F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been told by those who know a lot that I don't (naval architects), that fitting arrestor gear to Queen Elizabeth would be relatively (??) simple (when an engineer says "relatively simple" I worry), quite feasible and not prohibitively expensive. The Indians have an ongoing discussion regarding Rafale because the French have said that Rafale is STOBAR capable and the Indians see it as usable on both their STOBAR and CATOBAR carriers. So I repeat, why not cut our losses, fit arrestors and buy Rafale? More to the point, it would mean that our carriers were capable then of embarking future aircraft that were STOBAR capable.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is it with the F35 that there are always two diametrically opposite stories out there?
There was a great fan fare about how successful the latest F35C trials on a carrier had been, you think sensible Navy doing a lot of test and development with a few test aircraft, less cost in the future with concurrency etc. Not wanting to get the F35 into the front line till 3F software is proven so it is a full warfighting system, seems very sensible.
Then we find that the wings are not strong enough to carry wing tip missiles and a catapult launch is a painful and possibly dangerous experience, that needs an engineering solution...
Does this possible two year development program for a fix mean that the Navy's IOC is put back as well?
There was a great fan fare about how successful the latest F35C trials on a carrier had been, you think sensible Navy doing a lot of test and development with a few test aircraft, less cost in the future with concurrency etc. Not wanting to get the F35 into the front line till 3F software is proven so it is a full warfighting system, seems very sensible.
Then we find that the wings are not strong enough to carry wing tip missiles and a catapult launch is a painful and possibly dangerous experience, that needs an engineering solution...
Does this possible two year development program for a fix mean that the Navy's IOC is put back as well?
"During a catapult launch the nose landing gear strut is compressed as the catapult pulls on the nose landing gear, with the hold back bar restraining the aircraft from forward movement due to engine thrust," according to a Dec. 28 Navy information paper viewed by Inside Defense. "Upon release of the hold back bar, the nose landing gear strut unloads and vertically oscillates as the aircraft accelerates towards take-off."
The motion is not only uncomfortable but the Helmet-Mounted Display and oxygen mask push back and up and down against the pilot's jaw. The jostling in the cockpit results in unreadable HMD during and immediately after launch, the paper reads.
The motion is not only uncomfortable but the Helmet-Mounted Display and oxygen mask push back and up and down against the pilot's jaw. The jostling in the cockpit results in unreadable HMD during and immediately after launch, the paper reads.
Royalistflyer: So I repeat, why not cut our losses, fit arrestors and buy Rafale?
I do think that time has well past unless the F-35B is somehow cut or fails. The debate has raged for years, and there were a few flip flops, but things have been firmly settled to proceed with STOVL. The costs of the arresting gear are only part of the mix: increased training requirements, less capable 4th generation aircraft, the inherit limitations/dangers of the ski jump and conventional aircraft (follow the Russian Carrier thread)....
Out of curiosity, why the leap to Rafale over Super Hornet? I imagine the Super Hornet could do the ski-jump (earlier Hornets were trialed), and comes in several flavors, the single seat E, twin seat F and with the jamming version the G. I would think a few G's would be nice to have IF the QE had a conventional air wing.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Having seen the long 'InsideDefense' article quoted above (available for FREE viewing temporarily if Navy Newsletter selected) then the odd phrase innit "...how they [the pilots] hold the straps...." should read: "...how the pilots hold/grab the 'hand-hold (grab bar) during the catapult stroke....".
Ref the head movement on take-off, it was clearly a problem even to a non-naval non-aviator like me!
Snip from post in Aug 2016
Snip from post in Aug 2016
Stray thoughts ref the video in #9651:-
The pilot's head/neck take quite a vertical and axial jolt as take-off is initiated. Future spinal/nerve problems?
The pilot's head/neck take quite a vertical and axial jolt as take-off is initiated. Future spinal/nerve problems?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Royalist, Sandie,
Perhaps I can help a little here.
it's my understanding (from a very reliable source) that fitting arresting gear to the QEC carriers wouldn't be simple, is on the very edge of being feasible, and prohibitively expensive.The situation might have been different in 2000, but since then these ships have been designed and completed on the assumption of 'no catapults or arresting gear'.
What then happened was that the spaces that were 'reserved' for cat and trap gear was given over for other uses - it's simply not practical to sail a warship around with great empty spaces in it. In the case of arresting gear, the spaces involved were very large, and have been used to house the extremely large mission planning areas demanded by the F-35 team.
Now, imagine you now wanted to install arresting gear. You take ALL the gear out of the mission planning areas and put it on the dockside. Fit the arresting gear. Now, where does the mission planning gear go? Right, just empty a few other compartments, install the mission planning gear and - you have got an equally big pile go stuff on the dockside from the compartments you've just emptied. And you've had to re-plumb all the power, cooling, data and comms services you put into the original MP areas into the new ones.
Repeat the above process about ten more times. Not simple, feasible or cheap. The time to do all this was 2000. Trying to do it in 2010-12 was a nonsense, as the team working the issues after the SDSR 2010 decision found. Trying to do it in 2017 would bee a nonsense on stilts. In my view. It's a free forum, others may disagree.
STOBAR options and Rafale. I seem to have said this quite a few times, but using a ramp to launch a conventional (i.e. non-STOVL) aircraft isn't especially efficient. In brief, a STOVL aircraft can launch from a ramp at below flying speed, but use both wing lift and vectored thrust to manage the decrease in rate of climb so that the aircraft rapidly and controllably achieves full wing borne flight about 1 km out from ramp exit. It can do this at just about max TOGW.
Conventional aircraft can't vector their thrust. With only wing lift available, their only option to manage rate of climb after ramp exit is by using pitch angle (assuming they are at max thrust). They also need to achieve a minimum speed for acceptable control, as they don't have the low speed flight control systems that STOVL aircraft have. (The BAES 'Sea Typhoon' project eventually had to admit that they would need to add a reaction control system to allow safe launch at forecast ramp end speeds). Ramp exit speed is directly linked to launch weight. Higher the weight, lower the speed.
This means that conventional aircraft flying off ramps have limited payload and restricted launch criteria. Look at any films and you'll rarely (if ever) see any external stores on the jets. The Chinese Navy even went public a few years ago to berate their own aircraft designers for giving them aircraft that had almost no effective payload. The Chinese are working hard to get more powerful engines fitted (I believe) - that will help, but not so much.
I have no doubt that a Rafale could get off a ramp. So could an F/A-18. But not carrying much payload. Just physics at work.
Hope this helps a little, best regards as ever to all those new to this carrier aviation stuff,
Engines
Perhaps I can help a little here.
it's my understanding (from a very reliable source) that fitting arresting gear to the QEC carriers wouldn't be simple, is on the very edge of being feasible, and prohibitively expensive.The situation might have been different in 2000, but since then these ships have been designed and completed on the assumption of 'no catapults or arresting gear'.
What then happened was that the spaces that were 'reserved' for cat and trap gear was given over for other uses - it's simply not practical to sail a warship around with great empty spaces in it. In the case of arresting gear, the spaces involved were very large, and have been used to house the extremely large mission planning areas demanded by the F-35 team.
Now, imagine you now wanted to install arresting gear. You take ALL the gear out of the mission planning areas and put it on the dockside. Fit the arresting gear. Now, where does the mission planning gear go? Right, just empty a few other compartments, install the mission planning gear and - you have got an equally big pile go stuff on the dockside from the compartments you've just emptied. And you've had to re-plumb all the power, cooling, data and comms services you put into the original MP areas into the new ones.
Repeat the above process about ten more times. Not simple, feasible or cheap. The time to do all this was 2000. Trying to do it in 2010-12 was a nonsense, as the team working the issues after the SDSR 2010 decision found. Trying to do it in 2017 would bee a nonsense on stilts. In my view. It's a free forum, others may disagree.
STOBAR options and Rafale. I seem to have said this quite a few times, but using a ramp to launch a conventional (i.e. non-STOVL) aircraft isn't especially efficient. In brief, a STOVL aircraft can launch from a ramp at below flying speed, but use both wing lift and vectored thrust to manage the decrease in rate of climb so that the aircraft rapidly and controllably achieves full wing borne flight about 1 km out from ramp exit. It can do this at just about max TOGW.
Conventional aircraft can't vector their thrust. With only wing lift available, their only option to manage rate of climb after ramp exit is by using pitch angle (assuming they are at max thrust). They also need to achieve a minimum speed for acceptable control, as they don't have the low speed flight control systems that STOVL aircraft have. (The BAES 'Sea Typhoon' project eventually had to admit that they would need to add a reaction control system to allow safe launch at forecast ramp end speeds). Ramp exit speed is directly linked to launch weight. Higher the weight, lower the speed.
This means that conventional aircraft flying off ramps have limited payload and restricted launch criteria. Look at any films and you'll rarely (if ever) see any external stores on the jets. The Chinese Navy even went public a few years ago to berate their own aircraft designers for giving them aircraft that had almost no effective payload. The Chinese are working hard to get more powerful engines fitted (I believe) - that will help, but not so much.
I have no doubt that a Rafale could get off a ramp. So could an F/A-18. But not carrying much payload. Just physics at work.
Hope this helps a little, best regards as ever to all those new to this carrier aviation stuff,
Engines
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spot on Engines. Your recall of the QE 'spaces' was briefed not a short time ago. As Sandiego eludes, the time to consider Cat and Trap has truly passed without horrendously expensive retrofit which this country can simply not afford.
More generally, the capability/cost equation doesn't favour Rafale or S Hornet; I.e. investing into legacy platforms for 80% of the cost of an F-35 which is new and has the growth built in to tackle threats for the next 35+ years.
More generally, the capability/cost equation doesn't favour Rafale or S Hornet; I.e. investing into legacy platforms for 80% of the cost of an F-35 which is new and has the growth built in to tackle threats for the next 35+ years.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jJbVdOmdsSE
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CBsgIBO5ry0
Shows the pogo departure quite well.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CBsgIBO5ry0
Shows the pogo departure quite well.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beats being 100% wrong!
Attachment 1526
right back at ya!!
your going to tell me now that you've never seen the movie dodgeball
Attachment 1526
right back at ya!!
your going to tell me now that you've never seen the movie dodgeball
Last edited by glad rag; 3rd Nov 2017 at 07:49.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Engines and "guys" some solid info there 're t/o performance and fuel management issues that still appear to be becoming more demanding and critical to succesful airframe operations.
One question though, why would there be a need for such extremely large mission planning areas if F35 were not on the carriers?
One question though, why would there be a need for such extremely large mission planning areas if F35 were not on the carriers?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Some more 'bouncing bonny boyos' - this time Shornets:
VFA-102 Diamondback Super Hornet Cats 2013 Inside View
SLOW MOTION Catapult Super Hornet F/A-18E
VFA-102 Diamondback Super Hornet Cats 2013 Inside View
SLOW MOTION Catapult Super Hornet F/A-18E
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 5th Jan 2017 at 19:51. Reason: xtra vid + bonny
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glad,
I'll try to answer the question as best I can.
The F-35 requires some seriously high end mission planning capability. The RN has historically underestimated the facilities required to support offensive air ops, and was determined not to do so this time. The baseline designs for the QEC always had large mission planning spaces, and when the STOVL option was chosen, the large compartments on 2 deck above the aft hangar which were designed to be able to take four very large arresting engines were basically too good not to use.
At the end of the day, a primary requirement for the QEC was to be able to support high rate offensive air ops. That drove the mission planning space requirements.
Hope this helps a little, best regards to all those shuffling the spaces,
Engines
I'll try to answer the question as best I can.
The F-35 requires some seriously high end mission planning capability. The RN has historically underestimated the facilities required to support offensive air ops, and was determined not to do so this time. The baseline designs for the QEC always had large mission planning spaces, and when the STOVL option was chosen, the large compartments on 2 deck above the aft hangar which were designed to be able to take four very large arresting engines were basically too good not to use.
At the end of the day, a primary requirement for the QEC was to be able to support high rate offensive air ops. That drove the mission planning space requirements.
Hope this helps a little, best regards to all those shuffling the spaces,
Engines
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JTO,
Perhaps I can help here.
There's always been a challenge in locating large spaces on a carrier - which is always a crowded ship, no matter how big. The QEC class is unusual (for a UK carrier) in that it has a continuous deck located one level below the flight deck, and above the hangar. (This has been called a 'gallery deck'.) This generates a lot of additional compartments, and also a space that is tailor made for the very large 'arresting engines' required for cat and trap. As the QEC design was required to provide a structural space for this kit, large compartments were therefore designed into this 'gallery deck'.
Early on in the F-35 programme, it became clear that the mission planning task for this data intensive aircraft was going to require spaces that were not only large, but also able to handle very classified information. There were also pressures to locate the spaces higher up in the ship to provide short routes for the physical transfer of data from MP areas to the aircraft, and (not incidentally) shorter distances for the aircrew to get to and from their aircraft.
Using the large arresting gear structural spaces for the mission planning suites was an obvious and (in my view) sensible solution.
Lots of people will work on this gallery deck, some will even sleep on it. (Much like most carriers). Yes, there will be some noise, but there will also be hell of a lot of soundproofing and insulation. All part of that seagoing stuff.
Hope this helps, best regards as ever to all those working on board, on whatever decks,
Engines
Perhaps I can help here.
There's always been a challenge in locating large spaces on a carrier - which is always a crowded ship, no matter how big. The QEC class is unusual (for a UK carrier) in that it has a continuous deck located one level below the flight deck, and above the hangar. (This has been called a 'gallery deck'.) This generates a lot of additional compartments, and also a space that is tailor made for the very large 'arresting engines' required for cat and trap. As the QEC design was required to provide a structural space for this kit, large compartments were therefore designed into this 'gallery deck'.
Early on in the F-35 programme, it became clear that the mission planning task for this data intensive aircraft was going to require spaces that were not only large, but also able to handle very classified information. There were also pressures to locate the spaces higher up in the ship to provide short routes for the physical transfer of data from MP areas to the aircraft, and (not incidentally) shorter distances for the aircrew to get to and from their aircraft.
Using the large arresting gear structural spaces for the mission planning suites was an obvious and (in my view) sensible solution.
Lots of people will work on this gallery deck, some will even sleep on it. (Much like most carriers). Yes, there will be some noise, but there will also be hell of a lot of soundproofing and insulation. All part of that seagoing stuff.
Hope this helps, best regards as ever to all those working on board, on whatever decks,
Engines
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engines,
Though the spaces designed have been generous, and to the requirement set, thank you for highlighting the classified part. There has been a hard challenge and significant expenditure of effort on getting the right compartments accredited to support Program-level data handling. Not to forget that other, non-F-35B aviation (and other nations' embarked F-35B), also need spaces to plan, brief, debrief too.
Pleased to report that all is well in the aftermath so we should be 'good to go' for First Of Class Flying Trials.
Though the spaces designed have been generous, and to the requirement set, thank you for highlighting the classified part. There has been a hard challenge and significant expenditure of effort on getting the right compartments accredited to support Program-level data handling. Not to forget that other, non-F-35B aviation (and other nations' embarked F-35B), also need spaces to plan, brief, debrief too.
Pleased to report that all is well in the aftermath so we should be 'good to go' for First Of Class Flying Trials.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Talk about swing low sweet chariot....
"...I think we (the UK) have a huge advantage as both of these capabilities — F-35 and Queen Elizabeth Class — were designed with each other in mind from the very beginning. Having visited NAS Fallon with the RN last week, it is clear from the US Navy that live virtual constructive training will be crucial to understand both transformations and exploit the next generation capabilities that they bring.
"The USN were very interested in our purchase of DMRT, the deployed mission-ready trainers, essentially a portable full mission simulator [FMS], one of which is already in place at Edwards AFB to support our Operational Test and Evaluation effort.
Two containers are will be ‘hung’ in the hangar deck of the Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers, which allows us to practice any number of scenarios from carrier flying to high-end training to our heart’s content on board the ship. The ability to be able to mission rehearse or even problem solve with this capability is a step into the next generation of warfare.
The next step will be connecting that across to the Typhoon simulators off the ship in order to be able to remotely participate in 4th/5th gen training. There’s work in progress at the moment in terms of connecting a range of different simulators in the UK and not just in the air domain...." The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force Prepare for Cross-Domain Transformation: The F-35 and the Queen Elizabeth Carrier | SLDInfo
"The USN were very interested in our purchase of DMRT, the deployed mission-ready trainers, essentially a portable full mission simulator [FMS], one of which is already in place at Edwards AFB to support our Operational Test and Evaluation effort.
"...Deployable Mission Rehearsal Trainers (DMRT) The less-complex DMRT design has two cockpits with smaller visual displays and is mounted in a container that can be easily transported from site to site...."
The next step will be connecting that across to the Typhoon simulators off the ship in order to be able to remotely participate in 4th/5th gen training. There’s work in progress at the moment in terms of connecting a range of different simulators in the UK and not just in the air domain...." The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force Prepare for Cross-Domain Transformation: The F-35 and the Queen Elizabeth Carrier | SLDInfo
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The knives are out for the next session in Congress. The following is from the National Review - about as close as the neocons have to a house magazine.
F-35 -- Donald Trump Should Cancel the Failed F-35 Fighter Jet Program | National Review
F-35 -- Donald Trump Should Cancel the Failed F-35 Fighter Jet Program | National Review
