Select committe Carriers
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not-a-Boffin
THANK YOU very much for your much appreciated observations and yes the F35 only has the one MAIN engine but would I be correct in the gas turbine IPP causing heat problems?
Lt. Gen. George Trautman, deputy commandant for aviation stated Changes are being made to the integrated power package (IPP) on the Marine?s F-35 that should limit heat damage to carrier decks and other surfaces.
Am I correct to suggest the shape of the actual nozzle of this unit is being redesigned to help resolve the heating issue?
Please look at this post as me raising points as opposed from me voicing any type of opinion.
Apologies one and all for going off topic
THANK YOU very much for your much appreciated observations and yes the F35 only has the one MAIN engine but would I be correct in the gas turbine IPP causing heat problems?
Everyone remembers the much-publicised issue that was raised a while back about how the F-35B's combination of high thrust and high temperatures could melt flight decks and damage runways. Of course, we were all reassured that this wasn't actually an issue. Well, turns out it is an issue after all, so much so that the nozzle is being redesigned to remedy it.
Am I correct to suggest the shape of the actual nozzle of this unit is being redesigned to help resolve the heating issue?
Please look at this post as me raising points as opposed from me voicing any type of opinion.
Apologies one and all for going off topic
Glojo
The ski-jump construction for QEC has not and now will not start, ever.
The decision on which ship (or ships) to fit EMALS to is subject to further study work to derive the actual costs to finalise a contract change with the Carrier Alliance. That will report (I suspect) well before 2015. Personally from my (somewhat removed) perspective, I would not characterise the contract as anything out of the ordinary in terms of its cleverness. When Lord Drayson decided to blackmail VT and BAES into merging their shipbuilding operations and Gordon Brown subsequently persistently refused to release the funds to let the contract (until his re-election depended on it), BVT / BAE / ACA were always going to demand some sort of guarantee (the "infamous" ToBA), which actually makes perfect sense.
EMALS will have to be fitted after the flightdeck is constructed (much as the actual cat part of a steam cat is), although certain major items of equipment will need to be installed in 2 deck as the units are built. Stability or space will not be a problem. The stability margin included for the possible fit of cats actually makes the ship "too stable" at start of life if fitted with the ski-jump, so the cats are actually helping. Length of the cats makes no difference, a 90m version (pretty much as per US C-13 steam cat) is planned in the design. Once you get beyond a certain length, it isn't the cats or the recovery deck that drives the design and we're already there.
If the frigates you refer to are T23, the sonar (2031) was removed because it was gash and we weren't buying enough of the replacement (2087) to fit the whole fleet, hence reconfiguring the winch space to a mess.
Am unsighted on the IPP issue - had thought the issue was more likely to be the 175kN of thrust from the main jet nozzle on STOVL. Doubt it will be a show stopper.
The ski-jump construction for QEC has not and now will not start, ever.
The decision on which ship (or ships) to fit EMALS to is subject to further study work to derive the actual costs to finalise a contract change with the Carrier Alliance. That will report (I suspect) well before 2015. Personally from my (somewhat removed) perspective, I would not characterise the contract as anything out of the ordinary in terms of its cleverness. When Lord Drayson decided to blackmail VT and BAES into merging their shipbuilding operations and Gordon Brown subsequently persistently refused to release the funds to let the contract (until his re-election depended on it), BVT / BAE / ACA were always going to demand some sort of guarantee (the "infamous" ToBA), which actually makes perfect sense.
EMALS will have to be fitted after the flightdeck is constructed (much as the actual cat part of a steam cat is), although certain major items of equipment will need to be installed in 2 deck as the units are built. Stability or space will not be a problem. The stability margin included for the possible fit of cats actually makes the ship "too stable" at start of life if fitted with the ski-jump, so the cats are actually helping. Length of the cats makes no difference, a 90m version (pretty much as per US C-13 steam cat) is planned in the design. Once you get beyond a certain length, it isn't the cats or the recovery deck that drives the design and we're already there.
If the frigates you refer to are T23, the sonar (2031) was removed because it was gash and we weren't buying enough of the replacement (2087) to fit the whole fleet, hence reconfiguring the winch space to a mess.
Am unsighted on the IPP issue - had thought the issue was more likely to be the 175kN of thrust from the main jet nozzle on STOVL. Doubt it will be a show stopper.
