Future Carrier (Including Costs)

[kbrockman]

Originally Posted by Bigpants

If were the Iranians I would use one of their nice quiet German Submarines to go lay some mines around the straights and not tell alone.

I seriously doubt Iran has any modern military equipment from Germany, let alone their state of the art U-boats.
They do have some Russian KILOS ,3 of them as far as I'm aware.

[glad rag]

One issue Spaz, it appears that they wish to operate from a line of sun shelters, well I guess we shall find out just how humidity proof both the avionics and airframe really are then rofl.

[glad rag]

Originally Posted by KenV

I have zero trouble "imagining" the above.

I have great trouble imaging the above with a terminal sensor/targeting system with the precision needed to hit a moving CVN, to say nothing of doing it in an intense defensive EW environment. And that completely ignores an Aegis anti-missile system targeting that 6+ metric ton re-entry vehicle which contains the above.

You're that blinded you can't even read properly..

[MSOCS]

Originally Posted by glad rag

One issue Spaz, it appears that they wish to operate from a line of sun shelters, well I guess we shall find out just how humidity proof both the avionics and airframe really are then rofl.

Norfolk? Humid?! Seem to be operating just fine in the humid environments of Florida and SC. Might just be part of the design...imagine that...

[SpazSinbad]

'glad rag' you seem to enjoy making stuff up - Diagram says: "Hardened aircraft shelter refurbishment...". Sun shelters are used in desert locations and elsewhere such as cold LUKE [where de-icing was carried out recently IIRC] or maybe it is warm but anyways have a read of this - you need to read more and I can provide more: for example anotherie: http://articles.sae.org/13902/ OR http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=161 &/or: https://www.f35.com/news/detail/how-...imatic-testing BUT WAIT... there's more if you want it.

4 page PDF about climatic testing: http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=20185 (0.8Mb)
OR
Anotherie: http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=22735 (2.5Mb PDF)

"...On September 29, 2014, the ITF deployed a team of 40 testers to the McKinley Climatic Laboratory (MCL), the world’s largest environmental testing chamber. The 96th Test Wing, a US Air Force Materiel Command unit, operates the MCL at Eglin Air Force Base in Fort Walton Beach, Florida. For six months, the Pax River ITF Climatic Test team and key members of the Edwards ITF have capitalized upon the MCL’s proven capability to recreate nearly every weather condition on Earth as they assessed the performance of aircraft BF-05, the short take-off/vertical landing (STOVL) variant, in a wide array of temperatures and meteorological conditions. Testers put the aircraft through extremes such as -40°F/C up to 120°F (48.8°C) and featured wind, solar radiation, fog, humidity, rain intrusion/ingestion, freezing rain, icing cloud, icing build-up, vortex icing and snow.

By placing BF-05 onto a purpose-built frame, test pilots were able to ‘fly’ a standard profile in accordance with defined test sequences. This profile featured a normal start-up, a VSBIT (vehicle systems built-in test) to check the onboard systems, a simulated short take-off, a climb out, full afterburner runs in conventional mode, and a simulated vertical landing. Each meteorological condition was fully tested and featured 60% ground operations and 40% flying, including engine runs and simulated flight in both conventional and STOVL modes. Testers also ensured the collection of accurate and representative data during the icing evaluation by installing additional F-35A and F-35C icing detector probes according to each variant’s design.

“This type of testing doesn’t happen every day,” says US Navy test pilot Cdr Tony ‘Brick’ Wilson. “What the McKinley team has pulled off at Eglin is a real feat of engineering; it’s been a very surreal experience to walk from normal Florida weather into the hangar where it’s like the Arctic and test the F-35. We’ll complete our testing at the end of March 2015 and I’m pleased to say that the findings have been very positive to date.”...
Web Exclusives : Aerospace Testing International

The Rain in Spain Falls Mainly on the Plane:

You Tube

[MSOCS]

Spaz, yes, the HAS will be used by 617 Squadron but daily operations will take place under sun shelters. For the OCU, jets will use the purpose-built hangar and sun shelters for daily ops.

F-35 is very resilient to extremes of climate; tested to such as your link describes. One aspect of being quite "buttoned up" due to stealth is that there's a lot of sealed areas for avionics. That helps quite considerably, alongside the conditioning systems.

[sandiego89]

Has it been decided if/where a UK land based ski jump will be? Wittering jump still intact?

[SpazSinbad]

Lots of yabba yabba here about 'tornados' bothering Marham but no mention of a jump de ski:

RAF Marham Gears Up For F-35 Lightning ll By Howard Wheeldon, FRAeS, Wheeldon Strategic Advisory Ltd. | BATTLESPACE Updates

[MSOCS]

No practice ramp SD, all done in the FMS and done for real at sea. Training Needs Analysis demonstrated no requirement for a land-based device because it neither replicates ship motion and brake release cadence for ship pitching, nor is there a need for pilot input as the jet leaves the ramp lip - the aircraft senses the ramp profile and pitch as it goes up and rotates/spins up lift fan and 3BSD deploys automatically.

