F-35s austure basing and the Rand study.

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2602
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post10 Dec 2020, 18:51

Watching vids of Aye takeoff rolls @ Luke AFB and counting runway markers / signs... seemed like the Ayes were lifting off in 1500-2000'. Of course, this was a real swag. Training flights... am guessing you take off with full bags... so could a Cee with 45% more wing area lift an extra 4k weight in that same stretch of concrete?
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

outlaw162

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1567
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2008, 02:33

Unread post10 Dec 2020, 19:11

Yeah, it gives me an appreciation of just how challenging and risky this type of operation will be. I've been in the last 1000' of runway at 180 knots on takeoff, limited options available.

The arrested landing in clear Wx is the easy part. Then you may also have to get your C-130/C-17, loaded with ordnance, fuel, mx & security personnel on that same postage stamp sized runway.

A 12 on a scale of 10. :mrgreen: They'll have to add higher numbers to the pre-mission risk assessment form.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1495
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post10 Dec 2020, 20:33

weasel1962 wrote:More likely the 1st waves of missiles goes after hangers, buildings. Then the 2nd wave goes after planes being parked in the open as they can't use the hangers...which wouldn't be an issue in distributed ops.

That's also why the focus is always on Chinese delivery first rather than the reverse that always end in complete Chinese takeout.


Runways are invariably attacked first with the accurate missiles to pin the aircraft at their base.
The penetrator types envisioned are the concrete heaving types that would take most of a day
to repair. That's plenty of BDA time.

Even fairly inaccurate cruise or ballistic missile follow-on attacks with basic DPICM sub-munitions
can threaten pretty much everything else short of a hardened aircraft shelter or just as importantly
the fuel hydrant systems and storage.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25431
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post10 Dec 2020, 21:27

outlaw162 wrote:2000-3000 feet TO, no catapult?
2XMK-84 takeoff on a 3000' runway. :shock: I guess instead of a go-no go, you have a go-eject or at best a no go of about 50 knots. A nicely simplified decision making process and any wreckage will be far enough off the end of the runway to allow for continued ops. Single-engine CTOL always reduces takeoffs to the basics.
(BTW, 29 Palms, lot less moisture than the Pacific, you known it never rains in 'Southern California'....when do they get to the JPALS part?)

Perhaps there could be long field arresting gear employed? Expeditionary JPALS coming soon to a theatre near you.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1495
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post10 Dec 2020, 21:43

spazsinbad wrote:Perhaps there could be long field arresting gear employed? Expeditionary JPALS coming soon to a theatre near you.


And if you look at the Air Force's definition of "austere" adding JPALS can render an airbase non-austere.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25431
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post10 Dec 2020, 21:46

YEAH BUT does it say EXPEDITIONARY JPALS and where the f is this definition that APPLIES to the United States Air Force?
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1495
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post10 Dec 2020, 22:14

spazsinbad wrote:YEAH BUT does it say EXPEDITIONARY JPALS and where the f is this definition that APPLIES to the United States Air Force?


I'm using the definition for small austere airfield; it's missing or limited in one or more areas like navigation aids.
The AF has another deployable ILS system but it's cumbersome and limited in comparison to JPALS.
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1314
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post10 Dec 2020, 22:16

outlaw162 wrote:2000-3000 feet TO, no catapult?

2XMK-84 takeoff on a 3000' runway. :shock: I guess instead of a go-no go, you have a go-eject or at best a no go of about 50 knots. A nicely simplified decision making process and any wreckage will be far enough off the end of the runway to allow for continued ops. ...


Okay I guess this let's me weigh in with a war story ... :D .

You have arm chair planners and then you have actual mission planners. Ignoring inversion of S-1/S-2 speeds (V1,V2 in some circles) planning short/max takeoffs is not a casual matter.

In our day we had the ultimate - "EWO" condition, which was Emergency War Orders takeoff weight. The weight was that which allowed a perfect no problems takeoff just before the runway ran out .... barely. I always wondered how reliable that calculation was, should the big WW III balloon go up ... That is I wondered until some idiot at the Pentagon decided that we were cleared EWO takeoff for a U-2 Mission from an undisclosed location. The U-2 guy in the jump seat had convinced them it was a good idea.

Long story short. The calculation was good, included the overrun, and flying the first couple hundred feet over the ocean in ground effect. The point however is the U-2 Mission Commander after changing his shorts post mission, noted that he would never mission plan that one again... ever ... even if a nuke was coming ... which is my point.

You don't mission plan takeoffs that you "might be able to make," unless there really is a nuke 5 minutes from making the runway paved in glass ... but yes if anything went wrong the wreckage would have been well off the runway for the next fool who wanted to try it. I can vouch for that.

FWIW,
BP
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25431
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post10 Dec 2020, 22:46

By all accounts the F-35 has a reliable ejection seat. I've told the story about A4G heavy weight takeoffs at NAS Nowra on our 6,000 foot runways where ALL the runway was required on a NIL wind HOT day. Pilot ejection can be considered but given the demonstrated reliability of the F-35 with 'adjudged take off distances at unknown weights' I would be OK with it.
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: 25431
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post10 Dec 2020, 22:48

marauder2048 wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:YEAH BUT does it say EXPEDITIONARY JPALS and where the f is this definition that APPLIES to the United States Air Force?

I'm using the definition for small austere airfield; it's missing or limited in one or more areas like navigation aids.
The AF has another deployable ILS system but it's cumbersome and limited in comparison to JPALS.

How about a link to your definition please. We are still talking about the USMC. Am I rite or AM I RONG?
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

outlaw162

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1567
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2008, 02:33

Unread post10 Dec 2020, 23:48

The weight was that which allowed a perfect no problems takeoff just before the runway ran out .... barely. I always wondered how reliable that calculation was


An opportunity to tell my favorite KC-135 story.

When the 198th at San Juan converted to A-7s from zippers, the Tucson Guard offered to provide the PRANG with combined Departure Training and DACT upgrades. They liked the idea and we set up two F-100s to be tanked non-stop to San Juan from Tucson with two A-7 IPS on board the 135 (incl myself) to do the A-7 Departure Training.

KC-135 takeoff was scheduled early morning out of D-M when it was cool, with 2 clean Huns out of Tucson IAP next door launching at the same time.

Well the AFRES 135 out of Mather developed some radio problems and the launch was delayed. Ambient temperature went up about 20 degrees before the problem was fixed. 135 took the runway at D-M and then commenced to burn down fuel for about 10 minutes with the brakes applied. Coordinated with the Huns over at TUS and when their calculations were met, everybody released brakes together. I didn't have a window seat, but other A-7 FWS guy did. As we rolled down the runway, he counted the 1000' remaining markers.....9,8,7,6,5 etc, etc. When his eyes got big I knew this was going to be close. He got to 1 and then I felt us roll over the departure end cable and we got airborne in the overrun.

We didn't get higher than about 300' going thru the pass for I-10 between the two mountain ranges to the southeast. Easy join-up for the Huns and finally off we went to San Juan....evidently a reliable if somewhat cavalier calculation by the 135 dudes. Whew. No nukes in the vicinity.

But then we finally get near San Juan, with CBs all around and they offload some extra gas to the Huns just in case. We land minimum fuel (or less) and the mech or somebody comes back and says, 'everyone forward so we don't fall back on the tail until we get the tail stand in place'. Whew again.

After a week in San Juan, the same Mather AFRES 135 crew shows up to get us back to Tucson. :shock: Fortunately going west we had an overnight stop in Miami first.

I've been in the last 1000' on takeoff in the F-100 and the USMS 727, but never on the overrun....I like our calculations better.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1495
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post11 Dec 2020, 00:07

spazsinbad wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:YEAH BUT does it say EXPEDITIONARY JPALS and where the f is this definition that APPLIES to the United States Air Force?

I'm using the definition for small austere airfield; it's missing or limited in one or more areas like navigation aids.
The AF has another deployable ILS system but it's cumbersome and limited in comparison to JPALS.

How about a link to your definition please. We are still talking about the USMC. Am I rite or AM I RONG?



Technically, it's the joint force definition:

Unsophisticated airfield, usually with a short runway, that is limited in one or a combination of the following: taxiway systems, ramp space, security, materials handling equipment, aircraft servicing, maintenance, navigation aids, weather observing sensors, and communications. Also called SAAF. (JP 3-17)


But "short runway" for the AF can be 8,000 ft.
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2452
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post11 Dec 2020, 00:38

Salute!

Well, Outlaw, I ask how many times you took off in the Sluf at 35 - 40 deg C with 8xMk82 and two 300 gallon tanks. How long did you roll? Quite a ways, I can tellya.

We used two check speeds, but first was most indicative of your machine. Second was up at 120 -v130 knots or so, and the last 20 knots took about half the runway. Lottsa difference between 43,000 pounds versus 14,000 pounds of thrust. Then there's drag.

I have no doubt that the Stubbie can get up in 3,000 or 4,000 feet with normal loadout. As far as the landing rollout, our 356th Green Demons used the Marine arresting gear at Barber's Point one time for a deployment exercise. On a rainy day with slick runway, the guys landed about 2 minutes apart and the jarheads retracted the cable for the next guy while first guy taxiied off the rwy. I understand that the Marines did that at some of the II Corps bases they had back in 1965 - 1967.

Anyway, good to see the high purple is thinking about austere basing and dispersal sites. And glad to see the Marines flying all over the place while the Navy is fighting to buy more Super Bugs and delaying ops for the Cee birds.

Gums sends...
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25431
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post11 Dec 2020, 01:04

Yeah that last 10 knots for take-off can be troublesome when actually GOING UPHILL on our 6,000 foot NAS Nowra R/Ws.

Three runways were uphill for the last half while the other runway was DOWNHILL all the way for a really really HOT day.

NAS Barbers Point back in the day 1971 was USN with one of our A4Gs short field arresting on drop tanks after mangling the undercart at the end of a practice armament delivery on the range down south at KAHOOLAWE (now a national park).
Last edited by spazsinbad on 11 Dec 2020, 01:09, edited 1 time in total.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

outlaw162

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1567
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2008, 02:33

Unread post11 Dec 2020, 01:09

Well, Outlaw, I ask how many times you took off in the Sluf at 35 - 40 deg C with 8xMk82 and two 300 gallon tanks.


Never been asked to.
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests