F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

[spazsinbad]

'quicksilver' I get it. SRVL bothers you. We will see. If it proves to be too dangerous either in simulation (which does not appear to be the case otherwise SRVL would have been dropped aeons ago) or in limited testing under ideal conditions on the CVF then SRVL will be dropped. However if SRVL proves doable in limited circumstances then it MIGHT be used as required OR only in some kind of emergency and not as a regular operation. Who knows but to go on and on about any potential difficulty says something about how dangerous deck landings are - nevertheless these are done on a regular basis - up and till when they cannot be done for all the reasons you have outlined. So what.

You like to imply about the 35-40 knot wheelspeed 'taxiing' forgetting that the aircraft will be only at that speed at SRVL touchdown (from a higher approach angle) with engine at idle (engine nozzle not even pointing fore and aft) with good braking action as outlined in the recent Canadian F-35A thread about 6,000 foot runways etc. Here is the quote emphasing advantages of F-35 brake/control systems:

"...Q3.16 Does the F-35A Conventional Takeoff and Landing (CTOL) variant need more runway to land than other comparable fighter aircraft?

A3.16 No. Upon landing the F-35 uses an efficient braking system, which includes computer directed flight controls and an advanced anti-skid wheel brake system. The aircraft is capable of unaided stopping distances equivalent to those of Canada’s current CF-18...."
_____

Here is another good commentator from the otherwise often woeful Pprune Forum. 'Engines' has been involved in the F-35 saga while his posts about it have proved to be accurate over the years. This one is a good illustration:

‘Engines’: 28 April 2012 No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... 5b-31.html

“...The F-35B is required to be able to recover to the deck using a VL with a full internal weapons load of 2 x 1000 pound JDAMS and 2 AIM-120s. This drives the KPP (Key Performance Parameter) for VL Bring Back (VLBB). The F-35B meets this KPP under the climatic conditions specified in the JORD. The UK initiated the RVL studies because they want the aircraft to be able to do this at even more demanding conditions in the Persian Gulf [East of Sewers] in summer. I'm tempted to write this in capitals, as many don't seem to get the simple fact that the F-35 can bring back its weapons to a VL on a hot day. Not, I freely admit, on a super hot day. [Remains to be seen/proved that last bit about 'super hot day' - whatever that is.]

RVLs - I certainly don't claim that 'they are not a problem', mainly because they have not yet been tried. However, citing Harrier GR1 problems as a reason not to attempt them in a 35B is not relevant. The Harrier's 'bicycle' landing gear layout caused immense problems in its early days (P1127 onwards) & the GR1 still had some major issues that were only partially fixed on the GR3. The AV-8B's revised outriggers were, in part, an attempt to improve deck handling. On top of these, the braking performance of the Harrier was marginal at best. Finally, Harrier flying qualities at RVL speeds were really not very good.

F-35B has a good stable gear layout with very powerful main gear carbon brakes controlled by a sophisticated computer driven system. It's flight control systems are 50 years on from the Harrier, and precision RVL approaches should not be a high workload event. That's what the guys doing the test flying say.

CVF is a big deck with a longer run out area, and will be a lot more stable in roll and pitch than legacy Harrier ships like CVS or LPDs.

I'm not for one minute claiming that these will solve all the problems of RVLs, should the RN go for them. But they make the issue a wholly different proposition from the days of GR1s on small decks. That said, the whole issue of operating aircraft from carriers calls for dedicated aircrew and RN ownership. The UK tried a 'joint' unit and it failed. Best to learn from one's mistakes, in my view....”

Otherwise for you to bang on with your FUD argument (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) without any other evidence, other than assertion, I think you can be ignored. The Bedford Array takes care of ship movement as described. The actual slow aircraft speed is quickly brought down to nothing in the conditions. Better non skid coating THERMION will deal with old poor quality deck anti skid issues as described. Winds swirling? You got to be kidding me.

[spazsinbad]

Another PLAN view of CVF for F-35Bs. Another 'never mind the quality - feel the width' view. At around 65K tonnes it is going to be fairly stable hurtling along at 25 knots. YeeHah....

http://sphotos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-a ... 6236_n.jpg

QE class: length 932'; beam 128'; width 240'; draught 36'

Nimitz class: length 1,092'; beam 134'; width 252' (early), 257' (late);
draught 37' (early), 39' (late)

Tooms and Buccaneers landed on this old Ark Royal - and we are concerned about possible 35 knot wheelspeed SRVLs on CVFs?

http://content.yudu.com/A1ob8a/navynews ... s.co.uk%2F

[spazsinbad]

