Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question is whether and when the use of fuel as a heat sink starts to affect the mission. For instance, do I need more fuel at the end of the mission than I'd normally need as a reserve, overhead the base or carrier? Can I manage my fuel/coolant so that on egress, I can shed heat through the skin and arrive over the base within temps and with a small fuel load?
As noted above, the last thing that the B needs is any range constraint...
As noted above, the last thing that the B needs is any range constraint...
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes GKL, the min landing fuel for F-35B is well established now. Temp isn't a factor in practice. Yet the OT reports from 6 years ago would have you believe otherwise.
MSOCS,
Yes, the issue is designers "hiding" the weight of the cooling medium within the fuel load.
You saying "the min landing fuel for F-35B is well established now. Temp isn't a factor in practice" implies that it IS a factor and, there is a considerable temp related min fuel limitation, ie the jet has to carry around deadweight fuel for the whole mission.
What is it? 500Kg? 
Like I said, if the cooling was augmented with a consumable coolant at less overall system weight than the landing fuel penalty, that would be a big bonus.
As I don't know the F-35 system details, I cannot be more specific.
BTW, the mission environment had better allow for 50 degree Centigrade surface level temps and, in those climate conditions, you cannot rely on cool fuel from tankers either. Sitting on the apron, tanker fuel temps can get OOL for their own operation!
OAP
Yes, the issue is designers "hiding" the weight of the cooling medium within the fuel load.
You saying "the min landing fuel for F-35B is well established now. Temp isn't a factor in practice" implies that it IS a factor and, there is a considerable temp related min fuel limitation, ie the jet has to carry around deadweight fuel for the whole mission. What is it? 500Kg? Like I said, if the cooling was augmented with a consumable coolant at less overall system weight than the landing fuel penalty, that would be a big bonus.
As I don't know the F-35 system details, I cannot be more specific.
BTW, the mission environment had better allow for 50 degree Centigrade surface level temps and, in those climate conditions, you cannot rely on cool fuel from tankers either. Sitting on the apron, tanker fuel temps can get OOL for their own operation!
OAP
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OAP, George,
Perhaps I didn't do a good enough job of explaining how the F-35 designers went about handling the thermal management issue. I'll try to do better. (While working on the programme, I had a responsibility to monitor the thermal management solutions being developed by the 'Vehicle Systems' team to ensure that they wouldn't affect ship or land basing).
Thermal management was recognised as a high level risk early on in the programme, probably as a result of F-117 and F-22 experience. The team started with some basic simulations of the expected heat loads, which factored in the changing fuel loads throughout mandated mission profiles, as well as many other system parameters. They also reflected the mandated temperature limits applied by the JPO specification. (These certainly included some vary aggressive 'heat soak' requirements for land bases, at least 50 degrees C). These simulations showed that changes were needed to the baseline design to avoid unacceptable limitations on operation of the aircraft. So, a heat exchanger installation with external air scoop was added to the starboard upper wing root. Later on, two intakes were added under the wing just outboard of the landing gear doors.
Meanwhile, the team were developing a more sophisticated model of the entire thermal management system, which included the design performance of the many and various components. These included the liquid cooling systems, which were required to collect heat from various locations in the aircraft (e.g. certain antenna, flying control actuators, etc.) So, yes, OAP, the F-35 does use other cooling media part from fuel. The model also included the expected performance of various heat exchangers, pumps, valves, and the heat loads dissipated by the fuel tanks. At this stage, ever more complex mission profiles were added in to 'stress' the model and see where any 'pinch points' were.
I should add that any and all assumptions over how the aircraft would be operated were approved not only by the recently retired USN, RN, RAF and USAF operators with the programme, but also by the joint LM/JPO test pilots as well as the JPO itself.
As the programme went forward, any change to the aircraft design that affected the thermal management system was incorporated into the model. As key components went into rig test at their suppliers, test data was fed back into the model to improve its accuracy. A dedicated thermal system test rig was also built to provide ever more accurate data as the aircraft design develoed.
At this stage, I should address F-35B landing weight. This is a KPP for the programme, and one which (quite deliberately and quite correctly) drove almost every aspect of the aircraft's design. I can absolutely assure all readers that there was absolutely no possibility of the F-35B carrying additional fuel at landing to handle heat loads.
To date, the main impact of thermal management is the requirement for a cooling rig to be attached to the aircraft on the ground when using external electrical power supplies. This doesn't apply when the aircraft's internal 'Integrated Power Pack' is being used for ground checks.
