F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

[madrat]

It seems like technology is getting to the point where the computers can land the airplanes on a pitching deck within mere centimeters. They can make robotic arms balance balls on the point of a cone. I cannot imagine they couldn't solve the hot day landing issues with a shipboard power source to soften landings. Directed puffs of air to aid the lift of the jet down to the carrier deck.

[count_to_10]

Or maybe on those rare days they will just reduce it's load or do a rolling landing, and wait for the vertical thrust to be improved.

[spazsinbad]

Britain likes to whine about 'East of Suez' - like they are ever going to be there? Not likely. The SRVL will only be required seldom given the KPP requirements for VLBB are already known to be OK on a USMC W/X of:

Scorecard: A Case study of the Joint Strike Fighter Program by Geoffrey P. Bowman, LCDR, USN — April 2008

"The USMC has added STOVL performance as a service specific key performance parameter. The requirement is listed as follows: With two 1000# JDAMs and two internal AIM-120s, full expendables, execute a 550 [now 600] foot (450 UK STOVL) STO from LHA, LHD, and aircraft carriers (sea level, tropical day, 10 kts operational WOD) & with a combat radius of 450 nm (STOVL profile). Also must perform STOVL vertical landing with two 1000# JDAMs and two internal AIM-120s, full expendables, and fuel to fly the STOVL Recovery profile = ["...2,200 lbs of fuel for an approach, vertical landing, and reserve (Killea) see below]."

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-14791.html (0.3Mb)
_______________

The STOVL Variant of Joint Strike Fighter: Are its’ Tactical Compromises Warranted? Written by: Captain G.M. Beisbier, 01 March 2002

“...STOVL JSF DESIGN REQUIREMENTS [pages 5-6]
The design requirements for the STOVL JSF mandated a Vertical Lift Bring Back (VLBB) capability of 5,000lbs of fuel and ordnance on a tropical day. The STOVL JSF’s empty gross weight is 29,735 lbs, and it is equipped with a lift fan design capable of producing 39,800 lbs of vertical lift at sea level on a tropical day. An ability to produce 39,800lbs of thrust minus 29,735 lbs gross weight and 3,000 lbs of thrust to safely maneuver the aircraft equals 7,065 lbs of VLBB. As a result the STOVL JSF thirty percent more VLBB then the requirements document mandated (Killea). This means in a worst case, sea-based scenario the STOVL JSF is more than capable of conducting a vertical landing with 4,000 lbs, vise 2,000 lbs, ordnance, plus two 325-lb radar missiles, and 2,200 lbs of fuel for an approach, vertical landing, and reserve (Killea)....”

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD ... tTRDoc.pdf (54Kb)
_________________________

Graphic from: Strike Fighter – From a Harrier Skeptic Captain A.R. Behnke, Mar 2002

http://dodreports.com/pdf/ada520417.pdf (129Kb)

[popcorn]

SMSgt Mac weighs in on the SRVL, the Harrier and F-35B..with the latter offering a significant advantage over it's predecessor.

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/

[spazsinbad]

For sure - the F-35 and F-35B detractors seem to have no perspective on what the aircraft is able to do. [For example VLBB the KPP loads specified a zillion times on this forum.] I think Col. Tomassetti summed up the situation some time ago with a neat turn of phrase - I'll have to find it. The UK situation is about their KUR (?) requirements. I think I found that somewhere on the 'BEEDALL' CVF website but as I recall the KUR on this very point about 'East of Sewers' hot conditions was opaque. I'll follow that up again. Following the twists and turns of CVF development and what aircraft was selected over a long period of time is not for the faint hearted and I have not followed this shemozzle from the beginning and only playing catchup at moment.

Here is a TROPICAL/HOT temperature reminder from 'Raptor_claw': http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... cal#222686

"There are four specific "non-standard" atmospheric models that are defined in MIL-STD-210A. They each have their own temperature vs altitude profiles, but at sea-level:

(US, 1962)
Standard : 59 deg F
"Cold" : -60.0 def F
"Polar" : -15.7 deg F
"Tropical": 89.8 deg F
"Hot" : 103.0 deg F

TWO PDF made from: http://www.pdas.com/milstd210.html attached

The US Defense Department Non-Standard Atmospheres
______________________________

"...Col. Tomassetti:...I think we finally built the STOVL aircraft that we’ve been trying to build for about six decades.

