Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps I can usefully contribute here.
A very knowledgeable US Government guy who was closely associated with the JSF programme explained the X-32/X-35 issues like this: the basic truth that the Hawker/Bristol Engines team understood in the late 50s/early 60s was that any VSTOL solution had to have the most efficient propulsion system possible in terms of thrust to weight - and with the technology they had available, that meant that using cold gas to generate at least some of the vertical thrust was a given. This is because cold gas is more dense and generates more mass flow, and more thrust. That thinking led to the Pegasus concept, which is essentially a medium sized turbojet delivering hot gas thrust with a very large compressor attached to the front delivering cold gas thrust. This basic choice also helped a lot with managing the flow of hot gases around and underneath the aircraft during landing - Hot Gas Ingestion (HGI) poses a massive risk to any gas turbine powered aircraft close to the ground, as the UK found out when they tested Plenum Chamber Burning (PCB) layouts.
Lockheed's concept stuck to that basic thinking, with a separate front fan generating cold gas thrust. With the X-32, Boeing took a different path.
I have to gently differ with a previous post - the X-32 wasn't, in my view, an updated Harrier. Boeing went instead for a fully hot gas solution, betting on more advanced engine technology to deliver a very hight thrust to weight figure, plus very advanced airframe materials to reduce weight - their delta wing design would also have been mass efficient. Unfortunately, almost all Boeing's risks materialised. They were unable to make the advanced materials work, they struggled with severe HGI issues, and their baseline delta design was simply unable to deliver the performance and control margins needed for cat and trap operations for the C model. Having the engine at the front meant having a very long, and heavy exhaust duct all the way to the rear end. Having been forced to extend the aircraft and fit a tailplane, and then redesign the wing, they basically ran out of thrust. Their final design solution using liquid fuelled rockets firing vertically downwards to achieve a vertical landing was, to my mind, an act of desperation.
At the time, I was a strong supporter of the Boeing design, as I liked its layout and potential simplicity - but as Scotty used to say in Star Trek. 'You canna change the laws of physics'. The key point, at least in my view, is this - designing and building powered lift aircraft that can do STOVL is fiendishly, massively, hugely, HARD. Making a STOVL aircraft that's a capable combat aircraft is ten times harder. I came to appreciate the sheer genius of the original British design team (and their US colleagues) who developed the P1127 and the Harrier - and it's that STOVL 'know how' that got the UK into the JSF programme as the only 'Tier 1' partner. As I've posted before, it was also British genius that was the key to making the F-35B work - I had the privilege to see those people in action in the early days of the F-35 and it was a humbling experience.
Best Regards as ever to all those who made this astonishing aircraft work - they deserve our respect. They have mine.
Engines
A very knowledgeable US Government guy who was closely associated with the JSF programme explained the X-32/X-35 issues like this: the basic truth that the Hawker/Bristol Engines team understood in the late 50s/early 60s was that any VSTOL solution had to have the most efficient propulsion system possible in terms of thrust to weight - and with the technology they had available, that meant that using cold gas to generate at least some of the vertical thrust was a given. This is because cold gas is more dense and generates more mass flow, and more thrust. That thinking led to the Pegasus concept, which is essentially a medium sized turbojet delivering hot gas thrust with a very large compressor attached to the front delivering cold gas thrust. This basic choice also helped a lot with managing the flow of hot gases around and underneath the aircraft during landing - Hot Gas Ingestion (HGI) poses a massive risk to any gas turbine powered aircraft close to the ground, as the UK found out when they tested Plenum Chamber Burning (PCB) layouts.
Lockheed's concept stuck to that basic thinking, with a separate front fan generating cold gas thrust. With the X-32, Boeing took a different path.
I have to gently differ with a previous post - the X-32 wasn't, in my view, an updated Harrier. Boeing went instead for a fully hot gas solution, betting on more advanced engine technology to deliver a very hight thrust to weight figure, plus very advanced airframe materials to reduce weight - their delta wing design would also have been mass efficient. Unfortunately, almost all Boeing's risks materialised. They were unable to make the advanced materials work, they struggled with severe HGI issues, and their baseline delta design was simply unable to deliver the performance and control margins needed for cat and trap operations for the C model. Having the engine at the front meant having a very long, and heavy exhaust duct all the way to the rear end. Having been forced to extend the aircraft and fit a tailplane, and then redesign the wing, they basically ran out of thrust. Their final design solution using liquid fuelled rockets firing vertically downwards to achieve a vertical landing was, to my mind, an act of desperation.
