The Marine Corp is still alive!

See video at link below --

www.havenews.com/video/?videoId=68624752001&play=now

A Fire Fighting Video? I guess you mean either the 'Harriers in Afghanistan" or the "Harriers Train at Sea"? Sadly in Windows 7 64 bit in either IE9 or FireFox the videos only default to 'Fire Fighting' or NOTHING. Do I have to use a MAC?

spazsinbad wrote:I guess the concept of rotating USMC F-35Bs ashore and afloat and back ashore in a different location, has not reached you yet then. Whatever. Name some modern fighter-bombers that can routinely operate with 'same bombload' as an F-35B (whatever that is) on a 3,000 foot runway. Not forgetting same modern fighter bomber that can operate from a convenient runway on a SMALL flat top off shore. OH? A Harrier you say? Cool.

Yeah, I've heard all about it. It's a self-indulgent waste of money. Maybe you haven't heard of REAL CVs, yet.

As for a modern fighter-bomber that can operate from an improvised runway - The Gripen can launch from an 800 m improvised runway with a 3000lb bombload (and isn't that enough with modern PGMs? I mean, I keep hearing that, like manouverability, a big bomb load is now irrelevant...)and do it for a fraction of the cost of the lumbering, fuel hungry F-35. Hell, you could probably operate 3 gripens for what it would take to keep one of those primarina donna pogo sticks going.


It's probably moot, anyway, as the B will almost certainly get the chop. It's simply not a cost-effective use of increasingly limited defence dollars. Esp when there's no credibly forseeable threats that cannot be equally well dealt with by other means.

Well, well well. Having operated from a CV I think I know something about it (albeit many years ago now). The Gripen is not going to go back to an LHD or equivalent. Have you not been reading the threads about how the USMC plan to use the F-35B? Probably not because you seem to enjoy ignorance about such matters. So be it. As for giving up the argument against F-35Bs because they will no longer be around (in your opinion) - that takes the cake.

Well, I know that you were an A-4 pilot in the Aussie navy, and when it comes to that subject of Aussie Skyhawk carrier operations, I readily cede to your superior authority. As for your authority in regards to matters of cutting-edge military doctrine and tactics - not so much. Or to be more exact, not at all. Because your A-4 carrier experience is irrelevant. Sorry

I have in fact read a great deal about how the USMC plans to use the F-35, and like many others, I am not impressed. The idea that Marines are gonna be going into the fight alone is ludicrous, esp now that 'Jointness' is so trendy. And if they aren't, they don't need their own tonka toy carriers and the few overly complex and delicate fighter bombers that they can carry.

As for the 'remote basing' fantasies, well, neither you nor they have made a compelling case for their ability to effectively maintain and supply those big-engined pogo sticks in the kind of hostile hi-tech environment they purportedly need all that expensive stealth stuff for in the first place. Still, unlike some of the fanboys here, I don't pretend to be omniscient when it comes to that kind'a stuff, so maybe it slipped by me while I was distracted by the oh-so confident hand waving and blithe "No worries, we'll figure something out" couched in suitably Marine-grade jargon.

Let's see it.

"Let's see it." I guess we both have to wait then eh. As for experience then - what is yours may I ask?

Interesting video. Couldn't the USMC do the same thing with F-35Cs, and Hornets?

discofishing wrote:Interesting video. Couldn't the USMC do the same thing with F-35Cs, and Hornets?

At the lengths they need to have the base resupplied, yes. Use field gear and develop a new 1500ft low power field cat based on EMALS for assit on real heavy loads. Plus, wouldn't the F-35B melt the field planking?

bjr1028 wrote:

discofishing wrote:Interesting video. Couldn't the USMC do the same thing with F-35Cs, and Hornets?

At the lengths they need to have the base resupplied, yes. Use field gear and develop a new 1500ft low power field cat based on EMALS for assit on real heavy loads. Plus, wouldn't the F-35B melt the field planking?

The lift fan is supposed to be cooler than the Harrier's nozzles.