Here is an Youtube video made in FSX with the Dino Cattaneo F-35B making an 'SRVL' (I don't think the chap flying knows about this method - he just made up something) to a CVN angle deck. However we can get the idea with our imagination. No? The 'pitching deck' is an utility for use in FSX carrier work.

pitching deck f35b landing on carrier1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQwluBmy ... r_embedded

"Published on Jan 3, 2013
Dino's f35b landing on Javiers's Nimitz using Orion Lyau's pitching deck utility.
Please excuse the crappy flying... "

[mor10]

Another PLAN view of CVF for F-35Bs. Another 'never mind the quality - feel the width' view. At around 65K tonnes it is going to be fairly stable hurtling along at 25 knots. YeeHah....

The new high tech bow will do as much for pitch stability as the increase in size. Those new bows reduces pitch motion dramatically and at speeds over 10-12 knots the drag is reduced significantly too, hence reduced fuel consumption for its size.

[quicksilver]

'quicksilver' I get it. SRVL bothers you.

No you don't.

SRVL doesn't bother me -- all the 'free lunch' proclamation in advance of the proof does. It's not about the aircraft, its handling characteristics or its braking system (which still relies on differential braking however advanced the anti-skid system). It's not about the ability to place the jet at exactly the target location and airspeed (to single digit distance errors and one knot precision). And, it's not about the ability to control rollout distance; it's about the ability to control the lateral movement of a 20 ton jet that just performed a rolling landing on a wet, oily, rolling flight deck.

SRVL is a great idea -- it just has one conspicuous pitfall that none are talking about and which may limit it's ultimate utility.

[spazsinbad]

'quicksilver' said: "...it's about the ability to control the lateral movement of a 20 ton jet that just performed a rolling landing on a wet, oily, rolling flight deck...." Any carrier deck landing has limitations, even CVNs regarding deck movement. SRVL deck landings will have their own deck movement limitations. HOWEVER - unlike CVN conventional carrier ops via arrested landing - the CVF F-35B can jettison stores or dump fuel to be in the weight limit for a vertical landing and do just that. End of story - wet, oily or not. This point has been made a few times now but I guess you will persist with your FUD.

[spazsinbad]

On page 37 of this thread (14 May 2012): UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... rvl#223470 we have what I presume is an accurate to scale SRVL animation with realistic touchdown point and wheelspeed. What's not to like? A 2Mb clip showing this night SRVL is on the page above. Text below is from the page above.

"'OLD’ 20Mb CGI Video of intended F-35B Ops aboard CVF with AfterBurner Ski Jump Takeoffs which must have been an 'old' idea a decade ago. Anyway this video shows a night time SRVL recreation which most likely is accurate including touching down more toward centre of deck as shown in screenshot (AFT Island in view). Video clip and screenshot(s) of (near) touchdown point is from the 20Mb .MP4 video:

Right mouse clicking on the video to select 'ZOOM' then 'Full Screen' view is useful

http://www.baesystems.com/cs/groups/pub ... dition.mp4 (20Mb)

NOW on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnB4lBltLAA

[spazsinbad]

Graphics/Pictures From: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... _Jan-U.pdf (4.5Mb). Text to follow.... This is not the exact text from the PDF but similar from another source. I'll have to work at getting the exact article text later.

Pilots prepare for landing on Royal Navy's new carriers

Originally Posted by Ministry of Defence | This report features in the January 2013 issue of desider - the magazine for Defence Equipment and Support.

http://www.arrse.co.uk/mod-news/192653- ... riers.html

"RAF and Royal Navy personnel have been training with the Flight Control Office - or Flyco - of the carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth at the BAE Systems simulator at Warton in Lancashire.

When the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant of the F-35 comes in to land on the deck of the UK’s next carriers it will be vital that pilots are well-versed in the skills of landing on a moving deck.

Pete Wilson, BAE Systems’ lead test pilot for the F-35 STOVL aircraft, said:
"We are very supportive here in trying to help the customer come to terms with what the change to the STOVL version means in terms of bringing that aeroplane back in to land on the Queen Elizabeth carriers.

We are reverting back to a manoeuvre called ‘shipborne rolling vertical landing’ which means we are going to bring the F-35B in to land on the deck at about 60 knots (111 kilometres per hour).

It’s a complex engineering problem to try to solve because we don’t want to come down too steeply - that could break the aeroplane.

We don’t want to come down too fast because we would not be able to stop and would run off the front of the carrier which is clearly a disastrous situation. We don’t have a hook on the aeroplane so we have to stop using our wheelbrakes alone.

