No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?
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
Chaps
I am going to leave you to it because I think some people are muddling up/ignoring the reasons for (and the differences between) some very different things:
1 Commercial contractural specifications placed on suppliers.
2 The rules and practices used for routine peace time operations.
3 The likely procedures for aircraft emergency situations in peactime.
4 The business of using an aircraft's actual capabilites in time of war.
I am going to leave you to it because I think some people are muddling up/ignoring the reasons for (and the differences between) some very different things:
1 Commercial contractural specifications placed on suppliers.
2 The rules and practices used for routine peace time operations.
3 The likely procedures for aircraft emergency situations in peactime.
4 The business of using an aircraft's actual capabilites in time of war.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by John Farley
I am going to leave you to it because I think some people are muddling up/ignoring the reasons for (and the differences between) some very different things:
1 Commercial contractural specifications placed on suppliers.
2 The rules and practices used for routine peace time operations.
3 The likely procedures for aircraft emergency situations in peactime.
4 The business of using an aircraft's actual capabilites in time of war.
1 Commercial contractural specifications placed on suppliers.
2 The rules and practices used for routine peace time operations.
3 The likely procedures for aircraft emergency situations in peactime.
4 The business of using an aircraft's actual capabilites in time of war.
I hope my questions have not caused you to submit this post.
You are someone that I hold in the highest of regard and your wise words on these issues deserve to be heard and respected.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am in awe of the wealth of knowledge, experience and expertise in this debate of the merits and de-merits of conventional fighter operation and STOVL operation. To try to reach a conclusion I think we need to distil what we’ve learned such that an idiot can understand it. As my wife never tires of telling me I'm an idiot, I think I am perfectly suited to the task.
In a nutshell, it seems that hurtling along a length of runway or deck to overcome gravity, or a controlled crash along the same deck or runway to permit gravity to hold sway again, gives your aeroplane some significant additional fighting advantages.
If you can go straight up or straight down, you achieve some ease of operation and have less space requirements. The price you pay is a host of additional engineering challenges, and significant fighting disadvantages.
So, if you could do STOVL without the fighting and engineering disadvantages, why would you do it any other way? Well, it’s a no-brainer, you wouldn’t do it any other way. But you can’t (yet). So logically you would choose this route when you are hampered by constraints that mean that you accept the fighting limitations and engineering challenges in exchange for achieving a fighting capability you would not otherwise have. Thus STOVL is very understandable for Italy (Cavour is STOVL or nothing) or US Wasp class, or Spain or Thailand.
The overall objective is to deliver the best fighting capability you can. A carrier is more than this, but that’s it’s raison d’etre. As the QE class is big enough to permit operation of the aircraft with significant fighting advantages, it’s logical to wield the biggest stick. You have to accept some additional operational difficulties, associated with launch at the start and the controlled crash at the end. (Damn and blast Sir Issac, things would have been so much easier if he hadn’t invented g.)
I deduce therefore, that F35C and CATOBAR is the way the UK should go to achieve the primary objective: the best military advantage.
Now, intervening constraints may interfere with this choice. These constraints are basically called politicians, or money, or a combination of both. Money will determine if the fighters make it into service at all and the politicians whether we can afford them if they do. If they decide for political or financial reasons we will not have the biggest stick, then we must accept that we will have a fighting capability: F35B.
So, in considering the F35 carrier options, I conclude F35C is the best choice. F35B the next choice. Providing they both meet their performance parameters, either is acceptable and will be a step-change of the UK's maritime capabilities.
In a nutshell, it seems that hurtling along a length of runway or deck to overcome gravity, or a controlled crash along the same deck or runway to permit gravity to hold sway again, gives your aeroplane some significant additional fighting advantages.
If you can go straight up or straight down, you achieve some ease of operation and have less space requirements. The price you pay is a host of additional engineering challenges, and significant fighting disadvantages.
So, if you could do STOVL without the fighting and engineering disadvantages, why would you do it any other way? Well, it’s a no-brainer, you wouldn’t do it any other way. But you can’t (yet). So logically you would choose this route when you are hampered by constraints that mean that you accept the fighting limitations and engineering challenges in exchange for achieving a fighting capability you would not otherwise have. Thus STOVL is very understandable for Italy (Cavour is STOVL or nothing) or US Wasp class, or Spain or Thailand.
