Sharky Watch LIVE
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PhilipG,
Stop being such a bloody drama merchant. An RVL is a piece of piss whether it be done on an airfield, STOL strip or boat. With the advent of all the clever gubbins in the F35 it'll be even easier, so stop trying to complicate a basic, everyday manoeuvre into some sort of magic science, which it ain't.
Landing and taking off are just something that has to be done, it's what's in between that's important.
Stop being such a bloody drama merchant. An RVL is a piece of piss whether it be done on an airfield, STOL strip or boat. With the advent of all the clever gubbins in the F35 it'll be even easier, so stop trying to complicate a basic, everyday manoeuvre into some sort of magic science, which it ain't.
Landing and taking off are just something that has to be done, it's what's in between that's important.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spas, as we all know testing has not been completed for any version of the F35, to my knowledge, prepared to be shot down, no F35 has gone above Mach 1, there ate transonic problems with the C etc, so if the real plane with real world warfighting software and hardware, was available today are you saying that it would perform 100% as the latest SIM does?
The SIM might well exhibit how LM etc hope the plane will perform in its initial warfighting configuration, an unknown, that does not enable pilots to train for real world situations.
Obviously I hope that when push comes to shove the F35 achieves all the initial KPIs at the initially promissed purchase and running costs, sadly I have my doubts.
The SIM might well exhibit how LM etc hope the plane will perform in its initial warfighting configuration, an unknown, that does not enable pilots to train for real world situations.
Obviously I hope that when push comes to shove the F35 achieves all the initial KPIs at the initially promissed purchase and running costs, sadly I have my doubts.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
'PhilipG' you have a misunderstanding about the F-35 Simulators (there are at least three kinds but one is flown by ordinary pilots in the large form FMS (Full Mission Simulator) with two smaller variations which are either portable or just small form factor (compared to full FMS size). These FMS replicate the aircraft faithfully and are updated along with the actual aircraft flight control laws if they change along with any other flight parameters that need to be changed (discovered during testing). Why is that not good enough?
The latest LM 'Fast Facts' PDF dated 12 Jun 2013 is here:
https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/d...tsjune2013.pdf (0.2Mb)
On page four of five it states: "...The F-35 flies supersonic for the first time ..." Searching the internet you will discover that it has flown slightly beyond M1.6 limit these days. All KPPs are being met. The F-35C transonic roll is being tested for solutions (with/without upper wing spoiler). Ordinary pilots are not able to fly to the aircraft limits ,as we know, until cleared by test pilot testing and regulation in future.
On page one: "...Last month, the F-35B performed its 400th vertical landing and first vertical take-off. (May 10 –VTO and May 14 400th)..."
_____________________
And to add to 'Pontius' comment above, it has been made clear by test pilots and COs and instructors etc. that the F-35 has been made easy to land (especially the F-35B) so that pilots concentrate on the mission and not the landing phase. Col. Tomassetti has a good recent quote there:
The F-35B Coming to the MAGTF: “Turbo” Reflects on the Past and the Future of USMC Aviation 27 Jun 2013
The F-35B Coming to the MAGTF: ?Turbo? Reflects on the Past and the Future of USMC Aviation | SLDInfo
The latest LM 'Fast Facts' PDF dated 12 Jun 2013 is here:
https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/d...tsjune2013.pdf (0.2Mb)
On page four of five it states: "...The F-35 flies supersonic for the first time ..." Searching the internet you will discover that it has flown slightly beyond M1.6 limit these days. All KPPs are being met. The F-35C transonic roll is being tested for solutions (with/without upper wing spoiler). Ordinary pilots are not able to fly to the aircraft limits ,as we know, until cleared by test pilot testing and regulation in future.
On page one: "...Last month, the F-35B performed its 400th vertical landing and first vertical take-off. (May 10 –VTO and May 14 400th)..."
_____________________
And to add to 'Pontius' comment above, it has been made clear by test pilots and COs and instructors etc. that the F-35 has been made easy to land (especially the F-35B) so that pilots concentrate on the mission and not the landing phase. Col. Tomassetti has a good recent quote there:
The F-35B Coming to the MAGTF: “Turbo” Reflects on the Past and the Future of USMC Aviation 27 Jun 2013
"...SLD: From the time you flew the X plane, which is now in the Smithsonian, to the reality of an F-35B, what’s the biggest difference concerning what you imagined and what you actually see on the flight line?
Turbo: [Col. Tomassetti] We wanted to build an airplane that was easy to fly and an airplane that was easy to maintain. If you build an airplane that’s easy to fly, your accident rate comes down. Your requirements for training come down. And in the long-term life of an airplane, if you can reduce those two things, the cost of everything comes down.
And what we can do today with fly-by-wire technology digital flight controls is, again, it’s leaps and bounds over where we were 20 years ago when we first started with fly-by-wire airplanes.
Right now, we have an airplane that the pilot says I want to go here, I want to do this, and the computers make all that happen. And the airplane goes where you want it to go.
And I think as much as we hoped for that, we all knew that that’s a hard thing to make happen. It sounds like a very simple concept; build an airplane that’s easy to fly, why don’t we do that all the time? Well, in practice, it’s very complicated because airplanes today are complicated machines.