At the time, I was a strong supporter of the Boeing design, as I liked its layout and potential simplicity - but as Scotty used to say in Star Trek. 'You canna change the laws of physics'. The key point, at least in my view, is this - designing and building powered lift aircraft that can do STOVL is fiendishly, massively, hugely, HARD. Making a STOVL aircraft that's a capable combat aircraft is ten times harder. I came to appreciate the sheer genius of the original British design team (and their US colleagues) who developed the P1127 and the Harrier - and it's that STOVL 'know how' that got the UK into the JSF programme as the only 'Tier 1' partner. As I've posted before, it was also British genius that was the key to making the F-35B work - I had the privilege to see those people in action in the early days of the F-35 and it was a humbling experience.
Best Regards as ever to all those who made this astonishing aircraft work - they deserve our respect. They have mine.
Engines
Thank you so much, 'Engines', for this view from the coal face.
It is another illustration of the rot in Boeing's formerly preeminent engineering culture.
When management is seduced by 'Powerpoint Engineering', stuff like 'all the risks materialized' is to be expected. Nobody dares ask the hard questions early.
As shown by the KC-46 or the SLS capsule, Boeing reliably does a poor job of detail engineering, but the marketing remains world class.
It is another illustration of the rot in Boeing's formerly preeminent engineering culture.
When management is seduced by 'Powerpoint Engineering', stuff like 'all the risks materialized' is to be expected. Nobody dares ask the hard questions early.
As shown by the KC-46 or the SLS capsule, Boeing reliably does a poor job of detail engineering, but the marketing remains world class.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Etudiant,
Glad you liked my post - I try to offer information that might help better understand the challenges faced in developing military aircraft.
I would offer a couple of thoughts - Boeing is a huge organisation, and within that there will be people of varying abilities. In the run up to the JSF decision, I had a chance to learn a little about the two teams (Boeing and LM), and Boeing's strong suit was their avionics system integration - 'mission systems'. I heard US Government types saying that what they really wanted to do was to award the airframe contract to LM, and the mission systems integration work to Boeing. However, the rules were 'only one winner'. One of the major causes for the later F-35 delays was the very poor job that LM did in developing and testing the mission system components and software. My guess is that this has added around two to three years at least to the programme.
The other main cause for delays was LM's more or less complete failure to pay attention to airframe weight. This is a huge issue for a powered lift aircraft, where every pound literally counts. I saw first hand a series of poor decisions, driven by a belief within LM that the new computer CAD systems would 'take care of weight control', and that 'the correct aircraft weight would fall out of the design process'. Wrong on both counts, and the subsequent redesign of the F-35 (all 3 variants, by the way, not only the B) added at least 20 months to the programme in around 2003/4. I personally saw examples of really bad airframe design decisions within LM, as well as some really excellent ones.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that any organisation will screw up at some time - the recent 737 Max episode was an absolute shocker for Boeing, but it also shows the perils of not having a competent, active and independent regulator who is able and given the time to ask the 'hard questions'. Thats an issue you will have seen aired hundreds of time on PPrune.
For my money, the biggest risk to any programme, civil or military, is the rise of the 'JFDI' school of management - that's 'Just F*****g Do It'. This is where the schedule and cost (and sometimes marketing) people get to run the programme, and if an engineer steps forward and says that they need more time to look at a problem, they get told to shut up and press on - 'JFDI'. The best way forward is always a team effort. That often means listening to your team when they are giving you bad news.
Best Regards as ever to all these good team leaders who listen and take timely decisions - even if they're hard ones.
Engines
Glad you liked my post - I try to offer information that might help better understand the challenges faced in developing military aircraft.
I would offer a couple of thoughts - Boeing is a huge organisation, and within that there will be people of varying abilities. In the run up to the JSF decision, I had a chance to learn a little about the two teams (Boeing and LM), and Boeing's strong suit was their avionics system integration - 'mission systems'. I heard US Government types saying that what they really wanted to do was to award the airframe contract to LM, and the mission systems integration work to Boeing. However, the rules were 'only one winner'. One of the major causes for the later F-35 delays was the very poor job that LM did in developing and testing the mission system components and software. My guess is that this has added around two to three years at least to the programme.
The other main cause for delays was LM's more or less complete failure to pay attention to airframe weight. This is a huge issue for a powered lift aircraft, where every pound literally counts. I saw first hand a series of poor decisions, driven by a belief within LM that the new computer CAD systems would 'take care of weight control', and that 'the correct aircraft weight would fall out of the design process'. Wrong on both counts, and the subsequent redesign of the F-35 (all 3 variants, by the way, not only the B) added at least 20 months to the programme in around 2003/4. I personally saw examples of really bad airframe design decisions within LM, as well as some really excellent ones.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that any organisation will screw up at some time - the recent 737 Max episode was an absolute shocker for Boeing, but it also shows the perils of not having a competent, active and independent regulator who is able and given the time to ask the 'hard questions'. Thats an issue you will have seen aired hundreds of time on PPrune.
For my money, the biggest risk to any programme, civil or military, is the rise of the 'JFDI' school of management - that's 'Just F*****g Do It'. This is where the schedule and cost (and sometimes marketing) people get to run the programme, and if an engineer steps forward and says that they need more time to look at a problem, they get told to shut up and press on - 'JFDI'. The best way forward is always a team effort. That often means listening to your team when they are giving you bad news.
Best Regards as ever to all these good team leaders who listen and take timely decisions - even if they're hard ones.
Engines
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,923
Received 2,844 Likes
on
1,215 Posts
Etudiant,
I heard US Government types saying that what they really wanted to do was to award the airframe contract to LM, and the mission systems integration work to Boeing. However, the rules were 'only one winner'.
The other main cause for delays was LM's more or less complete failure to pay attention to airframe weight. This is a huge issue for a powered lift aircraft, where every pound literally counts. I saw first hand a series of poor decisions, driven by a belief within LM that the new computer CAD systems would 'take care of weight control', and that 'the correct aircraft weight would fall out of the design process'.
Engines
I heard US Government types saying that what they really wanted to do was to award the airframe contract to LM, and the mission systems integration work to Boeing. However, the rules were 'only one winner'.
The other main cause for delays was LM's more or less complete failure to pay attention to airframe weight. This is a huge issue for a powered lift aircraft, where every pound literally counts. I saw first hand a series of poor decisions, driven by a belief within LM that the new computer CAD systems would 'take care of weight control', and that 'the correct aircraft weight would fall out of the design process'.
Engines
On the second point I believe LM were sucked into complacency by their early programme experience with the CAD system. On the demonstrator they had made an allowance of several pounds for shim when mating the LM and BAe manufactured sections of the airframe. In the event they used less than one oz, with which they were highly delighted, probably leading to eyes off the ball.
Thread Starter
It is funny how some people seem determined not to see the wood for the trees. Exercise Steadfast Defender 21 was/is a transatlantic reinforcement exercise, and carriers are needed to make that sort of reinforcement by defending shipping against air and submarine threats.
Some conclusions:
1. The QEC can indeed operate aircraft.
2. We will have ASW Merlins and Lightnings aboard both carriers in the next few weeks.
3. 820NAS can provide 24/7 ASW defence for the carrier group and any forces or shipping being escorted.
4. Carriers are critically important to NATO.
5. The first real mission for HMS Queen Elizabeth, and the first part of the CSG21 deployment, was playing a key role in NATO deterrence activities to help keep the peace.
As for F-35B range - how does it compare with that if the Super Hornet - if they both carry the same load? Do Typhoons launching from Cyprus on Operation Shader missions need tanker support?
Some conclusions:
1. The QEC can indeed operate aircraft.
2. We will have ASW Merlins and Lightnings aboard both carriers in the next few weeks.
3. 820NAS can provide 24/7 ASW defence for the carrier group and any forces or shipping being escorted.
4. Carriers are critically important to NATO.
5. The first real mission for HMS Queen Elizabeth, and the first part of the CSG21 deployment, was playing a key role in NATO deterrence activities to help keep the peace.
As for F-35B range - how does it compare with that if the Super Hornet - if they both carry the same load? Do Typhoons launching from Cyprus on Operation Shader missions need tanker support?
Their final design solution using liquid fuelled rockets firing vertically downwards to achieve a vertical landing was, to my mind, an act of desperation.
At the time, I was a strong supporter of the Boeing design, as I liked its layout and potential simplicity - but as Scotty used to say in Star Trek. 'You canna change the laws of physics'.
Engines
At the time, I was a strong supporter of the Boeing design, as I liked its layout and potential simplicity - but as Scotty used to say in Star Trek. 'You canna change the laws of physics'.
Engines
But how do you recover the MQ-25 to a QE?
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You don't, you sail the QE in a task force with a US carrier that can. We now have a capability far greater than what we used to have and one we can actually afford. The cats/traps, nuke propulsion arguments are done and dusted.
"you sail the QE in a task force with a US carrier that can"
You can see why a lot of the USN can't get excited about getting a lot of smaller carriers can't you?
You can see why a lot of the USN can't get excited about getting a lot of smaller carriers can't you?
I don't think the issue here is the size of the carrier - the QEs are pretty big after all - but whether it has cats and traps. On that, the UK has (as I think has already been noted) put out a request for information on acquiring a cat and trap system ideally capable of launching up to 55K lb and recovering 44Klb - recognising that in future a mix of manned and unmanned systems will become increasingly the way to go.
By comparison, the figures I've seen for MQ-25 suggest a MTOW of around 45K lb. Of course a healthy does of PPRuNe-style cynicism may be justified here given past experience in this area, but at least for now we seem to be planning for unmanned options including those that require catapult launch.
In the meantime, worth remembering that any operation against peer or near-peer opposition will always be carried out as part of a coalition effort. That's how it is these days and also how it will remain, and any discussion of QE carrier capabilities should recognise that. The UK, quite rightly, is not trying to emulate what the US could do on its own, or anything close.
By comparison, the figures I've seen for MQ-25 suggest a MTOW of around 45K lb. Of course a healthy does of PPRuNe-style cynicism may be justified here given past experience in this area, but at least for now we seem to be planning for unmanned options including those that require catapult launch.
In the meantime, worth remembering that any operation against peer or near-peer opposition will always be carried out as part of a coalition effort. That's how it is these days and also how it will remain, and any discussion of QE carrier capabilities should recognise that. The UK, quite rightly, is not trying to emulate what the US could do on its own, or anything close.
Thread Starter
HMS Prince of Wales has recovered and launched her first F-35B Lightning
The stealth fighter touched down for the first time on the deck of the second of Britain’s new aircraft carriers on a calm, clear day off the south coast of England.
HMS Prince of Wales manoeuvered into position to accept the aircraft which touched down on the sprawling flight deck with precision amid an air of excitement from the ship’s company.
“It was a real honour to be the first pilot to land the F-35B on HMS Prince of Wales,” said RAF Squadron Leader Will of 207 Squadron from Marham.
“With all the training that we have previously undertaken with HMS Queen Elizabeth we are now looking forward to using that experience and knowledge as we work with HMS Prince of Wales as she moves towards her full operational capability.”
Shortly after the first landing, the first take-off: Lieutenant Commander Ben, also from 207 Squadron – the joint RAF-Fleet Air Arm formation dedicated to teaching fast jet pilots how to fly and operate the stealth fighter – powered along the deck and leapt skywards courtesy of the carrier’s iconic ski ramp, blazing the trail for thousands of similar launches over the next half century.
The jet and ship are carrying out Sea Acceptance Trials which test the ship’s ability to not only receive and launch the jets but also maintain near-continuous air operations.
The stealth fighter touched down for the first time on the deck of the second of Britain’s new aircraft carriers on a calm, clear day off the south coast of England.
HMS Prince of Wales manoeuvered into position to accept the aircraft which touched down on the sprawling flight deck with precision amid an air of excitement from the ship’s company.
“It was a real honour to be the first pilot to land the F-35B on HMS Prince of Wales,” said RAF Squadron Leader Will of 207 Squadron from Marham.
“With all the training that we have previously undertaken with HMS Queen Elizabeth we are now looking forward to using that experience and knowledge as we work with HMS Prince of Wales as she moves towards her full operational capability.”
Shortly after the first landing, the first take-off: Lieutenant Commander Ben, also from 207 Squadron – the joint RAF-Fleet Air Arm formation dedicated to teaching fast jet pilots how to fly and operate the stealth fighter – powered along the deck and leapt skywards courtesy of the carrier’s iconic ski ramp, blazing the trail for thousands of similar launches over the next half century.
The jet and ship are carrying out Sea Acceptance Trials which test the ship’s ability to not only receive and launch the jets but also maintain near-continuous air operations.
do not mention Weed, anybody. Incompatible with flying duties [as in aircraft].
A video containing some interesting stuff including spectacular shots of our carrier strike group:
As US Withdraws From Afghanistan, CENTCOM Head Says NATO Assistance Essential
Thread Starter
Royal Navy - Stealth jets fight Daesh in first combat missions from HMS Queen Elizabeth
“The involvement of HMS Queen Elizabeth and her Air Wing in this campaign also sends a wider message. It demonstrates the speed and agility with which a UK-led Carrier Strike Group can inject fifth generation combat power into any operation, anywhere in the world, thereby offering the British Government, and our allies, true military and political choice.”
It was Daesh that I was referring to as the enemy of all nations, peoples, and faiths.
“The involvement of HMS Queen Elizabeth and her Air Wing in this campaign also sends a wider message. It demonstrates the speed and agility with which a UK-led Carrier Strike Group can inject fifth generation combat power into any operation, anywhere in the world, thereby offering the British Government, and our allies, true military and political choice.”
It was Daesh that I was referring to as the enemy of all nations, peoples, and faiths.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HMS Prince of Wales has recovered and launched her first F-35B Lightning
HMS Prince of Wales manoeuvered into position to accept the aircraft which touched down on the sprawling flight deck with precision amid an air of excitement from the ship’s company.
HMS Prince of Wales manoeuvered into position to accept the aircraft which touched down on the sprawling flight deck with precision amid an air of excitement from the ship’s company.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,923
Received 2,844 Likes
on
1,215 Posts
I can see the Defence Industry getting out more zeros for their quotes .... ,000,000,000