Future Carrier (Including Costs)
What's new? I remember when a slip with a chipping hammer could pierce the deck of an operational frigate, grey paint wouldn't adhere to the new GRP minehunters and special intumescent paint had to be developed to impede fire burning through their machinery space bulkheads and deckheads. Solutions were found in every case.
I also remember when carrier aircraft dropped into the oggin with alarming regularity, e.g. 55 of 145 Sea Vixens constructed were lost in accidents. As for the Harrier:
List of Harrier Jump Jet family losses
Apparently, all versions of the F-35 have flown well over 100,000 hours without a single crash.
I also remember when carrier aircraft dropped into the oggin with alarming regularity, e.g. 55 of 145 Sea Vixens constructed were lost in accidents. As for the Harrier:
List of Harrier Jump Jet family losses
Apparently, all versions of the F-35 have flown well over 100,000 hours without a single crash.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Boffin - Sure, you may have to re-apply the deck coating after a bunch of VLs.
Wot, there haven't been any?
FodPlod - Nice try. "F-35 Less Lethal Than Sea Vixen" is a great ad slogan. But I'd invite you to do some research and find data (big ask I know) as to how often commercial aircraft would be crashing today at early-60s rates. How about you do that before runnin u mouf?
Wot, there haven't been any?
FodPlod - Nice try. "F-35 Less Lethal Than Sea Vixen" is a great ad slogan. But I'd invite you to do some research and find data (big ask I know) as to how often commercial aircraft would be crashing today at early-60s rates. How about you do that before runnin u mouf?
No Mr Lee (who is not a Russian troll, so Brat will have to do without).
If the coating - Camrex or the new metal-based one for the F35 VL landing areas - has defects when applied, it can deteriorate with no VL. There are a number of things that might cause that - contamination or incorrect roughness of the steel surface or primer, less than ideal environmental conditions (Rosyth is a lovely place, but can be driech as they say) even in a tent, bad batch of coating itself, lots of things. High performance coatings and application isn't like going to B&Q you know, particularly not for ones that are newly developed - you have a learning experience to go through. Re-coating of flightdecks is normal business - every time a CVS was in Portsmouth for upkeep, you'd see the flightdeck tent going up within a fortnight, but that doesn't fit the sky is falling narrative, so people try to ignore it.
Now - if you were going stateside for high-profile trials with the new jet, would you :
a) Go across without making sure the deck was in perfect condition to conduct the trials, despite having a preceding upkeep period in which you could ensure this? Or
b) Do the sensible thing and if there are patches of degraded coating, make them good, particularly in a convenient upkeep period?
Can we take it you're in Camp A?
If the coating - Camrex or the new metal-based one for the F35 VL landing areas - has defects when applied, it can deteriorate with no VL. There are a number of things that might cause that - contamination or incorrect roughness of the steel surface or primer, less than ideal environmental conditions (Rosyth is a lovely place, but can be driech as they say) even in a tent, bad batch of coating itself, lots of things. High performance coatings and application isn't like going to B&Q you know, particularly not for ones that are newly developed - you have a learning experience to go through. Re-coating of flightdecks is normal business - every time a CVS was in Portsmouth for upkeep, you'd see the flightdeck tent going up within a fortnight, but that doesn't fit the sky is falling narrative, so people try to ignore it.
Now - if you were going stateside for high-profile trials with the new jet, would you :
a) Go across without making sure the deck was in perfect condition to conduct the trials, despite having a preceding upkeep period in which you could ensure this? Or
b) Do the sensible thing and if there are patches of degraded coating, make them good, particularly in a convenient upkeep period?
Can we take it you're in Camp A?
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My concern with the apparent need to repair / replace bits of the deck coating, when there have been no F35B take offs or landings on the deck, the apparent fact that the heat or downdraft from a few hundred rotary wing evolutions has caused the apparent amount of damage is concerning. It would be embarrassing if when she is on the East Coast it became apparent that each landing and take off by an F35B caused serious damage to the deck coating.
Looking at the bright side, USS Wasp has shown that operating a mixed fleet of F35Bs and rotary wings is possible, the question must be what is the difference in the deck coatings or how they were applied.
Looking at the bright side, USS Wasp has shown that operating a mixed fleet of F35Bs and rotary wings is possible, the question must be what is the difference in the deck coatings or how they were applied.
You're conflating two different things. If there is deterioration of the deck coating, that does not mean that it is caused by R/W ops. If you look at the pics LL posted, you'll see tenting framed outboard the island, which says to me that there's an issue in original application - in an area that is Camrex rather than special paint anyway. Normal jogging - particularly in advance of high-profile trials.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But I still wonder why the coating is new and experimental, given that the environment under the aft nozzle is determined by engine cycle decisions taken 22 years ago. Maybe it has something to do with LM's statement in 2010, after the NAVFAC report emerged....
“The difference between F-35B main-engine exhaust temperature and that of the AV-8B is very small, and is not anticipated to require any significant CONOPS changes for the F-35B.”
The Marines said they believed it:
https://www.military.com/dodbuzz/201...#axzz0l6WvdQPr
So maybe someone in QE-class land believed it as well. So now the ship needs a newly developed deck coating, and VLs on land need AM-2 or high-temperature-concrete pads.
“The difference between F-35B main-engine exhaust temperature and that of the AV-8B is very small, and is not anticipated to require any significant CONOPS changes for the F-35B.”
The Marines said they believed it:
https://www.military.com/dodbuzz/201...#axzz0l6WvdQPr
So maybe someone in QE-class land believed it as well. So now the ship needs a newly developed deck coating, and VLs on land need AM-2 or high-temperature-concrete pads.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: the deck coating.
It's almost as if R&D is a continual process of learning and improvement rather than magically arriving at a perfect solution.
For clarity, I know nothing of this coating, but have personal experience of R&D and new product development.
It's almost as if R&D is a continual process of learning and improvement rather than magically arriving at a perfect solution.
For clarity, I know nothing of this coating, but have personal experience of R&D and new product development.
Errr, no George. Let's just say that a number of research projects to identify requirements for and develop experimental flight deck coatings sufficiently robust to withstand the F35B efflux environment - which was identified as substantially worse than Harrier - date from 2003 and earlier. That it's difficult is reflected in the development contract for the actual coating being let in 2012.
However, this is classic conflation. The fact that coatings are being replaced outboard of the islands - which are camrex IIRC - suggests that it's an overall application defect issue rather than more "if only they'd listened to me and my hobby horse" Pvt Frazer whataboutery.
However, this is classic conflation. The fact that coatings are being replaced outboard of the islands - which are camrex IIRC - suggests that it's an overall application defect issue rather than more "if only they'd listened to me and my hobby horse" Pvt Frazer whataboutery.
I've seen CAMREX lift in big sheets on a flight deck that had been re-coated during a refit six months previously, it's not new or unusual. Although it does speak volumes about the quality of contractor the MoD employs, especially as the bits we had to redo lasted the whole deployment.
...FodPlod - Nice try. "F-35 Less Lethal Than Sea Vixen" is a great ad slogan. But I'd invite you to do some research and find data (big ask I know) as to how often commercial aircraft would be crashing today at early-60s rates. How about you do that before runnin u mouf?
Equating commercial aircraft with military FJ is rather like comparing domestic vehicles with drag racers.
How about some other FJ accident rates right up to the present day?
F-16 Aircraft Database F-16 Mishaps & Accident Reports
Yet another U.S. F/A-18 has just crashed in Japan. It’s the 9th Legacy Hornet lost in 6 months and the crash rate is alarming.
Despite its complexity, the much-maligned F-35 has an enviable safety record compared to any of its predecessors. That's all I'm saying.
Last edited by FODPlod; 26th Apr 2018 at 14:58.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thomas Coupling,
Perhaps I can help a little here - we have another 'the F-35B has big problems going to the deck' discussion going on. You raised two issues.
One at a time: "Did you know that there are now problems with the exhaust speed of the F35 in VTOL configuration? Can the flt deck surface material cope?"
I don't know of a 'new' problem - the exhaust speed of the F-35B was pretty well understood by around 2003/4, due to extensive modelling and testing, the majority of the work being done by BAE. The 'external environment' team at Fort Worth was led by a Brit. The results were confirmed by full scale engine tests. One thing to remember is that in STOVL mode, about half the energy of the main engine is extracted via the shaft and clutch and fed forwards to drive the lift fan. That means that the 'hot' aft exhaust is nowhere near full power. The various test rigs that modelled the exhaust also included a dedicated rig at Warton to test the effects of the predicted exhaust on various materials including flight deck coatings. I was involved in arranging these in around 2005/6. It was known that the standard 'Camrex' coatings previously used by the RN would struggle to cope, so tests of the new 'Thermion' system that has been used on selected areas of the QE flight deck were under way in 2005. These were successful and the material was chosen for use on the QE. It's new (to the RN) and there's a risk. It was assessed as an acceptable risk, and that's a decision I agreed with at the time. The USMC subsequently went with Thermion for selected areas on their flight decks
Bottom line - I don't think that there are 'new problems'. As others have posted, it seems that there might have been a problem with putting the legacy 'Camrex' coating on. That's regrettable, but not unknown.
Second Issue: "The F35 also operates at 4 x the Db noise signature of the Harrier in the hover. How will flt deck crews cope with this?"
The F-35B does not operate at 4 times the noise signature of the Harrier. Nowhere even close. It's noisier, true, but that's an effect of physics and the velocity of the jets of air you need to keep more weight in the air. The main challenge (for the UK) was caused by the (very understandable) decision that they would have to comply with the quite demanding EU 'Noise and Vibration at Work' directive. That limits the amount of time that personnel can be exposed to varying levels of noise. The louder the noise, the shorter the time. As a result, the UK set up a programme to investigate various protective solutions. The USN was already interested in this issue, as cat and trap operations expose personnel to much higher noise levels during launches from the catapults.
The best way to reduce effects of noise on personnel is to get further away from the source of the noise. Fortunately, on the large decks of the QE class, that's not too hard to achieve. (It was MUCH harder to do on the confined decks of the 'Invincible' class - I speak from experience here).
Bottom line - the flight deck crews will cope, like they've coped with loud aircraft for many years. They will get the kit needed, and develop the routines required to operate the aircraft on the deck with an acceptable level of risk. That's what naval aviation professionals do.
Best Regards as ever to all those who did the 'hard yards' on this issue some time back,
Engines
Perhaps I can help a little here - we have another 'the F-35B has big problems going to the deck' discussion going on. You raised two issues.
One at a time: "Did you know that there are now problems with the exhaust speed of the F35 in VTOL configuration? Can the flt deck surface material cope?"
I don't know of a 'new' problem - the exhaust speed of the F-35B was pretty well understood by around 2003/4, due to extensive modelling and testing, the majority of the work being done by BAE. The 'external environment' team at Fort Worth was led by a Brit. The results were confirmed by full scale engine tests. One thing to remember is that in STOVL mode, about half the energy of the main engine is extracted via the shaft and clutch and fed forwards to drive the lift fan. That means that the 'hot' aft exhaust is nowhere near full power. The various test rigs that modelled the exhaust also included a dedicated rig at Warton to test the effects of the predicted exhaust on various materials including flight deck coatings. I was involved in arranging these in around 2005/6. It was known that the standard 'Camrex' coatings previously used by the RN would struggle to cope, so tests of the new 'Thermion' system that has been used on selected areas of the QE flight deck were under way in 2005. These were successful and the material was chosen for use on the QE. It's new (to the RN) and there's a risk. It was assessed as an acceptable risk, and that's a decision I agreed with at the time. The USMC subsequently went with Thermion for selected areas on their flight decks
Bottom line - I don't think that there are 'new problems'. As others have posted, it seems that there might have been a problem with putting the legacy 'Camrex' coating on. That's regrettable, but not unknown.
Second Issue: "The F35 also operates at 4 x the Db noise signature of the Harrier in the hover. How will flt deck crews cope with this?"
The F-35B does not operate at 4 times the noise signature of the Harrier. Nowhere even close. It's noisier, true, but that's an effect of physics and the velocity of the jets of air you need to keep more weight in the air. The main challenge (for the UK) was caused by the (very understandable) decision that they would have to comply with the quite demanding EU 'Noise and Vibration at Work' directive. That limits the amount of time that personnel can be exposed to varying levels of noise. The louder the noise, the shorter the time. As a result, the UK set up a programme to investigate various protective solutions. The USN was already interested in this issue, as cat and trap operations expose personnel to much higher noise levels during launches from the catapults.
The best way to reduce effects of noise on personnel is to get further away from the source of the noise. Fortunately, on the large decks of the QE class, that's not too hard to achieve. (It was MUCH harder to do on the confined decks of the 'Invincible' class - I speak from experience here).
Bottom line - the flight deck crews will cope, like they've coped with loud aircraft for many years. They will get the kit needed, and develop the routines required to operate the aircraft on the deck with an acceptable level of risk. That's what naval aviation professionals do.
Best Regards as ever to all those who did the 'hard yards' on this issue some time back,
Engines
Last edited by Engines; 27th Apr 2018 at 19:59.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SW
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phil G: "Looking at the bright side, USS Wasp has shown that operating a mixed fleet of F35Bs and rotary wings is possible, the question must be what is the difference in the deck coatings or how they were applied."
The difference was that the US just tried the normal coating. Having seen the results of that we decided we definitely needed the new one!!!
The difference was that the US just tried the normal coating. Having seen the results of that we decided we definitely needed the new one!!!
Noisy lunches
Sorry Engines - just had to be done! 
Tea without biscuits for Bas.
RN signal to my apology: "Much amused!" :
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Lon UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Boffin - Sure, you may have to re-apply the deck coating after a bunch of VLs.
Wot, there haven't been any?
FodPlod - Nice try. "F-35 Less Lethal Than Sea Vixen" is a great ad slogan. But I'd invite you to do some research and find data (big ask I know) as to how often commercial aircraft would be crashing today at early-60s rates. How about you do that before runnin u mouf?
Wot, there haven't been any?
FodPlod - Nice try. "F-35 Less Lethal Than Sea Vixen" is a great ad slogan. But I'd invite you to do some research and find data (big ask I know) as to how often commercial aircraft would be crashing today at early-60s rates. How about you do that before runnin u mouf?