No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?
Looks megacool: Where do I start? It's supposed to be a fast jet, not a helicopter - helicopters hovering and landing look cool, jets doing it do not. Going really fast looks cool, sitting ove and airfield at a display and bowing to the nearby sewage farm does not. Watching a25 tons of hurtling metal and thrust being caught by a trap and stopping on a carrier deck looks megacool - flopping onto the same deck in an undignified manner does not.Partly in jest, partly...
FB
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A power station thats being built on the cheap.....Coverteam have just been caught using unlicensed computer software Nothing major, but probably embarrassing
Power conversion firm rapped for unlicensed software - 26 Mar 2012 - CRN UK News
Power conversion firm rapped for unlicensed software - 26 Mar 2012 - CRN UK News
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why won't anyone stop the madness?
Possibly because the plan to fund the C variant and catapults used the money required to replace GR4. Go for STOVL and GR4 replacement might come back to life. But what if STOVL fails - making the boats useless? JCA funding then might become available as well.
Or maybe - on the other side of the coin, there are RN officers who want the boats no matter what, and are scared that costs and risks are jeopardising them. And maybe 'no matter what' includes going for the B.
But to believe that you would have to believe that one or more single services (or individuals within them) think capability is sub-servient to its own/ their own interests.
Or have I also taken one too many cynicism pills?
Possibly because the plan to fund the C variant and catapults used the money required to replace GR4. Go for STOVL and GR4 replacement might come back to life. But what if STOVL fails - making the boats useless? JCA funding then might become available as well.
Or maybe - on the other side of the coin, there are RN officers who want the boats no matter what, and are scared that costs and risks are jeopardising them. And maybe 'no matter what' includes going for the B.
But to believe that you would have to believe that one or more single services (or individuals within them) think capability is sub-servient to its own/ their own interests.
Or have I also taken one too many cynicism pills?
Last edited by orca; 27th Mar 2012 at 03:08.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not_a_boffin,
Good morning to you.
The following is a quick flowchart of the EMALS system.
Ship Power à Energy Storage (Alternator) à Power Conversion/ conditioning (Cycloconverter) à Launch Rail’s Linear Motor
The energy-storage system uses spinning rotors of a disk alternator as a flywheel to kinetically store energy it draws from the ship’s power system.
Each of the four alternators will store more than 100 MJ, spinning at about 6400 rpm. Ship electric power drives the rotors to their target rpm.
When launching an aircraft the power-correction subsystem uses the same coils that drive the rotor to draw off their power as the rotor shifts from its motor mode to its alternator mode. Each rotor outputs approximately 81.6 MW at maximum speed. Even at an anticipated efficiency of about 90%, there is about 127 kW of heat generated that the system needs to remove from the alternator every 45 seconds, and this is done via several heat-transfer subsystems.
The average power required by EMALS is 6.35 MVA
In the 3 seconds it takes to launch an aircraft, the amount of power used could power 12,000 homes
The fact that you are cycling through taking power from a supply always causes shock loading/ unloading. To launch the two F-18s that the UK will eventually be able to afford ( J ) is not too bad compared to a US Carrier launching multiple aircraft at a fast rate.
As long as the generator, bus bars and switchgear are able to take this sustained loading and unloading then no problems.
Good morning to you.
The following is a quick flowchart of the EMALS system.
Ship Power à Energy Storage (Alternator) à Power Conversion/ conditioning (Cycloconverter) à Launch Rail’s Linear Motor
The energy-storage system uses spinning rotors of a disk alternator as a flywheel to kinetically store energy it draws from the ship’s power system.
Each of the four alternators will store more than 100 MJ, spinning at about 6400 rpm. Ship electric power drives the rotors to their target rpm.
When launching an aircraft the power-correction subsystem uses the same coils that drive the rotor to draw off their power as the rotor shifts from its motor mode to its alternator mode. Each rotor outputs approximately 81.6 MW at maximum speed. Even at an anticipated efficiency of about 90%, there is about 127 kW of heat generated that the system needs to remove from the alternator every 45 seconds, and this is done via several heat-transfer subsystems.
The average power required by EMALS is 6.35 MVA
In the 3 seconds it takes to launch an aircraft, the amount of power used could power 12,000 homes
The fact that you are cycling through taking power from a supply always causes shock loading/ unloading. To launch the two F-18s that the UK will eventually be able to afford ( J ) is not too bad compared to a US Carrier launching multiple aircraft at a fast rate.
As long as the generator, bus bars and switchgear are able to take this sustained loading and unloading then no problems.