And we demand a lot out of them in today’s environment. The fact that we’ve achieved that is great....
...I think we’re getting to that point with the block 2 airplanes where some of those capabilities are available. Even if it’s just available in the simulator for a few months before it’s out there on the flight line, those folks are starting to figure out how are we going to teach somebody electronic attack type capabilities in the simulator because it works in there in the beginning...."
Turbo: [Col. Tomassetti] We wanted to build an airplane that was easy to fly and an airplane that was easy to maintain. If you build an airplane that’s easy to fly, your accident rate comes down. Your requirements for training come down. And in the long-term life of an airplane, if you can reduce those two things, the cost of everything comes down.
And what we can do today with fly-by-wire technology digital flight controls is, again, it’s leaps and bounds over where we were 20 years ago when we first started with fly-by-wire airplanes.
Right now, we have an airplane that the pilot says I want to go here, I want to do this, and the computers make all that happen. And the airplane goes where you want it to go.
And I think as much as we hoped for that, we all knew that that’s a hard thing to make happen. It sounds like a very simple concept; build an airplane that’s easy to fly, why don’t we do that all the time? Well, in practice, it’s very complicated because airplanes today are complicated machines.
And we demand a lot out of them in today’s environment. The fact that we’ve achieved that is great....
...I think we’re getting to that point with the block 2 airplanes where some of those capabilities are available. Even if it’s just available in the simulator for a few months before it’s out there on the flight line, those folks are starting to figure out how are we going to teach somebody electronic attack type capabilities in the simulator because it works in there in the beginning...."
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 27th Jun 2013 at 20:10.
WhiteOvies
A cause of much angst I think. At least the senior Officer (sic) quoted by the Telegraph had concerns:
Another officer has told The Telegraph that the loss of carrier deck handling skills could prove "disastrous" with fatal accidents caused by inexperienced ratings.
Are (as I wondered loudly here) we doing enough? Whilst we can only send a limited number of personnel on exchange, if we were to embark some STOVL jets (yes, that means Harriers) it would give that experience to a greater number (and wider range) of personnel.
RN Recruits are given training booklets which include a large section on aviation safety, emphasising the whole ship nature of naval aviation, and describing the hazards from and to aircraft including jet blast and downwash, FOD, tool control, and so on. That was considered as basic safety awareness, not specialist skills. I wonder to what extent the actual skills needed for fixed wing operations are implicit, and difficult to be learnt except by experience?
Operating an aircraft from a ship is different to operating it from land, and operating fixed wing aircraft is different to operating helicopters (greater speeds, more potential for FOD issues, the need for wind over the deck for launching, narrower windows for recovery times before the fuel runs out, and others).
In late 2009, I was at a presentation by the FAA Command Warrant Officer, who stated that in order to prepare for CVF/F35B, we would need to build up expertise by embarking more aircraft (about the two CVS) for longer periods. How has that changed post SDSR?
What comes first? The carrier capable of embarking fixed wing aircraft, or the carrier capable fixed wing aircraft?
A system of systems.... Not much systems thinking by current politicians (not just in respect to defence).
SpazSinbad/PhillipC
Pilots (and perhaps a few others) can be trained by simulator with respect to landing or launching the aircraft at sea, but what about the deck crews, Flyco, OOW/Bridge, Ops Room, Ship Control Centre, and others?
Bill
If nothing else, Sharkey Ward stimulates and provokes debate.
Originally Posted by WhiteOvies
The bigger issue is getting everyone else to be ready for a large, busy flight deck. At least there is a team of people looking into this issue and both deckcrew, aircrew and engineers are being appropriately positioned to give them some exposure to this dangerous environment prior to QEC.
Another officer has told The Telegraph that the loss of carrier deck handling skills could prove "disastrous" with fatal accidents caused by inexperienced ratings.
Are (as I wondered loudly here) we doing enough? Whilst we can only send a limited number of personnel on exchange, if we were to embark some STOVL jets (yes, that means Harriers) it would give that experience to a greater number (and wider range) of personnel.
RN Recruits are given training booklets which include a large section on aviation safety, emphasising the whole ship nature of naval aviation, and describing the hazards from and to aircraft including jet blast and downwash, FOD, tool control, and so on. That was considered as basic safety awareness, not specialist skills. I wonder to what extent the actual skills needed for fixed wing operations are implicit, and difficult to be learnt except by experience?
Operating an aircraft from a ship is different to operating it from land, and operating fixed wing aircraft is different to operating helicopters (greater speeds, more potential for FOD issues, the need for wind over the deck for launching, narrower windows for recovery times before the fuel runs out, and others).
In late 2009, I was at a presentation by the FAA Command Warrant Officer, who stated that in order to prepare for CVF/F35B, we would need to build up expertise by embarking more aircraft (about the two CVS) for longer periods. How has that changed post SDSR?
Originally Posted by orca
All we need to see is a signed document from CAS saying that he will embark his jets as soon as the CO indicates his ship is ready in all respects to conduct aviation.
