No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?
Originally Posted by Milo Minderbinder
Is it certain that the General Atomics EMALS system is the one that would be used?
Converteam UK were working on their own EMCAT system which was specifically designed (or said to be designed....) to fit into the reserved spaces on the two carriers
And as Converteam and providing the propulsion system, it would seem likely that they may have a better handle on what goes where and what the costs may be than the American offering
Converteam UK were working on their own EMCAT system which was specifically designed (or said to be designed....) to fit into the reserved spaces on the two carriers
And as Converteam and providing the propulsion system, it would seem likely that they may have a better handle on what goes where and what the costs may be than the American offering
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If so it could be seen as a strange decision given that Converteam will know so much more about the power systems on those ships - and would by implication be better placed to design and integrate any catapult system.
However I guess General Atomics are currently flavour of the month in the USA with all the various secret drone projects they work on.... I can't help but wonder if the reported inflated costs of fitting their EMALS system includes buried costs for a black project somewhere
However I guess General Atomics are currently flavour of the month in the USA with all the various secret drone projects they work on.... I can't help but wonder if the reported inflated costs of fitting their EMALS system includes buried costs for a black project somewhere
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Milo
This is a question as opposed to a statement
I thought US officials are disagreeing with MoD figures regarding this adaption, they claim the price should be less than £1billion.. My brain is really befuddled at the moment but I am sure it is the UK that is throwing the BIG numbers into the mix, not the US!
This is a question as opposed to a statement
I thought US officials are disagreeing with MoD figures regarding this adaption, they claim the price should be less than £1billion.. My brain is really befuddled at the moment but I am sure it is the UK that is throwing the BIG numbers into the mix, not the US!
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So do we have a black project with GA?
Of course it could just be politics....is it chance that Converteam (nee Alstom Power - and a major part of the French input into the carriers) were taken over by General Electric of the USA in January?
Of course it could just be politics....is it chance that Converteam (nee Alstom Power - and a major part of the French input into the carriers) were taken over by General Electric of the USA in January?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Milo... in order for Converteam to have a alternative to EMALS, they would have to first:
1. design one
2. build a prototype
3. test it
4. modify it to make it work
5. build the production sets.
Yes... all they have right now is a small EM-catapult that is only good for rather small UAVs.
They claim it will only take a couple of years, and only cost a few million £.
You know what that means...
EMALS, on the other hand, is almost done with development & testing (with the US paying ALL of the development costs), so all the UK is paying for is the actual operational equipment.
And no... there is no "black project with GA"!
Let me explain this so you will understand... the inflated conversion cost numbers being thrown about are NOT from GA... EMALS & AAG do not cost any more than GA said they would cost a year ago!
All of the sudden increased costs are from UK issues... probably because they are not the real costs!
Right now it looks like either someone added in all the costs of recent changes cost over-runs, etc on the whole ship into the C&T conversion pot OR is taking the entire cost of converting both ships and is saying that is what one
This is actually a time-honored way of killing projects in the UK... remember CVA-01? Where Dennis Healey added the cost of building four T-82 destroyers to the cost of building two CVA-01 carriers and the development and purchase cost of new aircraft... and then told Parliament that that would be the cost of building just one carrier and nothing else?
IF the cost increases have any basis in fact, all of the extra money spent would disappear in the UK... either via the politicians or via the UK contractors... GA wouldn't get a penny of it!
1. design one
2. build a prototype
3. test it
4. modify it to make it work
5. build the production sets.
Yes... all they have right now is a small EM-catapult that is only good for rather small UAVs.
They claim it will only take a couple of years, and only cost a few million £.
You know what that means...
EMALS, on the other hand, is almost done with development & testing (with the US paying ALL of the development costs), so all the UK is paying for is the actual operational equipment.
And no... there is no "black project with GA"!
Let me explain this so you will understand... the inflated conversion cost numbers being thrown about are NOT from GA... EMALS & AAG do not cost any more than GA said they would cost a year ago!
All of the sudden increased costs are from UK issues... probably because they are not the real costs!
Right now it looks like either someone added in all the costs of recent changes cost over-runs, etc on the whole ship into the C&T conversion pot OR is taking the entire cost of converting both ships and is saying that is what one
This is actually a time-honored way of killing projects in the UK... remember CVA-01? Where Dennis Healey added the cost of building four T-82 destroyers to the cost of building two CVA-01 carriers and the development and purchase cost of new aircraft... and then told Parliament that that would be the cost of building just one carrier and nothing else?
IF the cost increases have any basis in fact, all of the extra money spent would disappear in the UK... either via the politicians or via the UK contractors... GA wouldn't get a penny of it!
Last edited by GreenKnight121; 1st Apr 2012 at 04:29.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To ‘B’ or not to be..
I have a few questions I would like to ask our resident experts regarding STOVL aircraft.
When these aircraft take off with a full load of weapons, percentage wise do they use a significant amount of fuel getting to their operational height?
Would you then go into a holding pattern until your group forms up, or do you head off over the horizon at a more sedate speed to allow the other aircraft to catch up? I ask this as I assume only one aircraft can take off at a time and are they getting airborne as quickly as those that might be launched from a conventional carrier?
Once over target would the pilot then have to take into account they might return to a blocked deck and be required to go into a holding pattern and if they return with a full load of advanced, stand-off weapons can the aircraft land with these, or do they get stored in Mr Jones’s sea locker?
When landing does this again require a significant amount of fuel especially if you are returning with ordinance? These questions are asked because we read of how the B might have a theoretical range of 450 miles compared to the possible 600 of the ‘C’ but in the real World is this a fair comparison?
Is this a relevant figure as a conventional carrier would or should have a tanking capability, the aircraft take off, they top up, form up and depart. When returning back to mother, they will have the option of taking fuel from the tanker and not have those concerns about having to land as they are low on fuel.
The ‘B’ will not have these options, no tanking from the ship and what you go with, you work with.. If that means a very quick pass over the target and having to get back to the ship, then so be it!
PLEASE look on this post as my asking questions and NOT making statements, I openly accept I am no fan of the ‘B’ so my thoughts might be seen as bias? I guess I just need reassurance regarding suitability. Conventional carrier can have a mixed air wing, STOVL can only have the one type of fixed wing capability.
I have a few questions I would like to ask our resident experts regarding STOVL aircraft.
When these aircraft take off with a full load of weapons, percentage wise do they use a significant amount of fuel getting to their operational height?
Would you then go into a holding pattern until your group forms up, or do you head off over the horizon at a more sedate speed to allow the other aircraft to catch up? I ask this as I assume only one aircraft can take off at a time and are they getting airborne as quickly as those that might be launched from a conventional carrier?
Once over target would the pilot then have to take into account they might return to a blocked deck and be required to go into a holding pattern and if they return with a full load of advanced, stand-off weapons can the aircraft land with these, or do they get stored in Mr Jones’s sea locker?
When landing does this again require a significant amount of fuel especially if you are returning with ordinance? These questions are asked because we read of how the B might have a theoretical range of 450 miles compared to the possible 600 of the ‘C’ but in the real World is this a fair comparison?
Is this a relevant figure as a conventional carrier would or should have a tanking capability, the aircraft take off, they top up, form up and depart. When returning back to mother, they will have the option of taking fuel from the tanker and not have those concerns about having to land as they are low on fuel.
The ‘B’ will not have these options, no tanking from the ship and what you go with, you work with.. If that means a very quick pass over the target and having to get back to the ship, then so be it!
PLEASE look on this post as my asking questions and NOT making statements, I openly accept I am no fan of the ‘B’ so my thoughts might be seen as bias? I guess I just need reassurance regarding suitability. Conventional carrier can have a mixed air wing, STOVL can only have the one type of fixed wing capability.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
glojo,
Firstly, it is important to know what the figures of 450nm and 600nm are based upon as they are not apples with apples.
The B has a requirement to take off, climb to height and get together with other aircraft. They press off at high level and go no more than 450nm to a target with a very small margin built in to faff at the target.
The C has the same requirement - very subtley modified for CV launch ops - to hit a target 600nm from the point of departure.
The significant difference is how much fuel/time they come back to their respective ships with.
The 450nm profile above has the B coming back with around 7 minutes worth of fuel to recover via the visual landing pattern.
The 600nm profile above has the C coming back with around 30 minutes worth of fuel in order to have a crack at landing from an instrument approach a certain number of times and then holding off for a while before a final landing or going to the tanker.
The reason the time is so different is that there is no point in the B coming back with more fuel if it still has the 2 x 1k JDAM, 2 AIM-120C and expendables because it can't land vertically with any more fuel than 7 minutes worth. Somewhat ironic that the limited thrust of the B allows you to maximise the fuel you have in mission range. I wonder how many aircrew would plan to come back from 450nm to arrive back with 7 minutes worth of fuel? Any spotter could work out how quickly you could blow such a slim margin on your landing fuel with an extra 360 AB turn in the target area or other such manoeuvre.
The C can still go 33% further and carry 2 x 2k JDAM (vice the 1k) and come back with an amount of fuel that gives it options to have a good look at the boat, screw it up, hold off and either go to the tanker (or land based diversion 100nm+ away) or do one final - expensive - landing on the carrier into the barrier.
Firstly, it is important to know what the figures of 450nm and 600nm are based upon as they are not apples with apples.