Thanks Hval
I think the uncertainty rests on what exactly the Prime Power Interface does (see below),
Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS)
which I think belongs between the ships main dist grid and the energy storage flywheels.
I think the uncertainty rests on what exactly the Prime Power Interface does (see below),
Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS)
which I think belongs between the ships main dist grid and the energy storage flywheels.
I remember a guy called Eric Laithwaite explaining linear electric motors on Tomorrow's World half a lifetime ago - they built a test track near Earith on the Cambridgeshire fens. I don't tink any working ie revenue earning, trains were set up using the system. I have an uneasy system that this will work eventually, but, as they say, like it says on the tin!
EMALS' distant ancestor, indeed.
I saw a small model running at the Hovershow at Gosport in 1966. Not to mention the SRN.3 - very impressive to a kid of my age.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The EMALS appears to be an interesting challenge but getting steam to operate the catapults was no walk in the park when it came to keeping the boiler safety valves in their correct position and at the same time not tripping all the steam powered equipment through a sudden drop in pressure.
As far as I am aware it is the Americans that are doing the development of this system and they definitely need it working much sooner than us and they do not appear to be unduly worried? (question)
Next bunch of questions
is it right the EMALS motor generator each weigh in at just over over 80,000 pounds, and are they 13.5 feet long, plus almost 11 feet wide and possibly 7 feet tall.
My reading tells me the Gerald Ford Class requires 12 of these so would that suggest we would need 6? Folks here are far better informed and I am just curious regarding this new technology which is clearly very 21st century.
Like others here I have read the criticisms regarding costing to upgrade our carriers to a cat and trap configuration, we read numbers in the £2bn range but on American sites that are critical of this launch system, they claim it would cost hundreds of million of dollars to convert the Ford Class from EMALS to steam catapults. Perhaps we should let them carry out our work or at least the costings! (tongue in cheek observation) Millions to do the plumbing for all those steam catapults, but for what we are told is all but a plug and play option it is going to cost billions of pounds (not dollars)
These are all questions and none are in any way statements
As far as I am aware it is the Americans that are doing the development of this system and they definitely need it working much sooner than us and they do not appear to be unduly worried? (question)
Next bunch of questions
is it right the EMALS motor generator each weigh in at just over over 80,000 pounds, and are they 13.5 feet long, plus almost 11 feet wide and possibly 7 feet tall.
My reading tells me the Gerald Ford Class requires 12 of these so would that suggest we would need 6? Folks here are far better informed and I am just curious regarding this new technology which is clearly very 21st century.
Like others here I have read the criticisms regarding costing to upgrade our carriers to a cat and trap configuration, we read numbers in the £2bn range but on American sites that are critical of this launch system, they claim it would cost hundreds of million of dollars to convert the Ford Class from EMALS to steam catapults. Perhaps we should let them carry out our work or at least the costings! (tongue in cheek observation) Millions to do the plumbing for all those steam catapults, but for what we are told is all but a plug and play option it is going to cost billions of pounds (not dollars)
These are all questions and none are in any way statements
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Hval - 12000 homes. How many offshore wind turbines would be needed?
Maybe tow a couple of wind turbines for extra power?
Maybe tow a couple of wind turbines for extra power?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couple of points to throw into the -B vs -C debate in an attempt to add some balance:
The UK don't have a requirement or any intention, as far as I know, to buy 2000lb JDAMs. The only bomb we're talking about putting in the bays is the mighty Paveway IV, which fits comfortably in both the -B and the -C. Granted, the bomb will have more room to wiggle its fins in a -C, but that doesn't necessarily mean the -C is 'more capable' than a -B. If both aircraft go to war with the same load out of PWIV and with identical avionics, the only differentiator from the UK's standpoint really is the range.
People often mention the STOVL weight penalty i.e. having to cart around a lift fan etc. Take a look at the empty weights of the variants anywhere online (e.g. Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and you may notice that the weight penalty for a CATOBAR aircraft is actually higher than that for a STOVL. So, the empty weight of a -C is higher than a -B, it is a bigger aircraft so must have more zero lift drag, and it humps around more fuel. But it has the same engine & thrust. Leaving aside requirements documents and the like, how does aircraft handling normally vary when aircraft get bigger and heavier but have the same thrust?
Through-life costs are anyone's guess. The STOVL lift system doesn't come cheap, but because STOVL is so ridiculously easy in the F-35B you really won't need to practise it very much at all. But landing F-18s on ships takes oodles of practice and the F-35C approach speed is higher than a Super Bug and the skill needed is not fundamentally different. So the training burden, and associated fatigue life & maintenance burden of the -C won't be free. We just won't know until 20 years from now, but I wouldn't bet my mortgage either way at the moment. For a decade the smart people doing all their TEPIDOIL analysis figured the -B was cheaper through life. Did they cook the books for 10 years and we had a moment of clarity at SDSR? Or did they get it right over the last decade and did someone fiddle the numbers on one occasion?