I suppose what I'm trying (badly) to put over is that nobody made any stupid assumptions about fuel states. when getting to the final design. Designing LO aircraft is a fiercely hard thing across all disciplines, and the people involved have done extremely well to get to where they are.
Best regards as ever to all those doing the hard yards of design,
Engines
Perhaps I didn't do a good enough job of explaining how the F-35 designers went about handling the thermal management issue. I'll try to do better. (While working on the programme, I had a responsibility to monitor the thermal management solutions being developed by the 'Vehicle Systems' team to ensure that they wouldn't affect ship or land basing).
Thermal management was recognised as a high level risk early on in the programme, probably as a result of F-117 and F-22 experience. The team started with some basic simulations of the expected heat loads, which factored in the changing fuel loads throughout mandated mission profiles, as well as many other system parameters. They also reflected the mandated temperature limits applied by the JPO specification. (These certainly included some vary aggressive 'heat soak' requirements for land bases, at least 50 degrees C). These simulations showed that changes were needed to the baseline design to avoid unacceptable limitations on operation of the aircraft. So, a heat exchanger installation with external air scoop was added to the starboard upper wing root. Later on, two intakes were added under the wing just outboard of the landing gear doors.
Meanwhile, the team were developing a more sophisticated model of the entire thermal management system, which included the design performance of the many and various components. These included the liquid cooling systems, which were required to collect heat from various locations in the aircraft (e.g. certain antenna, flying control actuators, etc.) So, yes, OAP, the F-35 does use other cooling media part from fuel. The model also included the expected performance of various heat exchangers, pumps, valves, and the heat loads dissipated by the fuel tanks. At this stage, ever more complex mission profiles were added in to 'stress' the model and see where any 'pinch points' were.
I should add that any and all assumptions over how the aircraft would be operated were approved not only by the recently retired USN, RN, RAF and USAF operators with the programme, but also by the joint LM/JPO test pilots as well as the JPO itself.
As the programme went forward, any change to the aircraft design that affected the thermal management system was incorporated into the model. As key components went into rig test at their suppliers, test data was fed back into the model to improve its accuracy. A dedicated thermal system test rig was also built to provide ever more accurate data as the aircraft design develoed.
At this stage, I should address F-35B landing weight. This is a KPP for the programme, and one which (quite deliberately and quite correctly) drove almost every aspect of the aircraft's design. I can absolutely assure all readers that there was absolutely no possibility of the F-35B carrying additional fuel at landing to handle heat loads.
To date, the main impact of thermal management is the requirement for a cooling rig to be attached to the aircraft on the ground when using external electrical power supplies. This doesn't apply when the aircraft's internal 'Integrated Power Pack' is being used for ground checks.
I suppose what I'm trying (badly) to put over is that nobody made any stupid assumptions about fuel states. when getting to the final design. Designing LO aircraft is a fiercely hard thing across all disciplines, and the people involved have done extremely well to get to where they are.
Best regards as ever to all those doing the hard yards of design,
Engines
Thank you Engines,
I guess that is about as far as this point will go here. If I take your words at face value, it is a "good job".
However, I have to ask why you use the term "no possibility of the F-35B carrying additional fuel at landing to handle heat loads."? Additional to what fuel, the minimum heat loaded landing fuel of an F-35A or C ? This is a very different thing to saying that the actual minimum landing fuel is independent of operational heat load or environmental circumstances. 
OK, I guess we are not going to go much further with this. I still suspect that the F-35B (and the others) has to lug around unusable deadweight cooling fuel.
Just my opinion.
Thanks
OAP
I guess that is about as far as this point will go here. If I take your words at face value, it is a "good job".
However, I have to ask why you use the term "no possibility of the F-35B carrying additional fuel at landing to handle heat loads."? Additional to what fuel, the minimum heat loaded landing fuel of an F-35A or C ? This is a very different thing to saying that the actual minimum landing fuel is independent of operational heat load or environmental circumstances. OK, I guess we are not going to go much further with this. I still suspect that the F-35B (and the others) has to lug around unusable deadweight cooling fuel.
Just my opinion.
Thanks
OAP
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,579
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
These fuel figures for the F-35A from 2012 may be outdated - may give clues however...
AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 11-2F-35A, VOLUME 3; 7 JUNE 2012 Flying Operations, F-35A OPERATIONS PROCEDURES page 22
AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 11-2F-35A, VOLUME 3; 7 JUNE 2012 Flying Operations, F-35A OPERATIONS PROCEDURES page 22
“...3.20. Fuel Requirements.
"...3.20.3. Normal Recovery Fuel. The fuel on initial or at the final approach fix at the base of intended landing or alternate, if required. Fuel quantity will be as established locally or 2,500 pounds, whichever is higher.
3.20.4. Declare the following when it becomes apparent that an aircraft may land at the intended destination or alternate, if required, with:
3.20.4.1. Minimum Fuel. 1,800 pounds or less. This is based on 20 minutes reserve at 10,000 feet MSL flying max endurance airspeed (fulfilling AFI 11-202V3 fuel reserve requirements); and,
3.20.4.2. Emergency Fuel. 1,200 pounds or less.
http://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/END...-35av3(12).pdf
"...3.20.3. Normal Recovery Fuel. The fuel on initial or at the final approach fix at the base of intended landing or alternate, if required. Fuel quantity will be as established locally or 2,500 pounds, whichever is higher.
3.20.4. Declare the following when it becomes apparent that an aircraft may land at the intended destination or alternate, if required, with:
3.20.4.1. Minimum Fuel. 1,800 pounds or less. This is based on 20 minutes reserve at 10,000 feet MSL flying max endurance airspeed (fulfilling AFI 11-202V3 fuel reserve requirements); and,
3.20.4.2. Emergency Fuel. 1,200 pounds or less.
http://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/END...-35av3(12).pdf
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't speak for local F-35A rules on fuel for the USAF. Been a while. F-35B use much less than 2500lbs for min fuel on the ground, assuming no diversion. Around 1000lb but again, that was a while ago.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the early hours of this morning apparently just two US destroyers launched over 50 Tomahawk Missiles which hit a Syrian Airfield.
Just explain to me why the UK needs two aircraft carriers? Had one of these been in the Med. with its F35 fighters (assume they are combat cleared to drop all the gear in the sales brochures) what kind of punch could it have launched against a Syrian Airfield? Dropped a few bombs perhaps? What carrier borne AEW do we have? What would we have used to suppress the SAM systems in Syria?
How come the USA used cruise missiles rather than a Carrier based air strike?
Expensive White Elephant springs to mind when I see our carriers.
Just explain to me why the UK needs two aircraft carriers? Had one of these been in the Med. with its F35 fighters (assume they are combat cleared to drop all the gear in the sales brochures) what kind of punch could it have launched against a Syrian Airfield? Dropped a few bombs perhaps? What carrier borne AEW do we have? What would we have used to suppress the SAM systems in Syria?
How come the USA used cruise missiles rather than a Carrier based air strike?
Expensive White Elephant springs to mind when I see our carriers.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
TLAM means dropping £1M missiles with 500Kg warheads on £20K fuel trucks - and assumes the enemy don't move them inside your planning cycle. Much cheaper to have a smart aircraft doing real-time targeting using dumb bombs - and smaller warheads where collateral damage is an issue - one of the issues driving the development of the SDB etc.
(IIRC during GWI one of our main weapons of choice ended being concrete practice bombs fitted with a LGB kit to take out targets parked next to schools/hospitals/mosques etc.)
(IIRC during GWI one of our main weapons of choice ended being concrete practice bombs fitted with a LGB kit to take out targets parked next to schools/hospitals/mosques etc.)
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Headed out for sea trials under its own power, the Gerald R. Ford, the first of the USN's new class of aircraft carriers. After these trials, the Ford will return to port to fix anything that didn't work properly and then acceptance trials by USN inspectors will begin. The plan is for the Ford to carry two squadrons of F-35Cs when they become available...
Photo by the Associated Press
Photo by the Associated Press
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A little more info on the Gerald R. Ford carrier by Kyle Mizokami, defense and national-security writer:
USS Ford follows in the steps of the highly successful Nimitz-class carriers. Construction began in 2009 at Huntington Ingalls Industries in Newport News, Virginia—the same location where the Ford’s predecessors were built. Indeed, the Ford class resembles the Nimitz ships in many ways: they measure 1,106 feet long versus the Nimitz’s 1,092 feet. Both classes weigh the same: approximately one hundred thousand tons fully loaded. Layout is similar, too, with an island on the starboard side, four catapults and an angled flight deck.
