We've learned that LMA has been contratced to study the feasibility of operating the F-35B on Spanish aviation ships. No doubt this will address the technical issues raised by Conan and identify the retrofit efforts to allow the ships to deploy the STOVL jet. If the report is positive then I expect more support for the concept as the jet will bring significant capabilities. Long-range strategic plans can always be rewritten and updated to incorporate new realities.

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2011, 04:19
by Conan
popcorn wrote:We've learned that LMA has been contratced to study the feasibility of operating the F-35B on Spanish aviation ships. No doubt this will address the technical issues raised by Conan and identify the retrofit efforts to allow the ships to deploy the STOVL jet. If the report is positive then I expect more support for the concept as the jet will bring significant capabilities. Long-range strategic plans can always be rewritten and updated to incorporate new realities.


They can I have never denied that. All I have stated is that there isn't any plan in ADF to do any such thing, nor is there any apparent will in other side of Government.

So all that has to happen for this to occur is:

1. We get the ships.

2. Government changes it's mind on a carrier capability.

3. ADF doctrinally shifts to re-include a major fleet asset like a carrier.

4. Planning gets underway to introduce such a capability.

5. The ships are modified to be able to handle the role.

6. Other plans are devised to cover the detriment to our amphibious capability.

7. Training activities commence years in advance as happened with the Wedgetail AeW&C when we introduced a new capability and ADf needs to develop it's corporate understanding of such a capability.

8. Procurement activities begin and sustainment provisions are put in place.

9. Project deliverables commence and initial release to service commences.

10. Training activity ramps up and the aircraft go to sea...

As I said earlier, obviously the presence of flat tops s all that is needed...

:roll:

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2011, 04:48
by spazsinbad
popcorn, the Spanish Harriers have only recently started testing 'Juan Carlos' 04 May2011 as per: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-435.html [this thread page 30 on my computer]. A Spanish Harrier on ski jump pic has gone missing I'll make one available here soon.

Image

Image

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2011, 05:27
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:popcorn, the Spanish Harriers have only recently started testing 'Juan Carlos' 04 May2011 as per: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-435.html [this thread page 30 on my computer]. A Spanish Harrier on ski jump pic has gone missing I'll make one available here soon.

Image

Image


Noted Spaz. Any F-35B possibility for Spain will be down the road but contracting a feasibility study is an indication of their probable long-term intentions. Those Harriers won't last forever.

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2011, 07:33
by spazsinbad
Their Harriers are being upgraded.... [Spanish Navy had 16 EAV-8B+ & 1 TAV-8B aircraft in use as of December 2010]

CASSIDIAN completes prototype test flights in Harrier modernisation programme 07 February 2011

http://www.eads.com/eads/int/en/news/pr ... 9791b.html

• The Spanish Navy’s Harrier AV8B aircraft went through a test flight programme at Cassidian Spain’s facilities in San Pablo (Seville)

• Handover to the Spanish Navy will take place on completion of the modification certification process

• CASSIDIAN is the new name of EADS Defence & Security

The prototype aircraft in the Harrier Upgrade programme for the Spanish Navy has completed its test flight programme and is now at the Rota Naval Base facilities.

The programme to upgrade the configuration of the Navy’s Harrier AV8B aircraft includes, among other modifications, the installation of the 408A engine and the implementation of improvements to the structure and avionics systems, as well as the incorporation of various Technical Directives and SDLM/AGE third level maintenance...."

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2011, 14:55
by spazsinbad
An earlier page on this thread mentioned 'NITKA' and Chinese making a purloined copy of it as per this quote from that page (http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... tka#190587). Just happened on some info about 'NITKA' seen below:

Russian sold secrets for China’s first carrier - Ukraine sends him to prison
By Reuben F. Johnson - The Washington Times - Monday, February 14, 2011

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... t-carrier/

"...China‘s intelligence service directed Yermakov to steal classified information about Ukraine‘s Land-based Naval Aviation Testing and Training Complex, or NITKA, its Russian acronym, according to reports.

The facility is in the Crimea near the city of Saki and was built when Ukraine was a part of the Soviet Union. It remains the only training complex of its kind in the world...."
&
"...The Chinese are building a massive carrier pilot training base at Xingcheng, in the northeastern province of Liaoning. Other facilities for training of carrier personnel and engineering support specialists have been built in Xian, Shanxi province. The Xingcheng facility has features that duplicate the design of NITKA in Ukraine."

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2011, 15:10
by spazsinbad
Another photo of NITKA is in this recent article:

Russia plans to rent naval pilot training facilities in Ukraine | Nitka Naval Pilot Training Center in Ukraine July 07, 2011

http://nosint.blogspot.com/2011/07/russ ... pilot.html

"Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov formally asked on Wednesday his Ukrainian counterpart Mykhailo Yezhel to rent facilities on Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula for naval pilot training.

In line with a 1997 bilateral agreement, Russia occasionally uses the Nitka Naval Pilot Training Center in Ukraine as the only training facility for its naval pilots.