We have an airplane that is comparable to its conventional counterpart that has all of the capabilities that its conventional counterpart has. It doesn’t really sacrifice much in the way of significant capabilities in order to retain its STOVL capability.

And for that STOVL capability, we have an airplane that’s easy to fly, which means we won’t spend a lot of time having to teach people how to fly STOVL. And we won’t spend a lot of time practicing STOVL when we’re out there.

We will spend the majority of our time with this airplane focusing on tactics and missions...."

http://www.sldinfo.com/an-update-on-the ... eglin-afb/
___________________

"...Col. Tomassetti: It is ultimately disappointing constantly to see in the news all of the things that the F-35B hasn't been able to achieve yet or can't do and people completely missing what we've already achieved.

The fact is that we have a STOVL airplane that every pilot who has flown it says that it's easy to fly. In 60 years of trying to build jet airplanes and do this, we've never eve been there before. We've never had a STOVL airplane that was as full spectrum capable as its' conventional counterparts. We've never done that before in 60 years of trying.

It's an amazing engineering achievement; [what] we've already accomplished is completely being missed by some observer."

http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=21300

[spazsinbad]

UK KURs not much help - I'll keep digging....

Future Aircraft Carrier (CVF) Queen Elizabeth Class Part 4

"Key User Requirements

Nine top-level Key User Requirements (KURs) for CVF have been laid out, which define the capabilities required. They are as follows:

- KUR 1, Interoperability: CVF shall be able to contribute to joint/combined operations;

- KUR 2, Integration: CVF shall be able to integrate with the joint battlespace to the extent required to support air group operations, command, control, communications, computers and intelligence (C4I) functions and survivability;

- KUR 3, Availability: CVF shall be able to provide one operational and available platform at all times;

- KUR 4, Deployability: CVF shall be able to deploy for operations worldwide;

- KUR 5, Sustainability: CVF shall be able to sustain operations;

- KUR 6, Aircraft operation: CVF shall be able to deploy offensive air power to the sortie-generation profile specified without host-nation support;

- KUR 7, Survivability: CVF shall be able to achieve a high probability of survival;

- KUR 8, Flexibility: CVF shall be able to operate the largest possible range of aircraft; and

- KUR 9, Versatility: CVF shall be able to operate in the widest possible range of roles.


Each of these is supported in more detail by a series of so-called user requirements documents (URDs), and there are typically 10 of these per KUR.

A solution is developed which meets each of these URDs but, almost invariably, the result is too expensive or too difficult to achieve. It is the responsibility of the IPT, in conjunction with the customer and the supply chain, to examine these capability requirements and seek a solution that would measure trade-offs, and meets the available budget. This is necessarily an iterative and lengthy process, requiring both analysis and synthesis of a complex set of variables. A few examples of the cost - capability trade-off's faced have entered the pubic domain:

KUR 1, Inter-operability: This capability is essentially the degree to which information can be generated, gathered, supplied, and distributed through a variety of national and multinational systems. Such a capability may require an enhanced communication fit, radars, antennae, as well as complex distribution systems and the ability to integrate complex messages that the embarked staff can comprehend and issue the necessary commands. The capabilities for trading are very wide including, for example, intensive manpower that might be required to operate and maintain the systems.

KUR 3, Availability: The CVF shall provide one platform at high readiness for its principal roles at all times. This one almost speaks for itself – but the trade-off considerations include the life of the vessel, on-shore maintenance requirements, hit reliability, system redundancy and readiness. It also, of course, drove the need for two ships. The carriers have an availability which is very similar to that of cruise ships – of about 300 days per year.

