PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Future Carrier (Including Costs)
View Single Post
Old 4th Jan 2013, 21:36
  #3323 (permalink)  
Engines
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Orca,

Perhaps I can help here.

Deck run for a STOVL F-35B is not the same as the cat length for a C. Never required to be. SHAR could use around 600 feet of run at the ramp at max weights, the GR7 as little as 95 feet, F-35B may be able to use bit more, or less depending on payload and Wind Over Deck (WOD) as well as ramp angle. No, STOVL ski jump isn't 'equal' to a cat launch. Apples and oranges, really.

The CVF team (and LM) did look at JBDs for STOVL. Not much use, as the jet launches with the aft nozzle pointing down a bit, so the standard USN deflector doesn't stop much of the blast, which is running along the deck in a sheet anyway. Bottom line is that the deck would be quite usable a fairly short distance aft of an F-35B launch, in my view. We regularly parked SHARs around 40 feet behind launching aircraft in the early 90s - the only problems were FOD due to poor flight deck hygiene. Blast wasn't an issue.

F-35B does not use burner on launch, and there's not much point as the reheat doesn't add that much and it works only on the aft peg anyway.There will be a maximum end speed for F-35B, but it will be very high as only 10% of the weight is on the nose wheel (as against around 50% for the Harrier). When I was on the programme max ski jump STO launch weight was very near the F-35B max conventional TO weight.

Yes, the wires should have been perpendicular. Just an inaccurate drawing.

Hope this lot helps

Best Regards

Engines
Engines is offline