Last edited by Not_a_boffin; 19th Jul 2011 at 17:21.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hurry up and perfect the laser cannon and dynamic armor!
China Details Anti-ship Missile Plans
Posted by Paul McLeary at 7/19/2011 10:24 AM CDT
...
The U.S. Navy, mindful of the threat and no less focused on advancing its technologies to protect its fleet, remains confident in its ability to project naval power globally on the surface as well as under water. But for less technologically advanced navies of the Asia-Pacific region, it is becoming difficult to see how in the decades ahead they can stand up to an opponent that can target surface ships with hypersonic homing warheads that can range more than 1,500 km (900 mi.)—and perhaps much farther. ...
China Details Anti-ship Missile Plans
China Details Anti-ship Missile Plans
Posted by Paul McLeary at 7/19/2011 10:24 AM CDT
...
The U.S. Navy, mindful of the threat and no less focused on advancing its technologies to protect its fleet, remains confident in its ability to project naval power globally on the surface as well as under water. But for less technologically advanced navies of the Asia-Pacific region, it is becoming difficult to see how in the decades ahead they can stand up to an opponent that can target surface ships with hypersonic homing warheads that can range more than 1,500 km (900 mi.)—and perhaps much farther. ...
China Details Anti-ship Missile Plans
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Not_a_Boffin,
Thank you once more for the excellent answers and apologises for so many questions.
My turn to hopefully answer your query as best I can.
No it was a specific Leander class frigate, it underwent a very quick conversion in late 1973. (She deployed in January 1974)
The towed array, plus mortars were removed to allow the ship to carry a detachment of Royal Marines. The well deck was converted into both a store-room plus office. The new deck area above these locations was adapted to carry two extra geminis. All TAS ratings plus a number of gunnery ranks were drafted off the ship which then allowed one messdeck to be adapted as their 'barracks' (messdeck).
Going back to the carriers
Are you confident this new EMALS will work on our smaller ships and if not is there any carrier afloat that has a steam powered catapult system, but NOT steam as its main propulsion?
Are there any references regarding this option as it is something that interests me.
Thanks again for your very informative replies
John
Thank you once more for the excellent answers and apologises for so many questions.
My turn to hopefully answer your query as best I can.
If the frigates you refer to are T23, the sonar (2031) was removed because it was gash and we weren't buying enough of the replacement (2087) to fit the whole fleet, hence reconfiguring the winch space to a mess.
The towed array, plus mortars were removed to allow the ship to carry a detachment of Royal Marines. The well deck was converted into both a store-room plus office. The new deck area above these locations was adapted to carry two extra geminis. All TAS ratings plus a number of gunnery ranks were drafted off the ship which then allowed one messdeck to be adapted as their 'barracks' (messdeck).
Going back to the carriers
Are you confident this new EMALS will work on our smaller ships and if not is there any carrier afloat that has a steam powered catapult system, but NOT steam as its main propulsion?
Are there any references regarding this option as it is something that interests me.
Thanks again for your very informative replies
John
Last edited by glojo; 19th Jul 2011 at 20:13. Reason: Brain fade regarding year of conversion
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: crewe
Age: 77
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glojo we had all our underwater sonar capability removed in 1971 . Leaving just the Mortars intact 
in a Leander class frigate Hms Danae. When running aground at the Lyemoon pass
in a Leander class frigate Hms Danae. When running aground at the Lyemoon pass
Thank you again, Mr Boffin, for the excellent background.
As for STOVL impacts, no less a person than a Lockspeed hoaxman, I mean Lockheed spokesman, declared in 3/10 that "the difference between F-35B main-engine exhaust temperature and that of the AV-8B is very small, and is not anticipated to require any significant CONOPS changes for F-35B."
And it was none other than the Commandant of the Marine Corps who said in the same month that the JSF exhaust "at 1,500 degrees, is just 18 degrees hotter than a Harrier."
One just hopes that those statements will not be shortly shown to have been, er, misinformed.
As for STOVL impacts, no less a person than a Lockspeed hoaxman, I mean Lockheed spokesman, declared in 3/10 that "the difference between F-35B main-engine exhaust temperature and that of the AV-8B is very small, and is not anticipated to require any significant CONOPS changes for F-35B."
And it was none other than the Commandant of the Marine Corps who said in the same month that the JSF exhaust "at 1,500 degrees, is just 18 degrees hotter than a Harrier."
