Marine Aviation Plan 2015

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

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23321
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 Dec 2014, 22:03

I think the original reference I quoted covers that scenario - the potential to PERHAPS operate the F-35B on the OLD UK CVSs. I see whilst composing this reply 'sferrin' has replied - my reply is implied in the response to 'optimist' below. There are many variables and the question of "HOW LONG IS A PIECE OF STRING" becomes relevant. One may speculate about a lot of things however some variables fall into place because REQUIREMENTS set in stone such as the 'LHA spot of 6 USMC F-35Bs' TRUMPS the lot - IN A GOOD WAY.

It reminds of me of all the B/S about how the STOVL Bee made the others a CRAP aircraft. I recall giving three quotes from the designer of the LiftFan that put paid to these erroneous assumptions. I may find them again or I may not - I'm just going outside and may be some time.... :doh: :devil: :mrgreen: I can see how people get fixed ideas and do not incorporate new ideas which are perhaps more useful. I face this issue in my declining years. :drool: :twisted: :roll:
The Influence of Ship Configuration on the Design of the Joint Strike Fighter
26-27 Feb 2002 Mr. Eric S. Ryberg

[IN THE graphic the CVS elevators are described as being 55 feet long and 32 feet wide with a note:]
"...(3) Both CVS elevators are positioned mid-deck, leaving no flexibility to extend beyond the elevator edges"


“...UK OPERATIONAL NEEDS
The UK requires a Future Joint Combat Aircraft (FJCA) that will be a stealthy, multi-role aircraft to follow on from the Sea Harrier FA1, Harrier GR7, and Harrier T10 operated by the Royal Navy (RN) and Royal Air Force (RAF). The aircraft must be capable of sustained air defensive counter air, suppression of enemy air defenses, combat search and rescue, reconnaissance, and anti-surface warfare missions. While the STOVL JSF is to be evaluated for basic compatibility with INVINCIBLE-class (CVS) carriers, it is unlikely that the aircraft will ever be deployed aboard CVS for any extended periods. Instead, the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has initiated development of a future aircraft carrier (CVF) scheduled to enter service at or about the same time as its JSF. The CVF program is currently in its concept development phase, and the ship will be designed for compatibility with the shipboard JSF variant, CV or STOVL, that will be procured for use by the UK's joint air forces. The UK's selection of JSF variant is scheduled to occur during the first half of 2002....

...Landing Gear Geometry
The shipboard environment has significant influence on the geometry of an aircraft’s landing gear, much of which tends to drive the position of the landing gear in opposing directions. For example, a large landing gear footprint is desirable for stability during deck handling, thereby preventing a tendency to tipback or rollover. [ON THE LIFTS for example and TIPPING OVER THE EDGE during ship ROLLS] A large footprint also eases the positioning of critical maintenance and
servicing points, so that they can be accessed when the aircraft is parked with its tail extending beyond the deck edge. However, a large footprint can complicate deck handling in that the aircraft requires more deck space for maneuvering,... ...Gear height is also influenced by ship basing concerns. A shorter landing gear is more desirable for tipback and rollover stability and for maintainer accessibility, while taller landing gear aids in clearing deck
obstacles and in avoiding ground impingements. For JSF, the designer has strived for the best balance between these opposing forces.

...CONCLUSIONS
Ship compatibility can only be achieved through the use of a comprehensive, detailed process that identifies every critical interface issue, diligently monitors their status, and determines sensible resolutions for any areas of incompatibility. The Joint Strike Fighter Program has established such a process, and the designs of its family of aircraft have been influenced by the configurations of the ships on which the aircraft will be based. As was done with JSF, the designers of new ship-based air systems must engage themselves with the ship builder early in their design effort, to understand where ship characteristics will influence their aircraft design. Conversely, the designers of new aircapable ships must coordinate with air system designers to understand how ship design decisions may impact the operations of its complement of aircraft. In the event of an incompatibility across a ship/air interface, personnel from both sides must show care not to arrive at a suboptimal solution that works best for either the ship or the aircraft alone. Instead, they must strive for the synergy that comes by optimizing the performance of the total ship/air system.”