Originally Posted by orca
The second sentence will indicate that he will disembark them only when the Air Management Organisation is fully up to speed, the Air Group is fulfilling ATO tasking, the Air Weapon supply team have produced weapons to surge capacity and these have been loaded on jets and dropped, the Yellow Coats can marshal, chain and chock a fourship in all weathers, whilst another fourship is taxying for take off. The jets will remain embarked until every Fighter Controller in the fleet has worked a fourship through Red Crown procedures and the JFACCHQ have established resilient comms for a week or two and Flyco have exercised being b#ggered about from dawn to dusk. Repeat all for night ops. When all this is crimped the TG in its entirety will take part in a COMAO based exercise of Neptune Warrior type scope and we'll call it good.
SpazSinbad/PhillipC
Pilots (and perhaps a few others) can be trained by simulator with respect to landing or launching the aircraft at sea, but what about the deck crews, Flyco, OOW/Bridge, Ops Room, Ship Control Centre, and others?
Bill
If nothing else, Sharkey Ward stimulates and provokes debate.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
Only 10% talk about T/O / Landing needed
Further to the Col. Tomassetti quote above, here is one more (he is retiring/retired now):
The “Ready Room” as the Learning Center for Air Combat Jun 2013
The ?Ready Room? as the Learning Center for Air Combat | SLDInfo
The “Ready Room” as the Learning Center for Air Combat Jun 2013
"...The goal — I know why the Marine Corps wanted an expeditionary airplane, I get it because I grew up in that environment, but I will tell you, the sort of personal stamp that I have tried to put on this thing since I joined the program in 1998 is I wanted a STOVL airplane that could do all the things that the Marine Corps needed, but was easy to fly.
Because like you said, I went to three memorial services in my first year in the fleet [in a Harrier]. And that was painful, and that hurt because I knew those guys and I lived with those guys.
There were some shortfalls of the airplane, there were some shortfalls in our training, and again, it was airplane that really demanded that you were on your toes every single minute you were in the cockpit.
And we’re smarter than that now; we’re better than that now. A little bit because computers are better than they used to be and what we can do with computers and airplanes are better.
But the whole point of building this particular STOVL airplane, From my view and the other Harrier pilots in the developmental phase was to make it easy to fly. We knew what the price that the people who flew that airplane paid, and we didn’t want to see that repeated.
Simple things like hey, the airplane won’t let you decel to the hover if you’re too heavy. A simple safety feature like that, might have saved people in the Harrier.
And the fact that we’re smart enough now to figure out how to incorporate that into an airplane and make it work and the fact that I have a STOVL airplane that I don’t need three hands to fly like I did in the Harrier.
I got an airplane that you tell I want to go up; I want to go down, I want to go forward, I want to go back, and it says I got it. I’ll figure out what to do with all of those things that can maneuver and wiggle. And you just tell it what you want it to do.
I think we need to give the airplane time to sell itself, and we need to give the folks a chance to digest what that means, and then go back and take another look at how we train people to fly it and realize that we’re going to spend 90 percent of our time talking about tactical capability of the airplane and about 10 percent talking about takeoff and landing."
Because like you said, I went to three memorial services in my first year in the fleet [in a Harrier]. And that was painful, and that hurt because I knew those guys and I lived with those guys.
There were some shortfalls of the airplane, there were some shortfalls in our training, and again, it was airplane that really demanded that you were on your toes every single minute you were in the cockpit.
And we’re smarter than that now; we’re better than that now. A little bit because computers are better than they used to be and what we can do with computers and airplanes are better.
But the whole point of building this particular STOVL airplane, From my view and the other Harrier pilots in the developmental phase was to make it easy to fly. We knew what the price that the people who flew that airplane paid, and we didn’t want to see that repeated.
Simple things like hey, the airplane won’t let you decel to the hover if you’re too heavy. A simple safety feature like that, might have saved people in the Harrier.
And the fact that we’re smart enough now to figure out how to incorporate that into an airplane and make it work and the fact that I have a STOVL airplane that I don’t need three hands to fly like I did in the Harrier.
I got an airplane that you tell I want to go up; I want to go down, I want to go forward, I want to go back, and it says I got it. I’ll figure out what to do with all of those things that can maneuver and wiggle. And you just tell it what you want it to do.
I think we need to give the airplane time to sell itself, and we need to give the folks a chance to digest what that means, and then go back and take another look at how we train people to fly it and realize that we’re going to spend 90 percent of our time talking about tactical capability of the airplane and about 10 percent talking about takeoff and landing."
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 27th Jun 2013 at 20:22.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
"...the hands-off system is almost never used...."
A humourous quote to accompany the photo here on page 6 of this thread: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post7910094
OR:
SPECIAL REPORT AIR WARFARE & FLIGHT OPERATIONS SEA POWER / OCTOBER 2011
HIGH-TECH FLIGHT DECK DIGITAL-AGE ELECTRONICS, UNMANNED SYSTEMS WILL MEAN BIG CHANGES IN CARRIER OPERATIONS
By OTTO KREISHER, Special Correspondent
Seapower - October 2011
OR:
SPECIAL REPORT AIR WARFARE & FLIGHT OPERATIONS SEA POWER / OCTOBER 2011
HIGH-TECH FLIGHT DECK DIGITAL-AGE ELECTRONICS, UNMANNED SYSTEMS WILL MEAN BIG CHANGES IN CARRIER OPERATIONS
By OTTO KREISHER, Special Correspondent
"...Hands-off landings on a carrier are not new. Technology allowing carrier-controlled approaches to a landing was first tested on Aug. 12, 1957, and updated versions are installed in the F/A-18 and other recent carrierbased aircraft. But those systems, which are intended for use in extremely poor visibility conditions, require the pilot to fly into position aft of the carrier where the electronic system can take over.