The ship is powered by two new-design AB1 nuclear reactors. The reactors are manufactured by Bechtel, which beat out longtime naval reactor giants General Electric and Westinghouse for the reactor contract. Together, the two reactors create six hundred megawatts of electricity, triple the two hundred megawatts of the Nimitz class. That’s enough electricity to power every home in Hampton, Virginia; Pasadena, California; or Syracuse, New York.
Ford is going to need that power, not only to reach its estimated top speed of thirty-plus knots but also the new Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS), which uses electric currents to generate strong magnetic fields that can quickly accelerate an aircraft to takeoff speeds. The system is touted as easier on aircraft, extending their service lives, easier to maintain in general and capable of generating up to 25 percent more sorties than the older steam catapult system.
The new carrier will also use a new system to land aircraft. The new Advanced Arresting Gear uses a water turbine and induction motors to halt the momentum of landing carrier aircraft. Like EMALS, the AAG is expected to be more reliable than the existing aircraft arresting system on Nimitz-class ships and easier on airframes.
Ford will also have the most modern radar systems in the fleet. The Ford will have the new Dual Band Radar, which combines both the X-Band AN/SPY-3 Aegis radar and the S-Band Volume Surveillance Radar. DBR is capable of search, track and multiple missile illumination, detecting enemy aircraft and missiles and then guiding Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles (ESSM) to intercept.
For self-defense, Ford will have two Mk. 29 missile launchers with eight ESSM each, and two Rolling Airframe Missile launchers. It will also have four Phalanx Close-In Weapon Systems for point defense against aircraft, missiles and small ships, and four M2 .50 caliber machine guns. Ford’s generous electrical capacity means that the ship could someday mount laser self-defense weapons. Powered by the ship’s nuclear reactors, such a system would have a virtually limitless ammunition supply, vastly increasing the ship’s defensive capability.
The carrier air wing will form the carrier’s primary means of deploying both offensive and defensive firepower. The Ford class will embark two squadrons of ten to twelve F-35C Joint Strike Fighters, two squadrons of ten to twelve F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, five EA-18G Growler electronic attack jets, four E-2D Hawkeye airborne early-warning and control aircraft, and two C-2 Greyhound carrier onboard delivery (COD) planes. It will also carry eight MH-60S Seahawk helicopters [3]. Down the road, it will embark the MQ-25 Stingray refueling and intelligence collection drone, the eventual planned sixth-generation fighter to replace the Super Hornet, and, if Sen. John McCain has his way [4], a new long-range strike drone. The V-22 Osprey tiltrotor is also set to replace the C-2 Greyhound in the COD role.
Ford’s entry into active service will once again raise the Navy’s carrier force to eleven ships.
The ship is powered by two new-design AB1 nuclear reactors. The reactors are manufactured by Bechtel, which beat out longtime naval reactor giants General Electric and Westinghouse for the reactor contract. Together, the two reactors create six hundred megawatts of electricity, triple the two hundred megawatts of the Nimitz class. That’s enough electricity to power every home in Hampton, Virginia; Pasadena, California; or Syracuse, New York.
Ford is going to need that power, not only to reach its estimated top speed of thirty-plus knots but also the new Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS), which uses electric currents to generate strong magnetic fields that can quickly accelerate an aircraft to takeoff speeds. The system is touted as easier on aircraft, extending their service lives, easier to maintain in general and capable of generating up to 25 percent more sorties than the older steam catapult system.
The new carrier will also use a new system to land aircraft. The new Advanced Arresting Gear uses a water turbine and induction motors to halt the momentum of landing carrier aircraft. Like EMALS, the AAG is expected to be more reliable than the existing aircraft arresting system on Nimitz-class ships and easier on airframes.
Ford will also have the most modern radar systems in the fleet. The Ford will have the new Dual Band Radar, which combines both the X-Band AN/SPY-3 Aegis radar and the S-Band Volume Surveillance Radar. DBR is capable of search, track and multiple missile illumination, detecting enemy aircraft and missiles and then guiding Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles (ESSM) to intercept.
For self-defense, Ford will have two Mk. 29 missile launchers with eight ESSM each, and two Rolling Airframe Missile launchers. It will also have four Phalanx Close-In Weapon Systems for point defense against aircraft, missiles and small ships, and four M2 .50 caliber machine guns. Ford’s generous electrical capacity means that the ship could someday mount laser self-defense weapons. Powered by the ship’s nuclear reactors, such a system would have a virtually limitless ammunition supply, vastly increasing the ship’s defensive capability.
The carrier air wing will form the carrier’s primary means of deploying both offensive and defensive firepower. The Ford class will embark two squadrons of ten to twelve F-35C Joint Strike Fighters, two squadrons of ten to twelve F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, five EA-18G Growler electronic attack jets, four E-2D Hawkeye airborne early-warning and control aircraft, and two C-2 Greyhound carrier onboard delivery (COD) planes. It will also carry eight MH-60S Seahawk helicopters [3]. Down the road, it will embark the MQ-25 Stingray refueling and intelligence collection drone, the eventual planned sixth-generation fighter to replace the Super Hornet, and, if Sen. John McCain has his way [4], a new long-range strike drone. The V-22 Osprey tiltrotor is also set to replace the C-2 Greyhound in the COD role.
Ford’s entry into active service will once again raise the Navy’s carrier force to eleven ships.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US aircraft carrier George H W Bush enters Arabian Gulf | The National
MSOCS if Iran puts a big hole in this carrier what price then? In terms of value for money, reach and political risk a cruise missile launched from a destroyer makes far more sense than putting a target like this into the Gulf in order to hit IS.
Hopefully the small fishing boats, dhows, commercial traffic can all be seen and separated from the hostile surface contacts lurking in Iranian waters.
MSOCS if Iran puts a big hole in this carrier what price then? In terms of value for money, reach and political risk a cruise missile launched from a destroyer makes far more sense than putting a target like this into the Gulf in order to hit IS.
Hopefully the small fishing boats, dhows, commercial traffic can all be seen and separated from the hostile surface contacts lurking in Iranian waters.
Much cheaper to have a smart aircraft doing real-time targeting using dumb bombs - and smaller warheads where collateral damage is an issue - one
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Westfield,
My reply was in response to post #4075 which, paraphrasing, suggested carriers and aircraft are white elephants if destroyers firing TLAM can do the same job. The modern version of the Duncan Sandys argument.
There are occasions when TLAM are the right weapon. There are equally many more where they are not for either cost, time, targeting or other reasons - and why the USAF has FJs and the USN carriers instead of arsenal ships.
My reply was in response to post #4075 which, paraphrasing, suggested carriers and aircraft are white elephants if destroyers firing TLAM can do the same job. The modern version of the Duncan Sandys argument.
There are occasions when TLAM are the right weapon. There are equally many more where they are not for either cost, time, targeting or other reasons - and why the USAF has FJs and the USN carriers instead of arsenal ships.
Thread Starter
Getting back to the issue of ship/aircraft integration and getting ready for the QEC - tonight there is a the start of a series about HMS Ocean. This will be about her recent deployment, including time as flagship of CTF 50.
The first episode promises to concentrate on working up pre deployment - but I hope later ones will cover the various exercises and other things she did.
The final confirmation of the RN’s ability to direct aircraft carrier strike operations – looking forward to the new Queen Elizabeth ships joining the Royal Navy fleet - was a three-day exercise in the central Gulf involving four navies, 19 ships and ten helicopters.
“We have pushed the boundaries of what we can operate,” says Capt Pedre. “This deployment will stand us in good stead with the Queen Elizabeth.”
The first episode promises to concentrate on working up pre deployment - but I hope later ones will cover the various exercises and other things she did.
The final confirmation of the RN’s ability to direct aircraft carrier strike operations – looking forward to the new Queen Elizabeth ships joining the Royal Navy fleet - was a three-day exercise in the central Gulf involving four navies, 19 ships and ten helicopters.
“We have pushed the boundaries of what we can operate,” says Capt Pedre. “This deployment will stand us in good stead with the Queen Elizabeth.”
Bigpants - having spent time at sea on a CVN in the NAG, I can assure you that the sea is a big empty place, and that its considerably more difficult to find, fix, and move a credible suicide threat in undetected than it is to look up the lats and longs of various fixed airbase locations...
Not trying to make this a willy waving contest as land and sea based airpower bring mutually reinforcing capability, but dont assume that the carrier is as vulnerable as some naysayers think.
Not trying to make this a willy waving contest as land and sea based airpower bring mutually reinforcing capability, but dont assume that the carrier is as vulnerable as some naysayers think.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,579
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
At http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...ml#post9723562 on 30 Mar 2017 is a story about the refurbished BAE Sim at Warton - for SRVL training. Now here is the viddy:
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 11th Apr 2017 at 15:23.