Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RVLs and all that...
Not a Boffin....
The people working on this are very much aware of the need to have a solution that works when you are:
doing that in sh1tty weather on a slick deck in the dark
That's why having a decent set of brakes (twin redundant with advanced anti-skid), good grippy tyres and good steering is so important and that's why JSF has them. Plus a very decent flight control system (means you hit the landing spot to get max braking distance) and some fairly awesome night pilotage devices (look up the DAS and the HMD capabilities). Oh, and the jet may be able to PNB.
RVLs won't be straightforward - but they are potentially a great way to exploit the aircraft's inherent capabilities to meet demands that are well outside its STOVL KPPs. And that is what the UK are asking for.
Mr John Farley, any thoughts?
Regards
Engines
The people working on this are very much aware of the need to have a solution that works when you are:
doing that in sh1tty weather on a slick deck in the dark
That's why having a decent set of brakes (twin redundant with advanced anti-skid), good grippy tyres and good steering is so important and that's why JSF has them. Plus a very decent flight control system (means you hit the landing spot to get max braking distance) and some fairly awesome night pilotage devices (look up the DAS and the HMD capabilities). Oh, and the jet may be able to PNB.
RVLs won't be straightforward - but they are potentially a great way to exploit the aircraft's inherent capabilities to meet demands that are well outside its STOVL KPPs. And that is what the UK are asking for.
Mr John Farley, any thoughts?
Regards
Engines
Engines
I'm sure they are well aware of it. However, RVL remains a case of betting everything on your brakes, rather than a trap where at least if you lose the hook you can keep the thrust on, bolter and divert. You say CVF has a big enough deck, but with what configuration - STOVL or an angle? What deck parks and clearance from the RVL zone required? It will probably end up a bit like the old STOBAR options, which had a major impact on the available parking space.
Your point about the STOVL KPP is interesting. Are you suggesting that the UK signed up to Dave B knowing that it could not meet it's KPP? Or have we revised our requirement upwards?
If it's the first, why not buy the Dave-C which is a less risky solution, rather than bet the farm on a UK-specific procedure?
I'd really rather not harp on about this, but I need to be totally convinved before I approach AW with a bottle and a winning smile.....
I'm sure they are well aware of it. However, RVL remains a case of betting everything on your brakes, rather than a trap where at least if you lose the hook you can keep the thrust on, bolter and divert. You say CVF has a big enough deck, but with what configuration - STOVL or an angle? What deck parks and clearance from the RVL zone required? It will probably end up a bit like the old STOBAR options, which had a major impact on the available parking space.
Your point about the STOVL KPP is interesting. Are you suggesting that the UK signed up to Dave B knowing that it could not meet it's KPP? Or have we revised our requirement upwards?
If it's the first, why not buy the Dave-C which is a less risky solution, rather than bet the farm on a UK-specific procedure?
I'd really rather not harp on about this, but I need to be totally convinved before I approach AW with a bottle and a winning smile.....
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
CdG by the looks of the planeguard?
By: QinetiQ
QinetiQ's VAAC Harrier undertakes payload boosting landing trials on the French carrier Charles de Gaulle as part of a JSF-programme.
QinetiQ and the MOD Joint Test and Evaluation Group, which comprise the UK Aircraft Test and Evaluation Centre, are currently undertaking a series of landing trials of a short take-off vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft on to the French Navy's Charles de Gaulle carrier, using QinetiQ's Vectored-thrust Aircraft Advanced Control (VAAC) experimental Harrier.
Undertaken as part of the US Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme on behalf of the UK MOD Joint Combat Aircraft Integrated Project Team (JCA IPT), the trials were designed to expand the limits and knowledge of ship rolling vertical landings (SRVL) as a possible aircraft recovery technique for the Royal Navy's two projected Future Carrier (CVF) vessels.
Land based Rolling Vertical Landings (RVL) are routinely used on legacy STOVL (Harrier) aircraft, rather than vertical landings on unprepared surfaces, in order to avoid ingestion of debris into the engine. A requirement for JSF to perform land based RVLs has therefore always been a feature of the contract specification. However, the development of new RVL procedures for the F-35B aircraft, with its greater useable wing-lift at low speeds, means that either increased payloads can be returned and landed on the ship or the stress on the propulsion system can be reduced, leading to increased operational flexibility and propulsion system life.
The MOD has stated: "Consideration of the aerodynamic performance of JSF, together with the available deck area of CVF design, has shown that significant benefits could be realised by extending the principles of land based RVL to ship borne operations and the UK is keen to exploit this opportunity."
This series of trials involves the first ever piloted evaluation of the SRVL manoeuvre onto an aircraft carrier, and comes on the back of a number of studies undertaken over the past few years into the feasibility of the SRVL concept. The MOD has also stated that the increasing maturity of this body of analysis and simulation indicates that SRVL could be performed safely by JSF on CVF although the effects of equipment failures and adverse conditions require further investigation. Work into this will continue to be undertaken by QinetiQ at the MOD's Boscombe Down site and using VAAC simulators at its Bedford site.
"The Charles de Gaulle carrier, at around 40,000 tonnes has a similar deck size to the projected CVF vessels so made it the ideal choice for this series of trials", stated Richard Watson, QinetiQ's VAAC programme Manager. "As the French are likely to play a key part in the development and fabrication stages of the CVF programme it was also logical and beneficial to include them at this stage. The French team members in this trial have provided outstanding support in a challenging programme, and have been incredibly generous with their time, energy and overall contribution to the success of these test flights."
In 2005 a world first was also achieved when a fully automatic landing of the QinetiQ VAAC Harrier was conducted on HMS Invincible. QinetiQ¿s team of engineers with Royal Navy and Royal Air Force test pilots successfully demonstrated that the technology it has developed as part of its work for the Joint Strike Fighter programme could automatically bring a STOVL aircraft into land. This clearly demonstrated how exploiting advanced technology can reduce programme risk and bring real benefits for the pilots.
QinetiQ is also conducting ongoing work in maturing flight control concepts for the F-35B Lightning 2 and the Aircraft Test and Evaluation Centre recently completed an evaluation of advanced STOVL flight control concepts in collaboration with the JSF Program Office and test pilots from the JSF programme. This ongoing work follows the pioneering development of Unified Flight Control, a novel STOVL control concept which was adopted for the F-35B in 2002.
Unified Flight Control enables the pilot to simply command the aircraft to go faster or slower and up or down whilst the fly-by-wire control system does all the hard work. QinetiQ's autoland technology took this capability a step further and the autoland technology also opened up the door for operating Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAVs) from ships.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RVLs - and all that...
Not a Boffin:
Happy to respond. RVL shouldn't mean betting all on the brakes, IIRC they were certainly looking at bolters. (BTW, JSF has a pretty comprehensive dual braking system, with BIT) Moreover, at the recovery weights under discussion, the STO run is extremely short. Main issues would be propulsion system spool up time, and power settings on touchdown.
You are absolutely right that there would be an impact on deck space, but CVF has about the same deck area as a Kitty Hawk class CV, and we are talking small air groups here. Deck layout for RVLs is still, I believe, under discussion. I'd personally go for using the angled deck space that CVF already has (paint a second set of lines) and park accordingly, but what do I know? Deck scatter on RVLs? Don't know, but with the flight control system's capabilities, should not be excessive.
Can't say too much about KPPs except to say that IIRC the F-35B is required to meet its VL KPP in the temperatures specified, and it is going to do that. RVLs are quite probably being looked at because the UK wants to land with more stuff on board, or possibly in temperatures/pressures outside the specification.
Here's a point to consider - the F-35B bringback payload is at a level that previous cat and trap aircraft couldn't achieve. And it has to do it at zero knots. JSF STOVL is hard to do and that's why LM are getting the big bucks to do it - but doing it they are.
Regards
Engines
PS: Mr John Farley - any thoughts?
Happy to respond. RVL shouldn't mean betting all on the brakes, IIRC they were certainly looking at bolters. (BTW, JSF has a pretty comprehensive dual braking system, with BIT) Moreover, at the recovery weights under discussion, the STO run is extremely short. Main issues would be propulsion system spool up time, and power settings on touchdown.
You are absolutely right that there would be an impact on deck space, but CVF has about the same deck area as a Kitty Hawk class CV, and we are talking small air groups here. Deck layout for RVLs is still, I believe, under discussion. I'd personally go for using the angled deck space that CVF already has (paint a second set of lines) and park accordingly, but what do I know? Deck scatter on RVLs? Don't know, but with the flight control system's capabilities, should not be excessive.
Can't say too much about KPPs except to say that IIRC the F-35B is required to meet its VL KPP in the temperatures specified, and it is going to do that. RVLs are quite probably being looked at because the UK wants to land with more stuff on board, or possibly in temperatures/pressures outside the specification.
Here's a point to consider - the F-35B bringback payload is at a level that previous cat and trap aircraft couldn't achieve. And it has to do it at zero knots. JSF STOVL is hard to do and that's why LM are getting the big bucks to do it - but doing it they are.
Regards
Engines
PS: Mr John Farley - any thoughts?
Last edited by Engines; 25th Jun 2007 at 19:44. Reason: Added PS
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
It just brings to mind the appocryphal Harrier pilot quote that, "It's easier to stop and then land, than to land and then try to stop."
Suspicion breeds confidence
Some nice wall paper
Quite how we get from a situation where we can't even provide an airgroup for one small carrier to this seems a mammoth step.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's because the new CVF will have a small handful of F-35s (six) and the rest of the deck used up by Helicopters and Royal Marine vehicles/clobber and it will be doing trials within a year of coming into service to see if it works well in the Commando Carrying role....supporting amphibious forces....
Engines
thanks for that. to my mind, it's always been spool-up and recovery power settings that have been the limiter - if you can't get the rpm and thrust up, thats why you're in the box.
Interesting point about bring-back. Are we saying that Dave B has a better bringback than an A6 or an A7? I appreciate the issue of fuel for go-arounds on a trap recovery, but if it's true that is surprising.
thanks for that. to my mind, it's always been spool-up and recovery power settings that have been the limiter - if you can't get the rpm and thrust up, thats why you're in the box.
Interesting point about bring-back. Are we saying that Dave B has a better bringback than an A6 or an A7? I appreciate the issue of fuel for go-arounds on a trap recovery, but if it's true that is surprising.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
for the Yanks why bring back the A6 why not refit the S3 and enhance Elint, SUR/Subsur search and add some KS3's to the airgroups.
UK will be unlikley to need this capability as Gordon is unlikley to order the CVF's except they have good hospital facilities and can fit into costal ports to bail the NHS out.
UK will be unlikley to need this capability as Gordon is unlikley to order the CVF's except they have good hospital facilities and can fit into costal ports to bail the NHS out.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F-35B 'order'
Well it's a 200% increase on what we've got !
Unless someone makes themselves unpopular & takes a spanner & WD40 to a bunch of stored FA2's...
I'll get me coat.
Unless someone makes themselves unpopular & takes a spanner & WD40 to a bunch of stored FA2's...
I'll get me coat.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RVLs et al:
Not a Boffin - you are welcome, and you are right on the money over spool up times and recovery power settings being critical.
Bringback - you'd be surprised at how limited bringback on some of the older USN jets was. Apart from the need to carry LOTS of fuel to the deck, especially at night, the stresses of deck landings also limited the size of stores some aircraft could bring back to the deck - I believe that the A-7 was a case in point.
The issue is that getting back to a deck the F-35C way is a very demanding manoeuvre, with some significant design drivers such as slow speed handling, max trap speeds and so on. Weight is a BIG issue for cat and trap operations as well as STOVL.
F-35B has quite excellent bringback for a STOVL aircraft and pretty darn good one for most types.
Regards
Engines
Bringback - you'd be surprised at how limited bringback on some of the older USN jets was. Apart from the need to carry LOTS of fuel to the deck, especially at night, the stresses of deck landings also limited the size of stores some aircraft could bring back to the deck - I believe that the A-7 was a case in point.
The issue is that getting back to a deck the F-35C way is a very demanding manoeuvre, with some significant design drivers such as slow speed handling, max trap speeds and so on. Weight is a BIG issue for cat and trap operations as well as STOVL.
F-35B has quite excellent bringback for a STOVL aircraft and pretty darn good one for most types.
Regards
Engines
Thread Starter
For the last few weeks, I have not been getting automatic notification e-mail, and I have not a clue why (problem at my end). This is a shame because much of the stuff on the last couple of pages is fascinating.
As Navaleye says, the lack of carrier capable aircraft post Sea Jet is a problem, particularly when you consider the needs to retain and develop the skills of flight deck crews as well as pilots and other aviation specialists. These problems were predicted here - as was the reduction in pilot numbers and reduction in JFH aircraft numbers.
The CTOL vs STOVL argument is interesting, but personally I find the arguments in favour of STOVL to be seductive in many ways. The CVF design is meant to be adaptable, so the main issue should be getting the construction work started.
From what Engines and NoHoverStop have said I conclude that a) RVLs are feasible at sea and b) If a pilot judged the conditions too bad for a RVL, he/she would have the option of ditching his stores and going for a normal vertical landing. I can foresee extensive trials and simulations to find these limits. I also believe that the VAAC systems (and the ones F35B will have) enable the aircraft to be recovered to a particular part of the deck.
The VAAC work being done is a continuation of British invention and innovation in the field of naval aviation. After all, we invented the carrier, radar, the jet engine, steam catapults, angled decks, mirror landing sights, V/STOL aircraft, the ski ramp, the idea of using shipborne helicopters for amphibious assault, frigate/destroyer borne helicopters.........
The news that some are considering fitting radar and mission systems to the Osprey is interesting. In fact an observer from 849 NAS mentioned the Osprey as a possible MASC platform during a visit to Culdrose in March 2004. Not sure about the TOSS name though.
Sorry for lacking patience and not waiting until this thread was no longer on page one.
As Navaleye says, the lack of carrier capable aircraft post Sea Jet is a problem, particularly when you consider the needs to retain and develop the skills of flight deck crews as well as pilots and other aviation specialists. These problems were predicted here - as was the reduction in pilot numbers and reduction in JFH aircraft numbers.
The CTOL vs STOVL argument is interesting, but personally I find the arguments in favour of STOVL to be seductive in many ways. The CVF design is meant to be adaptable, so the main issue should be getting the construction work started.
From what Engines and NoHoverStop have said I conclude that a) RVLs are feasible at sea and b) If a pilot judged the conditions too bad for a RVL, he/she would have the option of ditching his stores and going for a normal vertical landing. I can foresee extensive trials and simulations to find these limits. I also believe that the VAAC systems (and the ones F35B will have) enable the aircraft to be recovered to a particular part of the deck.
The VAAC work being done is a continuation of British invention and innovation in the field of naval aviation. After all, we invented the carrier, radar, the jet engine, steam catapults, angled decks, mirror landing sights, V/STOL aircraft, the ski ramp, the idea of using shipborne helicopters for amphibious assault, frigate/destroyer borne helicopters.........
The news that some are considering fitting radar and mission systems to the Osprey is interesting. In fact an observer from 849 NAS mentioned the Osprey as a possible MASC platform during a visit to Culdrose in March 2004. Not sure about the TOSS name though.
Sorry for lacking patience and not waiting until this thread was no longer on page one.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 28th Jun 2007 at 12:08.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
French PA2 programme is starting to look iffy, which would undoubtedly have knock on effects....
France's Sarkozy Softening on Defense After Electoral Stumble
French President Nikolas Sarkozy spent time with aerospace & defense industry leaders at the Paris Air Show on June 23rd. The speech took place a week after recent Parliamentary elections that featured a center-right majority, but resulted in a loss of some outgoing seats for Sarkozy's UMP party and a much smaller margin of victory than previously expected.
Defense-Aerospace reports that the French President's speech pointedly failed to repeat his election promise to keep defense spending to 2% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Instead, he pushed for a bottom-up review of ongoing and projected weapon programs based on the new government's ongoing audit of current defense acquisition efforts, which is due in July 2007. Sarkozy also called for more "rationalization" of programs into multinational European efforts, and added that France must change the way it buys its weapons to reflect a prioritized expression of capability requirements.
Sarkozy's comments, and their implications, reportedly echo similar warnings from Defense Minister Herve Morin...
Morin said on June 21/07 that "the current level of defense spending will be very difficult to maintain," given that procurement spending would have to increase by 43%/ EUR 4 billion from 2009 - 2011 just to meet existing commitments. "I must warn you that we will have to make a certain number of difficult decisions and tough choices."
The most momentous choice will involve funding for France's PA2 aircraft carrier, which must come soon if France is to avoid losing its carrier capability when the nuclear-powered Charles de Gaulle is forced into its multi-year mid-life overhaul. Morin has said that "in principle" France will have a second carrier, an infamous political weasel phrase that leaves any decision very much in doubt.
Government departments are expected to receive initial notification of their 2008 budget envelope in August-September 2007, which is likely to serve as a key indicator of, and trigger for, defense procurement decisions...........
France's Sarkozy Softening on Defense After Electoral Stumble
French President Nikolas Sarkozy spent time with aerospace & defense industry leaders at the Paris Air Show on June 23rd. The speech took place a week after recent Parliamentary elections that featured a center-right majority, but resulted in a loss of some outgoing seats for Sarkozy's UMP party and a much smaller margin of victory than previously expected.
Defense-Aerospace reports that the French President's speech pointedly failed to repeat his election promise to keep defense spending to 2% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Instead, he pushed for a bottom-up review of ongoing and projected weapon programs based on the new government's ongoing audit of current defense acquisition efforts, which is due in July 2007. Sarkozy also called for more "rationalization" of programs into multinational European efforts, and added that France must change the way it buys its weapons to reflect a prioritized expression of capability requirements.
Sarkozy's comments, and their implications, reportedly echo similar warnings from Defense Minister Herve Morin...
Morin said on June 21/07 that "the current level of defense spending will be very difficult to maintain," given that procurement spending would have to increase by 43%/ EUR 4 billion from 2009 - 2011 just to meet existing commitments. "I must warn you that we will have to make a certain number of difficult decisions and tough choices."
The most momentous choice will involve funding for France's PA2 aircraft carrier, which must come soon if France is to avoid losing its carrier capability when the nuclear-powered Charles de Gaulle is forced into its multi-year mid-life overhaul. Morin has said that "in principle" France will have a second carrier, an infamous political weasel phrase that leaves any decision very much in doubt.
Government departments are expected to receive initial notification of their 2008 budget envelope in August-September 2007, which is likely to serve as a key indicator of, and trigger for, defense procurement decisions...........
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are we seeing the foundations being laid here for a more coordinated European Carrier Force? It's obvious that Mr Brown and M Sarkozy both have to find savings in their respective Defence budgets; all the more important for the former with Trident's replacement looming.
Would I therefore be cynical to feel that we're inevitably heading towards an announcement that our purchase will be limited to a single cat & trap CVF which will then have it's servicing deconflicted with the CDG? The latter meanwhile would be made compatible with F-35 and both nations would then guarantee deck access for each others trg and ops. Clearly this would raise issues with some national ops where the other nation could play the red card and make things difficult for the other (eg GW2). However, this seems just the sort of excuse these 2 guys are seeking to save cash, and for Brown to reinforce his European credentials.
Thoughts?
MM
Would I therefore be cynical to feel that we're inevitably heading towards an announcement that our purchase will be limited to a single cat & trap CVF which will then have it's servicing deconflicted with the CDG? The latter meanwhile would be made compatible with F-35 and both nations would then guarantee deck access for each others trg and ops. Clearly this would raise issues with some national ops where the other nation could play the red card and make things difficult for the other (eg GW2). However, this seems just the sort of excuse these 2 guys are seeking to save cash, and for Brown to reinforce his European credentials.
Thoughts?
MM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ideal solution would be two UK cat 'n trap carriers flying Rafales & Hawkeye.
French and British squadrons could then cross train and cover off in a crisis- assuming both countries agree- never take this for granted- which is why a more formal co operation/dependency wouldn't work- neither country will want to give up the independence/sovereinty that a carrier share scheme would require.
French and British squadrons could then cross train and cover off in a crisis- assuming both countries agree- never take this for granted- which is why a more formal co operation/dependency wouldn't work- neither country will want to give up the independence/sovereinty that a carrier share scheme would require.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes but no....
Sunk -
Yes, by all means 2 trap and cat CVFs. With Hawkeye, absolutely. But Rafale? Dave-C is surely the right answer, and if the light-blue hover jet mafia must have it, Dave-B for them.
Rafale gets knocked for six (or more) by either variant. Oh, and IIRC we've spent more than 1 billion quid on Dave already....
S41
Yes, by all means 2 trap and cat CVFs. With Hawkeye, absolutely. But Rafale? Dave-C is surely the right answer, and if the light-blue hover jet mafia must have it, Dave-B for them.
Rafale gets knocked for six (or more) by either variant. Oh, and IIRC we've spent more than 1 billion quid on Dave already....
S41
Last edited by Squirrel 41; 28th Jun 2007 at 09:39. Reason: Edited for spoolink
Have a horrible feeling that we're getting to the nub of the problem. If we wish to have a collaborative carrier prog, it's likely that the French would want us to get aboard the Rafale prog to offset some of their development costs and also to counter the NATO-wide Dave buying frenzy.
However, logistics and sanity are likely to suggest that setting up parallel support lines for two essentially similar (in terms of technology, generation, role) a/c in the UK ain't gonna happen. The step-change that Dave may offer (not to mention the workshare) gets around that.
Bottom line (as it always has been), collaboration where sensible (eg larger purchases of common items on the ship like the GT, DG, motors and principal radars etc), but not for collaborations sake (eg workshare arguments).
However, logistics and sanity are likely to suggest that setting up parallel support lines for two essentially similar (in terms of technology, generation, role) a/c in the UK ain't gonna happen. The step-change that Dave may offer (not to mention the workshare) gets around that.
Bottom line (as it always has been), collaboration where sensible (eg larger purchases of common items on the ship like the GT, DG, motors and principal radars etc), but not for collaborations sake (eg workshare arguments).
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rafale isn't an option. Underpowered and a direct competitor to Typhoon. It is unfeasible to produce a navalised Typhoon so F-35B (or possibly C) are the only options.
Hawkeye would be okay but only as long as we buy the E-2D variant. Even E-2C 2000 has no overland capability. Realistically however we cannot afford an E-2 of any sort. MASC will at best be an 'EV-22' but only if the USMC/USN procure that which I doubt very much as the USN E-2 community will fight it. I therefore see a Merlin MASC (possibly with compound wing) as the only affordable option.
Regards,
MM
Hawkeye would be okay but only as long as we buy the E-2D variant. Even E-2C 2000 has no overland capability. Realistically however we cannot afford an E-2 of any sort. MASC will at best be an 'EV-22' but only if the USMC/USN procure that which I doubt very much as the USN E-2 community will fight it. I therefore see a Merlin MASC (possibly with compound wing) as the only affordable option.
Regards,
MM