Given the nature of jet pilots, the hands-off system is almost never used."
Given the nature of jet pilots, the hands-off system is almost never used."
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 29th Jun 2013 at 02:41. Reason: frmt + ModJpg
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spaz,
You usually confine yourself to posting news about the F-35, often offering something that is timely in the debate. On this occasion, I think your posts are somewhat out of place. The points being made are to do with more than just landing the jet on the deck. I think you understand that, but probably from an outsider's perspective. Also, the systems you cite have their limitations. The combination of a good bit of humour and a serious quote in your post may be an attempt to hide a serious point (it's sometimes hard to tell) so I'm interested to hear what point you're making.
M2
You usually confine yourself to posting news about the F-35, often offering something that is timely in the debate. On this occasion, I think your posts are somewhat out of place. The points being made are to do with more than just landing the jet on the deck. I think you understand that, but probably from an outsider's perspective. Also, the systems you cite have their limitations. The combination of a good bit of humour and a serious quote in your post may be an attempt to hide a serious point (it's sometimes hard to tell) so I'm interested to hear what point you're making.
M2
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think someone who doesn't fly jets is seduced by automation and a huge trust in digital technology. What when something fails and thee pilot is required to fly in a reversionary mode? Actually, what are the reversionary modes?
Sharky seems to be expert on just about everything, perhaps he can help?
Sharky seems to be expert on just about everything, perhaps he can help?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
JPALS comes along nicely for some more auto landing fun (especially essential for X-47Bs and derivatives as well as F-35s (there will be an ashore version including a portable land version for those inclined).
'Mach Two' expresses some concern about my experience. I have no auto landing experience whatsoever - but - have read umpteen pilot reports about same in various publications and online over the last several decades.
My own completely manual deck landings in an A4G number some 125 during the day, with my first four touch and goes hook up aboard HMS Hermes, visiting our shores in August 1971 or thereabouts. OMG I have a bakers dozen night deck landings also + plus a night rampstrike thrown in - hence my interest over the last several years to investigate the history of NavAv to better inform myself on the issues. I must admit to being gobsmacked by all the technology available to the Navy Pilot today (compared to simple mirror & 'meatball, lineup and airspeed [Opt AoA] of the A4G with a short and sweet GCA to the start for a night approach to HMAS Melbourne). Nothing fancy but effective in those times. Youse can read all about it at the usual online places with 'SpazSinbad' PDFs etc. If 'Mach Two' you are a crab then you are excused reading this info and take 'Courtney Mil' advice that it is all just crap.
My Basic / Advanced flying training in all of 1968 was with the RAAF so I have some understanding of their complete disinterest in NavAv. What a relief to go to the bosom of the RANFAA at NAS Nowra beginning 1969 and the adventures thereto undertaken.
'Mach Two' my input to this meandering thread started with 'PhilipG' expressing 'fake' concern on page 6 about Naval Pilots ability to land on a deck at sea: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/517553-sharky-watch-live-6.html#post7909330 - AS IF.
Navy closes in on making landing on aircraft carrier safer 28 Jun 2013 NavAirSysCom
Navy closes in on making landing on aircraft carrier safer
'Mach Two' expresses some concern about my experience. I have no auto landing experience whatsoever - but - have read umpteen pilot reports about same in various publications and online over the last several decades.
My own completely manual deck landings in an A4G number some 125 during the day, with my first four touch and goes hook up aboard HMS Hermes, visiting our shores in August 1971 or thereabouts. OMG I have a bakers dozen night deck landings also + plus a night rampstrike thrown in - hence my interest over the last several years to investigate the history of NavAv to better inform myself on the issues. I must admit to being gobsmacked by all the technology available to the Navy Pilot today (compared to simple mirror & 'meatball, lineup and airspeed [Opt AoA] of the A4G with a short and sweet GCA to the start for a night approach to HMAS Melbourne). Nothing fancy but effective in those times. Youse can read all about it at the usual online places with 'SpazSinbad' PDFs etc. If 'Mach Two' you are a crab then you are excused reading this info and take 'Courtney Mil' advice that it is all just crap.
My Basic / Advanced flying training in all of 1968 was with the RAAF so I have some understanding of their complete disinterest in NavAv. What a relief to go to the bosom of the RANFAA at NAS Nowra beginning 1969 and the adventures thereto undertaken.'Mach Two' my input to this meandering thread started with 'PhilipG' expressing 'fake' concern on page 6 about Naval Pilots ability to land on a deck at sea: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/517553-sharky-watch-live-6.html#post7909330 - AS IF.
Navy closes in on making landing on aircraft carrier safer 28 Jun 2013 NavAirSysCom
Navy closes in on making landing on aircraft carrier safer
"...The Hornets flew 65 low approaches to touch-and-go or full-stop landings during our two weeks on CVN 77,” said Lee Mason, PMA-213’s JPALS Ship System integrated program team lead. “The King Air completed 29 low approaches. So far, we are very pleased with the results. The system is expected to achieve tremendously improved landing accuracy.”
