UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

[spazsinbad]

Even an RAF spokesman got the SHORTs in SRVL wrong in an earlier post here: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=230592&hilit=SRVL#p230592

Anyhoo CVF at Dawn Mid June 2014: https://www.facebook.com/queenelizabeth ... =1&theater
OR
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/ ... 8334_n.jpg

[spazsinbad]

HMS Queen Elizabeth: First look at UK's new aircraft carrier VIDEO
02 July 2014 BBC

"On Friday the Queen will officially name the Royal Navy's new aircraft carrier.

HMS Queen Elizabeth is the largest warship ever built in the UK.

Ten thousand workers at six different shipyards have been involved in her construction.

The BBC's Defence Correspondent Jonathan Beale took a look around the carrier at Rosyth ahead of the ceremony."

Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-28125835
_____________________________

Royal Navy crew trains on aircraft carrier simulator VIDEO
29 November 2012 BBC

"Four years before the Royal Navy's new aircraft carriers arrive in Portsmouth, sailors are being trained to operate the ships.

A simulator and operations room has been created at HMS Collingwood in Fareham to train crew to steer the 65,000 tonne HMS Queen Elizabeth and test the computer equipment that will be on board.

Part of the ship has also been recreated at BAE Systems on the Isle of Wight to test the radar and radio systems."

Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-20546202

[spazsinbad]

The sky’s the limit for fighter pilot David
02 Jul 2014 DAVID NOWELL

"...At the Warton site there is a massive full-wall computer mock-up of one of the new Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers and an F-35 simulator. It’s the only set-up of its kind in the world - and I was invited to try it out....

...So the RAF and BAE Systems have set up the simulator at Warton so pilots know exactly how the F-35 will perform, and how it will land on the new carriers.

The F-35 can carry out a conventional landing [? I guess he has SRVL in mind here] or a vertical landing - but no-one has ever tried it for real on the new Queen Elizabeth carriers. The man tasked with finding out the best way to do it is test pilot Lieutenant Commander Barry Issitt. The Royal Navy pilot’s job is to draw up best practice and advise on any snags.

The set-up is stunning. Along a massive wall is a curved screen which shows the deck of a Queen Elizabeth carrier. The detail is stunning - and the operators can simulate night, day, bad weather, anything realistically. In the adjoining room is the F-35 simulator in front of a similar but smaller curved screen. In the distance is the aircraft carrier - and that’s what you are aiming for.

The F-35s are expected to queue up and land vertically in groups of four. Looks relatively easy in perfect weather - but try doing it in a major storm, or under enemy fire [?].

Barry’s job is to perfect all scenarios - after all, the lives of the pilots and 1,000 crew on the largest Royal Navy aircraft carriers ever built are at stake.

“There are no two-seater aircraft, so every pilot who is trying this will be experiencing flying it for the frst time,” says Barry. “It is important to make sure that every aspect is rigorously tested.”

The main room features the scene from the carrier’s perspective. The carrier’s air traffic controller has to monitor the landing of each plane - and has the power to order them to abort if anything goes wrong.

BAE Systems’ David Atkinson, who is leading aircraft to ship integration on the F-35 programme, said: “This system is running the same software as the aircraft itself, so it is just about as authentic as it can be.

“The simulator is helping to form policy and best practice for the future.”...

...The controls are very intuitive - the throttle drops into positions like a car’s gear lever. The joystick you could move with two fingers if necessary, without any wild movements.

We’re off, trying to keep speed level and height constant. Barry gives me the controls and we immediately tilt to the right like the amateur that I am.

Moving the joystick to the left, we level off and the fighter hurtles towards the carrier. Barry tells me to nudge the joystick forward, losing height.

The Throttle is gradually eased off. The carrier’s lights are blinking in the distance.

This feels like the best computer game you have every played. It’s a virtual reality experience, and after a while you realise that the plane is so smart it can practically fly itself.

“Don’t ditch in the sea” is the thought going round in my mind. “Hang on, it isn’t real” says another voice. But it feels like it.

Screeching alongside the carrier far too fast, we cut the speed. Amazingly the plan hovers. It doesn’t go right, left or back. It just stays there.

At 100 feet above the sea I am given a landing bay to aim for. Nudging the joystick right, the plane moves sideways like it is on rails, not losing an inch of height.

It is so intuitive it practically parks itself (unlike my battered Peugeot, which has the battle scars to prove it. But that’s a different story).

Over the carrier’s deck, I am told to drop. Another nudge on the joystick and the plane is down with a realistic bump. And that’s it - probably the most advanced fighter plane in the world is down without incident...."