The B has a requirement to take off, climb to height and get together with other aircraft. They press off at high level and go no more than 450nm to a target with a very small margin built in to faff at the target.
The C has the same requirement - very subtley modified for CV launch ops - to hit a target 600nm from the point of departure.
The significant difference is how much fuel/time they come back to their respective ships with.
The 450nm profile above has the B coming back with around 7 minutes worth of fuel to recover via the visual landing pattern.
The 600nm profile above has the C coming back with around 30 minutes worth of fuel in order to have a crack at landing from an instrument approach a certain number of times and then holding off for a while before a final landing or going to the tanker.
The reason the time is so different is that there is no point in the B coming back with more fuel if it still has the 2 x 1k JDAM, 2 AIM-120C and expendables because it can't land vertically with any more fuel than 7 minutes worth. Somewhat ironic that the limited thrust of the B allows you to maximise the fuel you have in mission range. I wonder how many aircrew would plan to come back from 450nm to arrive back with 7 minutes worth of fuel? Any spotter could work out how quickly you could blow such a slim margin on your landing fuel with an extra 360 AB turn in the target area or other such manoeuvre.
The C can still go 33% further and carry 2 x 2k JDAM (vice the 1k) and come back with an amount of fuel that gives it options to have a good look at the boat, screw it up, hold off and either go to the tanker (or land based diversion 100nm+ away) or do one final - expensive - landing on the carrier into the barrier.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
glojo
Your questions with my answers for what they are worth.
.
No more than a ‘conventional’ aircraft in fact possibly a smidgen less than one that has to be catapulted as that involves running up to full power and then a few seconds hold (going nowhere) as part of the overall launch process.
Tactics after takeoff do not depend on whether the aircraft is launched STOVL/Cat. Because it takes time to load an aircraft onto a cat the STOVL launch interval will be slightly shorter.
A blocked deck is not a consideration if you can land vertically. In general you can afford to return with fewer fuel reserves than if you must be arrested (and perhaps even get a wave off due to ship motion)
I suspect you have a gut feeling that a VL involves the use of a lot of fuel. This is not the case for quite a few reasons (for example the previous point).
If you can VL your problems are over as long as you can reach the ship (or another platform) in the first place. A VL is much easier than any other sort of landing (afloat or ashore) and so does not need the fuel reserves of conventional operations.
I hope you now realise why the B does not need ‘options’ on return. You might like to take a look at post 303 and the last two paras.
Regarding your apparent concern at the use of fuel in VSTOL operations this mis-conception has been around since 1 April 1969 when the Harrier entered service. At that time the manufacturer demonstrated that if you measured the fuel used from dispersal to reaching cruise speed on heading to the target (or first way point) you used less from a VTO than one that needed a runway. The difference was not great (10 to 20lb) but it was less thanks to reduced taxiing time and being able to rotate onto first heading as you lifted. Please note that does not apply to an STO.
Jet engines are not as some people think. Stationary at full throttle the engine has to suck in air. At high forward speed the air is rammed in and the amount of air passing though the engine is greater. This means that the fuel control unit will permit more fuel to be burned at full throttle and high forward speed than at full throttle in the hover.
I have flown VSTOL from ships belonging to Argentina, Brazil, France, India, Spain, United States and the UK. I would have been reluctant to do that in several cases unless I could VL. To illustrate the value of a VL I asked the Captain of a French carrier to try and stop me landing on his ship. He responded by throwing out the anchor in a heavy swell and making smoke across as much of the flight deck as he could at the same time as providing a wind over deck at 90 deg. I landed vertically cross deck on the bow which stuck out of the smoke despite the ship rolling a silly amount.
Please note I am not advocating the B, or the C (or any other aircraft you can come up with) because I do not have enough information to make that call.
When these aircraft take off with a full load of weapons, percentage wise do they use a significant amount of fuel getting to their operational height?
No more than a ‘conventional’ aircraft in fact possibly a smidgen less than one that has to be catapulted as that involves running up to full power and then a few seconds hold (going nowhere) as part of the overall launch process.
Would you then go into a holding pattern until your group forms up, or do you head off over the horizon at a more sedate speed to allow the other aircraft to catch up? I ask this as I assume only one aircraft can take off at a time and are they getting airborne as quickly as those that might be launched from a conventional carrier?
Once over target would the pilot then have to take into account they might return to a blocked deck and be required to go into a holding pattern and if they return with a full load of advanced, stand-off weapons can the aircraft land with these, or do they get stored in Mr Jones’s sea locker?
When landing does this again require a significant amount of fuel especially if you are returning with ordinance? These questions are asked because we read of how the B might have a theoretical range of 450 miles compared to the possible 600 of the ‘C’ but in the real World is this a fair comparison?