VA said: "The lift fan is supposed to be cooler than the Harrier's nozzles." Agree. In 'the very long thread' there is a video clip of the STOVL engine designer showing a film during a lecture about an F-35B simulated vertical landing showing the temperature beneath the aircraft all the way to touchdown. The concrete below never gets above 600 deg F. He says concrete spalls at 1,000 deg F. I'll put the page link here soon:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-255.html

Also see previous page...
&
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-225.html

& SpudmanWP kindly put the video clip on Utube:

JSF F-35B Landing on Concrete [from] Lecture

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8wSeIz9uL8

http://attach.high-g.net/attachments/js ... ed_909.gif



http://attach.high-g.net/attachments/js ... en_201.gif

bjr1028 wrote:

discofishing wrote:Interesting video. Couldn't the USMC do the same thing with F-35Cs, and Hornets?

At the lengths they need to have the base resupplied, yes. Use field gear and develop a new 1500ft low power field cat based on EMALS for assit on real heavy loads. Plus, wouldn't the F-35B melt the field planking?

AM-2 (the same stuff in the Afghanistan video) is the same stuff they're landing the STOVL jets on -- vertically -- nearly every day at Pax River. And, in any rolling landing (SLs or RVLs) they would be imparting a far more benign thermal load on the matting than they do during VLs.

EAF enables JSF landing anywhere, everywhere News Release Number: E200906291 06/29/2009

http://www.navair.navy.mil/newsreleases ... ew&id=4144

"PATUXENT NAVAL AIR STATION, Md. -- Marine Wing Support Squadron 274 gave engineers help in April to lay the first expeditionary landing site for the F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter for short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) capabilities testing.

Expeditionary Airfields are mobile systems that allow Marines to quickly build functioning airfields in areas without airfield support. EAFs are built using AM-2 matting: aluminum panels which are assembled in a brickwork pattern to form runways, taxiways, parking sites and other areas required for aircraft operations and maintenance.

These EAFs allow the JSF to perform missions in any terrain that does not support a standard-use airfield in mission-critical areas.

“This joint testing is a significant step for the Aircraft Launch and Recovery Equipment program,” said ALRE Program Manager Capt. Randy Mahr. “The JSF and EAF have an integral relationship in expanding our capabilities and success on the battlefield. The EAF’s AM-2 matting is battle tested, dependable and versatile. It’s exactly what we need for our expeditionary landing and take-off platforms.”

Although the AM-2 matting is serving its purpose as vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) pads and a 1,900 x 96-foot runway for the EAF/STOVL testing, it also doubles as the run-up for a test “ski-jump” used in conjunction with JSF testing for the British Royal Navy. The AM-2 matting and the 12-degree ski-jump ramp were installed at the centerfield area last month.

“NAVAIR is excited about our involvement in the JSF program, said Mike Jiavaras, ALRE’s EAF team leader. “Knowing that the first time this aircraft demonstrates its impressive VTOL capabilities will be on an expeditionary airfield raises the level of pride the team has in our program and in support of the warfighter.”

The ski-jump ramp is used by British Her Majesty’s Ship (HMS) Invincible-class carriers for launch of STOVL aircraft, such as the Harrier GR7A, and is located on the forward-end of the flight deck. JSF program experts explain that the ski-jump is a more fuel efficient way for aircraft take-off. However, the drawback is that it does not allow larger aircraft such as the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the EA-18G Growler - future carrier deck-mates with the JSF, the needed distance for launch and recovery.

The mock ski-jump is 150-feet long, with a 15-foot high “lip” for aircraft launch. These shore-based ski-jump takeoffs will be conducted at varying airspeeds prior to the first UK ship detachment with the F-35B.

“We are extremely excited about getting the first of eight F-35’s to Patuxent River beginning this summer. The first aircraft to arrive, a STOVL aircraft designated BF-1, will use test facilities we have built to test and verify the unique warfighting capabilities the STOVL variant brings. We look forward to supporting the long-standing traditions of expeditionary warfare capabilities for the next 50 years of Marine Corps aviation,” said Capt. Wade Knudson, acting deputy program executive officer and program manager for F-35 Lightning II development."