...
...Later this summer, JPALS is scheduled to complete additional at-sea testing to further refine the verification and validation effort and enable the completion of the operational assessment of the JPALS ship system, which is needed to progress to the program’s next milestone, Lack added.
“JPALS will provide adverse weather, adverse terrain, day and night, and survivable precision approach and landing capability that supports service and multi-national interoperability,” Lack said. “It is particularly suitable for the F-35, future aircraft and unmanned air vehicle operations at sea.”"
...
...Later this summer, JPALS is scheduled to complete additional at-sea testing to further refine the verification and validation effort and enable the completion of the operational assessment of the JPALS ship system, which is needed to progress to the program’s next milestone, Lack added.
“JPALS will provide adverse weather, adverse terrain, day and night, and survivable precision approach and landing capability that supports service and multi-national interoperability,” Lack said. “It is particularly suitable for the F-35, future aircraft and unmanned air vehicle operations at sea.”"
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spaz, you say that I had fake concern about Navy pilots being able to land on a QEC at night doing an SRVL.
As you quote SRVL will not be tested in the real world till 2018, there are a number of tasks that the F35 has been assumed to be able to do that when push came to shove it has not quite managed, so I sadly assume nothing.
My point was that unless the pilots and deck crews have practiced SRVL on a QEC with a high bring back load, it might be rather dangerous. It is not the same as RAF Harrier pilots going to Hermes etc in the Falklands when the standard return was a vertical landing.
The SRVL concept has yet to be proven, the amount of time that pilots who in time of crisis will be surged to the carrier(s) have previously spent on a carrier is uncertain, I thus find you use of the word "fake" interesting.
As you quote SRVL will not be tested in the real world till 2018, there are a number of tasks that the F35 has been assumed to be able to do that when push came to shove it has not quite managed, so I sadly assume nothing.
My point was that unless the pilots and deck crews have practiced SRVL on a QEC with a high bring back load, it might be rather dangerous. It is not the same as RAF Harrier pilots going to Hermes etc in the Falklands when the standard return was a vertical landing.
The SRVL concept has yet to be proven, the amount of time that pilots who in time of crisis will be surged to the carrier(s) have previously spent on a carrier is uncertain, I thus find you use of the word "fake" interesting.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
'PhilipG' focus on 'fake' all you wish. I do not resile because to my knowledge the point about SRVL being an option has been well made on various threads throughout this forum but I will repeat it here. IF a pilot is not up to an SRVL for whatever reason then that pilot will dump fuel/ordnance to carry out a VL. End of story. Much better to sacrifice the weapons/fuel to save the aircraft/pilot. No?
Whatever your point is - IF SRVLs are deemed to be useful then of course firstly they will be practiced/tested ashore by relevant test pilots before anyone gets near CVFs to carry out any SRVL. This is a given in carrier aviation. However it is been said many times now also on this forum that the F-35B/C are going to be much easier to carrier deck land in all the forms due to the computer flight controls making such VLs/SRVLs that much more doable under adverse conditions. No carrier pilots gets near the carrier without demonstrating their skill ashore first.
So I hope the timeline of events is clear. First testing ashore (ongoing) then testing at sea before any new pilots get to do carrier landings after first demonstrating their skill. These requirements are clear to any carrier pilot. Flunk FCLP or VLs or SRVLs and you are not going to the ship.
Whatever your point is - IF SRVLs are deemed to be useful then of course firstly they will be practiced/tested ashore by relevant test pilots before anyone gets near CVFs to carry out any SRVL. This is a given in carrier aviation. However it is been said many times now also on this forum that the F-35B/C are going to be much easier to carrier deck land in all the forms due to the computer flight controls making such VLs/SRVLs that much more doable under adverse conditions. No carrier pilots gets near the carrier without demonstrating their skill ashore first.
So I hope the timeline of events is clear. First testing ashore (ongoing) then testing at sea before any new pilots get to do carrier landings after first demonstrating their skill. These requirements are clear to any carrier pilot. Flunk FCLP or VLs or SRVLs and you are not going to the ship.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shirley for Shore / Land based B-model frames and crews, the SRVL should be the default method of landing at the airbase, with VLs also thrown in. In that way, SRVL currency is improved upon and will enable an easier transition to the flat-tops if 'surged'.
Better that that defaulting to conventional approaches, except where that is practiced as a contingency option in case of lift fan malfunction scenarios.
Better that that defaulting to conventional approaches, except where that is practiced as a contingency option in case of lift fan malfunction scenarios.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I bow to your greater knowledge.
Are we saying that FCBA that became JCA, for which we are buying F-35 has now merged with FOAS, that became FCAC, that became DPOC?
I thought the requirements were still distinct but that the DPOC cash was thrown at the QECV conversion to cats and traps...only for that to fall flat.
As I understood it F35B couldn't possibly be DPOC due to a combat radius requirement.
Or are we just saying that at a working level we are not getting DPOC so JCA will naturally be the GR4 replacement...which sort of makes it DPOC by default?
Are we saying that FCBA that became JCA, for which we are buying F-35 has now merged with FOAS, that became FCAC, that became DPOC?
I thought the requirements were still distinct but that the DPOC cash was thrown at the QECV conversion to cats and traps...only for that to fall flat.
