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

[spazsinbad]

Posted in UNIT F-35 subsection earlier but repeated to illustrate a LAND SRVL. viewtopic.php?f=59&t=45896&p=381065&hilit=yIu1AMRgwU4#p381065

[SpudmanWP]

Why did they make it slo-mo in the end?

[spazsinbad]

You'd have to ask the RAF - here is what it is ALL ABOUT (one day soon) SRVL aboard CVF but First the WARton SIM UK.

[steve2267]

Spaz, as an aside, does the RAN have any plans to get back into the carrier game? 2-3 light carriers (heck, even one) with 10-20 Lightnings would be a formidable presence in your parts. I say "light" as in less tonnage should equate to less expensive, maybe even affordable.

[spazsinbad]

At 0445 my time that is a question long answered in several long threads in this F-35 sub forum - one very long but long ago now.... Short answer: NO. Last I looked Australia had a population of some 24 million people and not enough money for any kind of extra 'aircraft carrier' on top of the two fairly recent acquisitions of TWO LHDs, with no plans for F-35Bs on their ski jumps. Long ago now a former Chief of Navy hothead expressed interest in a third LHD with F-35Bs - but no go.

Probably - if situation up north gets increasingly worrisome for Australia - a third LHD may be considered or even a similar 'aircraft carrier' for F-35Bs (I can't see a requirement for a conventional aircraft carrier with F-35Cs) but that will be in the future far. An interim step to above COULD BE purchasing the last TRANCHE of F-35s (not yet decided but in a few years) to be Bs. However as I have posted many times now that idea won't fly unless those same F-35Bs have a role in the RAAF most times ashore with the occasional foray embarked on an LHD as required - maybe never - but only on exercise. Then I would have to again repeat why / how these embarked F-35Bs would go ashore as soon as to free up LHD.

The ADF/RAN is still coming to grips with the two LHDs and all the new possibilities - these LHDs are not fully operational.

However let us not pollute this thread with nonsense about an RAN aircraft carrier - this thread is solely about TITLE!

I'll look for links to previous endless but now dead discussions about this issue but PLEASE - no more comments except on the links provided. This thread is about: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

PLEASE JUMP IN ON THIS THREAD (or there are others yet to be found) to continue or ask the question again for a more complete answer which necessarily will entail links to this same and other threads about 'Oz F-35B on Oz LHDs'.

Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=12631&p=361454#p361454

Maybe useful? F-35B/C and the Ski-Jump?: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=14082&p=341098#p341098

Question here also: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043&p=380879#p380879

A SPECIFIC PAGE - ONE OF MANY SUCH: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=12631&p=281666&hilit=Schreer#p281666

So please ask this question - again - on an appropriate thread and please no responses here because - as explained above.

GO HERE TO FIND OUT THE ANSWER: Does the RAN have any plans to get back in the carrier game?

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=53630

[spazsinbad]

Why did they make it slo-mo in the end?

These comments by an UK/RN F-35B authority (from another forum altogether) were sent to me by e-mail:

1. Note the rock steady attitude of the aircraft as the various powered lift doors open up - and the lack of big control surface deflections required to achieve that. Good flight control laws there - and they're developed by Brits.

2. Good landing, with a fair amount of clearance between the aft nozzle and the deck - that was a point of concern early on in the development of the idea. Appears light on the nose wheel for the first few seconds after touch down.

3. Note that the aircraft doing this work is a UK aircraft, not one of the SDD development fleet - shows that they are well on down the flight test curve, and don't need the heavily instrumented test fleet to support this activity now. Expect to see landings with lots of external stores soon.

4. Don't forget that the USMC have a very definite SRVL requirement of their own for deployment to short land strips - and these are required at a fairly heavy weight of fuel and bombs....

[SpudmanWP]

Let me clarify. "Slo-mo" was referring to the speed of the video and not the approach speed.

I was wondering why they altered the playback speed of the landing instead of playing it in real time.

[spazsinbad]

I get that but it offered another opinion on the video itself - perhaps not answering your specific unanswerable question. How do we know what others do if those others do not explain? I am flummoxed. However changing [video] speed to slow for the actual landing allows the observation made by the commenter elsewhere - perhaps this was the reason? Dunno.

[neptune]

Let me clarify. "Slo-mo" was referring to the speed of the video and not the approach speed.

I was wondering why they altered the playback speed of the landing instead of playing it in real time.

sarc?? [ Gee, I don't know about that! There are many references where the 60kt. approach air speed is offset by the 30kt. ship/ deck speed! 30kts. is rather 'Slo-mo" after all!] sarc??

[steve2267]

Neptune, are you suggesting that the video playback speed was NOT in slow-motion?

I would have to disagree there. The movements of the aft horizontal stabilators, especially just prior to touchdown, appear to be significantly slower than their motion in other videos (e.g. Paris Air Show 2017).

[optimist]

For those that care, the wing nav light timing may give a clue to the timing of video.

[madrat]

If you plan to investigate the properties of something using video it only makes sense to use more frames per second. Playback would appear like slow motion when you play it back at 29.97 fps.

[steve2267]

If you plan to investigate the properties of something using video it only makes sense to use more frames per second. Playback would appear like slow motion when you play it back at 29.97 fps.

Absolutely, but wasn't this video released for public consumption? Typically a video will be played at full (normal) speed first, then perhaps a section or two or three may be repeated at slow motion. Here the entire landing event does not appear in normal (video) speed.

[spazsinbad]

[SpudmanWP]

For those that care, the wing nav light timing may give a clue to the timing of video.

Nice catch