Finally, that range number... Is there a genuine specific requirement for our F-35s to go 600nm instead of 450nm? For the last couple of decades the GR1/GR4 brothers have been the untouchable long-range deep strikers of the RAF. Can one of the experts out there tell me what the actual realistic combat radius (not the Top Trumps answer) of a GR1 was in its design/intended first-day-of-the-war loadout e.g. with the JP233s on, or a stick of 8x1000lb KFFs? Just curious, because 450nm sounds like a long way to an old Harrier mate and a pretty reasonable capability.
Personally I've always wondered why we never went for the mixed fleet of -Bs and -As option like the Italians.
Regards all,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
The UK don't have a requirement or any intention, as far as I know, to buy 2000lb JDAMs. The only bomb we're talking about putting in the bays is the mighty Paveway IV, which fits comfortably in both the -B and the -C. Granted, the bomb will have more room to wiggle its fins in a -C, but that doesn't necessarily mean the -C is 'more capable' than a -B. If both aircraft go to war with the same load out of PWIV and with identical avionics, the only differentiator from the UK's standpoint really is the range.
People often mention the STOVL weight penalty i.e. having to cart around a lift fan etc. Take a look at the empty weights of the variants anywhere online (e.g. Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and you may notice that the weight penalty for a CATOBAR aircraft is actually higher than that for a STOVL. So, the empty weight of a -C is higher than a -B, it is a bigger aircraft so must have more zero lift drag, and it humps around more fuel. But it has the same engine & thrust. Leaving aside requirements documents and the like, how does aircraft handling normally vary when aircraft get bigger and heavier but have the same thrust?
Through-life costs are anyone's guess. The STOVL lift system doesn't come cheap, but because STOVL is so ridiculously easy in the F-35B you really won't need to practise it very much at all. But landing F-18s on ships takes oodles of practice and the F-35C approach speed is higher than a Super Bug and the skill needed is not fundamentally different. So the training burden, and associated fatigue life & maintenance burden of the -C won't be free. We just won't know until 20 years from now, but I wouldn't bet my mortgage either way at the moment. For a decade the smart people doing all their TEPIDOIL analysis figured the -B was cheaper through life. Did they cook the books for 10 years and we had a moment of clarity at SDSR? Or did they get it right over the last decade and did someone fiddle the numbers on one occasion?
Finally, that range number... Is there a genuine specific requirement for our F-35s to go 600nm instead of 450nm? For the last couple of decades the GR1/GR4 brothers have been the untouchable long-range deep strikers of the RAF. Can one of the experts out there tell me what the actual realistic combat radius (not the Top Trumps answer) of a GR1 was in its design/intended first-day-of-the-war loadout e.g. with the JP233s on, or a stick of 8x1000lb KFFs? Just curious, because 450nm sounds like a long way to an old Harrier mate and a pretty reasonable capability.
Personally I've always wondered why we never went for the mixed fleet of -Bs and -As option like the Italians.
Regards all,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So to summarise SSSETOWTF - the requirements doc doesn't say we want to carry bigger weapons and go further so they are pointless capabilities??
I would suggest the doc was written and the F-35B designed so they fitted each other. Ask any (non-harrier) pilot if he would like the ability to carry bigger weapons if needed and go significantly further (or presumably loiter longer) and I think that he would prefer that option.
Also as just this once said, there's little point in breaking through a sophisticated IADS only to discover that those damn uncooperative bad guys buried their important kit in tgts that a 500lb bomb can't get to.
Personally I'm going with Orca's point about single-service agendas and SSSETOWTF's point about the F-35B being very ease to land - the change is clearly another RAF plot to get rid of the FJ element of the FAA.
What's the plan with all those F-18 exchanges now? Straight home, I guess, the cost couldn't possibly be justified in the current climate?!?
I would suggest the doc was written and the F-35B designed so they fitted each other. Ask any (non-harrier) pilot if he would like the ability to carry bigger weapons if needed and go significantly further (or presumably loiter longer) and I think that he would prefer that option.
Also as just this once said, there's little point in breaking through a sophisticated IADS only to discover that those damn uncooperative bad guys buried their important kit in tgts that a 500lb bomb can't get to.