Is this a relevant figure as a conventional carrier would or should have a tanking capability, the aircraft take off, they top up, form up and depart. When returning back to mother, they will have the option of taking fuel from the tanker and not have those concerns about having to land as they are low on fuel.
The ‘B’ will not have these options, no tanking from the ship and what you go with, you work with.. If that means a very quick pass over the target and having to get back to the ship, then so be it!
Regarding your apparent concern at the use of fuel in VSTOL operations this mis-conception has been around since 1 April 1969 when the Harrier entered service. At that time the manufacturer demonstrated that if you measured the fuel used from dispersal to reaching cruise speed on heading to the target (or first way point) you used less from a VTO than one that needed a runway. The difference was not great (10 to 20lb) but it was less thanks to reduced taxiing time and being able to rotate onto first heading as you lifted. Please note that does not apply to an STO.
Jet engines are not as some people think. Stationary at full throttle the engine has to suck in air. At high forward speed the air is rammed in and the amount of air passing though the engine is greater. This means that the fuel control unit will permit more fuel to be burned at full throttle and high forward speed than at full throttle in the hover.
I have flown VSTOL from ships belonging to Argentina, Brazil, France, India, Spain, United States and the UK. I would have been reluctant to do that in several cases unless I could VL. To illustrate the value of a VL I asked the Captain of a French carrier to try and stop me landing on his ship. He responded by throwing out the anchor in a heavy swell and making smoke across as much of the flight deck as he could at the same time as providing a wind over deck at 90 deg. I landed vertically cross deck on the bow which stuck out of the smoke despite the ship rolling a silly amount.
Please note I am not advocating the B, or the C (or any other aircraft you can come up with) because I do not have enough information to make that call.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John,
If the part of the deck that is free is safe to land on, you have an option.
But you have an issue if the first aircraft down has an incident - even minor - becuase the deck will be foul for at least a period until the deck can be made safe to recover the next aircraft. If the second (of 4 aircraft) is in the decel behind the first, he will not be allowed to land elsewhere because crash and salvage teams will be coming from varying parts of the deck to assist, even with a burst tyre. The jet will need to be shut down; the pilot removed; the weapons made safe and the aircraft secured in place.
The second aircraft will go around and now has a single crack at the deck assuming the aircraft with the incident is secure within the next 3 minutes.
And a JSF configured for vertical landing will indeed suck down far more petrol than even the big-engined Harrier at 40klbs of thrust vice 23.5klbs, lift fan or no lift fan. But of course, nobody will tell you anything other than the environmental impact of the recent JSF on board Wasp was anything more than an AV-8B. Clearly the laws of physics don't apply at sea (or when you are being positive about a troubled programme).
The fuel flow wouldn't matter if the VL margin with stores+fuel was significant but it's not.
The second aircraft (and subsequent 2 aircraft who will also be approaching the same fuel state only 2 minutes later in a visual recovery) will be committed to a single landing on a deck that may or may not be clear. The probability of the deck not being clear for his one and only landing that day? Low. But not as low one might accept that it's worth throwing away a jet (or jets) that is going to cost the taxpayer more than 3 times the unit cost of a Harrier GR9.
I rarely disagree with you John but nobody is going to be allowed to operate a UK JSF without options for another assured landing surface. The days of carefree flying as you described when picking your way up the wake of Foch in fog or along some flares are, I'm afraid, consigned to the history books. They are the stories I grew up on and sat in the crewroon listening to the old salts talking about. I may have even done something similar myself in the early days.
The MAA and Haddon-Cave have put paid to such antics.
If the part of the deck that is free is safe to land on, you have an option.
But you have an issue if the first aircraft down has an incident - even minor - becuase the deck will be foul for at least a period until the deck can be made safe to recover the next aircraft. If the second (of 4 aircraft) is in the decel behind the first, he will not be allowed to land elsewhere because crash and salvage teams will be coming from varying parts of the deck to assist, even with a burst tyre. The jet will need to be shut down; the pilot removed; the weapons made safe and the aircraft secured in place.
The second aircraft will go around and now has a single crack at the deck assuming the aircraft with the incident is secure within the next 3 minutes.
And a JSF configured for vertical landing will indeed suck down far more petrol than even the big-engined Harrier at 40klbs of thrust vice 23.5klbs, lift fan or no lift fan. But of course, nobody will tell you anything other than the environmental impact of the recent JSF on board Wasp was anything more than an AV-8B. Clearly the laws of physics don't apply at sea (or when you are being positive about a troubled programme).
The fuel flow wouldn't matter if the VL margin with stores+fuel was significant but it's not.