KUR 6, Aircraft operations: The physical size of the air wing, the volume of the hangar and the sortie generation rate – that is, the total number of aircraft flights per day – are major influences on the capability. Perhaps less well understood are the demands of high sortie generation rates on weapon handling and spaces for weapon preparation, prior to their delivery to the aircraft. Considerable modelling has been undertaken to optimise the ability to handle a large number of aircraft on the flight deck and in the hangar, and deliver weapons to them. Such modelling has inputs, for example, on the number and size of the aircraft lifts; the arming and refuelling positions, as well as related matters of provision of aircraft maintenance spaces, reading rooms, mission planning and so on. The trade space is extensive.

KUR 8: Flexibility: This capability is virtually guaranteed with a ship of this size, with its flexibility to be reconfigured to operate different aircraft and to operate, for example, a landing platform helicopter role, similar to HMS Ocean, for humanitarian support. Consideration was also given to fitting catapults and arresters, demanding space and power throughout the ship, to fit future systems, representing a huge area of potential trade-off...."

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf1-04.htm

[spazsinbad]

For our SRVL Horde/Hoard

F-35 Flight Test Update 10 By Eric Hehs Posted 11 May 2013 [Eric Hehs is the editor of Code One.]

"...23 March 2013: BAE test pilot Peter Wilson performed the first slow landing in an F-35B with external stores. The flight— BF-1 loaded with a centerline gun pod and six wing pylons, including two pylons loaded with AIM-9X missiles —occurred at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland...."

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=116

BIG PHOTO: (just before touchdown?) Photo by Andy Wolfe (cropped version attached)

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/m ... 7_8310.jpg

[spazsinbad]

USN / USMC testing secret SuckDownSuckUp Lifting Phenomena At Sea (SDSULPAS): http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iPGz-F2sdoE/U ... 0569_n.jpg

[count_to_10]

When weather attacks.

[f-22lm]

Sources say that test pilots at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland, performed the first Lockheed Martin F-35B Joint Strike Fighter vertical take-off on 10 May.

The US Marine Corps' short take-off and vertical landing variant had a requirement to perform vertical take-offs right from the outset of the JSF programme. However, the capability is not emphasised because the F-35B would not be able to carry a tactically significant payload in that configuration.

Operationally, the USMC envisions its F-35Bs performing short rolling take-offs carrying a full load of ordnance and fuel, and then performing a vertical landing once the aircraft returns to the amphibious assault ship or expeditionary airfield.

The concept of operations is similar to that currently flown by the USMC's Boeing AV-8B Harrier II squadrons. Although the Harrier is often touted as a vertical take-off and landing machine, it flies a similar short take-off and vertical landing profile for the overwhelming majority of its missions.

The original X-35B prototype demonstrated the ability to take off vertically in 2001.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ff-385757/

[XanderCrews]

SMSgt Mac weighs in on the SRVL, the Harrier and F-35B..with the latter offering a significant advantage over it's predecessor.

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/

Thank god for SMSGT Mac.

I was all for the JSF before I realized that it had to obey the same laws as all the other vertical landing aircraft before it.

I am seriously waiting for the "If the JSF slows to a certain speed the airflow over the wings will cease and it will fall from the sky" story. Seriously, just wait-- it will happen. The "Thermite decks" story convinced me anything is possible.

and BTW, as giant (and I try not to be this crass here) reminder to the F-35B critics, I say F**K you. You want to talk about "hot conditions?" Yuma, Arizona in the Summer. Don't tell me the F-35B "can't land" in hot conditions as you spin your tales.

http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimat ... h/USAZ0275

[spazsinbad]

'ohnametolongtoremember' Nice Yuma temp chart. 'East of Sewers' (off the edge of the planet) the stench of Bullshite is overpowering. I was reading the SharkeyBlog about SRVL in stormy weather and how hot temps/nil wind equated with those conditions at sea. OK so low pressure may be common but fantasy land weather is something to experience.

And to add to the HeatedMisery.... Elevation is 213 feet MSL for YUMAns

[XanderCrews]

'ohnametolongtoremember' Nice Yuma temp chart. 'East of Sewers' (off the edge of the planet) the stench of Bullshite is overpowering. I was reading the SharkeyBlog about SRVL in stormy weather and how hot temps/nil wind equated with those conditions at sea. OK so low pressure may be common but fantasy land weather is something to experience.