As I understood it F35B couldn't possibly be DPOC due to a combat radius requirement.
Or are we just saying that at a working level we are not getting DPOC so JCA will naturally be the GR4 replacement...which sort of makes it DPOC by default?
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote]Orca - No. Not since the DPOC funding was assimilated into the JSF purchase. Boat ops are just one part of what we need this platform to do.
/QUOTE]
From the CDS; seems fairly heavily , some would say totally, pointed towards the importance of Maritime Strike to the purchase of this aircraft.
And from Parliamentary papers in April 2013
Routinely, not now and again.
/QUOTE]
From the CDS; seems fairly heavily , some would say totally, pointed towards the importance of Maritime Strike to the purchase of this aircraft.
Military command is about taking difficult decisions in changing and challenging circumstances. Over the 40 years I have had the honour to serve in the Armed Forces, I have consistently found that such decisions demand both vision and courage. The change of course over our carrier programme announced this week certainly required both. It was not easy, but it is right.
It is worth explaining why I, and my fellow military chiefs, proposed this move. Carriers are expensive - there is no way around that. But they offer a capability that few can match: an independent, flexible, sovereign base, not tied to other countries’ wishes, that can operate around the world.
By choosing the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) model of the Joint Strike Fighter over the Carrier Variant that we had previously ordered for our two new aircraft carriers, the UK is significantly shortening the time it will take to deploy our maritime air power.
For me, this is the key factor. We are getting an exceptional military tool that is capable of projecting power, deterring our enemies and supporting our friends. In an uncertain world, this is a capability that I know we all wish to have sooner rather than later.
It is worth understanding why this change is necessary. Two years ago, we looked at the facts we had, and made our decisions. They were right at the time, and based on the best information available. But since the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), some important things have changed.
The more cutting-edge aspects of the carrier jet programme proved very difficult to cost accurately. What we were told in 2010 has changed.
We had an opportunity to put this right, and it has been taken.
Contrary to the criticism levelled at the Ministry of Defence in the past, when the facts changed, our decisions did too.
The reasons why it was right to do this are clear. First, the improvements to the STOVL aircraft since the SDSR are impressive. Once a troubled project on probation, it has now demonstrated its capabilities, flying more than 900 hours. This reduces the danger of complications and cost increases that we feared in 2010.
Second, we could not operate the previous aircraft from a British carrier before 2023 at the earliest. By choosing STOVL aircraft, we have removed the risk of further delays, giving the UK a powerful carrier strike capability years earlier than would otherwise be possible.
Stretching the gap in carrier capability any further is neither desirable nor necessary.
Third, the costs of converting carriers to operate the Carrier Variant have increased by over £1bn, and may rise further. This raised the prospect of this vital capability being unaffordable - or of having to take money from other key programmes.
Whilst it is true that the Carrier Variant offered greater range, this is not a crucial advantage - given our major investment in air-to-air refuelling - when weighed against the greater time to bring it into service, and the increasing cost. The balance has tipped back in favour of STOVL, which has distinct advantages of its own, such as versatility and agility.
Switching to STOVL means we are getting an outstanding capability sooner, for less financial and technical risk. It also gives us the ability to operate two carriers if we choose, a decision that the next SDSR will review.
Managing the Carrier Strike programme is as complex and demanding as the maritime and air environments in which these ships operate. They are not just mobile flight decks, but among the most capable intelligence and targeting tools in the world.
Both the Carrier Variant and the STOVL aircraft represent a generational shift from the jets that we use today. Through their computer technology, stealth and communications they are more capable than their ship- or land-based predecessors. They are cutting-edge, multi-role platforms fit for the battlespace of the 21st century.
They can both carry the full range of weapons we intend to buy.
The bedrock of successful combat capabilities is Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance. This allows us to understand, track, strike and remain poised to react to the unexpected. It is this capability that ensured our success in Libya.
The Joint Strike Fighter increases it immeasurably.
This fifth-generation aircraft is a weapons system unmatched by our rivals, and will be an integral part of the package we offer our friends and allies - not least the French, with whom we have developed such a close relationship, and the Americans, who have been and will continue to be essential partners in developing our new capability.
Yesterday’s decision guarantees that we will have a hard-hitting carrier capability up to five years sooner than looked likely. The advice of the Chiefs of Staff is clear: this is the right decision for the Armed Forces, and the right decision for Britain.
It is worth explaining why I, and my fellow military chiefs, proposed this move. Carriers are expensive - there is no way around that. But they offer a capability that few can match: an independent, flexible, sovereign base, not tied to other countries’ wishes, that can operate around the world.
By choosing the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) model of the Joint Strike Fighter over the Carrier Variant that we had previously ordered for our two new aircraft carriers, the UK is significantly shortening the time it will take to deploy our maritime air power.
For me, this is the key factor. We are getting an exceptional military tool that is capable of projecting power, deterring our enemies and supporting our friends. In an uncertain world, this is a capability that I know we all wish to have sooner rather than later.
It is worth understanding why this change is necessary. Two years ago, we looked at the facts we had, and made our decisions. They were right at the time, and based on the best information available. But since the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), some important things have changed.
The more cutting-edge aspects of the carrier jet programme proved very difficult to cost accurately. What we were told in 2010 has changed.
