F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,582
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
No IPP Complaints up my sleeve
'Romulus' I have not seen any complaints about IPP for some time now, especially aboard USS Wasp now two times. Here is some forum info:
IPP Info on 21 Jul 2011 'SSSETOWTF':
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post6584909
____________
IPP Info on 21 Jul 2011 'Engines': (2 links)
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post6584076
&
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post7157268
IPP Info on 21 Jul 2011 'SSSETOWTF':
"...In current flight test, IPP management is a total non-issue. When we first started flying the jet we were slightly concerned about stopping on asphalt in bleed-and-burn mode for any length of time - because the testing hadn't been done to assure us that everything was going to be ok. So there's a switch in the cockpit that the pilot can use to force the IPP into bleed mode whenever he has to hold on asphalt. LM are working on a number of minor tweaks to the design (including possibly making the exhaust come out at a more acute angle to the ground) and at an opportune point in the test program the team will take the time to figure out if the effects on asphalt are in line with the worst case predictions, or if they've been over-egged (which the safety folks have a habit of doing).
Any possible issues with ship integration will be thoroughly flushed out on the first deployment to USS Wasp later this year. Anyone who's telling you otherwise is living in the world of the ppt warrior.
Regards, Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly"
Any possible issues with ship integration will be thoroughly flushed out on the first deployment to USS Wasp later this year. Anyone who's telling you otherwise is living in the world of the ppt warrior.
Regards, Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly"
____________
IPP Info on 21 Jul 2011 'Engines': (2 links)
"...The heat issue from the exhaust is something I was closely involved with while on the project. The exhaust from the IPP is actually less hot and fast than that from the current APU on the F-18, and the assessment at the time was that while it posed a potential issue, it was manageable, using the same sort of techniques the USN and USMC had done for some time. If that's changed since I was on the team, I'm not aware of it.
Best Regards as ever, Engines."
Best Regards as ever, Engines."
&
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post7157268
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 21st Dec 2013 at 22:56. Reason: fmt
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spaz, no problems with that mate, the IPP comment concerns the previous post
and a couple of follow up posts.
Like everything you just do your engineering to cover the issue.
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry
not sure the Hyuga's deck can take F-35's
they would have to be F-35B's and the deck was only designed for helicopter operations
the new 22DDH's may have upgraded decks but as they were designed and ordered a coupleof years back they also might need a major upgrade
they would have to be F-35B's and the deck was only designed for helicopter operations
the new 22DDH's may have upgraded decks but as they were designed and ordered a coupleof years back they also might need a major upgrade
Like everything you just do your engineering to cover the issue.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,582
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
'Romulus', Fair enough, and here is a graphic of the IPP - just because.... nobody asked for it.... 
from:
http://www.asetsdefense.org/document...etter-F-35.pdf (2.5Mb)
from:http://www.asetsdefense.org/document...etter-F-35.pdf (2.5Mb)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Hyuga class would probably need a coat of Thermion or something similar (like USS Wasp and QEC) but not because of the IPP heat. This may have been a concern early on, but the programme is well past the point of worrying about the IPP melting its way through metal.
The bigger issue would be the frames under the steel deck to support the weight and repeated force of the landing of a V-22/F-35B. The ship designers will be doing the maths and it may limit the number of landing spots and/or parking spots. This is no different to Ospreys landing on Ark Royal/Invincible/Illustrious, you just have to work round it.
The bigger issue would be the frames under the steel deck to support the weight and repeated force of the landing of a V-22/F-35B. The ship designers will be doing the maths and it may limit the number of landing spots and/or parking spots. This is no different to Ospreys landing on Ark Royal/Invincible/Illustrious, you just have to work round it.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spot on whiteovies, there is always an answer,it just needs to be found.
I would suggest that the IPP issue isn't literally melting the metal away, it is to do with the metallurgical aspects of steel, heat and repeated heat cycles.
There was a whole lot of work done post 911, take a look at Fig 2.2 in this one and consider a straight heating issue from the IPP.
Heating steel frame thesis
As previously any related issues can undoubtedly be solved, it just means a reconsideration of the design criteria and suitable modification. Whether that is cost effective or not remains to be seen. I'm not sure Thermion has the scale and wear capability that would be required but it may well do. As always one of the key benefits of military expenditure is we get a lot of domestic applications from the technology they invent.
I would suggest that the IPP issue isn't literally melting the metal away, it is to do with the metallurgical aspects of steel, heat and repeated heat cycles.
There was a whole lot of work done post 911, take a look at Fig 2.2 in this one and consider a straight heating issue from the IPP.
Heating steel frame thesis
As previously any related issues can undoubtedly be solved, it just means a reconsideration of the design criteria and suitable modification. Whether that is cost effective or not remains to be seen. I'm not sure Thermion has the scale and wear capability that would be required but it may well do. As always one of the key benefits of military expenditure is we get a lot of domestic applications from the technology they invent.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Romulus
I'm not sure Thermion has the scale and wear capability that would be required but it may well do.
It is the new ceramic/steel/aluminum-composite flight-deck coating for the USN's CVNs, LHDs, and LHAs (and will be applied to other USN flight decks where MV/CV-22 operations are expected).
In addition to vastly better heat-insulation characteristics compared to existing flight-deck non-skid coatings, it is also expected to last in excess of 5 years between re-applications... compared to around 6 months for the current non-skid (less in high-wear areas)!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it the problem is that there would have to be some re-engineering of the 22DDH's and the two Hyuga's would need quite a bit of work - unspecified but we know what the costs of even thinking of re-engineering the RN carriers has been............
Since the Japanese Navy has based its whole strategy without their own carrier strike arm it would be a major change and it would only give them a small number of aircraft - maybe 5-6 per deck. Probably better to bulk up their destroyer force and their ability to deploy Marines in the offshore islands
Since the Japanese Navy has based its whole strategy without their own carrier strike arm it would be a major change and it would only give them a small number of aircraft - maybe 5-6 per deck. Probably better to bulk up their destroyer force and their ability to deploy Marines in the offshore islands
There's a lot of fuss made about Thermion. Folks seem to think it's some kind of expensive miracle coating required by the new, expensive miracle jet when, in fact, it makes really good sense to apply it to all kinds of decks. As well as it's heat resitance, it's not particularly expensive, has excellent corrosion, wear and impact resitance, is easy to apply, has good friction properties and lasts for years.
So having to apply it to decks to operate F-35, Osprey or whatever is no great issue.
Here's how good it is. The picture below is from the excellent Aviation Leak article (30th August this year - F-35B DT 2 Update: A few hours on the USS Wasp ) and shows where an F-35 landed on the edge of the Thermion coating. To the left is just the anti-skid base layer, to the right the Thermion coating. The difference is pretty obvious.
So having to apply it to decks to operate F-35, Osprey or whatever is no great issue.
Here's how good it is. The picture below is from the excellent Aviation Leak article (30th August this year - F-35B DT 2 Update: A few hours on the USS Wasp ) and shows where an F-35 landed on the edge of the Thermion coating. To the left is just the anti-skid base layer, to the right the Thermion coating. The difference is pretty obvious.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
I have to agree with John Farley that the issue of deck heating (from various parts of the aircraft) seems to be one of those subjects that attract the ''Ah, but I bet you haven't thought of THIS....' type of comment, just in front of the 'I bet they'll have to modify/replace the decks' comment. Fair enough though, here are a few thoughts that might help the thread along.
As John so elegantly points out, the teams involved with STOVL aircraft are very well aware of the issues with pointing hot gas flows at any surface, be it asphalt, steel, or concrete. Research has been done, tests carried out, results analysed and designs adjusted/modified as required. (Incidentally, on F-35, this effort was led by quite excellent Brits using experience from the Harrier, then taking the depth of analysis, modelling and test to a whole new level).
Most importantly, on F-35 for sure, the customers were VERY well aware of the issues and made damn well sure that the design and test teams were getting the answers required.
And while I respect the right of anyone to have a go at LM, BAES or any other aircraft manufacturer (free forums and all that) it does seem obvious (to me at least) that they are probably not going to produce an aircraft that can't operate off potential export customers' platforms because it would melt decks.
The bottom line is that the F-35B is capable of working off any deck that can take the weight. As far as the IPP goes, its exhaust has proved to be entirely manageable. The original upward firing exhaust (which SpazSinbad posted above) had to be changed on the F-35B, as it took up too much space, cost too much fuel and added too much weight. The downward firing exhaust, as Whiteovies points out, is not a concern.
The main engine exhaust is the one to really watch, and here there has been more test and analysis than in any other STOVL programme. (All the test rigs have been built and operated in the UK, by the way). To date, the new coatings (e.g. Thermion) are looking very promising, and no showstoppers have (to my limited knowledge) been identified.
Trying to summarise - deck heating with the F-35B was a potential risk which the design and test teams have taken great care and pains over. As a result, it's not developed into a real issue.
I don't suppose for one minute that this one post will stop deck heating being raised again. However, it would be nice to discuss topics a bit more relevant to STOVL ops at sea.
Best regards as ever to all those working the details, doing the testing and applying the results at sea,
Engines
I have to agree with John Farley that the issue of deck heating (from various parts of the aircraft) seems to be one of those subjects that attract the ''Ah, but I bet you haven't thought of THIS....' type of comment, just in front of the 'I bet they'll have to modify/replace the decks' comment. Fair enough though, here are a few thoughts that might help the thread along.
As John so elegantly points out, the teams involved with STOVL aircraft are very well aware of the issues with pointing hot gas flows at any surface, be it asphalt, steel, or concrete. Research has been done, tests carried out, results analysed and designs adjusted/modified as required. (Incidentally, on F-35, this effort was led by quite excellent Brits using experience from the Harrier, then taking the depth of analysis, modelling and test to a whole new level).
Most importantly, on F-35 for sure, the customers were VERY well aware of the issues and made damn well sure that the design and test teams were getting the answers required.
And while I respect the right of anyone to have a go at LM, BAES or any other aircraft manufacturer (free forums and all that) it does seem obvious (to me at least) that they are probably not going to produce an aircraft that can't operate off potential export customers' platforms because it would melt decks.
The bottom line is that the F-35B is capable of working off any deck that can take the weight. As far as the IPP goes, its exhaust has proved to be entirely manageable. The original upward firing exhaust (which SpazSinbad posted above) had to be changed on the F-35B, as it took up too much space, cost too much fuel and added too much weight. The downward firing exhaust, as Whiteovies points out, is not a concern.
The main engine exhaust is the one to really watch, and here there has been more test and analysis than in any other STOVL programme. (All the test rigs have been built and operated in the UK, by the way). To date, the new coatings (e.g. Thermion) are looking very promising, and no showstoppers have (to my limited knowledge) been identified.
Trying to summarise - deck heating with the F-35B was a potential risk which the design and test teams have taken great care and pains over. As a result, it's not developed into a real issue.
I don't suppose for one minute that this one post will stop deck heating being raised again. However, it would be nice to discuss topics a bit more relevant to STOVL ops at sea.
Best regards as ever to all those working the details, doing the testing and applying the results at sea,
Engines
Last edited by Engines; 23rd Dec 2013 at 11:45. Reason: Typo correction
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to be clear the articles I read didn't specifically mention deck heating as an issue - just that the JSDF designed them for a small number of helicopters.
"Hyuga" carries a max of 10 x SH-60 and has landing spots for 4, the new 22DDH's will carry up to 14 helicopters but will normally embark 7 x ASW + 2 x Minesweeping/transport helicopters on 5 spots
Presumably modding them to be able to fully operate, rather than just demonstrate F-35 landing & take-off on a single spot, is just not attractive
It will be interesting to see if the Japanese decide to order more DDH's with increased capacity in the near future but their current emphsis is to buy more DD-115 class destroyers I believe
"Hyuga" carries a max of 10 x SH-60 and has landing spots for 4, the new 22DDH's will carry up to 14 helicopters but will normally embark 7 x ASW + 2 x Minesweeping/transport helicopters on 5 spots
Presumably modding them to be able to fully operate, rather than just demonstrate F-35 landing & take-off on a single spot, is just not attractive
It will be interesting to see if the Japanese decide to order more DDH's with increased capacity in the near future but their current emphsis is to buy more DD-115 class destroyers I believe
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,582
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
F-35C Prod Hook Test Pax River Dec 2013
Navy’s F-35 Starts New Tailhook Tests 23 Dec 2013 Dave Majumdar
Navy's F-35 Starts New Tailhook Tests | USNI News
"The Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) has begun testing a new carrier arresting hook for the Navy’s version of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md.
Aircraft CF-3, which is the first F-35C fitted with a production tailhook, caught an arresting wire at a shore-based test rig on Dec. 19 at the Navy’s primary flight test center according to Naval Air Systems Command. The aircraft was flow by Lt. Cmdr. Tony Wilson.
Testing will eventually move to Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst in New Jersey in January 2014 for additional testing with a shore-based arresting gear. Fly-in testing is required to verify that the F-35C will be able to consistently catch an arresting wire...."
Aircraft CF-3, which is the first F-35C fitted with a production tailhook, caught an arresting wire at a shore-based test rig on Dec. 19 at the Navy’s primary flight test center according to Naval Air Systems Command. The aircraft was flow by Lt. Cmdr. Tony Wilson.
Testing will eventually move to Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst in New Jersey in January 2014 for additional testing with a shore-based arresting gear. Fly-in testing is required to verify that the F-35C will be able to consistently catch an arresting wire...."
"Navy F-35C test plane CF-3 successfully catches a wire during testing at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md. Lockheed Martin Photo"
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 23rd Dec 2013 at 23:50. Reason: PictchaPurfect
Whatever happened to "If it looks right, it'll fly right"?
The F-35 really is an ugly-looking horror.....
.....although not quite as ugly as the XF-36
The F-35 really is an ugly-looking horror.....
.....although not quite as ugly as the XF-36