PS - believe the WIT ramp still there but serviceability is unknown. Anyway, it's likely unrepresentative and not designed for F-35's weight or thermal profile.

[sandiego89]

Originally Posted by MSOCS

No practice ramp SD, all done in the FMS and done for real at sea. Training Needs Analysis demonstrated no requirement for a land-based device because it neither replicates ship motion and brake release cadence for ship pitching, nor is there a need for pilot input as the jet leaves the ramp lip - the aircraft senses the ramp profile and pitch as it goes up and rotates/spins up lift fan and 3BSD deploys automatically.

PS - believe the WIT ramp still there but serviceability is unknown. Anyway, it's likely unrepresentative and not designed for F-35's weight or thermal profile.

Thanks for the replies on the ski jump. While I realize the ski jump has been pretty much a non-event (except by a few detractors insisting it was huge unknown risk) I do find a bit surprising that there will not be a ski jump in the UK. I believe the recent F-35B ski jump trials at Patuxent River were done on the old left over ramp that has been there for years (1980's?). Unsure if they had to do any mods to it for the B.

[Engines]

Sandie,

i think the ramp used at Pax for the F-35B work is a new build. Can any PPruners out there confirm/deny, please?

Best regards as ever to all those working the ramp,

Engines

[MSOCS]

Engines, I thought the Pax ramp was new also.

[George K Lee]

Cool buildings. Some young architect will probably get an award, but they remind me of this:



Meanwhile - all that talk about "synergies" in the SLDInfo puff piece makes me sleepy.

[Just This Once...]

Originally Posted by KenV

I have great trouble imaging the above with a terminal sensor/targeting system with the precision needed to hit a moving CVN, to say nothing of doing it in an intense defensive EW environment. And that completely ignores an Aegis anti-missile system targeting that 6+ metric ton re-entry vehicle which contains the above.

Aside from the imagination, anti-ship ballistic missiles are recognised as a credible threat. The sensor/targeting systems tend to be multispectral these days to provide both all-weather capability and anti-jam capabilities. Back in the 70's the US mastered the art of terminal manoeuvring and active radar homing on the Pershing II missile, but time and technology has marched on.

Regarding the movement of a CVN - well in truth they really don't move all that much when compared to the inbound speed. At say 13m/s it takes around 25 seconds for the stern of a cruising CVN to pass over the same spot vacated by the front of the flight deck. The maximum lateral displacement it can achieve in that time is also not a lot.

By contrast the kinetic penetrator of the inbound weapon can be nudging 7000m/s (over 13,000kts) making a CVN look almost stationary, with just a small amount of lead to calculate. The other concerning aspect of such speed is that even a direct hit from an intercepting missile may do little to influence the final trajectory - in the same 25 seconds that it took the ship to move its own length the inbound will complete its final 75 miles. Of course, MIRVs complicate matters further.

[SpazSinbad]

Back in the dream time of 2005 a contract was let for the PaxRiver Ski Jump:
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportun...e6724&_cview=0

In 2008 WEFL built it at Pax River: https://www.wfel.com/news/wfel-set-t...american-deal/

2009 info: EAF enables JSF landing anywhere, everywhere | NAVAIR - U.S. Navy Naval Air Systems Command - Navy and Marine Corps Aviation Research, Development, Acquisition, Test and Evaluation

This 2015 9.25Mb PDF has info: http://www.janes.com/images/assets/2...aily_Day_1.pdf

2016 tweak ski jump anomaly: http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/...i-jump-anomaly

Only a small excerpt from a great skiddyjump article below. I'll try to attach 2 page PDF now.... EXCERPTs attached.

Salty Dogs & Funky Jets October 2015 Mark Ayton

"... The reader may be surprised to learn that the ski ramp built at Pax River is based on the type used on the Invincible class aircraft carriers which is a little bit shorter (50ft) and slightly shallower (0.5º) than the ramp on Queen Elizabeth-class carriers. Sqn Ldr Edgell explained: “The Pax River ramp design process dates back to 2005 but, at the time, the Queen Elizabeth ramp profile was not known. Analysis conducted in 2005 showed we simply needed to use a ramp with a profile that allows us to stay just under the predicted F-35B ultimate loads and the Invincible-class ramp achieved this.”

Pax River’s ramp allows the test team to make adjustments for different profiles and encompass everything below the ultimate loads of the aircraft. “Though the verification of our models during phases 1 and 2 we can tweak the control laws to work off other types of ramp, none of which are the same,” said Sqn Ldr Edgell. When the aircraft comes off the end it is ballistic and accelerates to the fly away air speed, typically 10-20kts higher than launch speed, and therefore reduces ground roll...." Air International OCTOBER 2015 Vol.89 No.4

http://i65.tinypic.com/11ljtzs.jpg PAX River Ski Jump

[MSOCS]

Fortunately, George K Lee, you'll never have to set foot in those buildings. What's your point anyway?

[sandiego89]

Thanks all for the info on ski jump- I had confused the old Pax River jump and the new one. Believe they were in the same location.

[SpazSinbad]

An old 2013 'odds & sods ski jump accumulation' pdf on Scribd. I could make a new up to date one but it is near 0100 here.... There are a couple of pages of photos or Googie Overheads or airfield maps of the ski jump loc innit.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/131971810...ormation-F-35B

[KenV]

Originally Posted by Just This Once...

Aside from the imagination, anti-ship ballistic missiles are recognised as a credible threat. The sensor/targeting systems tend to be multispectral these days to provide both all-weather capability and anti-jam capabilities. Back in the 70's the US mastered the art of terminal manoeuvring and active radar homing on the Pershing II missile, but time and technology has marched on.

Regarding the movement of a CVN - well in truth they really don't move all that much when compared to the inbound speed. At say 13m/s it takes around 25 seconds for the stern of a cruising CVN to pass over the same spot vacated by the front of the flight deck. The maximum lateral displacement it can achieve in that time is also not a lot.

By contrast the kinetic penetrator of the inbound weapon can be nudging 7000m/s (over 13,000kts) making a CVN look almost stationary, with just a small amount of lead to calculate. The other concerning aspect of such speed is that even a direct hit from an intercepting missile may do little to influence the final trajectory - in the same 25 seconds that it took the ship to move its own length the inbound will complete its final 75 miles. Of course, MIRVs complicate matters further.

Keep in mind that the very characteristics you cited above make for a very difficult and complex system. A hyperspectral targetting system that can reliably function through the heat of reentry is very difficult to design and build. To put 7000m/s in perspective, the muzzle velocity of the high velocity kinetic penetrator of a 120mm tank gun is less than 1,700m/s, or less than one fourth the speed of your ballistic missile penetrator. Maximum effective range of the tank penetrator is 3000m. That's a function of loss of kinetic energy AND targeting precision with range. This means your hypothetical multispectral targetting system needs to be orders of magnitude more precise than the tank's targeting system while trying to see thru the heat of re entry and subsequent flight at 7000m/s, all while resisting defensive EW.

As for intercepting such a system, the point is to intercept the re-entry vehicle which contains the sensors, computer systems, and manuevering systems, not the (presumably inert) penetrator. The Aegis system and Block 3 SM missiles can do a midcourse intercept (exoatmospheric), but that would likely require an Aegis ship stationed along the flight path between the launcher and carrier. The Block 4 can do an intercept during re-entry.

As for the speed of the CVN, that is indeed negligible for the terminal phases of the intercept. But the missile's total flight time is measured in tens of minutes. A carrier moves at roughly 1km/minute. Thus it is 10 to 20 km from its position relative to when the missile was fired. That's a pretty large expanse of ocean to search (over 1200 sq km) in a very short time as it re-enters and will require very robust maneuvering of the re-entry vehicle to make the intercept. This is a very very different and much much more complex problem than the one the Pershing system designed and built to solve. After re-entering, the Pershing MARV did a 25G pull up and a 30nm glide to the vicinity of its target. There was not a lot of kinetic energy left after the glide and great precision was not required since it had a W85 "dial a yield" nuke warhead.

I'm not saying taking out a carrier using a ballistic missile is not possible. They are indeed a real threat. But it is a much more difficult and complex problem than most folks realize. And assuming a nation did that successfully, the US would remain very capable of a devastating retaliation without resorting to nukes. They are essentially an effective area denial weapon. But so are mines. The mines are much much cheaper, but have the disadvantage of denying friendly as well as enemy entry into the area.

[Just This Once...]

You have linked high speed with a precision problem, when the reverse can be true. You also introduced a premise that the target position would only be known at launch and then lost over many minutes so requiring a new search. Modern targeting information can come from off-board sources and form part of the updated guidance solution.

The Pershing example from nearly 50 years ago was to demonstrate the controllability and the ability for sensors to survive re-entry. What was incredibly difficult all those years ago is considerably easier now - the hard miles have been done. The Soviet Union's own anti-ship ballistic missile was fielded in the late 70's and had a CEP of around 300m against a ship so relied on a nuclear tip to close the final margin of error. Given modern systems and suitable money they could do much better today; but for money and effort you have to look at the Chinese.

As for the politics of the US devastating a country that managed to hit a CVN during a conflict, well that's not my area of expertise. I would like to hope that the US could take and accept a hit on a CVN in harms way doing its job, without triggering total war - but you never know.

The USN has flexed its muscles with CVNs rather effectively for many decades in a rather one-sided use of firepower. It is understandable that potential adversaries have worked hard to provide a credible counter. Your point about them providing an effective area denial weapon is well-made and reflects current USN thinking. The countermeasure cycle is without end.