F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right now I believe the max VL landing specs are 3,000ish pounds of unexpended munitions + reserve fuel SRVL adds another 2,000ish pounds on.
The idea is the plane is going 30 to 40 knots when it lands not the 180+ controlled crash that a normal carrier landing is. I don't get what all the worry is about if the brakes can't stop the plane at that speed then all versions will be running off the end of the runway and stacking it. Ultimately there was a bunch of money put aside for it but I don't think work starts in earnest for a while (until next year, maybe?).
Anyway most of time the planes won't have any weapons aboard as we can't afford it so it'll be fine!
I'm sure someone will be along with all the public domain diagrams and articles soon.
The idea is the plane is going 30 to 40 knots when it lands not the 180+ controlled crash that a normal carrier landing is. I don't get what all the worry is about if the brakes can't stop the plane at that speed then all versions will be running off the end of the runway and stacking it. Ultimately there was a bunch of money put aside for it but I don't think work starts in earnest for a while (until next year, maybe?).
Anyway most of time the planes won't have any weapons aboard as we can't afford it so it'll be fine!
I'm sure someone will be along with all the public domain diagrams and articles soon.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PhilipG and others, perhaps I can help here:
The F-35B has a Key Performance Parameter (KPP) that calls for it to be able to do a VL with a set load of weapons and fuel. That KPP was carefully decided to allow it to bring back a full internal load of weapons with enough fuel for two goes at an IMC landing on board ship. Incidentally, that's quite a lot more (as a fraction) than many famous naval and land based aircraft.
The KPP applies over a full (US defined) range of temperature, but the UK requested that LM look at ways to bring the KPP load back at even higher temperatures. That has led to investigating SRVLs. The B does not need any changes to landing gear to do these, and the aircraft has a good set of brakes, unlike the Harrier.
The CVF still has the space for an angled deck, all SRVLs would need would be a new set of lines and repositioned landing sight. However, as far as I know the UK are looking at SRVLs straight down the deck.
F-35B is also required to be able to operate from a CVN deck. I don't know if the US have done much serious work on how one might combine STOVL with cat and trap, although I'd expect trying to combine the rigid deck cycles of cat and trap with the more variable STOVL operating cycles to be a bit of a challenge.
That said, outwash from F-35B landing is not especially severe (this assessment based on the fact that I was involved in the early tests and trials on this issue), and I would not see landing a B on a CVN deck to be a big issue.
Hope this helps,
Best Regards as ever to all those who have to try to work these issues,
Engines
The F-35B has a Key Performance Parameter (KPP) that calls for it to be able to do a VL with a set load of weapons and fuel. That KPP was carefully decided to allow it to bring back a full internal load of weapons with enough fuel for two goes at an IMC landing on board ship. Incidentally, that's quite a lot more (as a fraction) than many famous naval and land based aircraft.
The KPP applies over a full (US defined) range of temperature, but the UK requested that LM look at ways to bring the KPP load back at even higher temperatures. That has led to investigating SRVLs. The B does not need any changes to landing gear to do these, and the aircraft has a good set of brakes, unlike the Harrier.
The CVF still has the space for an angled deck, all SRVLs would need would be a new set of lines and repositioned landing sight. However, as far as I know the UK are looking at SRVLs straight down the deck.
F-35B is also required to be able to operate from a CVN deck. I don't know if the US have done much serious work on how one might combine STOVL with cat and trap, although I'd expect trying to combine the rigid deck cycles of cat and trap with the more variable STOVL operating cycles to be a bit of a challenge.
That said, outwash from F-35B landing is not especially severe (this assessment based on the fact that I was involved in the early tests and trials on this issue), and I would not see landing a B on a CVN deck to be a big issue.
Hope this helps,
Best Regards as ever to all those who have to try to work these issues,
Engines
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that Engines, I can only hope that the bring back KPP is met by the F35B, it does mean that if there is an unused Storm Shadow being brought back, to do a VL theissile would have to be ditched.... I hope that the weight of the pylons does not mean that at the limit they have to be jettisoned...
The other is that the 550 foot (clean TOW) take-off roll of the B is longer than the cat stroke,
Edit: Engines explains it far better than I ever could.
Last edited by peter we; 8th Apr 2013 at 19:55.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PhilipG,
The KPP is being met. Achieving that was the main driver for the weight reduction programme, and it remains a requirement that can't be traded away.
Storm Shadow was, and is not, a weapon the F-35 (of any variant) is required to carry, let alone do a VL with. That would be beyond the bounds of physics. As I said in an earlier post, all combat aircraft have limitations on what they can bring back, even with conventional landings. A VL is the most difficult case, with just jet thrust to do the job.
The B can't jettison its pylons, they are hard mounted.
Hope this helps
Engines
The KPP is being met. Achieving that was the main driver for the weight reduction programme, and it remains a requirement that can't be traded away.
Storm Shadow was, and is not, a weapon the F-35 (of any variant) is required to carry, let alone do a VL with. That would be beyond the bounds of physics. As I said in an earlier post, all combat aircraft have limitations on what they can bring back, even with conventional landings. A VL is the most difficult case, with just jet thrust to do the job.
The B can't jettison its pylons, they are hard mounted.
Hope this helps
Engines
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats the worse case scenario, without a ski jump and no WOD. The AV8-B reduced its take off roll by 75% with a ski-jump, it should be even more advantageous with the steeper angle on the QE class.
Edit: Engines explains it far better than I ever could.
Edit: Engines explains it far better than I ever could.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LM doing some more PR in Canada. I guess that they see the Boeing interest as a threat.
Lockheed Martin launches Canadian PR campaign for F-35 - Politics - CBC News
Lockheed Martin launches Canadian PR campaign for F-35 - Politics - CBC News
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
THERMION for LHAs & other Mods
I'll guess the CVFs will have a similar THERMION non-skid deck coating?
Lockheed promises tailhook fix to Navy’s F-35C 10 Apr 2013 Richard Sisk
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/04/10/lo...o-navys-f-35c/
"...Navy officials also said that they’ll have to do refits of the big-deck L-class of helicopter assault ships to accommodate the extreme heat and noise generated by the Marine Corps’ vertical-landing version of the Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35B....
[Vice Adm. David Dunaway, head of the Naval Air Systems Command]...“I can promise you that problems will occur” in the process of acquiring 260 F-35C Navy versions of the JSF, and 353 [?] F-35B Marine versions, Dunaway said....
...In other testing, the Navy found that its L-class ships would have to be adapted to the F-35, and “ship change notices are going out now to the L-class ships,” said Rear Adm. Mark Darrah, commander of the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division. “We have to adapt the ships to the new environment” that comes with the F-35s, he said.
The Navy was adding thermite [THERMION - 'thermite' would be interesting!] coating to the flight decks to guard against the heat blast from the vertical-lift engines of the F-35Bs, Darrah said. Additional baffling will be added to the substructure to lower the decibel level below decks, he said...."
_______________
"Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of metal powder fuel and metal oxide. When ignited by heat, thermite undergoes an exothermic oxidation-reduction reaction. Most varieties are not explosive but can create brief bursts of high temperature in a small area. Its form of action is similar to that of other fuel-oxidizer mixtures, such as black powder."
Thermite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lockheed promises tailhook fix to Navy’s F-35C 10 Apr 2013 Richard Sisk
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/04/10/lo...o-navys-f-35c/
"...Navy officials also said that they’ll have to do refits of the big-deck L-class of helicopter assault ships to accommodate the extreme heat and noise generated by the Marine Corps’ vertical-landing version of the Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35B....
[Vice Adm. David Dunaway, head of the Naval Air Systems Command]...“I can promise you that problems will occur” in the process of acquiring 260 F-35C Navy versions of the JSF, and 353 [?] F-35B Marine versions, Dunaway said....
...In other testing, the Navy found that its L-class ships would have to be adapted to the F-35, and “ship change notices are going out now to the L-class ships,” said Rear Adm. Mark Darrah, commander of the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division. “We have to adapt the ships to the new environment” that comes with the F-35s, he said.
The Navy was adding thermite [THERMION - 'thermite' would be interesting!] coating to the flight decks to guard against the heat blast from the vertical-lift engines of the F-35Bs, Darrah said. Additional baffling will be added to the substructure to lower the decibel level below decks, he said...."
_______________
"Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of metal powder fuel and metal oxide. When ignited by heat, thermite undergoes an exothermic oxidation-reduction reaction. Most varieties are not explosive but can create brief bursts of high temperature in a small area. Its form of action is similar to that of other fuel-oxidizer mixtures, such as black powder."
Thermite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 11th Apr 2013 at 03:49. Reason: Thermite Def + URL
Yes, I noticed the thermite thing too. What they want is quite tho opposite.
I'm also amused by two other bits in that: the fact that LM have suddenly said that they promise to fix the tailhook (does that mean they weren't trying to before?) and Lorraine Martin's (the name and initials of a true company girl!) statement about the tailhook that "Our original design was not performing as expected" - it's only job is to grab the wire and it wasn't doing that, so "not performing as expected" is one way of putting it!
Anyway, the article does give a sense that things are on the move in the programme.
I'm also amused by two other bits in that: the fact that LM have suddenly said that they promise to fix the tailhook (does that mean they weren't trying to before?) and Lorraine Martin's (the name and initials of a true company girl!) statement about the tailhook that "Our original design was not performing as expected" - it's only job is to grab the wire and it wasn't doing that, so "not performing as expected" is one way of putting it!
Anyway, the article does give a sense that things are on the move in the programme.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would have been more reassuring if Lockheed Martin had said 'The new tailhook WILL as opposed to 'should' but that is said tongue in cheek and no doubt the F-35C will eventually work.
Lockheed Martin has come up with a new design for the tailhook on the F35 Joint Strike Fighters that should allow the Navy variant, the F-35C, to land on carriers
I can understand why the US Navy could solely operate the one variant which would have to 'B' the B.
They would no doubt have them embarked on carriers along with tanking assets, AEW aircraft, plus if they were carrying any external payloads they could also have EW support. We would have none apart from a rotor wing, short range AEW that would offer coverage far in excess of that offered by a ship, but it surely cannot compare to the latest E-2D which is what we would have had prior to that last 'W' turn.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
The interim hook solution (I believe the hook change itself without the 'dampener' being modified to final solution) was tested successfully. Hence the flyinSloMo video seen earlier. It was news that apparently F-35C carrier trials are this year - instead of next. Perhaps the reference was actually to the 'cancelled due sequestration' 2nd set of USS Wasp/F-35B trials. I found that article riddled with odd, mangled quotes. Do USN people really speak that way? Or do reporters not record what they say accurately? I dunno. Tweren't there meself.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glojo I really don't think that cats+traps meant Hawkeye, COD and AAR.
The plans always been F35 + rotary wing as far as I can see looking at any public domain information available.
Plus rather a lot of money is being spent on the Merlins so you'll have a tiny buy of Hawkeyes with an American equipment supply chain spares etc and no consideration of UK specific requirements. Then no money going to the UK defence industry (and hence cycling back as corporation tax, income taxes and VAT) when you've lot quite a lot more platforms available that fit with all the training of your FAA crews.
Cats+traps makes it possible but I think it would be a hopeful pipedream to be honest.
The plans always been F35 + rotary wing as far as I can see looking at any public domain information available.
Plus rather a lot of money is being spent on the Merlins so you'll have a tiny buy of Hawkeyes with an American equipment supply chain spares etc and no consideration of UK specific requirements. Then no money going to the UK defence industry (and hence cycling back as corporation tax, income taxes and VAT) when you've lot quite a lot more platforms available that fit with all the training of your FAA crews.
Cats+traps makes it possible but I think it would be a hopeful pipedream to be honest.
Last edited by eaglemmoomin; 11th Apr 2013 at 12:22.