PHOTO: http://www.lep.co.uk/webimage/1.6705785 ... 802466.jpg

Source: http://www.lep.co.uk/news/business/the- ... -1-6705787

[spazsinbad]

Carrier-Strike Capability Returning To U.K.
02 Jul 2014 Tony Osborne | Aviation Week & Space Technology

"Despite delays, U.K. begins countdown toward the return of carrier strike capability....

...Although one of the aims is to enable the U.K. to project power independently, the ships have been designed to work in coalition operations as well.

Some of the biggest changes to the ship emerged out of the Strategic Defense and Security Review (SDSR) in 2010. Although the carriers originally were designed to be able to perform 72 missions a day with 36 aircraft, the SDSR officially limited the standard carrier air wing to just 12 aircraft.

But senior officers are already brainstorming about how to accommodate more aircraft—potentially eyeing a surge force of up to 24 F-35s; joint air maneuver packages of up to 30-40 helicopters also are being examined. A littoral maneuver package is envisioned as well, potentially using Royal Air Force Chinooks, upgraded Merlin Mk.4s, Army Apache attack helicopters and the Wildcat helicopter. The U.K. plans to retain its current helicopter carrier, HMS Ocean, in service until at least 2018, but it is likely the new carriers will eventually take on that role.

The Defense Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) is studying whether the ship can operate safely with more than the six landing spots currently planned. With an additional four landing spots painted onto the deck, the ship will potentially be able to lift a company-sized unit of troops—250 soldiers—in a single group lift using medium helicopters.

A standard air wing is likely to comprise 12 F-35Bs and 14 AgustaWestland EH101 Merlin Mk.2s. The large number of Merlins is predicated on a need for a mix of aircraft for the anti-submarine warfare (ASW) mission and for the airborne early warning (AEW) role, when the Merlins are fitted with the selected Crowsnest AEW system slated to enter service in 2018. Commanders are exploring a mix of nine aircraft for ASW duties, and five for the Crowsnest mission, although due to the modular nature of the systems, more aircraft could be configured for certain missions.

The ship’s vast hangar, at 180 meters (590 ft.) long and 9 meters high, is capable of handling a wide range of aircraft, including the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor and the CH-47 Chinook.

There is an area nearly in the center of the hangar deck where the ceiling has been heightened to provide engineers the height clearances they need to remove the aft rotor pylon of the Chinook for maintenance. In addition, two deck lifts—28 meters long and 15 meters wide—are each capable of lifting a single Chinook with its blades attached, or two F-35Bs, from the hangar to the flight deck in 1 min.

Other studies underway are weighing the potential need for some sort of carrier-onboard delivery capability. One such program is Maritime Intra-Theater Lift, a concept study looking at how the navy could move passengers, mail and cargo between land and the carrier and to other ships within the task group. A mix of ship’s boats and aviation platforms is being considered.

Like the U.S., the U.K. also needs to find a way of potentially lifting the power-section of the F-35’s F135 engine onto the ship. Currently the only platform that can do this, is a CH-47 carrying the engine as an under-slung load. However, officials have said that the larger size of the ship means more spares can be carried, including engines.

The Royal Navy has planned a generic operating cycle for the ship, with the carrier at sea for 180-210 days per year with 20 weeks for leave and ship maintenance. Every second year, a period of what the ministry calls “high intensity” ship training and a similar level of training with F-35s is envisioned.

The U.K. has shaped the carriers around the F-35—which the U.K. sees being in service until around 2040. Senior officials say the U.K. has been fortunate be developing the ship and the aircraft at the same time. As a result, U.K. industry has been able to conduct significant work to ensure it can gain the most out of the aircraft and its interactions with the carrier ski jump and the Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing method. The latter was developed to increase the aircraft’s ability to return with its weapons payload, rather than jettisoning them into the sea.

U.K. engineers have been closely scrutinizing the F-35B trials onboard the USS Wasp in the U.S., studying data on heat generation and dissipation to ensure that the Queen Elizabeth’s flight deck is not damaged by high-temperature jet efflux. According to the defense ministry, specific operating spots will be established on the deck to allow vertical landings on a routine basis, but in an emergency the whole flight deck can support vertical landings. The deck itself will be prepared with a thermal metal spray coating, as will the catwalks around the deck’s edge to withstand the thermal effects of the aircraft while hovering into a vertical landing.

Industry teams are studying the viability of noise-canceling headsets to cut down on the impact of the high noise levels for crews working on the flight deck.

The move to reverse its decision to buy F-35Bs—in favor of F-35Cs, and finally back to the first choice of F-35Bs—remains one of the most controversial aspects of the ship’s development, wasting tens of millions of pounds and briefly souring relations between the U.K. defense ministry and the U.S. Marine Corps...."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/farnborough-201 ... turning-uk

[spazsinbad]

From the July 2010 edition of UK Navy News there is a two two page spread of the CVF - one graphic being a cutaway. Attached is a PDF made at 1200 dots per inch of these pages: http://content.yudu.com/A1ob8a/navynews ... /index.htm

[spazsinbad]

From 04 July 2014 LAUNCH!: https://scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hph ... e=542B1B8D

[basher54321]

[spazsinbad]

From: http://awin.aviationweek.com/portals/aw ... een1a.html
&
http://awin.aviationweek.com/portals/aw ... beth1a.jpg
&
http://awin.aviationweek.com/portals/aw ... abeth2.jpg

[gergf-14]

Awesome graphics!

there are rough details regarding take-off weights etc......, is there a graphic out there showing the take off roll vs weight?
As there seems to be plenty space on HMS Queen Elizabeth, various take off points etc.....?

[spazsinbad]

NO there are no details except the KPP which requires full internal load STO within 450 feet with ski jump (USMC used to be 550 but changed it to 600 feet without ski jump). Then there are statements similar to the one in the graphic and one fairly recently which said something to the effect (I would have to search backwards to find the exact quote) that a max. load could be carried for STO on CVF. Until ski jump tested at Pax River we are not likely to know more and then the CVF/F-35B sea trials in 2018 will perhaps reveal more details. And yes the aircraft can take off anywhere along the deck that is suitable for the conditions. WOD (Wind over the deck) makes a significant difference to STO weight capability for the Harrier, so I'll guess that same rule applies for F-35B STO on CVF. All these details are in this thread probably or in the very long thread: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=12631

[spazsinbad]

pPrune is a lot of odd things for sure however these two chaps 'John Farley' & 'Engines' are experts in their field and give excellent information: [These quotes would be in the now various threads scattered in forum about these issues so I thought to bring them all together into one place.] NOTE the takeoff weight in the third quote below....

John Farley: 25 Nov 2012:“It is easy to misunderstand the benefits of a ‘ski-jump, or inclined ramp, on a ship.
If you run a car or a bike up one you will fly (remain above the height of the level deck ) for a while even though these vehicles have no lift generating capability.
If you use an aeroplane that has some lift generating capability you will fly for longer even though you may not have lift equal to your weight. In this case if during the time you fly (thanks to the ski-jump) you can accelerate to a speed where lift will equal weight you have completed your takeoff.
So to obtain the advantages of a ski-jump (with any aeroplane) you need two things:
1. A good t/w [thrust to weight] ratio – very common with many current military aircraft – enabling you to take full advantage of the seconds of flight that the skijump provides.
2. You need to be able to control the aircraft pitch and roll attitude at the (low) ramp exit speed either by good aerodynamics or a reaction control system.”
[Art Nalls would add: “...and a good WOD” (Wind Over Deck)]

Source: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... ost7539618

‘ENGINES’: Ski Jumping for STOVL 25 Apr 2014
"...Ski jumps can be used by both conventional and powered lift (STOVL) aircraft. In both cases, they launch the aircraft into the air below its normal takeoff speed, and the aircraft then spends a period of time in a reducing rate of climb while it accelerates to full wing borne flight, and then climbs away. It's been described to me as a 'runway in the sky'.
However, the two types get very different levels of advantage.
A conventional aircraft (e.g. Flanker, or Fulcrum as used by Chinese and Russia) cannot be launched below normal takeoff speed at max gross TO weight (MGTOW), as the only way they can maintain a safe minimum rate of climb is to adopt a high angle of attack and use engine thrust as best they can. That creates more drag, which delays acceleration, which means lower rate of climb away from the sea. This is why you don't see these aircraft launch with many external stores, and it helps explain an unusually public complaint by a Chinese Navy Admiral over the poor performance of his aircraft.
Conventional ski jumps aren't new, but have usually been discarded due to the inherent limitations I've summarised above.
A STOVL aircraft can launch at much higher relative weights, because it can vector its thrust to the optimum angle to support the aircraft by a combination of wing lift and powered lift so as to deliver the required acceleration and climb out. The angle will be scheduled after launch to move aft as wing lift builds. (Of note, the UK sets a minimum 400 fpm rate of climb as the limiting performance measure for ski jump launches).
Ski jump launch is an extremely effective system for maritime STOVL aircraft, is low workload and safe, as the pilot is guaranteed to be climbing away from the sea, and has more time to react in the event of an engine failure. It also delivers a large improvement in launch weight compared with a flat deck STO.
Oh, and the ski jump was a Royal Navy invention. And the F-35B lift system integration & flight controls design was led by some amazingly talented Brits. And Brits are leading the STOVL flight testing...."

Source: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... ost8450029

Ski Jumping for STOVL Pt 2‘ENGINES’:
“...the powered lift system on the F-35B can't vector all the thrust aft like the Harrier does. That's part of the trade off in getting your main propulsion engine located at the rear of the aircraft, where it really belongs for a fighter/strike type aircraft.
The lift fan can vector aft to around 50 degrees: on the X-35 there was a sort of 'pram hood' device that gave further aft vectoring - however, this was replaced in development by a much lighter 'vane box' device (UK designed) which still gave enough aft vector to meet the requirements. These were a set distance for a flat deck STO, and another shorter distance for a ski jump launch. The launch weight was driven by a defined operational scenario.
The roll posts deliver around 2,000 pounds thrust each in balanced operation, but they are turned off during the STO run and switched back on just before launch. This facility was suggested by a very talented RN FAA air engineer, and gratefully adopted during the weight saving programme. Another excellent Brit contribution.
The point overall is that the F-35B meets all its STO requirements, as well as its short landing targets. And it's a much heftier bird than the Harrier — over 55,000 pounds off the ramp....”

Source: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... ost8450458

‘Engines’ 26 Apr 2014
"The ship and the aircraft have proceeded side by side for many years now. At meetings in 2003, the CVF team were demanding a ski jump profile from LM. That profile wasn't available then, but was provided around 2006/7 once the F-35 team had done enough sim work on ski jumps with mature flight control models.
The thing to grasp is that ski jump ops are a low risk area of the F-35B programme. Ski jump launch is not as 'dynamic' as a flat deck STO, & in some areas the F-35B offers less challenges than the Harrier."

Source: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... ost8452299

‘Engines’ 29 Apr 2014
"The landing gear layouts on the Harrier and the F-35 are fundamentally different, especially in the nose leg area. The Harrier has a 1950s style 'bicycle' or 'tandem' layout, & the weight of the aircraft is split almost 50/50 between the aft leg (we called the 'main') & the forward leg (which we called the 'nose leg').
What this meant for Harrier ski jump ops was that the front leg was fairly heavily loaded. We increased the liquid spring pressure for ski jump ops, and the limiting condition was to avoid total closure of the nose leg spring as it reached the end of the ski jump. (The leg started closing as it entered the ramp, & closed steadily as it approached the exit lip).
The F-35 has a more conventional 'tricycle' layout, with the two main gears taking around 90% of the load, the nose leg taking around 10%. The early checks on ski jump profiles & predicted launch speeds showed that the nose leg loads during ski jump launches were well within the highest design load, which was driven (I think) by vertical landings, with an arrival on the nose leg as the worst case, or with high lateral drift. The forthcoming tests at Pax will provide the real data. "

Source: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... ost8455995

[spazsinbad]

This same quote about max. STO weight and Ski Jump would be in a thread somewhere already. There are 850+ feet available for the start of the STO - and anywhere inbetween - as required. A graphic somewhere shows this - probably in this thread - I dunno.... Graphic from: https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/rbi- ... 24x632.jpg

LIGHTNING STRIKES
ETS winter 2012_13

“...Onboard the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers, the aircraft would take off at its maximum weight of nearly 27 tonnes using a UK-developed ski-jump,...” 2204.62lbs = 1 tonne 59,535lbs = 27 tonnes [Wing Commander Hackett explained]"

Source: http://content.yudu.com/A219ee/ETSWin12 ... ces/20.htm

[spazsinbad]

RAeS backs UK aircraft carrier acquisition 08 Jul 2014 Beth Stevenson

"...[the RAeS paper] adds that US support for the Queen Elizabeth-class acquisition “becomes clear” when it is considered that the US Navy hopes a UK carrier task group will provide sufficient capability to replace one of its 11 task groups on station.

“Even if it is one task group once a year, this has significant appeal to the US and is an, albeit subtle, lever for the UK with its major ally,” the paper adds...."

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... on-401175/

[lookieloo]

RAeS backs UK aircraft carrier acquisition 08 Jul 2014 Beth Stevenson

"...[the RAeS paper] adds that US support for the Queen Elizabeth-class acquisition “becomes clear” when it is considered that the US Navy hopes a UK carrier task group will provide sufficient capability to replace one of its 11 task groups on station.

“Even if it is one task group once a year, this has significant appeal to the US and is an, albeit subtle, lever for the UK with its major ally,” the paper adds...."

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... on-401175/

Interesting... not that I have any knowledge of naval operational planning, but wouldn't replacing a USN battlegroup once per year require both carriers? I am of course assuming that the UK-government might like to use Her Majesty's ships for its own purposes every now and then.

[spazsinbad]

Bunch o' Lizzie Launch Pics here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeff_head ... 829924965/

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3893/144 ... a3fd_c.jpg