F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
To reiterate: Nobody in CVN world wants STOVL/CATOBAR mixed ops. Think for two seconds about this. What are the difficulties? The rewards? Dismissive? Yes, because the idea makes no sense.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
AV-8As aboard USS F.D.R. in 1976-7
This obviously old USMC AV-8A on USS F.D. R. in 1977 experience points to benefits nevertheless. There are other stories about it out there.
AV-8A Harrier Tests [onboard USS F.D.R. 1976-7]
http://ussfranklindroosevelt.com/?page_id=2264
"From June 1976 to April 1977, VMA-231 deployed with 14 AV-8As aboard the USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (CV-42). This deployment demonstrated that the Harrier could be completely integrated into normal CV air operations. Almost every conceivable takeoff & recovery option was flown: upwind, downwind, crosswind, and before, during, and after re-spots. The Harrier demonstrated not only that VSTOL operations could be conducted within the rigid framework of cyclic operations, but that because of VSTOL’s inherent flexibility, a carrier can launch & recover at any time and steam wherever desired while achieving a combat capability that does not exist when using only conventional aircraft. A STOVL jet is unrestrained by launch/recovery times & mission permitting, could fill in gaps created by the CV cycle. On 13 January 1977, two other Harriers made bow-on approaches and landing aboard the carrier, marking the first time a fixed wing aircraft had made a bow-on, downwind landing aboard a carrier at sea."
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/AV-8A_landing_USS_Roosevelt_1976.jpg
_____________
Tailhook? We don't need no stinking tailhook... 24 Jul 2012 By Tommy H. Thomason
http://thanlont.********.com.au/2012/07/tailhook-we-dont-need-no-stinking.html
IF ******** replaced by "'blagspat' - replace the 'a' with 'o'" link will work.
"...One very non-traditional Marine Corps squadron deployment took place on the last cruise of Roosevelt. VMA-231, flying AV-8A Harriers, was assigned to Carrier Air Wing 19 for its cruise in the Mediterranean from October 1976 to April 1977. Also aboard were two squadrons of F-4Ns and three of A-7Bs, along with detachments of E-1Bs (for the last deployment of this type), RF-8Gs, and SH-3Gs.
In the mid 1970s, the Navy was seriously evaluating a transition to V/STOL aircraft for all sea-based, manned, tactical air missions instead of building more big aircraft carriers equipped with catapults and arresting gear. In early 1976, the CNO briefed OSD on a tentative plan to do so. The assignment of VMA-231 to the Roosevelt’s air wing was intended to provide insight into the feasibility and benefits of a operating a V/STOL fighter/bomber at sea.
The Harrier had been in service with the Marine Corps since 1971 and had already been evaluated in an extended series of at-sea trials aboard, among others, the amphibious assault ship Guam (LPH-9) that was serving as an Interim Sea Control Ship. This resulted in the development of a corrosion control plan for an extended deployment among other operational procedures. However, there were still concerns about the Harrier’s maintenance requirements, hot exhaust, lack of endurance, etc.
VMA-231 worked up to the deployment via a series of mini-cruises aboard Franklin D. Roosevelt beginning in late June 1976. These established operating procedures and familiarized the ship’s company with the unique characteristics of the Harrier, like the downward-directed engine exhaust in VTOL mode.
V/STOL advocates considered the experiment a virtually unqualified success. Complying with standard carrier cyclic operations (90-minute flight period for the conventional takeoff and landing airplanes) proved to be unnecessary since the Harriers could land in any open space during a launch/land cycle. Benefits demonstrated early on included no time or crew required to hook up to the catapult for takeoff, virtually no waveoffs (and zero bolters), and the ability to back into a designated parking space. The Harriers could also land with the ship steaming out of the wind in conditions that precluded the operation of its conventional airplanes.
Rolling takeoffs were a bit more problematical in some wind over deck conditions but a vertical takeoff was almost always possible. Flight time, however, was limited to 20 minutes by the reduction in fuel required.
Over 2,000 sorties and landings, 15% at night, were accomplished by VMA-231 during the deployment. There were no aircrew or aircraft losses, a non-trivial accomplishment given the accident rate of carrier operations. The promise of V/STOL seemed to have been clearly demonstrated and V/STOL aircraft welcome aboard."
U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings October 1977 [USS F.D.R. deck plan graphic]
http://2.bp.********.com/-SUQNES5a0vA/UA7pvhQV7RI/AAAAAAAACOo/rHOHwD2zpeE/s1600/Roosevelt+Spots+Cropped.jpg
AV-8A Harrier Tests [onboard USS F.D.R. 1976-7]
http://ussfranklindroosevelt.com/?page_id=2264
"From June 1976 to April 1977, VMA-231 deployed with 14 AV-8As aboard the USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (CV-42). This deployment demonstrated that the Harrier could be completely integrated into normal CV air operations. Almost every conceivable takeoff & recovery option was flown: upwind, downwind, crosswind, and before, during, and after re-spots. The Harrier demonstrated not only that VSTOL operations could be conducted within the rigid framework of cyclic operations, but that because of VSTOL’s inherent flexibility, a carrier can launch & recover at any time and steam wherever desired while achieving a combat capability that does not exist when using only conventional aircraft. A STOVL jet is unrestrained by launch/recovery times & mission permitting, could fill in gaps created by the CV cycle. On 13 January 1977, two other Harriers made bow-on approaches and landing aboard the carrier, marking the first time a fixed wing aircraft had made a bow-on, downwind landing aboard a carrier at sea."
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/AV-8A_landing_USS_Roosevelt_1976.jpg
_____________
Tailhook? We don't need no stinking tailhook... 24 Jul 2012 By Tommy H. Thomason
http://thanlont.********.com.au/2012/07/tailhook-we-dont-need-no-stinking.html
IF ******** replaced by "'blagspat' - replace the 'a' with 'o'" link will work.
"...One very non-traditional Marine Corps squadron deployment took place on the last cruise of Roosevelt. VMA-231, flying AV-8A Harriers, was assigned to Carrier Air Wing 19 for its cruise in the Mediterranean from October 1976 to April 1977. Also aboard were two squadrons of F-4Ns and three of A-7Bs, along with detachments of E-1Bs (for the last deployment of this type), RF-8Gs, and SH-3Gs.
In the mid 1970s, the Navy was seriously evaluating a transition to V/STOL aircraft for all sea-based, manned, tactical air missions instead of building more big aircraft carriers equipped with catapults and arresting gear. In early 1976, the CNO briefed OSD on a tentative plan to do so. The assignment of VMA-231 to the Roosevelt’s air wing was intended to provide insight into the feasibility and benefits of a operating a V/STOL fighter/bomber at sea.
The Harrier had been in service with the Marine Corps since 1971 and had already been evaluated in an extended series of at-sea trials aboard, among others, the amphibious assault ship Guam (LPH-9) that was serving as an Interim Sea Control Ship. This resulted in the development of a corrosion control plan for an extended deployment among other operational procedures. However, there were still concerns about the Harrier’s maintenance requirements, hot exhaust, lack of endurance, etc.
VMA-231 worked up to the deployment via a series of mini-cruises aboard Franklin D. Roosevelt beginning in late June 1976. These established operating procedures and familiarized the ship’s company with the unique characteristics of the Harrier, like the downward-directed engine exhaust in VTOL mode.
V/STOL advocates considered the experiment a virtually unqualified success. Complying with standard carrier cyclic operations (90-minute flight period for the conventional takeoff and landing airplanes) proved to be unnecessary since the Harriers could land in any open space during a launch/land cycle. Benefits demonstrated early on included no time or crew required to hook up to the catapult for takeoff, virtually no waveoffs (and zero bolters), and the ability to back into a designated parking space. The Harriers could also land with the ship steaming out of the wind in conditions that precluded the operation of its conventional airplanes.
Rolling takeoffs were a bit more problematical in some wind over deck conditions but a vertical takeoff was almost always possible. Flight time, however, was limited to 20 minutes by the reduction in fuel required.
Over 2,000 sorties and landings, 15% at night, were accomplished by VMA-231 during the deployment. There were no aircrew or aircraft losses, a non-trivial accomplishment given the accident rate of carrier operations. The promise of V/STOL seemed to have been clearly demonstrated and V/STOL aircraft welcome aboard."
U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings October 1977 [USS F.D.R. deck plan graphic]
http://2.bp.********.com/-SUQNES5a0vA/UA7pvhQV7RI/AAAAAAAACOo/rHOHwD2zpeE/s1600/Roosevelt+Spots+Cropped.jpg
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 7th Apr 2013 at 01:52. Reason: Add Graphic
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Trying to simulate something that you do not fully understand is based on false assumptions and false ground rules. If you go in with false assumptions and false ground rules, you will get false answers.
Last edited by ORAC; 7th Apr 2013 at 07:07.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@SpazSinbad - Have I read that correctly? Ditch the C entirely as opposed to an idea to amalgamate the Catapult launch bits of the C bird (front undercarriage and strengthening to the fuse ec) into the B and then binning the C entirely?
I suppose that the only real reason for the C is out of doctrine or habit. Enough folk have pointed the different fuel landing states out as 'balancing' those Top Trump style statistics.
I can imagine how a Franken-Dave option would mean that it could launch from ski-jumps, cat carriers (at higher take off weights) or flat top Amphibs and also land back on anything. It would take out that dangerous arrestor gear landing malarky as well.
I suppose it could also mean that a cat carrier could launch jets (sorry, outrageous Bridges at Toko-Ri reference) even if it's cats have gone Tango Uniform.
That seems way too much like common sense to ever be achieveable plus there would surely be some weight penalty.
Perhaps just killing the C is more sensible.
It would also crush the various B or C /// CVF threads dead.
Edit for poor spooling and tie-pin.
I suppose that the only real reason for the C is out of doctrine or habit. Enough folk have pointed the different fuel landing states out as 'balancing' those Top Trump style statistics.
I can imagine how a Franken-Dave option would mean that it could launch from ski-jumps, cat carriers (at higher take off weights) or flat top Amphibs and also land back on anything. It would take out that dangerous arrestor gear landing malarky as well.
I suppose it could also mean that a cat carrier could launch jets (sorry, outrageous Bridges at Toko-Ri reference) even if it's cats have gone Tango Uniform.
That seems way too much like common sense to ever be achieveable plus there would surely be some weight penalty.
Perhaps just killing the C is more sensible.
It would also crush the various B or C /// CVF threads dead.
Edit for poor spooling and tie-pin.
Last edited by Finnpog; 7th Apr 2013 at 08:35.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
'Finnpog': As I recall there was no 'modification to the B' mentioned in the article - hence my curiosity just what that might mean (modify the B to make it acceptable on the CVN). Perhaps the text should have read 'modify the CVN' for the B. And yes the idea was to ditch the C completely in favour of USN operating Bs and yes an all B USMC. Does seem a far fetched idea though.
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 7th Apr 2013 at 08:56. Reason: add text
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry SS - I think that I was making a leap of creativity after reading your link.
The flaw in the plan was having three versions, as opposed to one version used by all.
I was obviously having a brain-fart and was re-imagining the concept.
The flaw in the plan was having three versions, as opposed to one version used by all.
I was obviously having a brain-fart and was re-imagining the concept.
Carrier ops is not my field, so the article raises a few questions that I hope some here might be able to clarify for me.
My first is about the statement
I can see haw the C model spending its life at sea will incur a maintenance penalty, but if you ditch the C and keep the Bs at sea for their whole life instead, why does the same not apply to them? Or does he mean they won't keep the Bs embarked, in which case surely that's a reduction in capability/readiness?
Second one,
Do the differences in range and payload between the two models really make the B as useful (capable, in his words) as the C? I also have to ask, 'what modifications' and would that mean all the B models have a changed design (would that suit the RN, for example) or would we then be talking about two standards of the B model?
Maybe too many questions for one post, but just pick the one(s) you want to comment on.
My first is about the statement
The F-35C is designed with more stealth capability, Gresham said, and that means more maintenance hours between missions. The fact the plane will be living "out in salt water 24/7 for most of its life" will also mean longer maintenance times unique to that version.
Second one,
Gresham says he is an advocate of the F-35, but believes the Navy can have a completely capable version by modifying the B-model that is now being tested by the Marine Corps.
Maybe too many questions for one post, but just pick the one(s) you want to comment on.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 7th Apr 2013 at 11:02.
@CM
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
It seems the author of the article perhaps has misquoted Gresham. Because as 'Courtney Mil' points out there are some odd statements attributed to Gresham. My question was about 'what modifications would be required to the F-35B to operate from CVNs?' I'm baffled.
Otherwise the sea going aircraft are the same as the A model in most respects; except for the obvious well known model differences. The A shares the same engine as the C. Any salt protection will be the same - same same stealth. Stealth designed for the ocean environment so the A model benefits also.
Perhaps Gresham said some sensible things which have been muddled by Jordan. I was not concerned about the muddle - just the curious statement about 'modifications to the B etc.' Perhaps the whole article is too muddled to bother much about. And I think Gresham has probably said that the CVN will need some modifications to operate the F-35B which is the case with the LHAs.
Otherwise the sea going aircraft are the same as the A model in most respects; except for the obvious well known model differences. The A shares the same engine as the C. Any salt protection will be the same - same same stealth. Stealth designed for the ocean environment so the A model benefits also.
Perhaps Gresham said some sensible things which have been muddled by Jordan. I was not concerned about the muddle - just the curious statement about 'modifications to the B etc.' Perhaps the whole article is too muddled to bother much about. And I think Gresham has probably said that the CVN will need some modifications to operate the F-35B which is the case with the LHAs.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM fairly sure both B and C models have been treated for life at sea I remember reading something about the composite shell's being intended to provide better resistance to saltwater rather than having to be painted on and messing with the RAM.
Can't say I know either but from I've read I don't expect anyone actually knows what the range penalty really works out to be apart from comparing the headline figures. The C has additional requirements for fuel remaining on returning to the carrier while in theory the B could return with several minutes of fuel remaining and still land in higher sea states than the C model (whether it ever would is another question). I saw somewhere that it's ferry range is close to 1000nm and combat range is 450 to 460nm (I doubt anything apart from the range is in the public domain).
Can't say I know either but from I've read I don't expect anyone actually knows what the range penalty really works out to be apart from comparing the headline figures. The C has additional requirements for fuel remaining on returning to the carrier while in theory the B could return with several minutes of fuel remaining and still land in higher sea states than the C model (whether it ever would is another question). I saw somewhere that it's ferry range is close to 1000nm and combat range is 450 to 460nm (I doubt anything apart from the range is in the public domain).
Last edited by eaglemmoomin; 7th Apr 2013 at 13:05.
There are at least two potential problems with adding F-35B to the carrier deck.
One is the effect of hot and high-velocity outwash on aircraft handling and operations near the landing spot. CV ops seem to make full-time use of all the available area, right to the edge of the landing zone.
The other is that the 550 foot (clean TOW) take-off roll of the B is longer than the cat stroke, which may mean that the JBDs are in the wrong place.
One is the effect of hot and high-velocity outwash on aircraft handling and operations near the landing spot. CV ops seem to make full-time use of all the available area, right to the edge of the landing zone.
The other is that the 550 foot (clean TOW) take-off roll of the B is longer than the cat stroke, which may mean that the JBDs are in the wrong place.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F35Bs on Carriers
As I understand it a B cannot vertically land with much weight on, possibly necessitating the jettisoning of weapons prior to landing if it has a heavy fuel load etc. To overcome this problem LM and the RN are developing rolling landings, using the brakes to stop the aircraft.
Two things come to mind, firstly is the landing gear and the brakes up for this, or will it be necessary to fit the heavier C type landing gear? Secondly will there have to be a barrier at the end of the angled deck to catch planes with brakes problems?
Two things come to mind, firstly is the landing gear and the brakes up for this, or will it be necessary to fit the heavier C type landing gear? Secondly will there have to be a barrier at the end of the angled deck to catch planes with brakes problems?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely fitting the gear from the 'C' isn't an option? Wouldn't it just add more weight and reduce useable payload further? We should've stuck with the 'C' the first time we switched from the 'B' instead of changing back to the 'B' again, or maybe even a split buy, 'C' for the RN and 'B' or 'A' for the RAF...
-RP
-RP
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rhino Power, that was my point, the level of weight that can still be added to the B is so low, I just have concerns about how a plane not designed to carrier land and use its brakes to stop in a short time is going to cope on let alone a calm sea....
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Secondly will there have to be a barrier at the end of the angled deck to catch planes with brakes problems?
I can see haw the C model spending its life at sea will incur a maintenance penalty, but if you ditch the C and keep the Bs at sea for their whole life instead, why does the same not apply to them?
Gresham says he is an advocate of the F-35, but believes the Navy can have a completely capable version by modifying the B-model that is now being tested by the Marine Corps.
One is the effect of hot and high-velocity outwash on aircraft handling and operations near the landing spot. CV ops seem to make full-time use of all the available area, right to the edge of the landing zone.
The other is that the 550 foot (clean TOW) take-off roll of the B is longer than the cat stroke, which may mean that the JBDs are in the wrong place.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 8th Apr 2013 at 15:39.