DT-III aboard USS America

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 19 Nov 2016, 02:23

Can we talk about this picture for a moment?

https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5632/3075 ... cee8_k.jpg

STO with external weapons, first time I've seen it.

optimist · by **optimist** » 19 Nov 2016, 02:48

I would guess the side wobble is desirable to absorb the energy before it's transferred to the frame. It would be good to see a side shot, to see how much fore/aft wobble it has

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 19 Nov 2016, 02:49

First time you have seen that particular foto OR blah blah any external store STO foto? but anyway previously on DT-III for F-35Bs FOTO: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=52450&p=355704&hilit=shipboard#p355704 WHAT IS INSIDE?

steve2267 · by **steve2267** » 19 Nov 2016, 03:46

Are those 500 lbers or 1000?

Do we know what, if any, internal load is?

zerion · by **zerion** » 19 Nov 2016, 05:11

steve2267 wrote:Are those 500 lbers or 1000?

Do we know what, if any, internal load is?

500s

steve2267 · by **steve2267** » 19 Nov 2016, 15:53

Thanks for the pointer on the external bombs being 500 lbers.

I was curious if anyone knew what the aircraft in that picture was carrying internally? Two AIM120s and two 1000 lbers? Or empty? I am guessing it is the former and kind of along the lines of a max STOVL takeoff from ship.

gabriele · by **gabriele** » 19 Nov 2016, 17:20

What does the "guitar" in the photo of the hovering do?

steve2267 · by **steve2267** » 19 Nov 2016, 17:46

gabriele wrote:What does the "guitar" in the photo of the hovering do?

Haha. I had to go look back on page 3 to see to what you were referring. I'd like to know too. I thought it was a Kentucky long rifle in a soft case... :mrgreen:

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 19 Nov 2016, 21:01

You will see many 'air guitars' - especially around the F-35C catapulting. These are noise measuring bits of equipment.

gabriele · by **gabriele** » 19 Nov 2016, 21:19

I suspected it might have to do with noise measurations, but since i couldn't quite recognize the thing, better to ask!
Thanks for the answer.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 20 Nov 2016, 19:48

Slideshow of appropriate photos: http://www.sldinfo.com/the-uss-america- ... way-ahead/

Lightning Carrier Proof of Concept Testing
20 Nov 2016 SLDinfo

"2016-11-20 Currently, onboard the USS America, the USN-USMC team is validating the proof of concept of the Lightning Carrier, i.e., a large deck amphibious ship with combined F-35B and Osprey assault capabilities. The capability to insert ground forces and to support them with a 360 degree combat system overhead will prove to be significant in a wide range of contingencies.

A pressing one is to change the attack calculus against ISIS to provide for a very flexible, and unpredictable strike capability against ISIS without operating from ground or land-based air bases. It is a capability which can allow a national decision maker to strike with unpredictability from the sea, to insert force, strike, and return to the sea base.

And you can mix and match the force structure you want with regard to ground or air power. It does not require forward operating bases or airbases placed in the area of interest providing ISIS with targets on the ground....

...Twelve F-35B Lightning II’s [I think they mean AIRCRAFT but I COULD BE WRONG!] embarked on USS America (LHA 6) November 19, 2016. The demonstration is the first shipboard Marine Corps F-35B integration demonstration alongside other Marine Corps Air Combat Element assets...."

PHOTO: http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploa ... 60x640.jpg (117Kb)

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/lightning-carrie ... t-testing/

quicksilver · by **quicksilver** » 20 Nov 2016, 20:10

Video here --

https://www.dvidshub.net/video/493977/l ... onstration

steve2267 · by **steve2267** » 20 Nov 2016, 20:24

Once the kinks have been worked out of EMALS, would there be any advantage for a Lightning Carrier along the lines of the America-class, to be able to EMALS launch a future version of the Bee but recover them with VL?

I'm thinking reduced deck space requirements for launch, heavier launch weights (i.e. more gas / bombs for the Bee), possibly higher launch tempo (if you could have a pair of EMALS catapults forward).

I thought the Brits had looked at EMALS for the Elizabeth-class, but don't know why they backed off.

While I don't think the Bee can be catapulted in it's present form, esp. off a steam catapult, I was thinking this might be doable with minimal modifications to a Bee given the 30% lower loads on an aircraft compared to steam catapults.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 20 Nov 2016, 20:28

Thank 'QS' I keep forgetting to look there. Attached is low qual video from URL (2nd Video reminds me of the song from THE TROGGS 'Wild Thing').

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 20 Nov 2016, 21:39

steve2267 wrote:Once the kinks have been worked out of EMALS, would there be any advantage for a Lightning Carrier along the lines of the America-class, to be able to EMALS launch a future version of the Bee but recover them with VL?

I'm thinking reduced deck space requirements for launch, heavier launch weights (i.e. more gas / bombs for the Bee), possibly higher launch tempo (if you could have a pair of EMALS catapults forward).

I thought the Brits had looked at EMALS for the Elizabeth-class, but don't know why they backed off.

While I don't think the Bee can be catapulted in it's present form, esp. off a steam catapult, I was thinking this might be doable with minimal modifications to a Bee given the 30% lower loads on an aircraft compared to steam catapults.

'steve2267' I would have to search back to approx. my first posts on this forum to find the discussion about this non-starting "catapult the F-35B" idea. We do not know under what circumstances - temp. & WOD at what all up weight a USMC F-35B can STO from a flat deck at what distance. However it does comply with the KPP Key Performance Parameter set by the program which is now 'full internal load at 600 feet' (used to be 550 feet but now more rounded out to 600).

Elsewhere we know from several quotes that the RN/RAF F-35B will be able to STO from approx. 850-900 feet give or take with what they call a full combat load which is described with external weapons - using the ski jump of course.

A very long thread about WHY the UK first required F-35Bs then did a sudden flop to the F-35C then quickly realised their error (a new UK guvmnt fckup) and flipped back to the F-35B for their CVFs is here: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969 UK MOD IN A MUDDLE

Methinks you misunderestimate the airframe strengthening and modifications required for an F-35B to be EMALSed or STEAMflung. And it is not necessary. You have forgotten that when the F-35B returns for a VL that is another KPP which requires full internal weapon load plus adequate fuel for a missed approach (in bad weather). Then an SRVL looms which cannot be done on an LHA & may never be carried out on a CVF - still early days on that but prospects look good for now.

:devil:

May I suggest another PDF or 3? :doh:

You will find them on previous mentioned websites under 'ski jump' etc. :shock:

NEEDless to say there have been many discussions about WHY the USMC should have ski jumped also but THEY WON'T.