No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?

[Milo Minderbinder]

"Yeovilton of course is 7500 lovely feet of Concrete on 27 and concrete on 22 as well"
Does Yeovilton still have the dummy ships deck / ski ramp?

[Easy Street]

Since Lossie was the original selection for F35B I would say that a concrete runway surface is unlikely to be on the "essential" list!

All current or ex-Tornado bases (Marham, Lossie, Coningsby, Leuchars, Leeming) have about 700ft of concrete at each runway end because of the amount of fuel vented during engine run-up - would this be enough to do RVL training in without needing to resurface the whole runway?

[Courtney Mil]

Originally Posted by glojo

I feel your pain, even Khandhar has a Burger King, Pizza Hut, Subway sandwich shop, three cafes, lots of shops, Creamery, sunglasses outlet etc etc etc. It's a hard life you folks have to endure

Perfect answer, Sir.

[Heathrow Harry]

has anyone thought of the noise issue ...........

[WhiteOvies]

Milo,
CVS Dummy Deck is at RNAS Culdrose as part of the RN School of Flight Deck Operations. The ramp at Yeovilton was taken out some time ago but the company that built the ramp at Pax River are from Stockport so it should be straightforward to build another one wherever it's needed.

ZM135 arrives at Eglin:

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/articles/-51191--.html#ixzz21XnwWDBv

[Engines]

Gents,

It's interesting to see how many people automatically accept that F-35 RVLs and asphalt can't go together.

The F-35 propulsion system has been tested against a variety of surfaces, and there are definite issues with vertical landings (or vertical take offs) on asphalt. However, I'd place a reasonable bet that RVLs (or STOs) would not present a problem. The aircraft is moving forward at good lick, and the aft nozzle is not pointing directly at the ground for any serious period of time.

I very much agree that fast jet basing decisions have become intensely political - both 'grown up' politics (local economy, MPs, etc) and the RAF's own agenda to keep stations open. I've always been surprised how little scrutiny their 'basing rules', which limit numbers of aircraft at bases to amazingly low levels, have received. In truth, they are driven by a desire to maintain station command jobs and higher.

Best Regards as ever

Engines

[orca]

I was actually part of a basing team for F-35B once. I think I got the job because my 'one up' realised I was a little bored.

I remember the meetings being led by a RAF Sqn Ldr...a GR4 back seater I think who had clearly put a simply vast amount of work into getting the jet to Lossie.

There were options upon options and a huge amount of documentation supporting them.

I assume all this work has been torn up for bog roll?

[LowObservable]

Engines,

Coupla issues.

One is that the facts you present (that I don't dispute) are nonconsonant with the statements of LockMart and the US Marketing Corps that the '35B landing footprint is no different from that of the Harrier.

The other is that RVL on land is not really a big deal. Why so? Because I can't operate out of less than 3000 feet because I need Herks.

But then the problem is that the only thing that powered-lift brings to the party, with the F-35B versus (say) an A-10 or a Gripen, is the ability to land on non-arrest decks...

I know there's arguments about what a Gripen can do out of 800 m, but I would bet it can haul 3000 pounds of der Bangenstoff 400-some miles.

[Engines]

LO,

Happy to respond.

Don't know who the US Marketing Corps are, unless you mean the USMC. The footprint of the F-35B is obviously different from the Harrier - it's a two poster not a four poster lift system. However, in terms of noise and jet blast (both items that I was intimately involved in) the F-35B does not present any significantly worse issues than the Harrier. There's more blast, but not much, and more noise. The issues with the latter are driven as much by new health and safety regulations as the level of noise itself.

The Harrier was never very good on asphalt, and I can attest to the fact that even moderate application of throttle with nozzles down below 50 degrees could cause problems- we damaged a runway at Bermuda recovering a downbird that way.

RVL on land is a big deal for the USMC because of their concept of ops for the jet. You need Herks, they don't. In my view, (I know not yours) RVL and STO are two attributes of a powered lift aircraft that can be used for military effect, if required. Ops in the Stan were an example of the benefits of being able to use a short runway.

Comparing A-10 and Gripen is really apples and pears. Basic physics tell you that if you don't have powered lift and want to get off a short strip, you need either very big wings, or big wings with fancy lift devices, plus lots and lots of thrust. Fast jet combat aircraft like Gripen, loaded up to anywhere near the max, need lots of runway. Loaded up to lots less, they need less. A-10 has more wing so needs less runway. I don't have the sums to hand for either, but in the end it's a pure numbers game. How short are your runways, how much do you want to get into the air?

Of course, if you are buying the jets to go to ships (as the Uk is doing) this is all a non-argument. STOVL gets you to sea without cats and traps, which the UK has said it can't afford. Until someone invents the anti-gravity paint, powered lift it is.

Best Regards as ever

Engines

[ORAC]

Basic physics tell you that if you don't have powered lift and want to get off a short strip, you need either very big wings, or big wings with fancy lift devices, plus lots and lots of thrust.

STOVL gets you to sea without cats and traps

[Heathrow Harry]

wasn't one of the issues with the P1154 the (perceived) problem of support on land?

That's why they were looking at the AW 690 or the (unbelievable) P.17D with 70 ( yes seventy) RB108 engines

[LowObservable]

Engines,

Thanks! But if the USMC doesn't intend to use Herks for support (1) why are they always talking about 3000 foot runways and (2) what do they intend to use?

