UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

[spazsinbad]

Wonder as one may while the idea of ISLANDS in the stream of TWO strips either side is perhaps well known & discounted?

[steve2267]

I dunno. In this day and age of computers, simulations, Computational Fluid Dynamics, electronics & miniaturization, etc etc... if one feller can figure out how to land and reuse a rocket, why can’t a carrier have two runways?

Maybe the islands have to sit further forward?

You could go with an angled deck, but then the takeoff run length probably requires interleaved landing & takeoff options.

I joined the site well after the Brits had started the QE design. But since She is so wide, did the Brits consider parallel runways?

[spazsinbad]

Let get started - again - there is a recent history of the CVF design process from SAVEtheRoyalNavy a few pages back. Then online there are more histories. BEEDALL used to have a great 'design of CVF & others' site but it is no more. Perhaps it can be found in the 'wayback machine'? The SRVL AFAIK is not accepted Standard Operating Procedure yet. When it is then one may speculate whether it will be used a lot or less. Meanwhile things are designed for what one knows will work now with what one has? Sure one could VL/VTO helos all day on one flight deck with STOing all day from tuther - perhaps.

This is NOT the SRVL thread BTW. On that thread it is made clear THE W I D E deck makes SRVLs a lot safer - nest say pas?

[steve2267]

Spaz... thanks for the gentull reminder(s). Some reading to go do...

Hey, at least I didn't dredge up nor pull in the Falklands... though I suppose I could try to segue that way by wonderin' how increased dual-deck flight ops would make those islets that much more safer and stuff...

[zhangmdev]

I think this is the charm of STOVL. A simple runway without moving parts is enough to handle multiple launch and recovery with relative ease. A bigger ship offers more room to maneuvre, aircraft can enter and exit the runway more quickly. Two runways are not necessary unless you want to launch and recover simultaneously.

[spazsinbad]

Probably 'madrat' brought up that concept of two decks separated by an ISLAND yonks ago - will I find it - will it BLEND?!

WILL IT BLEND: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnFP0I ... LnVzDLUtfw

I see another answer is before this one. Remember the CVF deck is large enough for VL & STO simultaneously - VL at rear.

[Corsair1963]

Let get started - again - there is a recent history of the CVF design process from SAVEtheRoyalNavy a few pages back. Then online there are more histories. BEEDALL used to have a great 'design of CVF & others' site but it is no more. Perhaps it can be found in the 'wayback machine'? The SRVL AFAIK is not accepted Standard Operating Procedure yet. When it is then one may speculate whether it will be used a lot or less. Meanwhile things are designed for what one knows will work now with what one has? Sure one could VL/VTO helos all day on one flight deck with STOing all day from tuther - perhaps.

This is NOT the SRVL thread BTW. On that thread it is made clear THE W I D E deck makes SRVLs a lot safer - nest say pas?

Does this help???

http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot ... uture.html

http://armada-navy-marine.blogspot.com/ ... tters.html


or maybe this......


https://archive.is/OpqUL

[spazsinbad]

Thanks. Good history in first URL but I'm not going to read it - again - soon. 2nd URL has no graphics in my IE11 so I'll investigate. BEEDALL.COM if can be found is very useful but I don't think my archives have PDFs made from pages.

OK - I see second URL is by BEEDALL but sadly no graphics.... ??? "© 2004-10 Richard Beedall unless otherwise indicated. All rights reserved. Page last updated: 05/18/2011"

[Corsair1963]

Thanks. Good history in first URL but I'm not going to read it - again - soon. 2nd URL has no graphics in my IE11 so I'll investigate. BEEDALL.COM if can be found is very useful but I don't think my archives have PDFs made from pages.

OK - I see second URL is by BEEDALL but sadly no graphics.... ??? "© 2004-10 Richard Beedall unless otherwise indicated. All rights reserved. Page last updated: 05/18/2011"

Somebody must have it archived somewhere........