Personally I'm going with Orca's point about single-service agendas and SSSETOWTF's point about the F-35B being very ease to land - the change is clearly another RAF plot to get rid of the FJ element of the FAA.
What's the plan with all those F-18 exchanges now? Straight home, I guess, the cost couldn't possibly be justified in the current climate?!?
SSSETOWTF,
I see your enthusiasm for VTOL, STOVL, etc, and I do not deny that it served us well. But just consider this. If we can (I know it's an IF) have the jets with more payload, fuel, range, etc, with Cats and Traps, then why would we go for the -B, just because it can be done and because it worked in the past in the abscence of a cat and trap carrier.
Please don't think I'm being clever, rude or difficult here (knowing that there are a number of threads discussing such issues), but would we have been better off in the Falklands with a squadron of Buccs and and one of F4s?
I also know the argument is very different with F35/QE. But there is a trade off with the the -B. I still think we need more reasons to go for the compromise. 600 v 450 miles? I know which I would prefer. Draw some lines fom the Gulf to some points in, say, Iran. Just as a topical example.
Just thinking out loud.
I see your enthusiasm for VTOL, STOVL, etc, and I do not deny that it served us well. But just consider this. If we can (I know it's an IF) have the jets with more payload, fuel, range, etc, with Cats and Traps, then why would we go for the -B, just because it can be done and because it worked in the past in the abscence of a cat and trap carrier.
Please don't think I'm being clever, rude or difficult here (knowing that there are a number of threads discussing such issues), but would we have been better off in the Falklands with a squadron of Buccs and and one of F4s?
I also know the argument is very different with F35/QE. But there is a trade off with the the -B. I still think we need more reasons to go for the compromise. 600 v 450 miles? I know which I would prefer. Draw some lines fom the Gulf to some points in, say, Iran. Just as a topical example.
Just thinking out loud.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the point SSSETOWTF is making is the Paveway 3 is not being integrated in the internal bay of the F35 of any variant so unless the UK is buying the 2000lb Jdam then it doesnt matter if we buy the B or C they will both carry it on the inboard wing station.
Internal range is always useful however.
Internal range is always useful however.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
600nm v 450nm looks to me like a 33% performance margin on one of the key measures for what we now appear to be calling CEPP ("Carrier Enabled Power Projection" or somesuch management yukspeak).
And Mr Boffin's points about the space required for Dave-B to do its funky RVLs are well taken (let alone at night with punk weather - ugh...!)
Personally, I'm also not convinced that the when push comes to shove on the US defense budget in an era of sequestation and deficit reduction whether Dave-B will actually survive anyway. After all, the USMC have just got 72 more Harriers.... cheep, too!
S41
And Mr Boffin's points about the space required for Dave-B to do its funky RVLs are well taken (let alone at night with punk weather - ugh...!)
Personally, I'm also not convinced that the when push comes to shove on the US defense budget in an era of sequestation and deficit reduction whether Dave-B will actually survive anyway. After all, the USMC have just got 72 more Harriers.... cheep, too!
S41
Mr Very Long Acronym...
Some of your points have been addressed. May I add some observations?
PW-IV is the initial standard, indeed - but then, as long as the UK was getting the B, that or a 1K JDAM was all you could get in there. In a 30-year service life, all sorts of new requirements will emerge, along with new weapons. Other things being equal (and assuming that the entire JSF operation does not crater) the developers of those weapons will be looking harder at 1500-2000 A and C models than at 500 Bs.
Yes, the C is heavy (with a 5500 pound OEW Catobar penalty versus the A... check the difference between Rafale variants
) but it does have a lot more fuel and more wingspan, which should improve L/D in some regimes. Transonic drag will be... well, a drag. Neither the B nor the C is going to be a Typhoon or a Su-35.
"Through-life costs are anyone's guess."
After ten years and $30-plus billion they
ing well shouldn't be...
The offsetting point of fewer training cycles and costs is important.
But... Again, we're looking at a 30-year lifetime. We already know how to make carrier recovery automatic. Fundamentally, the reason STOVL is so easy is because the jet is a UAV on landing. The pilot has no physical link to the effectors at all and might as well be sitting on the ground with a virtual-reality headset on.
In this respect, the difference between STOVL and Catobar is that everyone accepts that you could never hand-fly a B in powered-lift, and that the only way to do it is to place the pilot in a supervisory/command role.
Can we do autoland with Catobar? Of course, and it's being done in the course of UCAV work. Sooner or later economics will trump manliness and that is how it will be done all the time, and if the Chinese decide that's how they'll do it from Day 1, you read it here first and I will not be surprised. Once your jet is FBW and Fadec, you have the pieces in place.
Range? It's not just range, it's persistence, it's flexibility. See this:
Range, Persistence, Stealth and Networking: The Case for a Carrier-Based Unmanned Combat Air System | CSBA
Robert Work? Hmm, wonder where he went?
Some of your points have been addressed. May I add some observations?
PW-IV is the initial standard, indeed - but then, as long as the UK was getting the B, that or a 1K JDAM was all you could get in there. In a 30-year service life, all sorts of new requirements will emerge, along with new weapons. Other things being equal (and assuming that the entire JSF operation does not crater) the developers of those weapons will be looking harder at 1500-2000 A and C models than at 500 Bs.
Yes, the C is heavy (with a 5500 pound OEW Catobar penalty versus the A... check the difference between Rafale variants
) but it does have a lot more fuel and more wingspan, which should improve L/D in some regimes. Transonic drag will be... well, a drag. Neither the B nor the C is going to be a Typhoon or a Su-35. "Through-life costs are anyone's guess."
After ten years and $30-plus billion they
ing well shouldn't be...The offsetting point of fewer training cycles and costs is important.
But... Again, we're looking at a 30-year lifetime. We already know how to make carrier recovery automatic. Fundamentally, the reason STOVL is so easy is because the jet is a UAV on landing. The pilot has no physical link to the effectors at all and might as well be sitting on the ground with a virtual-reality headset on.
In this respect, the difference between STOVL and Catobar is that everyone accepts that you could never hand-fly a B in powered-lift, and that the only way to do it is to place the pilot in a supervisory/command role.
Can we do autoland with Catobar? Of course, and it's being done in the course of UCAV work. Sooner or later economics will trump manliness and that is how it will be done all the time, and if the Chinese decide that's how they'll do it from Day 1, you read it here first and I will not be surprised. Once your jet is FBW and Fadec, you have the pieces in place.
Range? It's not just range, it's persistence, it's flexibility. See this:
Range, Persistence, Stealth and Networking: The Case for a Carrier-Based Unmanned Combat Air System | CSBA
Robert Work? Hmm, wonder where he went?
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aside from the distance from which a naval fighter can strike it's targets, I would have thought that a pilot returning to the carrier would appreciate as much fuel as possible for the recovery. At the same time the ability to 'park' the carrier further away from the target must make any retaliatory counter more problematic for the bad guys, or at least permit the carrier or its pickets and AEW more time to see the bad news coming and react to it? With F35C you have more options.
The big risk with the B, as others have suggested, is it is the most vulnerable to cancellation, which would leave us absolutely nowhere to go if we build PoW without CATOBAR capability. While cat and trap adds capital cost, and perhaps through life cost too, it does as least leave options should the B get chopped. If the UK eventually gets it's finances into better shape, we could even bring QE into service later with F35B. Either way, I still think the decision on F35B or C (or A for that matter, should it ever be considered) is best held off until the Americans have made their minds up about it, and cost, performance and time-lines are much better understood. This might be 2020 or later, so PoW needs to be CATOBAR equipped now to preserve alternatives, - SHornet or Rafale. The selected interim fighter will do us until F35 is ready to be phased in. And there's the rub, increasing costs now is not what the MoD wants to hear.
The big risk with the B, as others have suggested, is it is the most vulnerable to cancellation, which would leave us absolutely nowhere to go if we build PoW without CATOBAR capability. While cat and trap adds capital cost, and perhaps through life cost too, it does as least leave options should the B get chopped. If the UK eventually gets it's finances into better shape, we could even bring QE into service later with F35B. Either way, I still think the decision on F35B or C (or A for that matter, should it ever be considered) is best held off until the Americans have made their minds up about it, and cost, performance and time-lines are much better understood. This might be 2020 or later, so PoW needs to be CATOBAR equipped now to preserve alternatives, - SHornet or Rafale. The selected interim fighter will do us until F35 is ready to be phased in. And there's the rub, increasing costs now is not what the MoD wants to hear.
Last edited by Lowe Flieger; 28th Mar 2012 at 13:09. Reason: typo
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I correct in assuming the owner of this aircraft will be the RAF and if so would they welcome with open arms the F-35B and what aircraft type would be sacrificed?
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can we do autoland with Catobar? Of course, and it's being done in the course of UCAV work
Am I correct in assuming the owner of this aircraft will be the RAF and if so would they welcome with open arms the F-35B and what aircraft type would be sacrificed?
What's the plan with all those F-18 exchanges now? Straight home, I guess, the cost couldn't possibly be justified in the current climate?!?