The overall objective is to deliver the best fighting capability you can. A carrier is more than this, but that’s it’s raison d’etre. As the QE class is big enough to permit operation of the aircraft with significant fighting advantages, it’s logical to wield the biggest stick. You have to accept some additional operational difficulties, associated with launch at the start and the controlled crash at the end. (Damn and blast Sir Issac, things would have been so much easier if he hadn’t invented g.)
I deduce therefore, that F35C and CATOBAR is the way the UK should go to achieve the primary objective: the best military advantage.
Now, intervening constraints may interfere with this choice. These constraints are basically called politicians, or money, or a combination of both. Money will determine if the fighters make it into service at all and the politicians whether we can afford them if they do. If they decide for political or financial reasons we will not have the biggest stick, then we must accept that we will have a fighting capability: F35B.
So, in considering the F35 carrier options, I conclude F35C is the best choice. F35B the next choice. Providing they both meet their performance parameters, either is acceptable and will be a step-change of the UK's maritime capabilities.
As someone with a ship design/build background and only a rudimentary aero eng background I'd like to echo Lowe Fliegers post. This is the absolute guts of it.
However, one thing that might be worth thinking about is that the scale of the proposed QEC (forget the current IOC-number limits) operations when first conceived are significantly in excess of what we (or anyone else) have ever done with SHAR/GR7.
If - as postulated in the original requirement for QEC, you're launching a 16 ship mission, with a significant number of aircraft on deck alert or servicing, then as FB11 suggests, we're looking at a very limited amount of clear deck on recovery. One of the major reservations I always had about SRVL.
I was always a little concerned during the early CVF deliberations 1999-2003, that manpower scaling and so-forth was being done on the basis of 800/801 AE and manning, without the understanding that the CVF requirement was for something else entirely. With larger CAGs you tend to do more diverse and potentially more demanding (certainly in terms of weapon / stores loading) than we have done hitherto - even including the Balkans campaign and the Deny Flight ops over Iraq pre 2003.
I'd be interested to hear whether FB11, Orca, Engines or JF consider this a real issue or just in the noise.
However, one thing that might be worth thinking about is that the scale of the proposed QEC (forget the current IOC-number limits) operations when first conceived are significantly in excess of what we (or anyone else) have ever done with SHAR/GR7.
If - as postulated in the original requirement for QEC, you're launching a 16 ship mission, with a significant number of aircraft on deck alert or servicing, then as FB11 suggests, we're looking at a very limited amount of clear deck on recovery. One of the major reservations I always had about SRVL.
I was always a little concerned during the early CVF deliberations 1999-2003, that manpower scaling and so-forth was being done on the basis of 800/801 AE and manning, without the understanding that the CVF requirement was for something else entirely. With larger CAGs you tend to do more diverse and potentially more demanding (certainly in terms of weapon / stores loading) than we have done hitherto - even including the Balkans campaign and the Deny Flight ops over Iraq pre 2003.
I'd be interested to hear whether FB11, Orca, Engines or JF consider this a real issue or just in the noise.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
I'd like to respond. This is a very good discussion that gets to the core of what has become a political issue - and we know how they can go...
LF's analysis is really very good. I absolutely agree that cat and trap is the way to go if you can afford it. 'Affording it' means a number of things that don't come with STOVL. These are:
a. A big and fast ship - at least 65,000 tons and around 30 knots
b. A ship stuffed with expensive kit to launch and recover the aircraft, e.g. cats and traps
c. The training burden of keeping the specialised and perishable skills required for night bad weather ops current.
On top of these, the operational norms for cat and trap also require organic AAR, and probably a decent AEW/EW capability.
The problem for the UK has been to know where the cost boundaries for each option lie, and what is included and excluded. Then the challenge has been to accurately cost them. The recent debate over cat and trap conversion costs illustrates the point - I strongly suspect (but don't know) that the figures being thrown about varied so much because they included different things, depending on who was trying to make their point.
I absolutely agree with NAB that trying to model manning and costs for a new carrier that isn't a CVS (but isn't a CVN either) is a really difficult exercise, made harder by the dilution of carrier aviation knowledge and experience within the FAA and the RN.
Hope this helps
Best Regards
Engines
I'd like to respond. This is a very good discussion that gets to the core of what has become a political issue - and we know how they can go...
LF's analysis is really very good. I absolutely agree that cat and trap is the way to go if you can afford it. 'Affording it' means a number of things that don't come with STOVL. These are:
a. A big and fast ship - at least 65,000 tons and around 30 knots
b. A ship stuffed with expensive kit to launch and recover the aircraft, e.g. cats and traps
c. The training burden of keeping the specialised and perishable skills required for night bad weather ops current.