[spazsinbad]

https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://na ... edall.com/

I'm not that interested in trawling through the site but others with interest may gain good information for themselves.

https://web.archive.org/web/20040722005 ... /about.htm

"History of Navy Matters
In 1997 Richard Beedall [Curriculum Vitae] set up a website devoted to providing information on the British Royal Navy. By 2000, with the advent of a reasonable official Royal Navy site he changed the emphasis to the Future of the Royal Navy. In 2004 he decided to start broadening the sites mandate beyond the Royal Navy to include other navies, and naval matters in general."

[zerion]

The Marines have arrived.

https://mobile.twitter.com/hmsqnlz/stat ... 5629646850

[spazsinbad]

First Test F-35B VL & STO HMS Queen Elizabeth 25 Sep 2018 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY3-Xelt-oI

[spazsinbad]

'Engines' at PPRUNE has another excellent 'historical' post in reply to 'LO' (billybobboysweetiepie - Bill Sweetman) go here:
https://www.pprune.org/military-aviatio ... st10608359 01 Nov 2019 'Engines' is Steve George ex-RN CMDR Aviation Engineer in SHAR (Sea Harrier) era and later during F-35B development.

"...LO raises the very good examples of Rafale and the F-111 as aircraft designed from the outset to be both CTOL (land based) and CV (cat and trap carrier based). The F-111B CV variant proved to be unsuccessful, and when I worked at Fort Worth it was frequently quoted as an example of how not to put an aircraft to sea. It couldn't 'thread the needle' of being able to get a reasonable payload off the catapult (very high empty weight) or get back on board at a feasible speed (not enough wing). It shows what an excellent job the French made with Rafale, although I would like to know just how common the airframes are between the land based variants and the 'M'.

The reason I mention that is to pick up on LO's point about empty weights, and the effect on them of going STOVL. He is absolutely right that the empty weight of the F-35B is higher than that of the F-35A, and he is also right that the 'B' has to carry around the weight of the equipment to get it on and off the ship. However, I would gently point out that the F-35C also carries some weight to allow it to use the launch and recovery gear (the cats and traps) on the ship. Using the 'empty weight' figures from the 2016 OT&E report, the three variants come out as follows (figures slightly rounded to make the mental maths easier):

F-35A - 29,000 pounds
F-35B - 32,400 pounds
F-35C - 34,580 pounds

From these, the F-35B's 'STOVL weight penalty' is around 3,400 pounds, The F-35C, however, has a weigh penalty of 5,580 pounds. This is due to the factors I highlighted in an earlier reply, where the unique loads generated by cat and trap operations generate massive additional stresses that have to be managed by additional or much beefier bits of metal. The F-35C also has to have larger wings, fins and tailplanes to be able to do that slow precision approach and landing stuff as well as flying away from a catapult launch. Plus a landing gear system that weighs well over twice that of an A. These all add many pounds. The designers I worked with told me that the 'C' model was the least 'common' of the three variants. I freely admit that this isn't a straight comparison - those bigger wings on the 'C' do translate into increased internal fuel capacity and longer range. However, they also mean lower speeds and reduced turn performance - the 'C' model bleeds energy in the turn faster than the A or the B. Horses for courses, as ever. By the way, the 'C' also lacks an internal gun and has, I can assure you all, a very aggressively lightened structure, just like the other two variants.

To pick up on LO's last point - yes, STOVL does let you operate from smaller ships. I can't quite follow the rest of his argument (which is my fault, not his), but I would gently offer the observation that the USMC have a bit of a handle on what they are doing (just like the USAF, the USN, the RAF, the RN and other F-35 operators) and they are not putting 12 or 13 F-35Bs on an LHA and sending it out east for the look of the thing.

As an engineer, I would not want to get too far into CONOPs matters such as raised by Easy Street. I do think, though, that he raises a valid point about UK F-35 force structure, and the fact that we are planning for an 'all B' force with consequent effect on our F-35 ops from land bases. I've previously posted my opinion that a split A/B force could be a better option for the UK. There is quite a bit of commonality between the A and the B, especially where many of the normal support related costs drivers apply (e.g. training, avionics spares and sustainment, systems components), and a split A/B force, working off a common training and support system would, in my view, be worth looking at. Along with that, I would suggest that the 'Forward' A and B aircraft could then be returned to their proper Force Command HQs (Air and Sea), thus restoring the proper chains of responsibility for operational development and not least air safety responsibilities.

