Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Variants for different customers or mission profiles
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

bring_it_on

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 929
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2014, 14:32

Unread post08 May 2015, 00:05

spazsinbad wrote:Thanks for that - nice find. At the end we see the desert STO with a cloud of moondust off the concrete at the end. I would extend the concrete to help keep the dust off the rest of the concrete. Perhaps futile in the desert winds probably.


Yeah can't keep dust out in the desert.

The photos for this training are here -

https://www.flickr.com/photos/77258709@N06/16685668353/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23940
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post08 May 2015, 00:27

Thanks again 'brungItBack' - and :mrgreen: LOOKit the green Fuel Trucks IN THE DESERT! Oh lordylordy me OH my! STOP STOP! :devil: That would be the LSO we see in the tower.
"ermaleksandr 150427-M-SJ585-789 https://www.flickr.com/photos/77258709@ ... otostream/
An F-35B Lightning II with Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121, based out of Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Ariz., performs a vertical landing while an air traffic controller observes from a mock air control tower, as part of required flying field carrier landing practices (FCLP) at the auxiliary landing field, Monday, April 27, 2015. The landing field simulates an aircraft carrier flight deck to prepare pilots for landing and taking off at sea."
Attachments
LSO VL F-35B YUMA View CROPpdf.jpg
YumaGreenFuelTrucksDesert.jpg
YumaGreenFuelTruckDesertZOOM.jpg
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

mrigdon

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 403
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2015, 22:03

Unread post09 May 2015, 10:11

spazsinbad wrote:At the end we see the desert STO with a cloud of moondust off the concrete at the end. I would extend the concrete to help keep the dust off the rest of the concrete.


Maybe if you extend the concrete all the way to the nearest pasture. :wink:

A quick search didn't come up with anything, but isn't the lift fan in the F-35B designed in such a way as to reduce the possibility of debris getting sucked into the intakes? Or was it just that the lift fan creates a kind of thermal buffer so the intakes don't suck in any hot exhaust?
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23940
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post09 May 2015, 10:16

My thinking was more just about FOD on the concrete STO runway - however I'll guess that is under control with sweeper machines. In what situation are you concerned about ingesting the dust - VLing or STOing?
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

mrigdon

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 403
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2015, 22:03

Unread post09 May 2015, 10:33

spazsinbad wrote:In what situation are you concerned about ingesting the dust - VLing or STOing?


I would only think it might be an issue when landing (since you're not moving laterally and dust might blow upward). Planes of all manner take off in deserts all the time, so I don't figure that's an issue.

I'd noticed in pictures, though, that the base of the lift fan appears to have something like slats, so I thought it might be directing the flow of air backwards to some degree, so that even if there is debris underneath the plane, it would be blown away from the intakes.

It's been awhile, but I remember there being some advantage to having a lift fan rather than a lift jet. However I think it may only have to do with heat. A jet engine up by the intakes caused problems with the intakes taking in too much hot air and the rear engine losing thrust?
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7717
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post09 May 2015, 10:42

Well, there was an article stating that the Marines were planning to test the jet on dirt and grass surfaces. Nothing reported AFAIK.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23940
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post09 May 2015, 10:52

'popcorn' probably the 'dirt/grass' was protected by AM-2 matting - if it was not stated as such. For sure there has been a lot going on the STOVL world that we have yet to hear about. :mrgreen: I BLAME LAZY JOURNOs! :doh:

Through the long gestation of the STOVL aspects of the F-35B with input from the various Harrier Users the problems of the past have been if not eliminated at the very least greatly ameliorated with the layout of the LiftFan and the main engine exhaust. As I recall 'quicksilver' and I had some discussion about this in relation to SRVLs on CVFs in that SRVL thread. However some of that info is repeated in other forum sections here. I have no STOVL experience and rely on what is public information with some input from ex-A4G pilots who went to the SHAR world in the mid 1980s. Give me a min to find link.... Start of SRVL thread is here: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=230592&hilit=SRVL#p230592

Search that SRVL thread for words such as 'ingestion' to reveal this for example: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=265126&hilit=ingestion#p265126

The slats in the LiftFan exhausts can power the aircraft backwards in STOVL mode at 30 KIAS if required.

A graphic in the thread: download/file.php?id=18426&mode=view
Attachments
F-35B%20IGE%20STOVL%20FlowField.gif
Last edited by spazsinbad on 09 May 2015, 11:02, edited 2 times in total.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7717
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post09 May 2015, 10:59

No matting was mentioned but you're likely correct Spaz. The jet would gouge some impressive furrows in unmatted ground and make quite a mess of things.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

mrigdon

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 403
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2015, 22:03

Unread post09 May 2015, 11:36

spazsinbad wrote:
The slats in the LiftFan exhausts can power the aircraft backwards in STOVL mode at 30 KIAS if required.


So the slats do move. I've only seen still shots of the slats.

The graphic shows how the ground sheet during landing can throw debris up and into the intake, especially if you're moving forward (like in a SRVL). I was just curious whether the lift fan vent could be canted in such a way during takeoffs to create a ground sheet that would "clear" debris from in front of the plane, reducing the risk of injection. Or maybe it just makes it worse.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23940
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post09 May 2015, 11:48

I think the SRVL thread is worth reading from go to whoa. I did say that some aspects of previous Harrier HGI Hot Gas Ingestion were ameliorated with the layout of the F-35B. Risks are every where in aviation and they are lessened by good design. Believe me I'm not going to replicate the information in the SRVL thread here again. Take the time to read the thread.

The LiftFan exhaust/vent will be canted rearwards a little to help with the forward motion of the aircraft initially before becoming part of the lift (also generated by wings) before lift off in a STO. Even the roll posts are shut off during the first part of a STO to allow more thrust to the thrusty bits. Then the roll posts open to enable control at below stall speeds in said STO.

A Creeping VL is one way to alleviate the effect of the exhausts on the ground - there is such a thing and has been tested; although the details about what constitutes a slow landing, creeping landing etc. have not been defined to my knowledge.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

mrigdon

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 403
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2015, 22:03

Unread post09 May 2015, 12:31

In this case, there was discussion about dust and how it affected the F-35B. Digging into the SRVL thread, in particular jumping over to pprune.org and reading the posts by John Farley, the ability to hover (in his analysis) eliminated FOD as a concern. He was discussing rolling out of a hanger, hovering over to a fuel truck, then taking off vertically. This was in regards to an air field with craters in war time. You may give up ordnance, but you're still able to function. So it seems that operating out of a desert area with lots of dust and sand shouldn't pose too much of a problem.

Now that the Marines are deploying V-22s as tankers, I'm curious as to whether they are looking into launching F-35Bs vertically with minimal fuel, then tanking them up and sending them off to perform missions. This would seem to expand their basing options immensely. Perhaps there aren't enough V-22s to make this a viable option (I don't know how much fuel a V-22 can carry in the tanker role).
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23940
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post09 May 2015, 12:52

Have not thought about that aspect. Certainly the V-22 will carry significant fuel - at least the USMC think so. There is a possibility that uprated engines will help in the 'carry that load' aspect. Also remember they plan to use the V-22 fuel on ground to fuel other machinery (that can use jet fuel) and not just F-35Bs.

This URL has 'up to 12,000 lbs of fuel carry: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=23690&p=260944&hilit=Osprey+Tanker#p260944

I think is it easier to know stuff about the Harrier in all the forms however less so to know about the F-35B. There is no direct comparison one to the other. They are quite different in many aspects of their operation; especially their flyability ease. This aspect (to me) appears to be overlooked. Yes the F-35B has terrific flexibility for landing and taking off options, with or without all the fuel or ordnance, and in the case of fuel it can be fuelled in flight or at another lilypad site on land or afloat and the beat goes on. The Bee could be fully fuelled at one site then travel quickly via an appropriate short take off to circumstances (not a VTO if fully fuelled) to another appropriate landing site to be fully armed to then etc etc. Might sound a little too much but who knows. Sure it would be convenient to have the fuel and armament in the same place but...
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

mrigdon

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 403
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2015, 22:03

Unread post09 May 2015, 13:21

spazsinbad wrote:Sure it would be convenient to have the fuel and armament in the same place but...


Ah, Ares. Thou hast confounded the best laid plans of mice and MEFs.

Your previous post was from 2013. I know since then that the Navy has selected the V-22 for carrier delivery duties and there were some recent articles about the Marines putting a tank inside the V-22 for refueling duties (in addition to whatever could be hung outside?), so hopefully you can get more than just 12,000 pounds of fuel now. That's barely enough to top off a single F-35B (although, to be fair, the F-35B takes a h*** of a lot of fuel internally).

I'm totally on board with the superiority of the Bee to the Harrier. There's all manner of negative articles about the JSF, but they all compare the JSF with the F-16, the A-10, or the F-22 (the latter of which is a bogus comparison). When you compare the F-35B to the Harrier, the Harrier might as well be the Wright Flyer. :notworthy:
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23940
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post09 May 2015, 18:42

Well then you might know that the USN has said this (however we all know they will sponge off whatever the USMC do - which is probably fair enough because they have 'apparently' different priorities and money is tight): [USMC tanker V-22 by 2017 and USN equivalent in the never never]
Navy Not Following Marines’ Lead in Developing V-22 Osprey Tanker
04 May 2015 Sam LaGrone

"The Navy has no immediate plans to explore using its planned fleet of V-22 Ospreys carrier onboard delivery aircraft to refuel its carrier aircraft, while the Marines are actively looking to include a tanking capability in its own tilt-rotor V-22s by 2017, service officials told USNI News on Monday....

...For its part, the Marines are currently developing the V-22 Aerial Refueling System (VARS), which is being developed in parallel with the planned first Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter deployment in 2017, according to the Marine Corps’ 2015 aviation plan.

Similar to the Harvest HAWK roll-on weapons kit for the Marine’s Lockheed Martin KC-130J, the system will be able to roll on and off the aircraft as needed, USNI News understands.

The goal of VARS is to include an organic tanking capability to the Marine Air Combat Element (ACE) of an embarked Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) starting with tactical fighters and then moving into other aircraft....

...The service [USN] didn’t include an aerial refueling capability in its COD requirements, USNI News understands....

...Unmanned aircraft, could eventually take over the role, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus said last week.

The NAVAIR’s preferred set of requirements for the Unmanned Carrier Launched Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) also includes the ability for the unmanned aerial vehicle to tank other aircraft."

Source: http://news.usni.org/2015/05/04/navy-no ... rey-tanker
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

gabriele

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 148
  • Joined: 26 Feb 2015, 19:42

Unread post09 May 2015, 22:35

I'm surprised the US Navy fakes non interest in the V-22 tanker kit, even while everyone can see they need and want an alternative to "wasting" lots of Super Hornet sorties and hours in expensive buddy tanking...

I can't imagine a single scenario in which they would let the tanker kit for V-22 slip by without using it. Can't say they will because it is a USMC idea, and they don't want to be seen as following instead of leading...? :D
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Variants and Missions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests