Replacing the Invincibles: inside the Royal Navy's controversial £6.2 billion warships19 Mar 2017 Andrew Hankinson [THIS IS A VERY LONG ARTICLE - BEST READ AT Source]
"...One of the problems with the F-35B is range. An aircraft carrier has to project and possibly wield power when a conventional runway is unavailable. To do that, the carrier needs to position itself so its aircraft can reach a target. "That can be right up the beach or very close in shore if the threat's been reduced," says Kyd. "Or it could be a hundred miles off the coast, flying jets in over the horizon." BAE Systems says the F-35B can fly 900 nautical miles (1,666km) compared to 1,200 (2,222km) for the F-35C, depending on conditions and payload. The planes need to return to the aircraft carrier, so they can only travel half that distance before turning around. The distance Kyd expects them to reach is "about 300 miles-ish" from the carrier.
"Physics just gets in the way," he says. "If you could design an aircraft to do a thousand-mile strike operation that's fantastic, but one of those does not exist at the moment. And so you have to mitigate that by using air-to-air refuellers or bring the ship in closer. Of course, as an operational commander you always want the maximum flexibility possible, but you have to work within the kit that you're provided with. The aircraft is phenomenal, as is the ship. We can move 500 miles a day, and when you're looking at the radius of action of helicopters and the jets, that's a massive, massive area you're controlling and dominating from the aircraft carrier. There's no other military formation that both effects sea control and power projects against the land. Nothing else does it. A carrier-strike group does." (When asked if he would prefer to operate with cats-and-traps planes, Kyd replies: "That's a really good question, and there are pros and cons both ways..."
Maybe refuelling is the answer to the F-35B's range problems. A couple of other limitations of the F-35B are being solved by David Atkinson, a BAE Systems aerospace engineer. Usually based at BAE's test site in Warton, Lancashire, he is at Rosyth Dockyard the first time WIRED speaks to him, and in Washington DC the second. Atkinson is charged with ensuring the F-35Bs operate seamlessly with the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers, and is in the US to discuss its progress towards flight trials on the carriers.
One key element in increasing the capability of the F-35B is the ski-jump ramp, a project Atkinson has been closely involved with. You've probably seen ski-jump ramps on carriers - they are the lip at the end of the flight deck which rises up. They were conceived by a Royal Navy officer in the 70s to increase the payload capacity of the Harrier when launched (they're unnecessary for cats-and-traps carriers). Various exit angles were trialled - the ramp on HMS Invincible was changed at one point - and after being proven it became a global standard for STOVL aircraft.
"It reduces the risk from a mistimed launch," Atkinson says. "When a ship's pitching, that is when the vessel is pointing slightly downwards towards the sea, which isn't great if you are on a flat deck, whereas with a ski jump you've always got a positive upwards trajectory when you leave the ship. It reduces the pilot's workload and gives them more time to diagnose issues. It's a safer option for launching a STOVL aircraft and, from a performance point of view, it means you can launch with more weight from a shorter distance on the ship."
The ski-jump ramp needed to be updated for the F-35B, so a version based on the dimensions of those on the Invincible class was built at the Naval Air Station in Patuxent River in Maryland (where Atkinson was heading after WIRED talked to him). Test flights showed that the F-35B was successful in automatically directing its thrusters when on the ramp. BAE just needed to figure out the ramp's optimal dimensions, which took two years. The new versions are 15 metres longer than the Invincibles', but are the same shape, and are now in place on the two flight decks. No prototypes were needed. "We don't need to with analysis and simulation," Atkinson says.
Next problem. When an F-35B pilot needs to land, the standard procedure would be to fly alongside the ship on the port side, towards its stern, then match the speed of the ship before applying a little lateral thrust to move the plane over the deck where it will land vertically on a designated spot (one of Kyd's "pros" for the F-35B is that there aren't planes coming on to the deck at high speed, so it's safer). However, when landing vertically, the F-35B can't carry much weight, so if the pilot didn't drop the ordnance the plane was carrying during the mission, it may have to drop those munitions in the sea before landing.
The F-35B may carry some very expensive weapons, which the Ministry of Defence would not like dropped in the sea. The potential solution is the Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL), a technique dating from the 70s and researched by the Ministry for use with the Harrier, but never brought into service. The pilot will fly towards the stern of the ship at a low speed while descending, guided by a helmet-mounted display and a stabilised aim point on the ship. The plane will then roll forwards as it lands and apply its brakes. Testing by Atkinson's team in an F-35B simulator at Warton will continue throughout 2017.
"We've been conducting our experiments," he says. "We've identified some things that we wanted to adjust slightly - the point at which the aircraft gets on, the speed that it's going to land at - those kind of things and what the advantages and disadvantages to each of those are. And we've worked with a whole range of test pilots and taken people's opinions and done analysis and shown how much extra fuel is needed if you get on-speed earlier. All of those things are traded, adjusted and adapted until you get to the final solution that is now in the aircraft software, and is the defined end-game. We're at the point where we know what the aircraft is going to be like when we go to the ship."...
...The flight deck on HMS Queen Elizabeth was covered in tents when WIRED visited in September 2016 because a thermal metal coating was being applied by robots to protect it from the heat blast of the jets as they land. (Equipment on the flight deck such as rafts and catwalks are given upgraded heat shielding.) When the standard surface used on current aircraft-carrier flight decks was tested at the BAE lab in Warton it survived for mere seconds.
"It just vanishes," Booth says, "and you've just got a bare deck which then would start rusting away, and worse than that, potentially you get blisters which could get ingested into aircraft."..."
Source: http://www.wired.co.uk/article/navy-que ... th-warship