On top of these, the operational norms for cat and trap also require organic AAR, and probably a decent AEW/EW capability.
The problem for the UK has been to know where the cost boundaries for each option lie, and what is included and excluded. Then the challenge has been to accurately cost them. The recent debate over cat and trap conversion costs illustrates the point - I strongly suspect (but don't know) that the figures being thrown about varied so much because they included different things, depending on who was trying to make their point.
I absolutely agree with NAB that trying to model manning and costs for a new carrier that isn't a CVS (but isn't a CVN either) is a really difficult exercise, made harder by the dilution of carrier aviation knowledge and experience within the FAA and the RN.
Hope this helps
Best Regards
Engines
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Engines,
You are the second person in two days that has mentioned a sped requirement for the carrier
HMS Hermes was a very small conventional aircraft carrier that operated Buccaneers and the ugly duckling. On a very good day with a following wind and a two mile long down hill slope she MIGHT just reach 28knots but that would be on a wing and a prayer, yet she still managed to launch and recover those aircraft.
We have all read how more efficient, powerful the latest EMALS system is, so my question to you and others that are pushing the speed requirement is why? Why the need for the 30 knots and what escort ships will achieve these types of speed in anything other than the calmest of conditions.
The last time we launched\recovered an aircraft via cats and traps was 1978! I would suggest our experience is now so diluted it is as pure as the water we made on those old steam powered ships! We are starting from scratch but thanks to our very close ally we can at least make a start at re-creating this lost skill.
Instead of debating which aircraft, I believe our politicians should be asking, 'Can we afford to be a nation that operates aircraft carriers?'
You are the second person in two days that has mentioned a sped requirement for the carrier
A big and fast ship - at least 65,000 tons and around 30 knots
We have all read how more efficient, powerful the latest EMALS system is, so my question to you and others that are pushing the speed requirement is why? Why the need for the 30 knots and what escort ships will achieve these types of speed in anything other than the calmest of conditions.
I absolutely agree with NAB that trying to model manning and costs for a new carrier that isn't a CVS (but isn't a CVN either) is a really difficult exercise, made harder by the dilution of carrier aviation knowledge and experience within the FAA and the RN.
Instead of debating which aircraft, I believe our politicians should be asking, 'Can we afford to be a nation that operates aircraft carriers?'
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If were going to spend all the money to keep pilots current and have new procedures for cat and trap operations with amphibious assault helicopter movements ect does it not also have to be a full time capability. Which means both ships really need converted because it they're isnt the cash for that what happens when the cats and trap carrier hits a rock, has a engine fire gets hit with a tug boat or just needs an overhaul? Are the french going to come to are aid? I think F35B offers the best all round capability for the UK.
Just to make things more interesting, the new Selective Acquisition Report makes it very clear that the best-case cost of the F-35B at full rate is a cool $21m more than the F-35C.
That's a full procurement price - flyaway plus everything that goes with flyaway, like initial spares and ground equipment - and in 2012 dollars, for 2020 delivery.
So if the UK was to buy 50 Dave-Cs vs Bs, the $1-billion saved would convert the second carrier, if NaB's numbers are right.
The actual 2020-delivery average procurement cost for the F-35C is $117m and the F-35B is $138m. The equivalent price for the Super Hornet is $80 million.
Oh, and the A model costs 42 per cent more per flight hour than the USAF spent flying F-16C/Ds in 2011. Want to hazard a guess for the F-35B, with all the extra moving parts?
That's a full procurement price - flyaway plus everything that goes with flyaway, like initial spares and ground equipment - and in 2012 dollars, for 2020 delivery.
So if the UK was to buy 50 Dave-Cs vs Bs, the $1-billion saved would convert the second carrier, if NaB's numbers are right.
The actual 2020-delivery average procurement cost for the F-35C is $117m and the F-35B is $138m. The equivalent price for the Super Hornet is $80 million.
Oh, and the A model costs 42 per cent more per flight hour than the USAF spent flying F-16C/Ds in 2011. Want to hazard a guess for the F-35B, with all the extra moving parts?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flexibility
I can only repeat the words of a friend and colleague who said 'STOVL = options'. The F35B brings a new age of options, I think we should making the step into the future rather than going backwards!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glojo,
The reason for 30 knots (or thereabouts) is that it's the USN default assumption which drives the design of carrier borne aircraft like F-35C and indeed Super Hornet. It affects aircraft design for both launch and recovery, especially at the higher weights that are of such interest these days. Not to mention high temperatures.