The second aircraft (and subsequent 2 aircraft who will also be approaching the same fuel state only 2 minutes later in a visual recovery) will be committed to a single landing on a deck that may or may not be clear. The probability of the deck not being clear for his one and only landing that day? Low. But not as low one might accept that it's worth throwing away a jet (or jets) that is going to cost the taxpayer more than 3 times the unit cost of a Harrier GR9.
I rarely disagree with you John but nobody is going to be allowed to operate a UK JSF without options for another assured landing surface. The days of carefree flying as you described when picking your way up the wake of Foch in fog or along some flares are, I'm afraid, consigned to the history books. They are the stories I grew up on and sat in the crewroon listening to the old salts talking about. I may have even done something similar myself in the early days.
The MAA and Haddon-Cave have put paid to such antics.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent replies and thank you both for responding. FB11... Regarding the 450 vs 600 mile range that is the average type ranges that are being posted on a number of public locations and I have NOT cherry picked in favour of one against the other.
Excellent points are made but I did smile at the thought of a commanding officer dropping the anchor in a heavy swell. I just hope he was stationary and in shallow water. I have visions of an embarrassed captain having to explain how they lost their anchor plus cable.
Thanks again,
John
Excellent points are made but I did smile at the thought of a commanding officer dropping the anchor in a heavy swell. I just hope he was stationary and in shallow water. I have visions of an embarrassed captain having to explain how they lost their anchor plus cable.
Thanks again,
John
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB11,
I have to disagree here, a deck the size of CVF offers quite a bit of scope to get a STOVL aircraft back on in the event of a fouled deck spot. I think I could offer three in service examples on the tiny CVS deck without having to stretch. Certainly more flexible than a Cat and trap - but note, like JF, I'm not trying to criticise cat and trap 'in toto'.
I don't know the F-35B hovering fuel flow, but I'm certain it's higher than at 38K pounds than a Harrier at around 25K pounds. But, the lift fan propulsion system is very efficient and the UK expertise in hover flow and gas circulation has helped dramatically.
I was, for a time, very closely involved with F-35B deck environmental impacts. I can tell you, straight, that F-35B efflux impact has been modelled and tested exhaustively (sorry, joke not intended) and it's not a problem for the ship deck material. The key is that the hot gas exhaust is only asked to deliver 18K of thrust or so - the rest of the power gors to the lift fan. Paint is a problem, but it's the same sort of problem Harrier generates, and there are solutions out there.
F-35B VL margin is significant. It's miles better than Harrier was at this stage in its programme. (It's actually better than some older cat and trap aircraft). I can't go into all the details but the guys working this have learned a hell of a lot from the UK'S experience. They'd like more, but that is how it is with powered lift aircraft. You are always fighting weight with thrust. All the time. It's a natural thing.
I really do agree that the current MAA, ODH, DDH, SDSH initiative has the potential to severely crimp all combat operations, including non-diversion deck ops. My view, taking a long perspective, is that we are in a cycle of 'safety first at ALL costs', and we will swing back to a more sensible and balanced approach as the Duty Holders take charge from the MAA. But it will take time.
Best Regards as ever,
Engines
I have to disagree here, a deck the size of CVF offers quite a bit of scope to get a STOVL aircraft back on in the event of a fouled deck spot. I think I could offer three in service examples on the tiny CVS deck without having to stretch. Certainly more flexible than a Cat and trap - but note, like JF, I'm not trying to criticise cat and trap 'in toto'.
I don't know the F-35B hovering fuel flow, but I'm certain it's higher than at 38K pounds than a Harrier at around 25K pounds. But, the lift fan propulsion system is very efficient and the UK expertise in hover flow and gas circulation has helped dramatically.
I was, for a time, very closely involved with F-35B deck environmental impacts. I can tell you, straight, that F-35B efflux impact has been modelled and tested exhaustively (sorry, joke not intended) and it's not a problem for the ship deck material. The key is that the hot gas exhaust is only asked to deliver 18K of thrust or so - the rest of the power gors to the lift fan. Paint is a problem, but it's the same sort of problem Harrier generates, and there are solutions out there.
F-35B VL margin is significant. It's miles better than Harrier was at this stage in its programme. (It's actually better than some older cat and trap aircraft). I can't go into all the details but the guys working this have learned a hell of a lot from the UK'S experience. They'd like more, but that is how it is with powered lift aircraft. You are always fighting weight with thrust. All the time. It's a natural thing.
I really do agree that the current MAA, ODH, DDH, SDSH initiative has the potential to severely crimp all combat operations, including non-diversion deck ops. My view, taking a long perspective, is that we are in a cycle of 'safety first at ALL costs', and we will swing back to a more sensible and balanced approach as the Duty Holders take charge from the MAA. But it will take time.
Best Regards as ever,
Engines
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Milo,
It doesn't have to be a Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) but the reason the UK did some of the development of it in the VAAC Harrier that John will be very familiar with is to mitigate the poor vertical recovery margins with fuel and stores.
