UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 05 Dec 2018, 04:41

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 05 Dec 2018, 07:09

Does anybody know the second USN F-35C Squadron planned to stand up after VFA-147 "Argonauts"???

steve2267 · by **steve2267** » 05 Dec 2018, 16:22

OMG... look at those really dark patches on the flat part of the ship... the F-35 is already burning holes in her! :doh:

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 05 Dec 2018, 17:21

QE is a big ship!

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 06 Dec 2018, 02:18

steve2267 wrote:OMG... look at those really dark patches on the flat part of the ship... the F-35 is already burning holes in her!

Please, don't tell me your serious???

steve2267 · by **steve2267** » 06 Dec 2018, 03:06

Corsair1963 wrote:

Please, don't tell me your serious???

What, my forehead slapping emoticon wasn’t enough sarcasm for you?

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 07 Dec 2018, 00:42

HMS Queen Elizabeth, F-35B ammo handling, sortie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8p1gUL6Yas

popcorn · by **popcorn** » 07 Dec 2018, 01:22

AFAIK those munitions elevators are one of the innovations the USN adopted from the Brits for the Ford-class CVNs. Like EMALS and AAG, the Navy has to contend with the inevitable growing pains.

https://news.usni.org/2018/11/28/navy-t ... ll-pending

marauder2048 · by **marauder2048** » 07 Dec 2018, 10:54

popcorn wrote:AFAIK those munitions elevators are one of the innovations the USN adopted from the Brits for the Ford-class CVNs.

Pretty sure those elevators are conventional winch and wire rope and that the hatches are hydraulic.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 07 Dec 2018, 11:31

I'll bite but this post is very tangential in outer orbit for the CVF however electromagnetism is our friend and should be elsewhere such as in the 'JPALS & EMALS' thread at least.

"...[Ford Class CVN] Weapons Elevator: Elevators use moving electromagnetic fields instead of cabling, which allows elevator shaft to use horizontal doors to close of magazines.... http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... tions.html

Graphic from PDF: https://www.thefordclass.com/doc/Ford-Infographic(FULL).pdf (7Mb)

popcorn · by **popcorn** » 07 Dec 2018, 12:47

It appears the weapons elevators are a Yankee design. I stand corrected.

http://www.wvxu.org/post/navys-next-gen ... i#stream/0

Cincinnati-based Federal Equipment Company is designing a new kind of elevator for the U.S. Navy using magnets. The military is now testing it on its next aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford.

For safety and efficiency reasons, the Navy doesn't want cables on its weapons elevators, which carry bombs quickly to the flight deck to be loaded onto planes. Federal Equipment Company President Doug Ridenour says its Advanced Weapons Elevator is 150 percent faster than legacy elevators and has 240 percent more capacity.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 07 Dec 2018, 13:20

PBS Nova - Elevator of tomorrow? Federal Equipment Company https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNQAJuEvbAQ

steve2267 · by **steve2267** » 07 Dec 2018, 17:46

I feel so much lighter now... like a weight has been lifted off my shoulders. That video, thank you Spaz, just elevated my day...

marsavian · by **marsavian** » 09 Dec 2018, 20:42

Alarmist article and it's hard to know how much is actually new news rather than a general mash of old news. Also incorrect assertion that the coating is completely responsible for the LO which puts a load of shade on the rest of the article. They claim in the article that the coating needs restoring after each flight which again is hard to believe. FWIW .....

"Hi-tech coating which makes RAF's new £100million F-35 fighter jets 'invisible' to enemy radar is wearing off more quickly than expected."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ected.html

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 09 Dec 2018, 21:22

UK 'Daily Mail' is oft referred as 'DAILY FAIL' - I wonder why. However sub-headline says:

" • RAF sources say scratches are delaying jets getting put into operational service
- • Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer, have acknowledged defects in the coating..."

THEN "...'On the other hand, we inadvertently scratch the coating system, and we have to repaint it. Or when the mechanics spray the airplane [with LO coating], not all of it is robotically sprayed. There's some overspray, and they have to go clean that,' he [Jeff Babione] said. An RAF source told The Express: This situation obviously has to be rectified before the plane enters operational service.' The source also told the paper that defence secretary Gavin Williamson and RAF Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen have always known about the issue....

...A company spokesman for Lockheed Martin told The Express that the coating is proving to be a significant success because of its practical strong points of speed and low cost. Despite this, Air Commodore Andrew Lambert, a former director of defence studies said: 'Lockheed Martin just say it's better now, but it takes just one scratch to give the fighter jet the same radar profile as a 747, then you may as well not be bothering.'"

The 'LO paint' may be scratched - that needs fixing however the underlying 'baked in stealth' can take some 'damage' before becoming a problem. Lots of quotes in this forum about that plus the smoothing of surface by airflow over many flights 'improves' the stealth so I'm guessing that applies to the paint finish as well. The last sentence is complete B/S probably made by the old guy being out of any knowledge loop about the F-35 (like 'Sharkey' Ward). Storm in a Teacup.