Finally, (and sorry for the long post) a gentle reminder (at least from my addled memory) of the CVF/F-35 historical relationship and SDR 2010. The F-35B STOVL variant was, up to that time, the UK's focus, coming out of the initial Naval Air Staff Target for a Sea Harrier replacement to operate from 'Invincible class ships, and also because STOVL expertise was the UK's main bargaining chip to get full 'Tier 1' partner status on the JSF programme. (The formal UK/US document that got the UK on to JSF was actually titled the 'STOVL MoU'). However, from the outset, the UK wanted to keep all options open for the CVF future carrier, and mandated a ship large enough to be converted to cat and trap. This led to two very large carriers, almost as big as the USN's 'Forrestal', which was the first of the 'super carriers'. This decision was also influenced by the view (not at all wrong) that much smaller carriers (like the 20,000 ton Invincibles) suffered from serious constraints on internal space for fuel, weapons and hangarage. However, with over 40 years' since the last time anyone in the UK had tried to design a ship of this class and size, the MoD had a few gaps in their technical expertise, especially at higher levels.

That mattered, because when SDR 2010 came around (and I know quite a few people of all 3 services who tell me that the 2010 SDR was one of the most fouled up Defence Reviews of all time), the problems the F-35B was then having caused what I can only call a 'panic'. This led to high priced people in Mod Main deciding that the UK should go 'cat and trap' - after all, how hard could it be to convert the (already designed) CVF? They'd watched the spiffing Carrier Alliance videos showing how you could just peel off the deck and install the cats, after all. I know for a fact that this decision was taken without input from the Carrier team - the two star in charge was given under 48 hours (over a weekend) to come up with the costs to justify the decision.

In the event, when reality dawned, including the actual state of progress on EMALS at that time and the complexity of a conversion of CVF back to cat and trap (NWSRG is exactly right when he calls it 'open heart surgery'), the decision was reversed in 2012, I think. Was it the right decision to go back to STOVL? Time will tell, but I think (my view only) it was. When you start to add up the real costs of operating an effectively sized cat and trap fleet of aircraft including the need for tankers (not so much for strike range, but as essential safety measures to refuel aircraft waiting to recover while a fouled deck is cleared), the long range AEW, special personnel to man and operate and repair the cat and trap gear, the training load for the pilots, and so on, I honestly believe that the UK can't get into that game and do it properly. It's only the USN that can do it, at present...."

[spazsinbad]

USMC F-35Bs Aboard HMS Queen Elizabeth Oct-Nov 2019 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S0Q7oYfU5s

[blindpilot]

'Engines' at PPRUNE has another excellent 'historical' post in reply to 'LO' (billybobboysweetiepie - Bill Sweetman) go here:
https://www.pprune.org/military-aviatio ... st10608359 01 Nov 2019 'Engines' is Steve George ex-RN CMDR Aviation Engineer in SHAR (Sea Harrier) era and later during F-35B development.

"....
When you start to add up the real costs of operating an effectively sized cat and trap fleet of aircraft including the need for tankers (not so much for strike range, but as essential safety measures to refuel aircraft waiting to recover while a fouled deck is cleared), the long range AEW, special personnel to man and operate and repair the cat and trap gear, the training load for the pilots, and so on, I honestly believe that the UK can't get into that game and do it properly. It's only the USN that can do it, at present...."

This point is worth pondering for many reasons. The truth is that if anyone other than the US Navy is capable, the RN is, yet
George's point remains. It may indeed be true that at present, it's a bridge too far for others.

I add, when we start to create a giant boogey man of the evolving Chinese aircraft carriers on the horizon, this applies to them 100 fold over the British challenge. Going to be a lot of chinese airmen and sailors paying a steep price for the bold objective fleet of 3-6 carriers ... including cat and traps. They don't sell those at Walmarts or COSCOs, even if you have the cash/budget..

MHO,
BP