But the SRVL development wasn't completed after the switch to B and I believe the VAAC was taken as a Planning Round option some time back.
SRVL does open up a different issue because you are commiting aircraft to a single landing surface, but you do then have a vertical option with all the same caveats as the above threads discuss.
The other point worth considering when we talk of throwing a jet into any old space on this new, huge flight deck is that in addition to people moving around the deck to secure a potentially stricken aircraft, there will be aircraft - JSF and helicopters - parked in numerous places around the deck that will limit opportunities to land in close proximity. Even a Harrier couldn't land with helicopters parked/folded/tied down in close proximity so even the laws-of-physics defying JSF environmental footprint may have some problems finding a space.
It doesn't have to be a Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) but the reason the UK did some of the development of it in the VAAC Harrier that John will be very familiar with is to mitigate the poor vertical recovery margins with fuel and stores.
But the SRVL development wasn't completed after the switch to B and I believe the VAAC was taken as a Planning Round option some time back.
SRVL does open up a different issue because you are commiting aircraft to a single landing surface, but you do then have a vertical option with all the same caveats as the above threads discuss.
The other point worth considering when we talk of throwing a jet into any old space on this new, huge flight deck is that in addition to people moving around the deck to secure a potentially stricken aircraft, there will be aircraft - JSF and helicopters - parked in numerous places around the deck that will limit opportunities to land in close proximity. Even a Harrier couldn't land with helicopters parked/folded/tied down in close proximity so even the laws-of-physics defying JSF environmental footprint may have some problems finding a space.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engines,
Our posts crossed - miles better than Harrier at this stage of the programme? That doesn't bode well considering Harrier never had a useful vertical bring back at any stage of its career.
You say that as though the B is going to get lighter and the engine more powerful (or better at converting fuel to thrust)?
Our posts crossed - miles better than Harrier at this stage of the programme? That doesn't bode well considering Harrier never had a useful vertical bring back at any stage of its career.
You say that as though the B is going to get lighter and the engine more powerful (or better at converting fuel to thrust)?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB11,
A good enough bring back to fight a decent war and a good few campaigns, and deliver an effective service life. No useful bring back at any stage of its career? Sorry, can't let that one ride.
F-35B bring back margin is squeezed because the requirements are tough. Doing a VL with full internal weapons plus a lot more fuel than the Harrier ever had, at high temperatures, with an intentionally degraded engine (allows for in service thrust loss), plus another weight margin, plus a maximum weight engine (GFE so LM have to be given a weight the US government can live with until out of service) - well, you get the picture. If you want some fun, go and look at the bring back margins for some well known CTOL aircraft - you might be surprised.
I'm not trying to sugar coat this. Powered lift is always going to be tight, unless the users want to throw away a lot of capability. But the F-35 team have not gone into this blind. The engine will get more powerful, (F136 would be ven better than F135) but I doubt that airframe weight will go down.
Hope this helps
Best Regards as ever
Engines
A good enough bring back to fight a decent war and a good few campaigns, and deliver an effective service life. No useful bring back at any stage of its career? Sorry, can't let that one ride.
F-35B bring back margin is squeezed because the requirements are tough. Doing a VL with full internal weapons plus a lot more fuel than the Harrier ever had, at high temperatures, with an intentionally degraded engine (allows for in service thrust loss), plus another weight margin, plus a maximum weight engine (GFE so LM have to be given a weight the US government can live with until out of service) - well, you get the picture. If you want some fun, go and look at the bring back margins for some well known CTOL aircraft - you might be surprised.
I'm not trying to sugar coat this. Powered lift is always going to be tight, unless the users want to throw away a lot of capability. But the F-35 team have not gone into this blind. The engine will get more powerful, (F136 would be ven better than F135) but I doubt that airframe weight will go down.
Hope this helps
Best Regards as ever
Engines
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engines,
So why did the UK waste millions of ££ on SRVL if the VLBB was OK? What was the prompt? A belief that the SWAT wouldn't work in the mid-2000's or that the SWAT was always going to cause engineers problems later that may cause them to pile weight back in to the aircraft?
And - hypothetically of course - a Sea Harrier carrying a single AIM-120B because of performance issues in a hot part of the world in a combat environment? Heaven help us and those whom we were supposed to be protecting if we were ever called upon to do the business for them.
GR9A could not have operated with the required fit from the CVS in a current operation. Thank God nobody called our bluff on that one. Do you know how many GBU-12 were carried by USMC AV-8B operating at sea as a result of them needing to have a targeting pod?