Source: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a399988.pdf (1.1Mb)
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

delvo

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 690
  • Joined: 15 Aug 2011, 04:06

Unread post17 Dec 2014, 23:59

spazsinbad wrote:Yes the F-35B and F-35C have to fit to what is set in steel on USN ships... they obviously fit now that both have been onboard.
That's the second time in the last week that I've seen someone around here apparently saying an F-35C has landed on a carrier, but I missed the original announcement. Were there any online articles & videos about it like when a pair of Bs went to the Wasp before? How long did it/they stay; are we talking about just landing & launching tests or days of general operations like the Bs on the Wasp?

Or did I just misunderstand when I saw the word "both" in your post?
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8391
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post18 Dec 2014, 00:08

Sorry... what rock have you been sleeping under?

:mrgreen:
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23321
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post18 Dec 2014, 00:18

:mrgreen: Rip Van Winkle? :mrgreen: Go here for the good gen and work backwards: 'Millstone & Plank Owner Freds'

THE MORE RELEVANT FRED below here now:
viewtopic.php?f=57&t=26634&p=282795#p282795
&
viewtopic.php?f=57&p=282892#p282892
&
Good luck out there....
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

smsgtmac

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 863
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2013, 04:22
  • Location: Texas

Unread post18 Dec 2014, 02:51

spazsinbad wrote:Thanks 'smsgtmac': Who is 'Kurt Plummer' aka 'M&S all over the place'?

How soon we forget! :lol:
I never knew who M&S was for certain, but I noticed as soon as KP was mentioned, they disappeared. You probably remember KP as a certain 'Galoot'
--The ultimate weapon is the mind of man.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23321
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post18 Dec 2014, 02:59

Yes the galoot seems to have had a few names to terrify others with immensely long rambling posts - not on topic. :doh:

As for forgetting. The interwobble is going to trash my brain with all the trash I read from day to day. No wonder I forget. What did you say? :mrgreen: :doh: :drool: :roll: :shock:
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

delvo

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 690
  • Joined: 15 Aug 2011, 04:06

Unread post18 Dec 2014, 05:10

spazsinbad wrote::mrgreen: Rip Van Winkle? :mrgreen: Go here for the good gen and work backwards: 'Millstone & Plank Owner Freds'

THE MORE RELEVANT FRED below here now:
viewtopic.php?f=57&t=26634&p=282795#p282795
&
viewtopic.php?f=57&p=282892#p282892
&
Good luck out there....
Ah, yes, the Milestones forum... I quit checking there after seeing that it was full of little trifles like "First F-35 with a left-handed Capricorn pilot and a tail number that's a perfect cube of an integer gets its 84th hour of flying on Tuesdays". I thought I was safe because the REAL milestones, like the two Bs' mission to the Wasp, also get talked about a lot elsewhere. Now I know you people are getting sneaky on me, hiding even the big stuff that I expected would be all over this place... "stealth" news, I could call it...
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23321
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post18 Dec 2014, 05:36

Oooh we are sooo naughty. :mrgreen:
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

smsgtmac

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 863
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2013, 04:22
  • Location: Texas

Unread post18 Dec 2014, 05:43

This thread is wandering some, but its all related I guess. Going back to the 'why' the F-35 variants are the way they are, you have to go back to before the technology demonstrators were built. I'm sure the full brief is probably somewhere in the archives here, but to illustrate there is no one or two things anyone can point to and say 'this drove that or the other', here's an excerpt from a 2005 F-35 Systems Engineering Case Study Brief.
First the fuselage 'size' was pretty much determined before Boeing and Lockheed were turned on to build the technology demonstrators:
Fuselage-Sizing-Rationale.jpg

This kind of stuff fed the initial sizing:
Cost-and-Operational-Trades.jpg

Don't try and completely decode this. I'm pretty sure they took some info out before the release. The URF dollars indicate circa 1994, which translates into ~$80M in $CY2013.
Sample-Case-Trade-Space.jpg

Here's a progression of wing area/wingspan configurations as the early 230- design iterations emerged:
span-area-1.jpg

span-area-2.jpg

span-area-3.jpg

span-area-4.jpg

I'd say they thoroughly explored the boundaries of the trade space.
Also note the A/B Wing configuration isn't as large as it could be if LH's deck elevator dimensions were a limiting factor.