We had an opportunity to put this right, and it has been taken.
Contrary to the criticism levelled at the Ministry of Defence in the past, when the facts changed, our decisions did too.
The reasons why it was right to do this are clear. First, the improvements to the STOVL aircraft since the SDSR are impressive. Once a troubled project on probation, it has now demonstrated its capabilities, flying more than 900 hours. This reduces the danger of complications and cost increases that we feared in 2010.
Second, we could not operate the previous aircraft from a British carrier before 2023 at the earliest. By choosing STOVL aircraft, we have removed the risk of further delays, giving the UK a powerful carrier strike capability years earlier than would otherwise be possible.
Stretching the gap in carrier capability any further is neither desirable nor necessary.
Third, the costs of converting carriers to operate the Carrier Variant have increased by over £1bn, and may rise further. This raised the prospect of this vital capability being unaffordable - or of having to take money from other key programmes.
Whilst it is true that the Carrier Variant offered greater range, this is not a crucial advantage - given our major investment in air-to-air refuelling - when weighed against the greater time to bring it into service, and the increasing cost. The balance has tipped back in favour of STOVL, which has distinct advantages of its own, such as versatility and agility.
Switching to STOVL means we are getting an outstanding capability sooner, for less financial and technical risk. It also gives us the ability to operate two carriers if we choose, a decision that the next SDSR will review.
Managing the Carrier Strike programme is as complex and demanding as the maritime and air environments in which these ships operate. They are not just mobile flight decks, but among the most capable intelligence and targeting tools in the world.
Both the Carrier Variant and the STOVL aircraft represent a generational shift from the jets that we use today. Through their computer technology, stealth and communications they are more capable than their ship- or land-based predecessors. They are cutting-edge, multi-role platforms fit for the battlespace of the 21st century.
They can both carry the full range of weapons we intend to buy.
The bedrock of successful combat capabilities is Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance. This allows us to understand, track, strike and remain poised to react to the unexpected. It is this capability that ensured our success in Libya.
The Joint Strike Fighter increases it immeasurably.
This fifth-generation aircraft is a weapons system unmatched by our rivals, and will be an integral part of the package we offer our friends and allies - not least the French, with whom we have developed such a close relationship, and the Americans, who have been and will continue to be essential partners in developing our new capability.
Yesterday’s decision guarantees that we will have a hard-hitting carrier capability up to five years sooner than looked likely. The advice of the Chiefs of Staff is clear: this is the right decision for the Armed Forces, and the right decision for Britain.
The decision taken in May 2012 to use the STOVL variant rather than the Carrier variant will not affect the number of aircraft to be deployed on the Carrier. Twelve aircraft will be routinely on board the carriers with a potential surge to 36 aircraft if required
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Land based is clearly those units not deployed afloat. Even in the heady days of Phantoms and Buccs, not all the the FAA was onboard Eagle or the Ark.
I would have thought that 'routinely' means that the embarked squadron(s) will stay on board for a full cruise whilst the others stay ashore (unless the best operating model is faffing about with replacements every one-third of the cruise) so it makes sense for those units at home to be as ready to deploy as they can, hence suggesting the SRVL default.
I would appreciate Engines' input (I would hope that the construstion of the fan and drive-shaft don't limit it to x landings before it is slagged down and rebuilt) but would it not be dumb-thinking to not keep current in high bring back weight landings.
I would have thought that 'routinely' means that the embarked squadron(s) will stay on board for a full cruise whilst the others stay ashore (unless the best operating model is faffing about with replacements every one-third of the cruise) so it makes sense for those units at home to be as ready to deploy as they can, hence suggesting the SRVL default.
I would appreciate Engines' input (I would hope that the construstion of the fan and drive-shaft don't limit it to x landings before it is slagged down and rebuilt) but would it not be dumb-thinking to not keep current in high bring back weight landings.
Last edited by Finnpog; 3rd Jul 2013 at 20:46.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are we saying that FCBA that became JCA, for which we are buying F-35 has now merged with FOAS, that became FCAC, that became DPOC?
I thought the requirements were still distinct but that the DPOC cash was thrown at the QECV conversion to cats and traps...only for that to fall flat.
I thought the requirements were still distinct but that the DPOC cash was thrown at the QECV conversion to cats and traps...only for that to fall flat.
While Sharkey clearly has strong feelings on the issue, I can't help but feel that his (often ill informed) rants risk having a negative impact on defence overall, by fostering the kind of petty bickering this thread has nicely demonstrated. JSF promises huge capability for the UK, and AMI is steadily gathering the momentum in rightly deserves with the powers-that-be; please let's stop fighting each other!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finn,
Happy to oblige.
As far as I know the lift fan system does not pose any severe life limits - there was certainly a lot of work going into endurance and cycle testing many years ago, and it's continuing. That said, I'm certain that there will be some life limits on it, just like other systems, such as the engine.
I agree that if SRVL is needed (don't forget that it's to address a corner of the environmental envelope, and the aircraft has a healthy bring back in all other conditions) then it will have to be practiced and declared as a capability along with all the other capabilities needed to embark.