I will get behind which ever aircraft the UK chooses 110% just like we all got behind the Defence red-headed step child that was JFH. Two services, both violently against an amalgamation where they both 'lost' to end up producing what I think Defence will look back on as the most effective, efficient and lowest risk 5 year period of deployed air operations when the Harrier deployed to Afghanistan between 2004 and 2009.
However, I can not conceive how we have ended up being boxed into a corner where were are potentially going back to an aircraft that is at the very beginning of its 30 year+ life and we are already trying to mitigate its weight by not adding a few pounds here or there to fit pipes that make the fuel jettison properly. That doesn't sound like a prgramme that is supremely confident about future weight growth.
Even if you ignore the thrust to weight of, let's say, an early GR3 when compared to the GR9A (massively in favour of the earlier aircraft) the additional weight of the stores bolted onto the GR9A to make it operationally suitable was way in excess of the additonal vertical thrust margin gained from the extra 2500lb of the RR 408 (Mk107) engine.
Aircraft get heavier. Engines get weaker. It's not going to get better and we're not in production yet.
So why did the UK waste millions of ££ on SRVL if the VLBB was OK? What was the prompt? A belief that the SWAT wouldn't work in the mid-2000's or that the SWAT was always going to cause engineers problems later that may cause them to pile weight back in to the aircraft?
And - hypothetically of course - a Sea Harrier carrying a single AIM-120B because of performance issues in a hot part of the world in a combat environment? Heaven help us and those whom we were supposed to be protecting if we were ever called upon to do the business for them.
GR9A could not have operated with the required fit from the CVS in a current operation. Thank God nobody called our bluff on that one. Do you know how many GBU-12 were carried by USMC AV-8B operating at sea as a result of them needing to have a targeting pod?
I will get behind which ever aircraft the UK chooses 110% just like we all got behind the Defence red-headed step child that was JFH. Two services, both violently against an amalgamation where they both 'lost' to end up producing what I think Defence will look back on as the most effective, efficient and lowest risk 5 year period of deployed air operations when the Harrier deployed to Afghanistan between 2004 and 2009.
However, I can not conceive how we have ended up being boxed into a corner where were are potentially going back to an aircraft that is at the very beginning of its 30 year+ life and we are already trying to mitigate its weight by not adding a few pounds here or there to fit pipes that make the fuel jettison properly. That doesn't sound like a prgramme that is supremely confident about future weight growth.
Even if you ignore the thrust to weight of, let's say, an early GR3 when compared to the GR9A (massively in favour of the earlier aircraft) the additional weight of the stores bolted onto the GR9A to make it operationally suitable was way in excess of the additonal vertical thrust margin gained from the extra 2500lb of the RR 408 (Mk107) engine.
Aircraft get heavier. Engines get weaker. It's not going to get better and we're not in production yet.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very reassuring to hear that the aircraft can return with its weapon load but does this comment apply to both versions of the F-35?
Surely the whole point of having an aircraft carrier is to have this type of mobility. The days of the Harrier landing on the deck of a nearby large warship are surely over as the Wasp had to undergo modifications to enable her to land the 'B' but if the Royal Navy operate a conventional carrier then I would expect it to have a mixed air wing including tanker aircraft? (Question)
nobody is going to be allowed to operate a UK JSF without options for another assured landing surface.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB11,
Sorry if I've tweaked your tail here - not my intention. Taking the issues one by one:
Design VLBB for F-35B was always driven by the JORD, which (and I've said this many times) the UK signed up to in full. The JORD used a US 'hot day', not the UK 'Persian Gulf' hot day (in itself a new requirement after, well, Persian gulf ops). That led to SRVL studies, and I would defer to guys like GT, with tons of deck test flying experience, who thought it was a feasible proposition.
I spent 6 happy months on SWAT and every design change was checked out for long term issues and ship compatibility. Some trade offs were harder than others, but that's combat aircraft design in the real world.
FA2 bring back was an issue waiting to happen once we added 15 inches of fuselage and didn't fund a thrust increase. I was unhappy at the arguments deployed in favour of GR9A, and how the extra thrust would solve all CVS issues. It was 'situating the appreciation', a habit of Strike Command staff and one of many that made JFH such a bear, despite very good work by the more junior staff guys. The achievements in the Stan made the Harrier cancellation all the more galling, but it's done now.
Fuel jettison on F-35 - a real problem due mostly (in my own view) to lack of focus by LM, who have been able to do without jettison systems on F-16 and other aircraft by the simple expedient of using reheat at low thrust settings. Ok for land basing, but not for embarked ops. Also, LO makes a solution harder. They are working it, and will fix it.
Yes, aircraft get heavier. Engines do NOT necessarily have to get weaker. In any case, as I posted before, the F-35 VLBB already assumes a weaker engine (at end of life). Don't forget also that the VLBB definition includes kit like EOTS that would normally require a pod. I could PM more details if I remembered them (Which I don't).