The first time I visited yuma it was a 114 F afternoon, in August. Its one of those places where "hot" just doesn't do it justice.

[spazsinbad]

I guess it is dry (not humid) heat though? Over last summer here in Sydney and West of it (less humid) we had our highest ever recorded temp of just over 43 degrees C [109.4+ F] (where I am inland). Thankfully after one or two days of that the rain came along (to reduce risk of bush fires).

Have just looked it up - record (for Sydney) recorded more or less in the CBD:

Sydney (Observatory Hill) 45.8 [C = 114.5 F] on 18 Jan 2013: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/s ... mary.shtml

[spazsinbad]

Have asked 'ENGINES' at pPrune for any info he is able to send to me as per the last para in the last quote below.... 'LO' is 'Low Observable' (reputed to be a well known journalist biased against the F-35 and USMC in particular). 'Engines' is a very knowledgable ex-RN individual whilst 'John Farley' is the UK Harrier Test person of World Renown. (Author of the 'incepts' articles if youse care to search this forum on 'incepts' or 'inceptors'.)

Overall page URL for these messages: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... t-138.html

'Engines': "LO, not sure I quite understand your reference to a 3000 foot runway and the special concrete for the F-35B. The aircraft can operate off a 1,500 foot runway with the specified load for that mission, and the special concrete is for a specific VTOL training pad. There are a number of techniques that can significantly reduce the thermal footprint of the B, including a creeping landing. (JF may be able to help here - I think that this was a technique used on Mexepads in the 60s). However, happy to be corrected. And the F-35B's replacing the AV-8Bs first, as far as I understand the programme."

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... ost7882427
______________________

'John Farley': "LO

I know you realise this but others may not.

There are two basic types of landing:
1 where you can hover
2 where you are too heavy to hover

With 1 you may not necessarily choose to land vertically. If you can hover but you choose to move forward for the touchdown then you are doing a rolling vertical landing. An example would be when you do not wish to make the surface hot. We must always remember that heating effects depend on both temperature and residence time. The pilot has no control over the temp element but he has total control over the residence time. Even walking pace forwards makes the residence time negligible. (I am not talking about blast effects just temp ones). Of course residence time can be high if people insist on landing on a specific spot to show how good they are or because (say) the deck is painted that way. Another reason for having forward speed is if the surface is loose and will blow about. In this case you need to move forward sufficiently fast that the bow wave of debris (be it stones, earth, water, snow or sand) stays just behind the intake. With the Harrier family this required 50 kt ground speed in still air. Clearly a good head wind helps to reduce this speed. I don’t know what it is for the B but it will be determined by the fan efflux since we already know that the fan efflux prevents the hot stuff from spreading forward.

With 2 you are doing what is properly called a slow landing. With the Harrier I wing you needed some 90kt before you carried much extra weight in. With the Harrier II wing 50kt – 60kt really helped.

The B produces real lift at low speeds hence the business of "shipboard rolling vertical landing". Which if you strip the politics out of it is of course no such thing - it is just a very slow slow landing."

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... ost7882571
_______________________________

'Engines': "...LO, again I'd like to suggest that we may both be right. The F-35 has a spec sortie to be able to deploy to a 1500 foot bare strip, shut down and wait orders to launch for a sortie, do the job and then recover to the ship. You might think that's a rubbish scenario - hey, we can all have opinions, that's a good thing. But the fact is that you need just 1500 feet to 'operate' an F-35B in that particular scenario. More if you use another one.

I'm glad you're interested in the improvised-base ops demos - so am I. One thing to note, that builds on JF's excellent post. This aircraft has a level of stability and control in the hover and transition that is a whole generation on from the Harrier. There are a variety of potential landing and takeoff modes that the test team are working through, with the able assistance of some excellent Brit TPs. I'm sure that the USMC will find ways to exploit them.

On the prepared surfaces stuff - I had a great time managing a whole set of surface erosion trials at Warton. These were far beyond anything ever attempted for Harrier, and delivered a ton of data to the programme. happy to give more info over PMs if anyone's interested.

Best Regards as ever to those fine STOVL folk

Engines"

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... ost7882607