"I have signed a request to the Ukrainian defense minister to allow us the [permanent] use of the Nitka facility for naval pilot training in the form of a rental or some other agreement," Serdyukov said a meeting of the Council of CIS Defense Ministers at the Russian Black Sea resort of Sochi."
&
Nitka Naval Pilot Training Center in Ukraine

http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20110706/165061686.html

http://en.rian.ru/images/16506/17/165061789.jpg

Image

Unread postPosted: 23 Jul 2011, 22:28
by spazsinbad
Wasp prepares for Joint Strike Fighter By Petty Officer 1st Class Justin K. Thomas | USS Wasp

http://www.dvidshub.net/news/74178/wasp ... irWVWFe1g8

"ATLANTIC OCEAN - The crew of the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp (LHD 1) is preparing the ship to become the first at-sea test platform for the U.S. Navy’s test variant of the F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).

Recently, four members of Wasp’s Air Department traveled to one of the Navy’s premier test facilities at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., to help give them a good idea of what WASP can expect when testing begins. The group consisted of Cmdr. Stephen McKone, Wasp’s Air Boss; Lt. Michael Curcio, Wasp’s Aircraft Handling Officer and F-35B Ship Integration Project Officer; Ens. Maguel Brooks, Wasp’s Air Bos’n; and Senior Chief Aviation Boatswain’s Mate (Handler) Richard McCray.

“The F-35B is a really unique aircraft,” said Lt. Curcio. “It possesses characteristics on par with our legacy fighter/attack aircraft; it is the first Short Take Off/Vertical Landing (STOVL) aircraft to possess both stealth and supersonic capability. This aircraft alone has the potential to completely revitalize the utility of large-deck amphibious platforms by adding significant strike capability to their resumes.”

The F-35B will replace the Department of Navy’s current Vertical and /or Short Take Off/Landing (VSTOL) aircraft, the AV-8B Harrier. The Harrier has been in the U.S. arsenal since 1984 and has been extensively used during both Persian Gulf Wars. It is also assigned to Marine Air Groups (MAGs) and Marine Expeditionary Units to support Marines on the ground and to facilitate amphibious assault operations around the globe.

During Wasp’s four-month maintenance availability conducted earlier this year, major modifications were completed to various elements of the ship including the flight deck and combat systems equipment. These modifications included moving the flight deck’s “Tram Line,” or yellow line, which is used by pilots to guide them when performing short landings [this may be true also for vertical landings but I think this phrase is about 'short takeoffs'], closer to the port side of the ship. Also, the aft NATO Sea sparrow missile launcher mount was removed and replaced with a “dummy” launcher.

“The ship has had a few physical changes made to it,” said Curcio. “Some of these are necessary to accommodate the physical differences between the Harrier and the F-35B, while others will help the engineers to collect data on both the ship's effect on the aircraft and the aircraft's effect on the ship. For example, the flight deck tramline was shifted slightly to port to accommodate the F-35B's larger wingspan, while the operational aft NATO Sea Sparrow launcher was replaced with an a test launcher laced with sensors to measure heat, vibrations, overpressure, and sound levels.”

Many places aboard Wasp will be tested for a wide range of reasons in support of the F-35B. Some of these spaces will be tested for heat stress and other hazards.

“The Engineering Log Room will be looked at closely by the flight test engineers,” said Curcio. “The area above the log room is one of the primary landing spots for the aircraft and will be subjected to the most stress. We want to know exactly how much heat and sound is transmitted through the flight deck and into that space to see if there will be any issues for those crew members who regularly work in there.”

In addition to the ship itself being prepared for this momentous occasion, Wasp Aviation Boatswain’s Mates (AB) from Air Department will also attend training at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md.

“We will take a contingent of AB’s to Pax River with us to work with the real-life jets that will be flying out,” said Curcio. “So they can practice every evolution that could possibly happen on the flight deck, both planned and contingency, during flight test operations.

According to Curcio, only five F-35B test aircraft have been delivered to flight test operations at Pax River from the factory. These prototypes are the product of millions of man hours of work and represent the full ingenuity and industrial strength of the United States.

“Though they cost a lot, one cannot really put a price tag on the capability they will bring to the fleet,” said Curcio. “They are truly priceless and the goal is to have absolutely no surprises when it comes to operating them at sea. The Wasp Air Department team will be prepared to address any situation, routine or emergency.”

As Wasp and her crew prepare to help test one of the worlds most technologically advanced jet fighters, Curico realizes that this will be a tremendous team effort.

“With any new piece of equipment being tested, there will some road blocks,” said Curico. “Since the crew will be working together on this, Wasp will be writing the book on how to operate the Joint Strike Fighter at sea.”

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2011, 04:27
by spazsinbad
I'll keep 'an eye out' for more WASP F-35B testing news - meantime here is something 'axiomatic' for some of us:

America's Third Air Force: Future of the Marines By David Axe : June 17, 2011

http://defense.aol.com/2011/06/17/ameri ... e-marines/

"...When she arrived off the North African coast, Kearsarge functioned as an aircraft carrier, albeit a much smaller one than the Nimitz- and Enterprise-class supercarriers. Her four Harriers -- carrying camera pods, precision-guided bombs and air-to-air missiles -- flew some of the first aerial missions of the now two-month-old intervention. They comprised, in essence, a self-sufficient, miniature naval air force. Those capabilities might pale when compared to a super carrier's 50 fixed-wing warplanes, but they we