I have friends who flew fixed wing off both Hermes and Ark Royal - and they all tell me that these were marginal ships with some really narrow safety margins for launch and recovery. A Sea Vixen pilot told me that they used actual aircrew weights (down to the pound) instead of a standard weight to wring out more performance. It's my view that a 28 knot ship would be a slow F-35 ship, but I hope I'm wrong.
The basic thing to remember is that cat and trap demands a very close integration between all aspects of the ship and the aircraft to achieve effective launch and recovery. That's not a criticism, just a fact. STOVL is more flexible, but you pay a performance price, and, it seems, an aircraft price.
LO - thanks for flagging up the selective acquisition report - good spot.
Best Regards
Engines
The reason for 30 knots (or thereabouts) is that it's the USN default assumption which drives the design of carrier borne aircraft like F-35C and indeed Super Hornet. It affects aircraft design for both launch and recovery, especially at the higher weights that are of such interest these days. Not to mention high temperatures.
I have friends who flew fixed wing off both Hermes and Ark Royal - and they all tell me that these were marginal ships with some really narrow safety margins for launch and recovery. A Sea Vixen pilot told me that they used actual aircrew weights (down to the pound) instead of a standard weight to wring out more performance. It's my view that a 28 knot ship would be a slow F-35 ship, but I hope I'm wrong.
The basic thing to remember is that cat and trap demands a very close integration between all aspects of the ship and the aircraft to achieve effective launch and recovery. That's not a criticism, just a fact. STOVL is more flexible, but you pay a performance price, and, it seems, an aircraft price.
LO - thanks for flagging up the selective acquisition report - good spot.
Best Regards
Engines
One thing to bear in mind when discussing speed and old ships is that none of our old carriers (including Ark) had anything like the catapult stroke or pendant runout that the QEC fit will have.
However, speed will still be important on recoveries if you have light to moderate wind from astern of your desired MLA as opposed to flying course. Higher ship speed increases the amount of stern wind you can tolerate without having to reverse course off your MLA. As noted before, it isn't about not being able to launch / recover, it's all about operational flexibility - a PITA rather tha show-stopper.
Engines - I think the 30 kts is an assumed WoD for the Mk7 gear rather than ship speed, but am happy to be corrected.
As for the cadre of experience. I remember visiting SFDO/Siskin in around 2000 when doing some early flight decks designs. The WO there had been the last captain of the flight deck on Ark IV. I'm sure we're starting again from scratch here.
However, speed will still be important on recoveries if you have light to moderate wind from astern of your desired MLA as opposed to flying course. Higher ship speed increases the amount of stern wind you can tolerate without having to reverse course off your MLA. As noted before, it isn't about not being able to launch / recover, it's all about operational flexibility - a PITA rather tha show-stopper.
Engines - I think the 30 kts is an assumed WoD for the Mk7 gear rather than ship speed, but am happy to be corrected.
As for the cadre of experience. I remember visiting SFDO/Siskin in around 2000 when doing some early flight decks designs. The WO there had been the last captain of the flight deck on Ark IV. I'm sure we're starting again from scratch here.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Engines,
Totally agree about weights etc on these old carriers and I'm sure I used to watch the Sea Vixen drop a few feet before gaining air speed, but with this EMALS system are we also talking about no wind over the deck? In my opinion the only way you will achieve this is by having a stationary ship on a day with no wind or a moving ship travelling in the same direction as the wind.
This is Ark Royal travelling at speed, although looking at that image I would not think she is flat out... However that is immaterial as look how calm the seas are, yet look at that spray coming over the bow?? I respect what you are saying but only the VERY biggest of ships could cruise at high speeds without the upper deck getting 'wet'
On Centaur just like all other British carriers of that era we would always steam into the wind at flying stations but as I said earlier there was no way we could get anywhere near 28knots and if there was a slight swell then fast speeds would mean at the very least huge amounts of spray coming over the bow!. Having said that wee needed wind over the deck to take off and recover our aircraft.
Just noticed Boffin's post and I TOTALLY concur, plus of course regarding landings.. That wind speed was just as important and for the new 'traps', I am sure the same things will apply..