And we can’t afford to come down too shallow because if the stern of the ship comes up high towards the flight path we could hit the back of the ship and that’s also disastrous."

Mr. Wilson added:
"The work we are doing is extremely important as a risk-reduction measure; what we are getting is an insight into the future so we are able to simulate the air around the ship, the lights which are embedded in the deck, and the procedures and radio calls we are going to use.

We are solving problems and putting design in place now when it is cheaper and easier than it would be later. I would say we are saving millions of dollars of potential design change in the future. It is immensely important work and that’s why we are here in this world class simulator facility."

In a busy year, Mr Wilson said that the team has met its milestones:
"Every month we have a certain number of test points we have to execute which means flying the aeroplane a lot and we have managed to surpass the testing point requirement for the year, which is a significant achievement.One objective of the trials has been to come up with a set of requirements that define which tools and techniques are required by the Landing Signals Officers in the Flyco, helping in the safe recovery of the approaching aircraft."

[spazsinbad]

Cleared to land! Testing on simulator gets to grips with helping UK F-35 pilots return ‘home’

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... _Jan-U.pdf (4.5Mb)

"A room with a view – the Flight Control Office on the deck of HMS Queen Elizabeth has been at the centre of trials with RAF and Royal Navy personnel.

When the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant of the F-35 comes in to land on the deck of the UK’s next carriers it will be vital that pilots are well-versed in the skills of landing on a moving deck.

Pilots have been visiting the BAE Systems simulator at Warton in Lancashire to familiarise themselves with the deck they will land on and the office – Flyco as it is known – from where personnel will guide them in.

“We are very supportive here in trying to help the customer come to terms with what the change to the STOVL version means in terms of bringing that aeroplane back into land on the Queen Elizabeth carriers,” said Pete Wilson, BAE Systems’ lead test pilot for the F-35 STOVL aircraft.

“We are reverting back to a manoeuvre called Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing which means we are going to bring the F-35B into land on the deck at about 60 knots.

“It’s a complex engineering problem to try to solve because we don’t want to come down too steeply – that could break the aeroplane.

“We don’t want to come down too fast because we would not be able to stop and would run off the front of the carrier which is clearly a disastrous situation. We don’t have a hook on the aeroplane so we have to stop using our wheelbrakes alone.

“And we can’t afford to come down too shallow because if the stern of the ship comes up high towards the flight path we could hit the back of the ship and that’s also disastrous.”

Mr Wilson added: “The work we are doing is extremely important as a risk reduction measure; what we are getting is an insight into the future so we are able to simulate the air around the ship, the lights which are embedded in the deck and the procedures and radio calls we are going to use.

“We are solving problems and putting design in place now when it is cheaper and easier than it would be later. I would say we are saving millions of dollars of potential design change in the future. It is immensely important work and that’s why we are here in this world class simulator facility."

In a busy year the team has met its milestones. “Every month we have a certain number of test points we have to execute which means flying the aeroplane a lot and we have managed to surpass the testing point requirement for the year, which is a significant achievement,” said Mr Wilson.

One objective of the trials has been to come up with a set of requirements that define which tools and techniques are required by the Landing Signals Officers in the Flyco, helping in the safe recovery of the approaching aircraft."

[spazsinbad]

UK relaunches F-35B/QE carrier simulation training By Gareth Jennings Jan/9/2013

http://www.janes.com/products/janes/def ... hannel=air

"The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) is undertaking simulated training to operate the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL)-variant Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) from the decks of the future Queen Elizabeth (QE)-class aircraft carriers, the MoD revealed on 8 January.

Renewed training of Royal Air Force (RAF) and Royal Navy (RN) personnel on the F-35B at the BAE Systems simulator at Warton, Lancashire, follows the UK government's decision in 2012 to revert back to the STOVL aircraft after a brief dalliance with the carrier variant (CV) F-35C.

Speaking during a previous tour of the simulator facility when it was configured for the F-35C, BAE Systems officials told IHS Jane's that the change from one variant aircraft to another did not pose too much of a problem with regard to the company's simulator-based training.

As Mike Southworth, business development manager at BAE Systems' Engineering Integrated Solutions explained, the simulator at Warton runs the ATLAS software from Lockheed Martin, which has all the F-35 variants already embedded within it...."

One needs a subscription to read more - not me Chief.