G'nght all :wink:
--The ultimate weapon is the mind of man.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23321
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post18 Dec 2014, 06:22

I'll wander off to find the three quotes - meanwhile here is a graphic from the previously mentioned PDF - if any dimensions or spot factors (they have changed for sure - depending on the base spot calculation of 1) then all the detail is from the original 2002 PDF "The Influence of Ship Configuration on the Design of the Joint Strike Fighter".

The CVS Invincible Class dimensions are now irrelevant - I hope that is clear. CLICK Graphic for more Readability!
Attachments
F-35BspotFactorLifts.gif
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23321
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post18 Dec 2014, 06:37

The three tenants with a fourth somewhere as I recall.... ORIGINAL THREE tenors here: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=25537&p=274779&hilit=Bevilaqua+Suitability#p274779 and the forth:
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=25537&p=275083&hilit=Commonality#p275083 ADDed BeLOW.
Joint Strike Fighter PERSPECTIVES
Paul Bevilaqua, Lift-Fan System Inventor; Code One Magazine July 1996 Vol. 11 No. 3

“..."Our lift fan approach is like taking that one large fan on the Harrier's engine, breaking it into two smaller fans, and turning off one of the smaller fans when the airplane converts to the cruise mode," he explains. "The concept doesn't compromise the other JSF variants. Our STOVL concept requires twin inlets, what we call bifurcated inlet ducts, to create the space needed for the lift fan. That is the only design requirement. And bifurcated ducts have low-observable and performance advantages that improve all of our JSF variants.”

Source: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/C ... 8_7528.pdf

Genesis of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter 2009
Paul M. Bevilaqua JOURNAL OF AIRCRAFT Vol. 46, No. 6, Nov–Dec 2009, 2009 WRIGHT BROTHERS LECTURE

“...The technical challenges involved in designing a single aircraft for all three services were met by designing three highly common, but not identical, variants of the same aircraft. The STOVL variant, which was designed first, incor-porates a shaft-driven lift fan in a bay between the inlet ducts and a thrust-vectoring cruise nozzle. The airframe was designed to Air Force specifications, so that the conventional takeoff and landing variant was developed by removing the lift fan and vectoring nozzles from the STOVL variant and substituting a fuel tank and a conventional cruise nozzle. The Naval variant was similarly developed from the conventional variant by increasing the wing area, designing stronger landing gear, and using stronger cousin parts to handle the larger airframe loads associated with carrier takeoffs and landings. Both the STOVL and Naval variants are about 15% heavier than the conventional variant.”

Source: http://pdf.aiaa.org/getfile.cfm?urlX=-% ... 0%20%20%0A

The Influence of Ship Configuration on the Design of the Joint Strike Fighter
26-27 Feb 2002 Mr. Eric S. Ryberg, page 10 of 11

“...SHIP SUITABILITY DESIGN ‘PENALTY’
Because of the numerous factors that influence the design of a ship-based aircraft, many assume these considerat-ions have significantly compromised the mission performance of the CV and STOVL variants. Correspondingly, it is assumed that the remaining CTOL variant carries appreciable "scar impacts" to maintain commonality with its sea-going siblings.

However, the JSF design solution has been quite successful in minimizing the "penalty" of ship suitability....

...the CTOL variant carries virtually no scars as the result of the ship suitability of the other two variants. The JSF program has clearly shown that shipboard compatibility does not have to come at the expense of such critical attributes as lethality and survivability....”

Source: http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA399988

Commonality in Complex Product Families: Implications of Divergence and Lifecycle Offsets
Ryan C. Boas Sept 2008; pp 81-4

"…The initial development order for the three variants was to be CTOL, followed by STOVL, and then CV; a decision driven mainly by the desire to reduce internal development risk. The CTOL variant was selected as the lead variant because it was “easy” to develop in relation to the more difficult STOVL version and because the CTOL variant had served as the baseline for all prior development effort: CTOL allowed STOVL lift fan complexity to be avoided for the first variant and was also the best understood of the three variants. The JSF team was preparing to embark on an extremely complex program and was about to do so with a newly formed team….

…After development of the CTOL variant, STOVL would represent an incremental increase in complexity but would be addressed by a more experienced team, with well understood tools and processes. These benefits outweighed the fact that STOVL demand actually preceded demand for the CTOL aircraft. CV would follow CTOL and STOVL because demand for CV production aircraft was scheduled the farthest out….