Just once more - I'm not sugar coating this. Powered lift aircraft have to carefully manage weight and lift. It's a disadvantage of powered lift. But, just ask any cat and trap aviator what happens to their aircraft through life - weight goes up, approach speed or trap WOD goes up, gear life suffers, and so on. Not as much as powered lift, true, but still an issue. Especially for an LO aircraft that can't deploy a lot of high lift devices. (F-35C...)
Hope this helps,
Best regards as ever,
Engines.
Sorry if I've tweaked your tail here - not my intention. Taking the issues one by one:
Design VLBB for F-35B was always driven by the JORD, which (and I've said this many times) the UK signed up to in full. The JORD used a US 'hot day', not the UK 'Persian Gulf' hot day (in itself a new requirement after, well, Persian gulf ops). That led to SRVL studies, and I would defer to guys like GT, with tons of deck test flying experience, who thought it was a feasible proposition.
I spent 6 happy months on SWAT and every design change was checked out for long term issues and ship compatibility. Some trade offs were harder than others, but that's combat aircraft design in the real world.
FA2 bring back was an issue waiting to happen once we added 15 inches of fuselage and didn't fund a thrust increase. I was unhappy at the arguments deployed in favour of GR9A, and how the extra thrust would solve all CVS issues. It was 'situating the appreciation', a habit of Strike Command staff and one of many that made JFH such a bear, despite very good work by the more junior staff guys. The achievements in the Stan made the Harrier cancellation all the more galling, but it's done now.
Fuel jettison on F-35 - a real problem due mostly (in my own view) to lack of focus by LM, who have been able to do without jettison systems on F-16 and other aircraft by the simple expedient of using reheat at low thrust settings. Ok for land basing, but not for embarked ops. Also, LO makes a solution harder. They are working it, and will fix it.
Yes, aircraft get heavier. Engines do NOT necessarily have to get weaker. In any case, as I posted before, the F-35 VLBB already assumes a weaker engine (at end of life). Don't forget also that the VLBB definition includes kit like EOTS that would normally require a pod. I could PM more details if I remembered them (Which I don't).
Just once more - I'm not sugar coating this. Powered lift aircraft have to carefully manage weight and lift. It's a disadvantage of powered lift. But, just ask any cat and trap aviator what happens to their aircraft through life - weight goes up, approach speed or trap WOD goes up, gear life suffers, and so on. Not as much as powered lift, true, but still an issue. Especially for an LO aircraft that can't deploy a lot of high lift devices. (F-35C...)
Hope this helps,
Best regards as ever,
Engines.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just found this press release which slipped out Friday night....timing eh?
""F-35 fighter jet, the U.S. military’s most expensive weapons program, will cost $1.51 trillion, a 9 percent increase from the estimate a year ago, according to Pentagon officials.
The program’s projected “life cycle cost” -- including development since 1994, production of 2,443 jets and 55 years of support -- increased from $1.38 trillion in 2010, the officials said today in a briefing for reporters."
Lockheed F-35 Cost Estimate by U.S. Increases 9% in Year - Bloomberg
and from
U.S. Outlines Cost of F-35 That Canada and Others Are Purchasing | Ottawa Citizen
"New cost information has just been made available regarding the F-35. The Pentagon has just released its Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) dated Dec. 31, 2011. ..............................
" The just released SAR provides a perspective. It shows that the US Airforce’s planned expenditures for the unit recurring flyaway costs for the F-35A version are as follows (these figures include the costs for the aircraft and the engines):
2016 – $93.38
2017 – $91.43
2018 – $83.13
2019 – $83.95
2020 – $87.36
2021 – $95.16
2022 – $87.14
2023 – $88.08
""F-35 fighter jet, the U.S. military’s most expensive weapons program, will cost $1.51 trillion, a 9 percent increase from the estimate a year ago, according to Pentagon officials.
The program’s projected “life cycle cost” -- including development since 1994, production of 2,443 jets and 55 years of support -- increased from $1.38 trillion in 2010, the officials said today in a briefing for reporters."
Lockheed F-35 Cost Estimate by U.S. Increases 9% in Year - Bloomberg
and from
U.S. Outlines Cost of F-35 That Canada and Others Are Purchasing | Ottawa Citizen
"New cost information has just been made available regarding the F-35. The Pentagon has just released its Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) dated Dec. 31, 2011. ..............................
" The just released SAR provides a perspective. It shows that the US Airforce’s planned expenditures for the unit recurring flyaway costs for the F-35A version are as follows (these figures include the costs for the aircraft and the engines):
2016 – $93.38
2017 – $91.43
2018 – $83.13
2019 – $83.95
2020 – $87.36
2021 – $95.16
2022 – $87.14
2023 – $88.08