[spazsinbad]

One purpose of the UK CVF SRVL trials was: "...One objective of the trials has been to come up with a set of requirements that define which tools and techniques are required by the Landing Signals Officers in the Flyco, helping in the safe recovery of the approaching aircraft." Below is a screenshot of the LSO Sight in the Spanish LHD FlyCo, with approach angles in degrees (otherwise scribble on the window out of focus) from the recent 'Spanish AV-8s on their LHD' video. Probably something similar was in the UK CVSs and perhaps something similar if not the same will be in the CVFs? Perhaps with better low light cameras a screen (along with out gizmo dials - similar to the current USN LSO station) with readouts, may show F-35B approach details both day/night?

The USS Enterprise LSO Station JPG shows only part of the gizmos at the LSO station on current CVNs.

[spazsinbad]

Okay Okay Okay - not an SRVL video but a WET DECK USN conventional CarOps on a wet day. NOTE BENE the slow taxi speed near deck edge and note the rain drops. NICE unobstructed view forward of a carrier approach (remember the camera is not at the same eye level as the pilot for meatball position). Plus we see some air refuellin'.

F/A-18F Super Hornet Flight (2012) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ-L1wxx ... e=youtu.be

"Published on Jan 7, 2013
Courtesy Video Defense Media Activity - Navy
Produced by Petty Officer 2nd Class James Evans.
Lt. Michael Loringer, assigned to Strike Fighter Squadron 22, pilots an F/A-18F Super Hornet during a mission flown from the flight deck of the Nimitz class aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson. USS Carl Vinson and Carrier Air Wing 17 are deployed to the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility."

[spazsinbad]

Another 'feel the width' moment (never mind the quality):

Stunning graphics show UK’s future (twin-island) supercarriers January 9, 2013 Posted by David Cenciotti

http://theaviationist.com/2013/01/09/uk-future-carrier/

"Not as large as U.S. flattops but 280 meters in length hence longer than the London’s Palace of Westminster ["meeting place of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the two houses of the Parliament of the United Kingdom"]: this is the size of HMS Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales, UK’s Royal Navy future flagships.

The team behind the future aircraft carriers have produced a series of rendering whose aim is to demonstrate the scale of the carriers. To give a better idea of the size of the 65,000-tons leviathan, the artists put the HMS Queen Elizabeth, on the Thames next to the Palace of Westminster, and the HMS Prince of Wales at Victory Jetty in Portsmouth...."

http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/up ... /QE-21.jpg [POW]
&
http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/up ... 1/QE-3.jpg [QE]

[quicksilver]

"...the CVF F-35B can jettison stores or dump fuel to be in the weight limit for a vertical landing and do just that. End of story - wet, oily or not.

No, the end of the story is the conversation the CAG has with the squadron commander about why they should continue dumping PGMs in the drink.

I can tell you from experience that the tolerance for such a thing will not last very long (about one time).

[spazsinbad]

Well that is for the Brit CAG to decide - IF EVER IT IS REQUIRED. And we still are not there yet (using SRVLs in either testing on CVF or on land in UK). I know if the choice is between dumping a munition for a safe VL or testing the limits of a safe SRVL in potentially unsafe weather / ship conditions, I know where the choice will be. Consider that conventional aircraft likely would not fly in the same unsafe conditions and likely would have to divert ashore - IF THAT WAS POSSIBLE (yes yes I know about tanker aircraft - but where does the TANKER go if it cannot land back aboard?). Let us gather more information about such limits and whether or not the SRVL will even be required. I wonder why you yourself are so interested because after all it is an RN/RAF issue on CVF only at this point. No?

You seem to think that the Brits are clueless about SRVLs. They have been looking at this new way of landing for a long time. I recall the Brits invented a lot of new deck landing stuff during / just after WWII [mirror, angle deck etc.] and I guess there were a lot of naysayers then also.

Again if an SRVL was deemed at this stage to be unsafe/unuseful then planning / simulation would not proceed over such a long time frame (except I guess for the terms of a contract already taken up). Probably 'running landings at PaxRiver' are useful but I don't know if these are flown to the SRVL profile (6 degree glideslope at 60 KIAS).

Another bit of info:

Pentagon’s Operational Test and Evaluation Report 2012 PDF

http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com ... report.pdf (0.5Mb)

ONE example page/table of issues for the F-35B with several pages of text for both B/C (A versions have their own pages of course). So best read the PDF eh. F-35B STOVL Door Issues plus this (amongst other reasons) may be why we don't see/hear much about SRVL these days: [Some of this same text will be added to the appropriate threads]

TABLE here: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-21926.html

F-35B:
"...Planned wet runway testing, required to assess braking performance with a new brake control unit, has been delayed due to the inability to create the properly degraded friction conditions at the Patuxent River Naval Air Station (NAS), Maryland. The F-35B training aircraft at Eglin will be restricted to dry runway operations only until the wet runway testing is completed...."