One just hopes that those statements will not be shortly shown to have been, er, misinformed.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding is that both carriers will emerge from build with angled flight decks and no ski ramp.
Also,
Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op): Will the Secretary of State confirm the exact details of the announcement he made in his statement when he said, “I can therefore now give the go-ahead for the procurement of” a list of things, including “the cat and traps for the Queen Elizabeth class carriers”. Does that mean that both carriers will receive cat and traps?
Dr Fox: That is our plan, and I have agreed to my officials now getting involved in contract negotiations. They were not previously able to do so because we were not guaranteed that we would have the budget. When we make decisions of this nature we must ensure that we have the wherewithal to pay for them. Otherwise, as I have said, they are simply a wish list.
Also,
Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op): Will the Secretary of State confirm the exact details of the announcement he made in his statement when he said, “I can therefore now give the go-ahead for the procurement of” a list of things, including “the cat and traps for the Queen Elizabeth class carriers”. Does that mean that both carriers will receive cat and traps?
Dr Fox: That is our plan, and I have agreed to my officials now getting involved in contract negotiations. They were not previously able to do so because we were not guaranteed that we would have the budget. When we make decisions of this nature we must ensure that we have the wherewithal to pay for them. Otherwise, as I have said, they are simply a wish list.
Last edited by Pheasant; 19th Jul 2011 at 20:25.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we had all our underwater sonar capability removed in 1971 . Leaving just the Mortars intact 
in a Leander class frigate Hms Danae. When running aground at the Lyemoon pas
in a Leander class frigate Hms Danae. When running aground at the Lyemoon pas
Hi Pheasant,
Did you see my post regarding what you have just posted?
With politicians it is always best to check the fine print of whatever they say and sadly I fear that Dr Liam Fox might be speaking with forked tongue.
This is an EXACT extract of Hansards regarding clarification of the wording of Liam Fox's declaration
Lord West of Spithead(Labour) My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. It is highly complicated and will take a lot of study before one can give very sensible comments on it. In general terms, I have no doubt that we need a greater increase in defence spending and I would hope that both sides of the House felt that was appropriate in the future. I am very supportive of the withdrawal from Germany-it should have happened previously; it has cost us a huge amount of money having those forces there. I like the basing of the marines down in the south-west. My question is brief, just for clarity. The Statement said:
"I can now give the go ahead for ... the cat and traps for the Queen Elizabeth class carriers".
Cat and traps is shorthand for catapults and arrester wires. Do I assume, because the Statement seems to say it, that we are intending to put catapults and arrester wires on the "Queen Elizabeth" and the "Prince of Wales"?
Hansard Source (Citation: HL Deb, 18 July 2011, c1127)
Lord Astor of Hever (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Defence; Conservative)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that this is a very complicated issue which will take a lot of study. I am very happy to organise further briefings for noble Lords if they would like on any particular issue, be it on the reserves or basing or anything else. I am grateful that the noble Lord supports the increase in spending, albeit of 1 per cent, which will enable us to do quite a lot. I can confirm that the cats and traps will be for one carrier-at the moment, we do not know which one it is. Whether to equip the other carrier with them will be a decision for the 2015 SDSR
************************************************************ ***
Apologies for being the bearer of sad news but it is just the one and at the moment who knows what one... My thoughts are that the operational one should be re-named Ark Royal but I guess that is never going to happen
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
glojo,
Whilst I do not disagree with you it is interesting that my quote above comes from quite deep in the debate on the statement.
Only time will tell where the truth lies but my bet is that if the carriers survive the cuts both will be fitted with cats and traps.
Whilst I do not disagree with you it is interesting that my quote above comes from quite deep in the debate on the statement.
Only time will tell where the truth lies but my bet is that if the carriers survive the cuts both will be fitted with cats and traps.
Gentlemen.
If you look at the design you will see that the ships have always had a hoofing great port-side sponson, onto which can be painted an angled deck. During the design evolutions the need for deck area for parking drove this which, not entirely co-incidentally, facilitates an angled deck for arrested recoveries. You've got to break from the mindset that putting cats and traps on entails a fundamental change in design. That was true for our 50s built (and war-designed) ships, but not for this one. Despite all appearances to the contrary, some serious thought went into the design, particularly wrt the aviation arrangements.
There are no carriers running round with non-steam plants, but steam cats, nor have there been. However, the biggest challenge with a steam plant is matching the boiler to the accumulator. In QEC case, with no propulsion plant to feed, that challenge reduces significantly.
Personally, given that EMALS is busily shooting live loads at Lakehurst, I'd be quite relaxed about the hardware making it into service. The major risk is getting the UK ships power management software to balance the loads. Not beyond the wit of man you'd think, but then I've foregone the use of the word "surely" for many years now where MoD is concerned.......
Eagle and Hermes would be preferable names for me.
If you look at the design you will see that the ships have always had a hoofing great port-side sponson, onto which can be painted an angled deck. During the design evolutions the need for deck area for parking drove this which, not entirely co-incidentally, facilitates an angled deck for arrested recoveries. You've got to break from the mindset that putting cats and traps on entails a fundamental change in design. That was true for our 50s built (and war-designed) ships, but not for this one. Despite all appearances to the contrary, some serious thought went into the design, particularly wrt the aviation arrangements.
There are no carriers running round with non-steam plants, but steam cats, nor have there been. However, the biggest challenge with a steam plant is matching the boiler to the accumulator. In QEC case, with no propulsion plant to feed, that challenge reduces significantly.
Personally, given that EMALS is busily shooting live loads at Lakehurst, I'd be quite relaxed about the hardware making it into service. The major risk is getting the UK ships power management software to balance the loads. Not beyond the wit of man you'd think, but then I've foregone the use of the word "surely" for many years now where MoD is concerned.......
Eagle and Hermes would be preferable names for me.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Pheasant,
I totally understand what you are saying and it was a fluke that I happened to be watching the Parliament Channel which was showing a live sitting in the House of Lords..
Lord West who we all know had the report in his hand and asked the Under Secretary of State for Defence just to clarify the words used by Liam Fox..
You should have seen Admiral West react when Lord Astor confirmed they were indeed fitting cats and traps...... yes he said traps but then said to just ONE carrier... Admiral West held up the report and stated the wording indicated both carriers but his protestations fell on deaf ears...
Lord Astor merely said that this decision stands and any further decisions will be made at the next SDSR in 2015!!
I also agree with you about the fitting out of both carriers, who will want to buy a new carrier that has no means of launching or recovering aircraft? (Apart from the United Kingdom)
PLEASE do not think I am disagreeing with you, it was a fluke that I had that channel switched on just as Admiral West stood up.
Fingers crossed we get both carriers and they both are fitted with conventional systems.
One carrier can be at sea for a maximum of 200 days per year but if we have two then we get 400 days cover per year!!
I totally understand what you are saying and it was a fluke that I happened to be watching the Parliament Channel which was showing a live sitting in the House of Lords..
Lord West who we all know had the report in his hand and asked the Under Secretary of State for Defence just to clarify the words used by Liam Fox..
You should have seen Admiral West react when Lord Astor confirmed they were indeed fitting cats and traps...... yes he said traps but then said to just ONE carrier... Admiral West held up the report and stated the wording indicated both carriers but his protestations fell on deaf ears...
Lord Astor merely said that this decision stands and any further decisions will be made at the next SDSR in 2015!!
I also agree with you about the fitting out of both carriers, who will want to buy a new carrier that has no means of launching or recovering aircraft? (Apart from the United Kingdom)
PLEASE do not think I am disagreeing with you, it was a fluke that I had that channel switched on just as Admiral West stood up.
Fingers crossed we get both carriers and they both are fitted with conventional systems.
One carrier can be at sea for a maximum of 200 days per year but if we have two then we get 400 days cover per year!!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a Boffin,
Thank you for replying to my earlier question.
Could you describe the positioning of the catapults and arrester wires? Is this drawing for CVF CTOL correct?
Thank you for replying to my earlier question.
Could you describe the positioning of the catapults and arrester wires? Is this drawing for CVF CTOL correct?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
glojo,
To reply to some of your questions:
Who decided to opt for the STOVL version when it is technically a far more complex aircraft which would demand more servicing, less air time.' - Not sure where you get the less air time bit from.
Has one more engine.' - As has been already stated, it doesn't have one more engine, it has a lift fan. i.e. basically a large 2-stage compressor.
'Smaller bomb bay which means it is incapable of carrying some of our larger air to ground munitions.' - Which UK large air-ground munitions are you talking about? The STOVL can carry the UK's Paveway IV very comfortably which is all we're going to try to put in the bay of the -C. The -B will be able to carry the same number of Small Diameter Bombs in its bays as the -C, which 9 days out of 10 is a far more relevant comparison than the number of 2000lb JDAMs (which the UK do not have in their inventory).
'Has to ditch ordinance prior to its vertical landing envelope.' - No it doesn't. The specification of the -B requires it to be able to land vertically with full internal bays and fuel to wave-off the first approach and have another go.
'A very worrying potential of heat damage to the flight deck.' - This was not designed in intentionally but is something that is going to have to be managed. Then again the heat footprint of a -C in afterburner on a Nimitz jet blast deflector also causes concern and will have to be managed.
'Those are the benefits but on the downside it is a far more expensive aircraft that will only be built in limited numbers.' - Not sure which numbers you're looking at, but the current program has more -Bs being built than -Cs. And there's so much smoke and mirrors around the price are you sure that a -C is cheaper than a -B? They're pretty close in price as far as I know, and some ppt slides even show the -C to be more expensive to buy than a -B.
Also, landing the -B in STOVL is ridiculously easy. The training burden before you deploy your predominantly land-based sqns to the ship would be trivial. Landing a -C on a ship is not ridiculously easy at all and will require the pilots to train almost continuously if they are to maintain readiness to go to sea. The USN dedicate months of training to their F-18 sqns before they embark on a cruise and landing a -C is no easier than landing an F-18.
The UK has no current air-air refueling solution for the carrier. It's not needed for STOVL aircraft, but other Navies use it (rely on it?) for conventional carrier aircraft e.g. Super Hornet for USN, Etendard for French etc. Buying the -C means the UK now has to figure out and pay for solving that problem.
But we're drifting way off thread now, sorry. Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
To reply to some of your questions:
Who decided to opt for the STOVL version when it is technically a far more complex aircraft which would demand more servicing, less air time.' - Not sure where you get the less air time bit from.
Has one more engine.' - As has been already stated, it doesn't have one more engine, it has a lift fan. i.e. basically a large 2-stage compressor.
'Smaller bomb bay which means it is incapable of carrying some of our larger air to ground munitions.' - Which UK large air-ground munitions are you talking about? The STOVL can carry the UK's Paveway IV very comfortably which is all we're going to try to put in the bay of the -C. The -B will be able to carry the same number of Small Diameter Bombs in its bays as the -C, which 9 days out of 10 is a far more relevant comparison than the number of 2000lb JDAMs (which the UK do not have in their inventory).
'Has to ditch ordinance prior to its vertical landing envelope.' - No it doesn't. The specification of the -B requires it to be able to land vertically with full internal bays and fuel to wave-off the first approach and have another go.
'A very worrying potential of heat damage to the flight deck.' - This was not designed in intentionally but is something that is going to have to be managed. Then again the heat footprint of a -C in afterburner on a Nimitz jet blast deflector also causes concern and will have to be managed.
'Those are the benefits but on the downside it is a far more expensive aircraft that will only be built in limited numbers.' - Not sure which numbers you're looking at, but the current program has more -Bs being built than -Cs. And there's so much smoke and mirrors around the price are you sure that a -C is cheaper than a -B? They're pretty close in price as far as I know, and some ppt slides even show the -C to be more expensive to buy than a -B.
Also, landing the -B in STOVL is ridiculously easy. The training burden before you deploy your predominantly land-based sqns to the ship would be trivial. Landing a -C on a ship is not ridiculously easy at all and will require the pilots to train almost continuously if they are to maintain readiness to go to sea. The USN dedicate months of training to their F-18 sqns before they embark on a cruise and landing a -C is no easier than landing an F-18.
The UK has no current air-air refueling solution for the carrier. It's not needed for STOVL aircraft, but other Navies use it (rely on it?) for conventional carrier aircraft e.g. Super Hornet for USN, Etendard for French etc. Buying the -C means the UK now has to figure out and pay for solving that problem.
But we're drifting way off thread now, sorry. Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
SSSESTOWTF
Just a couple of points of order there
The suggestion that STOVL doesn't need a Texaco has never actually been looked at in depth. As we operated CVS, with eight cabs max in the pattern, then there was always time to get them on the deck.
QEC was designed to launch strikes of 20+ and I suggest that with that level of crowded pattern on recovery, a tanker might be useful......
As for the F35B recovering, the whole RVL (damn, done it again) saga was predicated on inadequate bring-back for VL.
ME - that looks broadly right, may have been tweaked a bit since.
Just a couple of points of order there
The suggestion that STOVL doesn't need a Texaco has never actually been looked at in depth. As we operated CVS, with eight cabs max in the pattern, then there was always time to get them on the deck.
QEC was designed to launch strikes of 20+ and I suggest that with that level of crowded pattern on recovery, a tanker might be useful......
As for the F35B recovering, the whole RVL (damn, done it again) saga was predicated on inadequate bring-back for VL.
ME - that looks broadly right, may have been tweaked a bit since.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: crewe
Age: 77
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glojo .... the Gunnery Officer (J.O.) was Nav and Captain that night
Never did find the China airline Caravelle, that the recall was for!! All the old and bolds never heard the recall, honestly just carried on drinking in down town Wanch LOL
Never did find the China airline Caravelle, that the recall was for!! All the old and bolds never heard the recall, honestly just carried on drinking in down town Wanch LOL
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSSESTOWTF
Thank you very much for taking the time to answer all my queries and apologies if they are too OTT. I am surprised though that politicians in charge of the purse strings are convinced the STOVL version cannot land with a full load of ordinance as it now appears this is not the case! Note I am NOT disputing what you have kindly said, I am just the messenger.
I accept the F-35 only has one main propulsion gas turbine but are you saying it does not have a second gas turbine engine?
My thoughts are that our carriers should have a means of refuelling aircraft and unless I am mistaken even the Sea Vixen was capable of being a tanker? (question)
Keeping this thread on topic I am still far from convinced that the Royal Navy will ever have a fully operational carrier with fixed wing aircraft. Every Committee Meeting I watch always seems to be critical of this option??
Thanks again for everyone answering all my queries
Thank you very much for taking the time to answer all my queries and apologies if they are too OTT. I am surprised though that politicians in charge of the purse strings are convinced the STOVL version cannot land with a full load of ordinance as it now appears this is not the case! Note I am NOT disputing what you have kindly said, I am just the messenger.
I accept the F-35 only has one main propulsion gas turbine but are you saying it does not have a second gas turbine engine?
My thoughts are that our carriers should have a means of refuelling aircraft and unless I am mistaken even the Sea Vixen was capable of being a tanker? (question)
Keeping this thread on topic I am still far from convinced that the Royal Navy will ever have a fully operational carrier with fixed wing aircraft. Every Committee Meeting I watch always seems to be critical of this option??
Thanks again for everyone answering all my queries
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I accept the F-35 only has one main propulsion gas turbine but are you saying it does not have a second gas turbine engine?
The VSTOL F-35, like the other versions of same, has only one gas turbine engine. The aircraft has one engine.
The lift fan is driven by a driveshaft from the engine. The driveshaft is engaged or disengaged by a clutch. No, there's no clutch foot pedal required.
Here's a photo of the engine, driveshaft and lift fan. The lift fan and driveshaft are at the right side of the photo.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ne_of_F-35.jpg
The VSTOL F-35, like the other versions of same, has only one gas turbine engine. The aircraft has one engine.
The lift fan is driven by a driveshaft from the engine. The driveshaft is engaged or disengaged by a clutch. No, there's no clutch foot pedal required.
Here's a photo of the engine, driveshaft and lift fan. The lift fan and driveshaft are at the right side of the photo.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ne_of_F-35.jpg
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I accept the F-35 only has one main propulsion gas turbine but are you saying it does not have a second gas turbine engine?
The VSTOL F-35, like the other versions of same, has only one gas turbine engine. The aircraft has one engine.
The lift fan is driven by a driveshaft from the engine. The driveshaft is engaged or disengaged by a clutch. No, there's no clutch foot pedal required.
Here's a photo of the engine, driveshaft and lift fan. The lift fan and driveshaft are at the right side of the photo.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ne_of_F-35.jpg
The VSTOL F-35, like the other versions of same, has only one gas turbine engine. The aircraft has one engine.
The lift fan is driven by a driveshaft from the engine. The driveshaft is engaged or disengaged by a clutch. No, there's no clutch foot pedal required.
Here's a photo of the engine, driveshaft and lift fan. The lift fan and driveshaft are at the right side of the photo.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ne_of_F-35.jpg
I am not out to trick anyone and hopefully I am not being pedantic but as far as I am aware the F-35 has a second gas turbine which had (not past tense) had caused heat issue. It is the IPP or APU in old speak..
Again this is a question and not a statement of fact.