…CTOL layout started immediately after the March 2003 PDR and marked an important transition for the JSF program: the program had transitioned from the parallel development of the three variant concepts to sequential layout development, starting with the CTOL variant. While decisions would be made with consideration for all three variants, the majority of the focus was placed on developing the CTOL variant. STOVL capabilities (mainly the lift fan and ducts) would be added to the CTOL baseline to form the B variant, while the C variant would be formed by scaling certain aspects of the CTOL variant….”

Source: http://esd.mit.edu/people/dissertations/boas.pdf (3.5Mb)
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23321
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post18 Dec 2014, 22:49

From good ole: http://aviationweek.com/site-files/avia ... 4_4052.jpg

CVN Lift mit F-35C overhung - or not - hung over 2014 NIMITZ? & Bee on WASP Lisp? Aug 2013 - CVFs take two side be side.
Attachments
F-35CliftOverhangCVNnimitz2014zoomPDF.jpg
F-35BwaspLIFTaug2013pdf.jpg
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23321
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post21 Dec 2014, 20:58

An example of a MAJOR piece of CVN equipment - IFLOLS (mirror) - being designed for 'aircraft' because it came later/during those ops. I have lost the original reference to the graphic - may find it later.....
Attachments
IFLOLSdesignedF-18superHornet.gif
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23321
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post22 Dec 2014, 22:01

From dat SNAFUmensch is another PDF about USMC OMFTS & STOM dated 25 Apr 2014

[USMC] Current Operations Brief 25 Apr 2014

https://www.scribd.com/document_downloa ... ension=pdf (3Mb)
Attachments
USMCexForce21OMFTS+STOM.gif
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23321
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post22 Dec 2014, 22:27

‘Complete transformation’ awaits Marine aviation in 2015
23 Sep 2014 Gina Harkins & Joshua Stewart

"...New aircraft, same missions
...“It’s really an exciting time to be on the ground floor, if you will, of a complete transformation in Marine aviation,” he [Lt. Col. John Field] said.

Aside from transitioning the remaining Phrog [Sea Knights CH-46E] squadrons into Osprey squadrons, here are some of the other ongoing changes in Marine aviation:

■ Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121, based in Arizona, will be the first F-35B squadron to reach initial operational capability status next year.

■ Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron 501 is moving from Florida to South Carolina, where it will be responsible for teaching new and experienced aviators how to operate the F-35B.

■ As of late August, 41 Marines have been qualified to fly the F-35B, according to a news release from Lockheed Martin. Once VMFAT-501is moved to Beaufort, the squadron plans to qualify another 15 pilots in the first year. Eventually, the goal is to qualify four times that many pilots annually.

■ Marine Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron 22 will stand up an F-35B detachment in 2015 at Edwards Air Force Base, California, to evaluate the aircraft’s systems, said Capt. Dustin Pratico, a Marine spokesman at the Pentagon. The Corps is also preparing to stand up the first of four planned F-35C squadrons in 2019, Pratico said, which will fly the carrier variant of the aircraft.

■ The Corps will continue replacing the UH-1N Huey helicopter with the UH-1Y Venom. After 41 years of flying in the Marine Corps, the UH-1N was retired in August, but the Venoms have been gradually integrated into the fleet since 2008. The newer version uses the same airframe, but is faster, can fly higher, has a longer range and can lift more than its predecessor. The Corps expects Bell Helicopter to deliver 160 Venoms by 2018.

■ The AH-1Z Venom is replacing the AH-1W Cobra. The Venom reached initial operational capability status in 2011 and is expected to reach it’s full operational capabilities in 2021.

■ The Corps is continuing work on the CH-53K King Stallion. The heavy-lift helicopter is expected to reach initial operational capabilities in 2019 and will replace the CH-63E Super Stallion, which is expected to remain in service through 2027. The new aircraft is expected to move cargo further and faster than its predecessor.

Field said the recent evolution of Marine aviation highlights the Corps’ ability to adapt.

“As technology changes, we look to capitalize on those advances so we can better accomplish the missions of supporting the infantry Marine and responding to the nation’s crises,” he said...."

Source: http://hrana.org/news/2014/09/complete- ... n-in-2015/
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Variants and Missions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest