Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
There was a short carrier/F-35B related piece on Forces TV news the other night. It was about the training and simulation work being done in Warton. There was a Pilot (a Cdr) who was stating the F-35B will be easier to carrier land than legacy aircraft like Sea Harrier or Super Hornet.
It also featured Queen Elizabeth's first Cdr(Air), who is from a fixed wing background, and did mention all the simulation work. It really is remarkable what simulation and modelling can do. A hundred years on from the first aircraft carrier (HMS Argus) the RN and UK continue to leading with innovations such as SRVL.
F-35 Pilots Get Ready To Land On HMS Queen Elizabeth
It also featured Queen Elizabeth's first Cdr(Air), who is from a fixed wing background, and did mention all the simulation work. It really is remarkable what simulation and modelling can do. A hundred years on from the first aircraft carrier (HMS Argus) the RN and UK continue to leading with innovations such as SRVL.
F-35 Pilots Get Ready To Land On HMS Queen Elizabeth
WE Branch, thanks for posting that.
A question from a non military type. Why was the rolling landing not used with the Sea Harrier?
A question from a non military type. Why was the rolling landing not used with the Sea Harrier?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
-RP
The SHar's bring-back was awful, so I doubt that was the reason. If the mission required ECM & chaff and external tanks then carrying anything meaningful was a challenge. Small wing, hopeless brakes, small boat and lack of an advanced digital control system may have had more to do with it.
The bring-back requirement for SHAR (or GR9 for that matter) bears no resemblance to the requirement for F35B. SHAR struggled to recover with a full AD load in tropical conditions, so you can imagine what trying to bring back air to mud ordnance would be like.
As JTO says, SRVL unlikely due to primarily (very) small flight deck, interesting undercarriage configuration, small(ish) wing even with GR9, inadequate brakes etc.
As I understand it, the land-based Harrier force used to use short rolling landings - which is where the idea originated from, but generally on nice runways with space - as opposed to crowded flight decks, with a 60 foot drop to the oggin at the other end.
As JTO says, SRVL unlikely due to primarily (very) small flight deck, interesting undercarriage configuration, small(ish) wing even with GR9, inadequate brakes etc.
As I understand it, the land-based Harrier force used to use short rolling landings - which is where the idea originated from, but generally on nice runways with space - as opposed to crowded flight decks, with a 60 foot drop to the oggin at the other end.
Beyond UK F-35Bs, I'd say the options are fairly limited to US F-35Bs.
Osprey....
Osprey....
It wasn't needed, SHar landing weight allowed for a vertical landing,
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: over the rainbow
Age: 75
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talking of Carriers and Sea Harriers, there is a very fulsome obituary of Vice Admiral Sir James Weatherall in yesterday's Telegraph.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituari...rall-obituary/
He was Captain of the Invincible-class carrier Ark Royal in 1985/86, which was equipped with Sea Harriers. I wonder if David Morgan served under him?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituari...rall-obituary/
He was Captain of the Invincible-class carrier Ark Royal in 1985/86, which was equipped with Sea Harriers. I wonder if David Morgan served under him?
The ship’s company loved him, and he inspired them with the promise of a run-ashore in New York. Ark Royal duly visited the city during Liberty Weekend 1986, a spectacular celebration of the centenary of the Statue of Liberty, involving an international fleet review.
Weatherall ordered a display by his Sea Harrier jump-jets at the end of which, when President Reagan had unveiled the newly restored statue, the Sea Harriers hovered and bowed before it.
Weatherall ordered a display by his Sea Harrier jump-jets at the end of which, when President Reagan had unveiled the newly restored statue, the Sea Harriers hovered and bowed before it.
A fine Captain indeed. We were only cleared for a fly-past of the Statue of Liberty but he OK'd the bow on the grounds that we wouldn't get the chance for another 200 years! I still have the gunsight film!!
BTW, SRVL was used ONCE by a SHAR. It was never a cleared manoeuvre (for the above reasons) but I used it on 1st May 82 after taking flak in my rear end over Stanley. I knew that there was a large hole and feared that damage to the reaction controls might preclude a safe hover. As it transpired, the puffers were fine and I could have done a VL.
BTW, SRVL was used ONCE by a SHAR. It was never a cleared manoeuvre (for the above reasons) but I used it on 1st May 82 after taking flak in my rear end over Stanley. I knew that there was a large hole and feared that damage to the reaction controls might preclude a safe hover. As it transpired, the puffers were fine and I could have done a VL.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rhino,
Perhaps I can support nab's response to your post earlier on today re F-35B, bring-back and SRVLs. I've put this information out several times, but am happy to do it again, as it seems there are still some misconceptions out there about what the F-35B can do and why the UK has gone for SRVLs.
Firstly, the F-35B is fully capable of doing a vertical landing with around 3200 pounds of internal weapons, within the range of temperatures and pressures set out in the requirements. By any standards, that's a lot of weight to bring back. (Its more than some legacy cat and trap aircraft could manage). To emphasise the point - the F-35B does not have to jettison weapons to carry out a VL. SRVL was not adopted because the F-35B can't do a VL without jettisoning weapons. I hope this is clear.
Secondly, Heat/blast effects on the deck are an issue, and are being tackled by use of new and better coatings. Vertical landings are a requirement, the decks have to be able to take them. SRVL wasn't adopted to address to heat and blast effects. I hope this is clear too.
So why has the UK gone down this route? Because there was a late change to requirements (from the UK) to be able to carry out a VL to the ship with the same bring-back, but at more demanding weather conditions. The F-35 requirement document called out the US Mil Spec 'Tropical Day'. In 2003, the UK came up and requested that studies be carried out into how to recover to the ship on what came to be called the 'UK Hot Day', which was significantly hotter and with lower pressures - this 'UK Hot Day' reflected conditions in the summer in the Northern Gulf.
Two options were looked at. First was a 'thrust push' - basically screw 10% more thrust out of the propulsion system. The second, more feasible, was SRVL.
The UK's large decks offer the chance to exploit SRVL to do exactly what the pilots are saying - to be able to come back to the deck with more fuel and weapons, reducing the need to dump fuel and allow recoveries with external stores as well. The result has been a really successful programme in which the UK has (once again) led the world in developing new carrier landing aids to help pilots get back to the deck in all weathers more safely.
Hope this helps, best regards as ever to all those getting the SRVLs cleared for use in action.
Engines
Perhaps I can support nab's response to your post earlier on today re F-35B, bring-back and SRVLs. I've put this information out several times, but am happy to do it again, as it seems there are still some misconceptions out there about what the F-35B can do and why the UK has gone for SRVLs.
Firstly, the F-35B is fully capable of doing a vertical landing with around 3200 pounds of internal weapons, within the range of temperatures and pressures set out in the requirements. By any standards, that's a lot of weight to bring back. (Its more than some legacy cat and trap aircraft could manage). To emphasise the point - the F-35B does not have to jettison weapons to carry out a VL. SRVL was not adopted because the F-35B can't do a VL without jettisoning weapons. I hope this is clear.
Secondly, Heat/blast effects on the deck are an issue, and are being tackled by use of new and better coatings. Vertical landings are a requirement, the decks have to be able to take them. SRVL wasn't adopted to address to heat and blast effects. I hope this is clear too.
So why has the UK gone down this route? Because there was a late change to requirements (from the UK) to be able to carry out a VL to the ship with the same bring-back, but at more demanding weather conditions. The F-35 requirement document called out the US Mil Spec 'Tropical Day'. In 2003, the UK came up and requested that studies be carried out into how to recover to the ship on what came to be called the 'UK Hot Day', which was significantly hotter and with lower pressures - this 'UK Hot Day' reflected conditions in the summer in the Northern Gulf.
Two options were looked at. First was a 'thrust push' - basically screw 10% more thrust out of the propulsion system. The second, more feasible, was SRVL.
The UK's large decks offer the chance to exploit SRVL to do exactly what the pilots are saying - to be able to come back to the deck with more fuel and weapons, reducing the need to dump fuel and allow recoveries with external stores as well. The result has been a really successful programme in which the UK has (once again) led the world in developing new carrier landing aids to help pilots get back to the deck in all weathers more safely.
Hope this helps, best regards as ever to all those getting the SRVLs cleared for use in action.
Engines
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Engines,
Great post. Thank you!
Great post. Thank you!
I imagine the QE will operate out of Norfolk Naval station for much of her time in the US- I'll have to do a drive by and see her up close. Imagine she will range up and down the coast and will likely spend some time off Virginia and North Carolina and participate in some USMC exercises. There is an extensive range network that can be used to advantage, and some auxiliary landing fields like Bogue that would be neat to see used.
Besides the UK and USMC F-35B's and Osprey, I could see various H-60 models flying out for compatibility trials. CH-53 long shot. There is now an Osprey squadron at Norfolk besides many more in North Carolina. I could also see some B and KC-130 hook up trials. The AV-8B's are still in North Carolina, and I'm sure the Harrier drivers would love a chance to go off the ramp, but Harriers may be seen by some as a step backward and organizers will likely want the focus on the B.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bevo,
My apologies for not including the fuel bit in my previous reply. I can offer this, which was the situation in about 2006.
The 'VL bring back' weight for the F-35B included a mandated fuel margin, which was completely separate from the mandated internal weapon load of 3200 lb.
The fuel margin wasn't expressed as a weight, but was framed in terms of what the aircraft had to be capable of doing in terms of a missed landing. It had to have enough fuel left, after completing a full IMC approach, transition to the hover, and moving to above the landing spot, to be able to move back out and carry out another full IMC circuit, approach and VL to the deck.
To be clear, this was in addition to the 'bring back' weapons load. I'm sorry, but at this range, i don't know what the actual calculated figure was.
The 'bring back' requirement also included a number of assumptions, including (at least when I was on the programme) a degraded propulsion system and a 'weight penalty' to provide some margin for weight growth.
The people who put the F-35 requirements together had, correctly in my opinion, identified VL bring back as the performance parameter that had the biggest impact on the design of the STOVL aircraft and the propulsion system. That's why VL bring back was a Key Performance Parameter (KPP). When the programme experienced its severe weight problems in 2003, it was the predicted failure to meet the VL bring back KPP that first rang alarm bells.
Hope this helps, best regards as ever to all those smart people working the QE trials just now.
Engines
My apologies for not including the fuel bit in my previous reply. I can offer this, which was the situation in about 2006.
The 'VL bring back' weight for the F-35B included a mandated fuel margin, which was completely separate from the mandated internal weapon load of 3200 lb.
The fuel margin wasn't expressed as a weight, but was framed in terms of what the aircraft had to be capable of doing in terms of a missed landing. It had to have enough fuel left, after completing a full IMC approach, transition to the hover, and moving to above the landing spot, to be able to move back out and carry out another full IMC circuit, approach and VL to the deck.
To be clear, this was in addition to the 'bring back' weapons load. I'm sorry, but at this range, i don't know what the actual calculated figure was.
The 'bring back' requirement also included a number of assumptions, including (at least when I was on the programme) a degraded propulsion system and a 'weight penalty' to provide some margin for weight growth.
The people who put the F-35 requirements together had, correctly in my opinion, identified VL bring back as the performance parameter that had the biggest impact on the design of the STOVL aircraft and the propulsion system. That's why VL bring back was a Key Performance Parameter (KPP). When the programme experienced its severe weight problems in 2003, it was the predicted failure to meet the VL bring back KPP that first rang alarm bells.
Hope this helps, best regards as ever to all those smart people working the QE trials just now.
Engines