Totally agree about weights etc on these old carriers and I'm sure I used to watch the Sea Vixen drop a few feet before gaining air speed, but with this EMALS system are we also talking about no wind over the deck? In my opinion the only way you will achieve this is by having a stationary ship on a day with no wind or a moving ship travelling in the same direction as the wind.
This is Ark Royal travelling at speed, although looking at that image I would not think she is flat out... However that is immaterial as look how calm the seas are, yet look at that spray coming over the bow?? I respect what you are saying but only the VERY biggest of ships could cruise at high speeds without the upper deck getting 'wet'
On Centaur just like all other British carriers of that era we would always steam into the wind at flying stations but as I said earlier there was no way we could get anywhere near 28knots and if there was a slight swell then fast speeds would mean at the very least huge amounts of spray coming over the bow!. Having said that wee needed wind over the deck to take off and recover our aircraft.
Just noticed Boffin's post and I TOTALLY concur, plus of course regarding landings.. That wind speed was just as important and for the new 'traps', I am sure the same things will apply..
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NaB,
The point is that the USN assume that the ship can get to 30 kts, and that forms a starting point for the range of WODs that the aircraft design is built around.
As you so correctly point out, cat and trap design and operations involve a very close linkage between the two platforms. Available ship speed will drive the WOD available and thus maximum cat launch weights available on any given day, as well as the maximum recovery weights. More WOD also reduces speed to the wire, reducing wear and tear on the gear. Basically, ship speed is your friend for carrier ops, and the USN's devotion to that truth is, in my view, well founded. It's one of the drivers for nuclear propulsion.
I am a bit of a sceptic on the magic properties of EMALS, to be honest. It should deliver a smoother stroke, but peak loads on the nose leg are peak loads and given the short time available in the cat stroke cycle I'd expect any increase in launch weight to be low - but happy if I'm wrong on that. You also have to bear in mind that the immediate post-launch dynamics of aircraft are fairly critical, and ever faster speeds might not always be your friend there - in any case, plenty of tests required. Once more, very happy to be proved wrong.
The UK used to tolerate some sink on launch, with some sophisticated analysis on fly out profiles backing up that judgement. One of the interesting challenges of cat and trap will be taking USN led safety analyses and getting them through the new MAA regime. In my view, another reason why the ODH and DDH for carrier operation will have to be the FAA - you just can't split the ship/aircraft factors out here.
Best Regards as ever
Engines
The point is that the USN assume that the ship can get to 30 kts, and that forms a starting point for the range of WODs that the aircraft design is built around.
As you so correctly point out, cat and trap design and operations involve a very close linkage between the two platforms. Available ship speed will drive the WOD available and thus maximum cat launch weights available on any given day, as well as the maximum recovery weights. More WOD also reduces speed to the wire, reducing wear and tear on the gear. Basically, ship speed is your friend for carrier ops, and the USN's devotion to that truth is, in my view, well founded. It's one of the drivers for nuclear propulsion.
I am a bit of a sceptic on the magic properties of EMALS, to be honest. It should deliver a smoother stroke, but peak loads on the nose leg are peak loads and given the short time available in the cat stroke cycle I'd expect any increase in launch weight to be low - but happy if I'm wrong on that. You also have to bear in mind that the immediate post-launch dynamics of aircraft are fairly critical, and ever faster speeds might not always be your friend there - in any case, plenty of tests required. Once more, very happy to be proved wrong.
The UK used to tolerate some sink on launch, with some sophisticated analysis on fly out profiles backing up that judgement. One of the interesting challenges of cat and trap will be taking USN led safety analyses and getting them through the new MAA regime. In my view, another reason why the ODH and DDH for carrier operation will have to be the FAA - you just can't split the ship/aircraft factors out here.
Best Regards as ever
Engines
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
I'll guess that there will be an ideal WOD for F-35C and CVF which will be within easy reach but what that is I have no idea. This PDF indicates that the recommended WOD is best rather than a higher value (counter intuitive?).
EFFECT OF WIND OVER DECK CONDITIONS ON AIRCRAFT APPROACH SPEEDS FOR CARRIER LANDINGS 1991
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...f&AD=ADA239511 (1.2Mb)
EFFECT OF WIND OVER DECK CONDITIONS ON AIRCRAFT APPROACH SPEEDS FOR CARRIER LANDINGS 1991
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...f&AD=ADA239511 (1.2Mb)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FB11
So why did the UK waste millions of ££ on SRVL if the VLBB was OK?