[quote="spazsinbad"]EAF enables JSF landing anywhere, everywhere News Release Number: E200906291 06/29/2009

http://www.navair.navy.mil/newsreleases ... ew&id=4144

"PATUXENT NAVAL AIR STATION, Md. -- Marine Wing Support Squadron 274 gave engineers help in April to lay the first expeditionary landing site (June, 2009) for the F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter for short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) capabilities testing......
The mock ski-jump is 150-feet long, with a 15-foot high “lip” for aircraft launch. These shore-based ski-jump takeoffs will be conducted at varying airspeeds prior to the first UK ship detachment with the F-35B.[quote]

Is this still in the schedule after the Brits dumped the F-35B for a few of the F-35C

For the skate board jumping afficondos, would an emal on the LHA be more fuel efficient than the "skate board ramp"; inquiring minds , would like to know?

The RN have 2 (+1 on order?) F-35Bs they could pitch/bowl/ski whatever already? The date of the press release is well before the RN had their minds changed to the F-35C variety in late 2010.

I can see the USN rolling their eyes about EMAL on LHAs. Will it take up a helo spot? Will it blend?

Given the versatility of EMALS technology I would imagine that it would be more useful than a ski jump. Just my guess. There are safety advantages to a ski jump compared to the catapult (explained in the 'very long thread'). Please consider installing an EMALS on a SKI JUMP! Joy!
____________

EMALS for X-Mas & F-35C

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-14880.html

Info repeated with more specific info in the thread about 'ski jumps & F-35B':
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-360.html

http://www.navair.navy.mil/lakehurst/nlweb/ieeerevc.pdf (204Kb)

from page 4 of this 6 page PDF:

"Perhaps the most interesting aspect of electromagnetic launch is the flexibility it offers in the way of future aircraft and ship designs. An electromagnetic launcher could easily be sized down to perform as a launch-assist system, augmenting the short takeoff of a STOVL aircraft. It can also be easily incorporated into the contour of a ramp, which provides a more efficient fly-away angle for the aircraft being launched. This reduces the required endspeed, the commensurate energy supplied, as well as the stresses on the airframe. Overall, an EM launcher offers a great deal of flexibility to future naval requirements and ship designs."
from:
"Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System - EMALS
Michael R. Doyle, Douglas J. Samuel, Thomas Conway, Robert R. Klimowski
Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Lakehurst, NJ 08733
http://www.navair.navy.mil/lakehurst/nlweb/ieeerevc.pdf (204Kb)
"Abstract: With the proliferation of electromagnetic launch systems presently being designed, built, or studied, there appears to be no limit to their application. One of the intriguing applications is electromagnetically catapulting aircraft from the deck of an aircraft carrier. The U.S. Navy had foreseen the substantial capabilities of an electromagnetic catapult in the 1940's and built a prototype. However, it was not until the recent technical advances in the areas of pulsed power, power conditioning, energy storage devices, and controls gave credence to a fieldable electromagnetic aircraft launch system. This paper presents the U.S. Navy's Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) being developed in partnership with Kaman Electromagnetics (Hudson, MA). It addresses the EMALS's present design and the technologies involved, as well as the ship and operational impacts, advantages, disadvantages, and compatibility issues for today's and tomorrow's carriers....

...One of the major advantages of electromagnetic launch is the ability to integrate into the all electric ship...."

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-30.html

Ski Jump Explained (Forum Graphic): from the 'very long thread'...

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-210.html

'Obi Wan Russell': "I get asked to explain the ski jump regularly, since many seem unable to grasp the point. When you leave the end of the ramp, you will only be at about 80 knots and you aren't actually flying yet. But you are still accelerating and the ramp has converted some of your forward momentum into vertical thrust so you gain altitude whilst you are accelerating. Before you reach the top of the arc you will have reached true flying speed (about 130knots, and you will be at about 200ft)."

Ski Jump Explained Flight Global:
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-225.html

http://attach.high-g.net/attachments/sk ... rl_175.gif
http://attach.high-g.net/attachments/f3 ... mp_809.jpg
http://attach.high-g.net/attachments/se ... ps_563.gif