UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

[spazsinbad]

Interview: Philip Dunne, UK Defence Equipment, Support and Technology Minister
12 Jul 2014 Andrew Chuter

"...Q. Britain launched the first of two new aircraft carriers July 4. As things stand, SDSR will decide whether the second warship goes into operation or is mothballed. What’s the department’s current view?

A. It’s really a Royal Navy decision. With the capability procured, it’s a matter of crewing and sustainment.

I know the First Sea Lord [the head of the Royal Navy, Adm. Sir George Zambellas] has expressed his preference for two carriers, as has [Defence Secretary Philip Hammond], but it will be up to the Royal Navy to find the budget to be able to crew two vessels for rotating deployment. It’s an operating expense rather than a capital expense. The issue is not to have two carriers on station at one time but to enable a continuous presence...."

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/article/2014 ... ilip-Dunne

[popcorn]

Sort of defeats the purpose of getting back into the ship-based TACAIR game to have only a single ship, cexpect Murphy to make an appearance at the most inopportune time. Maybe they can discuss making the PoW a shared NATO asset? Lots of talk about the need to boost spending in response to recent Russian antics' everyone can chip in to outfit and operate him? (She? ' whatever..)

[Corsair1963]

Sort of defeats the purpose of getting back into the ship-based TACAIR game to have only a single ship, cexpect Murphy to make an appearance at the most inopportune time. Maybe they can discuss making the PoW a shared NATO asset? Lots of talk about the need to boost spending in response to recent Russian antics' everyone can chip in to outfit and operate him? (She? ' whatever..)

I guess you could make a case for the PoW as a NATO Carrier. Yet, I doubt it as the UK should be able to keep one Queen Elizabeth Class Carrier in Service. While the other is down for maintenance or refit. This should keep the cost of ownership within reason.

That said, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a number of Allied F-35B's. Operating from the Queen Elizabeth or Prince of Wales along side RN/RAF examples from time to time.

[spazsinbad]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BsvhXy6IQAARGVk.jpg:large
&
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bsvi_vSIUAEtYCQ.jpg:large

[gergf-14]

Wow awesome pics, that ski ramp looks rather narrow in those pics, perhaps the F-35B has good aim!

[spazsinbad]

Think about it. The Deck is VERY WIDE. The Ship is VERY LARGE. The Ski Jump is adequate for the very stable 3 wheel undercarriage of the F-35B - which may use the Ski Jump to not only take off but also BOLTER during a 'problematic' SRVL that goes bad for some reason. This scenario unlikely though if an ordinary SRVL has the F-35B stopping within 200 feet after touching down some 150 feet from the back end. However this T/D figure is fungible in difficult conditions whereas the 200 feet may increase also depending on conditions. All this from computer simulation to be tested around 2018 for real perhaps. [Without having a drawing to scale and measuring it the best I can make is that the Ski Jump is 200 feet long and 43 feet wide approximately.]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/190161709/CVF ... 324-COLOUR
[http://www.raes.org.uk/pdfs/3324_COLOUR.pdf] Attached.

[neptune]

Think about it..

Speaking of muddling, do the Brits still have their order in for the one "Sea" or have they converted it to the "Bee"??

Enquiring minds? want to know!

[spazsinbad]

INquisition Minds could look back through the thread but as I recall the B was never converted to C before all the future Cs were back to future Bs so no worries.

[gergf-14]

Yeah that ship is huge, thanks for the attachment , I did notice something looking at the attachment, the previous carriers with ski jump had a more aerodynamic front of the ski jump, the new carrier seems more squared off and seems to have intake of sorts not sure what it is, and I did not see anything regarding this in this forum......? Anybody know it's use? Air intake for the turbines that power the monster?

[quicksilver]

"..which may use the Ski Jump to not only take off but also BOLTER during a 'problematic' SRVL that goes bad for some reason."

Say what?

Explain how that would work with a propulsion system that goes to idle at touchdown with weight on wheels.

If you don't go to idle, the propulsion system is still creating lift, which thereby diminishes controllability whilst on the deck.

Once the engine goes to idle, the spool-up time of the engine is too long to get to meaningful lift generation before bow/ramp exit.

[spazsinbad]

Say wot? I'm only repeating previous information. As has been suggested on the actual SRVL thread a few times probably all the ideas (such as boltering up the ski jump) are still under computer simulation test whilst the actual testing on the ski jump at Pax River is yet to start (later this year apparently but not to finish until 2018 which is the year actual F-35B on CVF testing starts which may include the SRVL etc.).

IF the WOW can be overridden for SRVL by the pilot then why not bolter? I would guess that the pilot will decide at touchdown whether to bolter or not - I would guess there would be specific circumstances involved. BTW a jet engine does go to idle NOT instantaneously and I gather a pilot on the job with manual control will UP the RPM quick smart if required. IF required there will be ways to do the bolter (IF it is deemed necessary).

SRVL thread start: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304

BOLTER: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=266735&hilit=bolter#p266735
&
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=266730&hilit=bolter#p266730
&
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=266552&hilit=bolter#p266552
&
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=266546&hilit=bolter#p266546

Go to the main first page and search that thread for 'bolter' is probably easiest (for me anyway)....

[quicksilver]

IIRC engine thrust is less than 30% within one second of WOW.

They have some opposing challenges --

1) the want to get stopped in some distance before the jet exits the bow into the water
2) they have to preserve control of the aircraft while on the flight deck at speeds nominally in the 20-40ktgs
3) they want to preserve a 'bolter' option

The first two mandate a rapid thrust reduction once the jet touches down. The third requires preservation of rapid engine spool-up time by limiting the thrust reduction at touchdown. IOW, the third puts the first two at risk.

SRVL will require its own flight/propulsion control logic.

[spazsinbad]

Perhaps the SRVL discussion should continue on the SRVL thread - thanks. Go here for the latest LAST post now - some of that will be repeated here below - so beware - ONLY the NON SRVL parts - SRVL parts and rest of it are at URL...

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=275671&hilit=Harding#p275671

British Carrier Remains Controversial
18 Jul 2014 Chris Pocock, AIN Defense Perspective

"...the ACA is striving to make the carriers as flexible as possible. They can be reconfigured from the strike role, with 12 F-35Bs embarked, to a ship that can carry 44 helicopters and deploy 1,000 soldiers in amphibious or littoral maneuver operations. Moreover, “there is enough storage space to make a real difference in humanitarian operations,” Zambellas said.

Rear Admiral Russ Harding, the Navy’s senior airman, says that the QE-class “compresses a 2,000-acre airfield onto a four acre space that is moving in six axes. Therefore operations have to be intuitive, and they require intensive training.” But the UK withdrew its last (and much smaller) aircraft carrier in 2010, thus posing the danger of “skills fade.” Courtesy of the U.S. Navy British sailors have been deployed in small numbers on CV- and LHD-class warships, and pilots to F/A-18 squadrons, to keep them current on carrier operations. The French have also helped out, by offering slots on their warships, and in their carrier fighter squadrons. Meanwhile, there’s always simulation. BAE Systems provided a briefing at the Farnborough airshow this week on the simulator that it has developed, to determine exactly how the F-35 will operate from the carrier.

In his briefing at the UK’s DSEi event last year, Harding made reference to the unusual QE-class flight deck design, with ship operation conducted from a forward “island,” and flight operations from an “aft” island. Harding admitted that this was “a compromise…but I’m not as worried as some about the separation,” he said. Some have noted that the twin islands are more survivable, if the ship should be attacked. Harding further noted that the flight deck design is very flexible. For instance, there’s a ski ramp to launch the F-35s, but also an angled deck from which UAVs or UCAVs might be launched in the future....

...What is beyond question is that the B version has struggled with weight issues, sacrifices range and payload for STOVL capability and costs more to acquire and operate. For this reason, the MoD is studying a mixed fleet of F-35As and F-35Bs, a senior RAF officer told AIN, on condition of anonymity. It seems that the mandarins in the ministry don’t want to admit this, after the previous flip-flop that saw the UK switch from the F-35B to the conventional carrier-landing F-35C version in 2010, and back again in 2012. The combat radius of an F-35B on a hi-hi-hi mission is only 450 nm, versus 590 nm for the F-35C....

...Speaking more generally about landing the F-35B, Wilson noted how easy it is, compared with the Harriers that he previously flew. They had separate levers to control the throttle and the nozzle angle. “Pilots sometimes grabbed the wrong lever. In the F-35B, we’ve designed out such cognitive failures,” Wilson explained. “The F-35B holds zero groundspeed, height and lateral [roll] angle very precisely. The pilot makes only a single-axis input. There’s nothing to do!” he added...."

Source: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... troversial

[spazsinbad]

Over on another thread/section info for this illustration posted. The halves available online DO NOT MATCH - have been cropped - so this is the result.... viewtopic.php?f=22&p=275677#p275677 Some details are not correct - such as the JBD - it seems the Brits are very keen to save money and NOT update the illustrations/videos to reflect reality. So be it.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/07/ ... 0_hms_.jpg
& http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/07/ ... _galle.jpg

[spazsinbad]

Earlier above 'gergf-14' asked about the 'thing' in front of the ski jump. It is the ship crest as seen here:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/07/ ... 3_Brit.jpg

I have seen better photos of the front end but this'll do for the moment.... and a more betta one....