Most of the SRVL contracts were paid for by the USN on behalf of the RN!
As for the WOD issue... sigh.
The spec for EMALS was to launch both F/A-18s and F-35Cs with ZERO WOD. Yes, this does likely mean that the track is longer, but that's the price you pay for this spec.
The AAG, which is to replace the Mk7 in all current USN carriers as well as be in new construction, is also designed for greater operating margins.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It looks like you guys are gonna have ample time to decide what to do, the F35 production is shifting ever more backwards;
NHK WORLD English
Also a a top Pentagon official said on Friday, noting that software failures could "bring us to our knees."
Production shift to a later date is now sold as being a good thing according to
Air Force Major General John Thompson.
Pentagon focused on resolving F-35 software issues | Reuters
All is well in JSF land it seems.
NHK WORLD English
The latest report by the US Defense Department says that full-rate production of F-35 fighter jets will not start until 2019, 2 years later than planned.
The production delay may have an impact on Japan's plan to purchase the fighter jets.
The production delay may have an impact on Japan's plan to purchase the fighter jets.
Production shift to a later date is now sold as being a good thing according to
Air Force Major General John Thompson.
Pentagon focused on resolving F-35 software issues | Reuters
All is well in JSF land it seems.
Thanks, LJ - I have to confess that my knowledge of nautical terminology gets wobbly beyond "port", "starboard", "Arrrrr, ye lubberly dogs!" and "golden rivet".
Back to subject: The latest SAR notes that the F-35C max approach speed at required carrier landing weight was supposed to be 140 knots, but that it is now estimated at 144.6 knots with 15 kt WOD.
Back to subject: The latest SAR notes that the F-35C max approach speed at required carrier landing weight was supposed to be 140 knots, but that it is now estimated at 144.6 knots with 15 kt WOD.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
From an earlier page on this thread:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...k-f35b-13.html
Download a 0.4Mb PDF here: Scorecard: A Case study of the Joint Strike Fighter Program by Geoffrey P. Bowman, LCDR, USN — 2008 April
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-14791.html
The KPPs have been given more detail: "
"...The [US] Navy has added approach speed as a service specific key performance parameter. The threshold for approach speed is 145 knots with 15 knots of wind over the deck. This must be possible at Required Carrier Landing Weight (RCLW). The RCLW is the sum of the aircraft operating weight, the minimum required bringback, and enough fuel for two instrument approaches & a 100nm BINGO profile to arrive at a divert airfield with 1000 pounds of fuel. The minimum required bringback is two 2000 pound air-to-ground weapons & two AIM-120s. The Navy further requires that the CV JSF be capable of carrier recovery with internal & external stores; the external stations must have 1000 pound capability on the outboard stations & maximum station carriage weight on the inboard.”
All KPPs I have seen have given 'below 145 Knots' as the Maximum Carrier Approach speed (under above conditions I gather).
A 2007 US Navy League Brief Graphic KPP at 145 Knots
+ latest LM Fast Facts 13 March 2012 from:
http://f-35.ca/wp-content/uploads/20...ch-13-2012.pdf
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...k-f35b-13.html
Download a 0.4Mb PDF here: Scorecard: A Case study of the Joint Strike Fighter Program by Geoffrey P. Bowman, LCDR, USN — 2008 April
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-14791.html
The KPPs have been given more detail: "
"...The [US] Navy has added approach speed as a service specific key performance parameter. The threshold for approach speed is 145 knots with 15 knots of wind over the deck. This must be possible at Required Carrier Landing Weight (RCLW). The RCLW is the sum of the aircraft operating weight, the minimum required bringback, and enough fuel for two instrument approaches & a 100nm BINGO profile to arrive at a divert airfield with 1000 pounds of fuel. The minimum required bringback is two 2000 pound air-to-ground weapons & two AIM-120s. The Navy further requires that the CV JSF be capable of carrier recovery with internal & external stores; the external stations must have 1000 pound capability on the outboard stations & maximum station carriage weight on the inboard.”
All KPPs I have seen have given 'below 145 Knots' as the Maximum Carrier Approach speed (under above conditions I gather).
A 2007 US Navy League Brief Graphic KPP at 145 Knots
+ latest LM Fast Facts 13 March 2012 from:
http://f-35.ca/wp-content/uploads/20...ch-13-2012.pdf
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 2nd Apr 2012 at 14:11.