There's an important discussion going on here about F-35 basing, and in my view, it will probably come down to 'ownership'. Putting to one side 'who paid how much money for what programme', my analysis runs something like this:
1. UK F-35 was a Navy led programme at its inception, aimed at getting a new generation of Maritime Strike aircraft. The SDSR and subsequent 'variant hokey-cokey' was driven by aircraft/ship combo affordability. Bottom line is that if we didn't need it to go to sea, we would not buy the B. So, my take is that F-35B is still being bought as a maritime strike aircraft.
2. The conundrum of 'what replaces Tornado for land based Strike' has been kicked around for many years via FOAS/FCAC/DPOC - but the decision was repeatedly put off as Typhoon ate the entire RAF tactical aircraft budget. In the end, all that was left was a rump of 'DPOC'. In reality, the UK's land based fast jet fleet has been moving towards a 'Typhoon/F-35' mix for some years.
3. We now have the RAF mounting a campaign to assume ownership of the F-35 programme - look at their official web site.
4. So what this means is a debate over how the F-35B is based. My take (based on experience) is that if the RAF own the aircraft, they will view CVF as a 'potentially useful alternate basing option' (to quote CAS in 2010) and carry out occasional 'detachments' on board to keep the aircraft at what they view would be an acceptable level of currency - but only once all land based commitments are serviced. A number of land based F-35s would be declared 'R2' (or whatever they will be calling it) for CVF ops.
5. If the RN own the aircraft, the plan would most probably be to 'embark' a squadron as near full time as possible on the CVF, and declare the ship and embarked squadron at R2 (or equivalent). Shore based aircraft would be used to support training for CVF based units, and support land based ops as available.
My own preference (not that it matters in the least) would be for the RN 'embarked' model, as it would deliver what the UK is buying the aircraft for - effective carrier based strike capability. The RAF 'detachment' model would not. I'd like to be clear - it's not that I think the RAF 'hate the FAA'. They don't. It's just that, deep down, the RAF's leadership just don't see carrier based aviation as relevant. Given that, they will not commit time and energy towards delivering it if there's a land based alternative. And as far as the RAF is concerned, there is always a land based alternative.
Knight's post is very well phrased and I agree with the sentiments - the problem is that there is no agreement between the RAF and the RN on what 'the very best capability' actually is. Until that agreement is reached, the 'small mindedness' will probably continue.
Hope this helps a bit
Best Regards as ever
Engines
Happy to oblige.
As far as I know the lift fan system does not pose any severe life limits - there was certainly a lot of work going into endurance and cycle testing many years ago, and it's continuing. That said, I'm certain that there will be some life limits on it, just like other systems, such as the engine.
I agree that if SRVL is needed (don't forget that it's to address a corner of the environmental envelope, and the aircraft has a healthy bring back in all other conditions) then it will have to be practiced and declared as a capability along with all the other capabilities needed to embark.
There's an important discussion going on here about F-35 basing, and in my view, it will probably come down to 'ownership'. Putting to one side 'who paid how much money for what programme', my analysis runs something like this:
1. UK F-35 was a Navy led programme at its inception, aimed at getting a new generation of Maritime Strike aircraft. The SDSR and subsequent 'variant hokey-cokey' was driven by aircraft/ship combo affordability. Bottom line is that if we didn't need it to go to sea, we would not buy the B. So, my take is that F-35B is still being bought as a maritime strike aircraft.
2. The conundrum of 'what replaces Tornado for land based Strike' has been kicked around for many years via FOAS/FCAC/DPOC - but the decision was repeatedly put off as Typhoon ate the entire RAF tactical aircraft budget. In the end, all that was left was a rump of 'DPOC'. In reality, the UK's land based fast jet fleet has been moving towards a 'Typhoon/F-35' mix for some years.
3. We now have the RAF mounting a campaign to assume ownership of the F-35 programme - look at their official web site.
4. So what this means is a debate over how the F-35B is based. My take (based on experience) is that if the RAF own the aircraft, they will view CVF as a 'potentially useful alternate basing option' (to quote CAS in 2010) and carry out occasional 'detachments' on board to keep the aircraft at what they view would be an acceptable level of currency - but only once all land based commitments are serviced. A number of land based F-35s would be declared 'R2' (or whatever they will be calling it) for CVF ops.
5. If the RN own the aircraft, the plan would most probably be to 'embark' a squadron as near full time as possible on the CVF, and declare the ship and embarked squadron at R2 (or equivalent). Shore based aircraft would be used to support training for CVF based units, and support land based ops as available.
My own preference (not that it matters in the least) would be for the RN 'embarked' model, as it would deliver what the UK is buying the aircraft for - effective carrier based strike capability. The RAF 'detachment' model would not. I'd like to be clear - it's not that I think the RAF 'hate the FAA'. They don't. It's just that, deep down, the RAF's leadership just don't see carrier based aviation as relevant. Given that, they will not commit time and energy towards delivering it if there's a land based alternative. And as far as the RAF is concerned, there is always a land based alternative.
Knight's post is very well phrased and I agree with the sentiments - the problem is that there is no agreement between the RAF and the RN on what 'the very best capability' actually is. Until that agreement is reached, the 'small mindedness' will probably continue.
Hope this helps a bit
Best Regards as ever
Engines
Last edited by Engines; 4th Jul 2013 at 07:19. Reason: Correct date