At least one of their major austere-base ops (I think it was OIF) was supported by a fleet of 8000 gal semi-trailer tankers, but I don't see that as a brilliant solution today, with hybrid warfare and all that. And a CH-53K can carry two F-35B-loads of fuel 110 miles...

[Squirrel 41]

LO / Engines

I remain at a loss to explain the USMC Conops in any credible way. As far as I can see, F-35B Stealthy Supersonic STOVL is required against:

- Double digit equipped IADS
- Direct support ashore of a MEU/MAGTAF
- Resupply by V-22 / CH-53K
- Can't be bothered to send a CVN

Not sure which scenarios this come under (other than "wildly improbable").

Can anyone enlighten me?

S41

[LowObservable]

S 41,

Oddly enough, I asked exactly the same question of the Commandant of the USMC a few months ago. I also pointed out that the F-35B-only force had no electronic attack or AEW support.

He closed to about three feet distance and, very firmly, gave me the standard pitch on the wonders of F-35B, but did not answer the question.

[High_Expect]

Carrier Strike..... hmmm - not all that

Dear Sea Lords

What is the combat range of the F-35B or C for that matter?

Carrier strike turns out isn't the be all and end all after all - who'd have thought!!!

http://m.gizmodo.com/5928295/chinas-df+21d-missile-is-a-one+shot-aircraft-carrier-killer?utm_source=Gizmodo+Newsletter&utm_campaign=2944e4f756-UA-142218-3&utm_medium=email

[Squirrel 41]

LO,

Oddly enough, I asked exactly the same question of the Commandant of the USMC a few months ago. I also pointed out that the F-35B-only force had no electronic attack or AEW support.

He closed to about three feet distance and, very firmly, gave me the standard pitch on the wonders of F-35B, but did not answer the question.

Sounds like M-I-D territory, that...!

However, since the bloke can't answer that question (sensibly, as there is no good answer) this is why I'm more than a little concerned that Dave-B is an easy and profitable chop in January, esp. if sequestration comes through. The USMC can always fly Dave-C off the CVN (as they do now with Hornet) and hey presto, you've saved a bazillion dollars with very little impact on the force package. I've often thought that the USMC decision to have some Dave-Cs earlier in the year was the harbinger of such a switch.

And if we have that, then I guess we'll have to convert the QEs to cats 'n' traps after all... they'd be rather silly LPHs...

S41

[JSFfan]

Come on guys, you can't make-up your own facts, google f-35 EA

"Delivery of the first flight-representative electronic warfare system for F-35 maintains our track record of being on time, on cost, and under weight after 66 months of F-35 system design and development," said Dan Gobel, Joint Strike Fighter electronic warfare vice president for BAE Systems."

the USMC will also have an off-board jammer pod, there is talk of putting it on the f-35, but I question whether it's a good idea to have it emitting as an easily detected jammer
"...Another shift in communications jamming is taking place in the U.S. Marine Corps. Late last month the service was on the verge of deploying its ALQ-231(V)1 Intrepid Tiger II electronic attack pod, an in-house development to equip Harriers with a communications-jamming capability. The technology is supposed to be an even more effective communications jammer than the USQ-113 operational on the service's EA-6B.
Further developments are already underway, and upgrades to the current system will incorporate an electronic surveillance capability. Furthermore, Intrepid Tiger II Version 2 will be a two-pod configuration that will be carried on the RQ-9 Shadow UAV. The system will have 100% of the same software and 85% of the same hardware as the Harrier model, to reduce cost.

So far, the price tag for eight pods has been around $8 million. The Marines also have adopted an unusual development approach, acting as an integrator and working on an open-systems design where hardware components can easily be replaced when more capable or reliable ones become available. The work has been done at the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Div., Point Mugu, Calif.

Integration on the F-35 is also being considered. Intrepid Tiger II and its follow-ons should give the Marines long-term electronic attack capabilities even after the EA-6B is retired in 2019...."

The pod has several modes. In one, the pilot can operate a set program but—more critical—in networked mode, troops on the ground can selectively jam particular bands. Unlike some of the broadband jamming now taking place, Intrepid Tiger II is to provide a precision electronic strike capability, says Lt. Col. Jason Schuette, head of the EW branch at the Marine Corps' Combat Development and Integration Command.

[orca]

High Expect,

Sorry I don't understand...someone has a weapon that'll sink a carrier. So what? There have been submarine launched torpedos around for a while that are probably up to the job.

There are also systems called SAMs. But we buy aeroplanes.

There are rifles and knives, but we train infantrymen.

There are far more weapons capable of knocking out airfields...but we're fine with that idea.

Anyway, you get the gist.

If your point is that against that adversary or that technology one had better have a cunning anti-satellite plan up your sleeve, then I concur. But that could be as simple as TLAM-ing the control shack...or sailing under a cloud. If your point is 'someone has found a way to sink a carrier so let's hang up our boots'...we disagree.

[Heathrow Harry]

when you only have multi-billion dollar carriers you start to worry about putting them in harms way - eventually they become so valuable they are so far back they can't do what they were designed for

The original purpose (way back in the late 50's) of the modern US carrier group was to be able to launch N-bomb equipped strikes against the evil empire - since then they have morphed into general force enhancement, showing the flag etc

The danger is of course that when they are involved in a hot war we discover that anyone can sink one - then we're in the position the USN & RN were in in 1941-42 when aircraft made battleships redundant - up s*** creek

[hulahoop7]

Of course the PLAN are so concerned about this game changing capability that they have spent decades desperately attempting to buy, build, deploy a carrier.