F35 C first deck landing
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
Grama &/or spelin' has never been my forte but NICE catch 'Mechta'. One can never not ever study movies or photos enough. In the one/eighth slow motion video below we can see the No.2 wire being tickled as noted by 'Mechta' but as others suggest: so wot. What that is likely to mean is that the aircraft was a tad below glideslope at that point. There are four 'cross deck pedants' (yep it should be pendants but my spellin' you know) on NIMITZ with no.3 being the target wire as per SOP. Over the life of the F-35C there will be all kinds of arrests onboard CVNs with some not being as benign as those two so far.
Now there is a second slo SLO mo video which has been hobbled again.
Now there is a second slo SLO mo video which has been hobbled again.
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 4th Nov 2014 at 18:45.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this thread about 'Aircraft designed to land on carrier actually manages to do so?'
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
NavAir Thumbnail photo of the first arrest by CF-03 (grey tail) red tail is CF-05, the second aircraft to arrest) - zoom view to follow:
http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploa...0546_007_1.jpg
From NavAir story: http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm...sStory&id=5766
LARGE PIC: http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploa...0546_007_1.jpg
http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploa...0546_007_1.jpg
From NavAir story: http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm...sStory&id=5766
LARGE PIC: http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploa...0546_007_1.jpg
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 4th Nov 2014 at 19:43. Reason: photos URLs etc
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
The woid is more deck landings today so catapulting is ongoing? Meanwhile:
BIG PIC: http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploa...0547__17_1.jpg
BIG PIC: http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploa...0547__17_1.jpg
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
This is why it was really appealing to be in the RAN FAA all those years ago going down the 100 or 110 foot (upgraded) catapult on HMAS Melbourne. Six Gs (OK maybe 5 Gs) in under two seconds (maybe one) was the claim, depended on tropics and windspeed.
There are a couple of hundred pages to wade through on "the other F-35 thread". There are loads of technical issues - steam generation, lack of funding for EMALS, cost of modification and political embarrassment to name but four. More to point, the UK ain't going to switch horses again and try to go back to the C model. One of the most successful, and despicable, aspects of the F-35 program was locking folks into the program through concurrent development/production. You already own F-35B.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: UK
Age: 30
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Orca: Arrestor cables and catapults.
I've read that these new carriers are certainly capable of being converted for CTOL aircraft, but will they be?
I understand UAV's are a possible reason for conversion, however I mean for manned fast jets.
Courtney, I'm not suggesting that the RN should replace the current F-35B's for this technology to the C variant, that would be a complete waste of time and money. However, and I speak purely for fast jets, what other aircraft could the Navy use if they implemented this technology in to the new carriers? F/A-18E/F? EA-18G?
It would be nice to think so, although I suspect by the time arrestor cables and catapults are fully operational on the ships (assuming they are even converted to operate CTOL aircraft), the production of those two aircraft would have ceased long ago.
I believe the new generation of U.S Navy carriers will have electromagnetic catapults. So would they be an option for the RN?
I've read that these new carriers are certainly capable of being converted for CTOL aircraft, but will they be?
I understand UAV's are a possible reason for conversion, however I mean for manned fast jets.
Courtney, I'm not suggesting that the RN should replace the current F-35B's for this technology to the C variant, that would be a complete waste of time and money. However, and I speak purely for fast jets, what other aircraft could the Navy use if they implemented this technology in to the new carriers? F/A-18E/F? EA-18G?
It would be nice to think so, although I suspect by the time arrestor cables and catapults are fully operational on the ships (assuming they are even converted to operate CTOL aircraft), the production of those two aircraft would have ceased long ago.
I believe the new generation of U.S Navy carriers will have electromagnetic catapults. So would they be an option for the RN?
SpazSinbad, That's a nice photo, but a few milliseconds too soon. Neither the wheels or the hook have reached the wire, so it really doesn't show what is needed.
I take it the new hook is optimized for trapping the wire rather than minimising damage to the pendant. From what I have read, a flat bottom gives a good trap, but the sharp edge is prone to cutting the wire (or pendant), so a rounded lower edge was normal on most recent carrier aircraft to reduce the likelihood of the hook wearing to a sharp cutting edge .
I take it the new hook is optimized for trapping the wire rather than minimising damage to the pendant. From what I have read, a flat bottom gives a good trap, but the sharp edge is prone to cutting the wire (or pendant), so a rounded lower edge was normal on most recent carrier aircraft to reduce the likelihood of the hook wearing to a sharp cutting edge .
Orca: Arrestor cables and catapults.
I've read that these new carriers are certainly capable of being converted for CTOL aircraft, but will they be?
I understand UAV's are a possible reason for conversion, however I mean for manned fast jets.
Courtney, I'm not suggesting that the RN should replace the current F-35B's for this technology to the C variant, that would be a complete waste of time and money. However, and I speak purely for fast jets, what other aircraft could the Navy use if they implemented this technology in to the new carriers? F/A-18E/F? EA-18G?
It would be nice to think so, although I suspect by the time arrestor cables and catapults are fully operational on the ships (assuming they are even converted to operate CTOL aircraft), the production of those two aircraft would have ceased long ago.
I believe the new generation of U.S Navy carriers will have electromagnetic catapults. So would they be an option for the RN?
I've read that these new carriers are certainly capable of being converted for CTOL aircraft, but will they be?
I understand UAV's are a possible reason for conversion, however I mean for manned fast jets.
Courtney, I'm not suggesting that the RN should replace the current F-35B's for this technology to the C variant, that would be a complete waste of time and money. However, and I speak purely for fast jets, what other aircraft could the Navy use if they implemented this technology in to the new carriers? F/A-18E/F? EA-18G?
It would be nice to think so, although I suspect by the time arrestor cables and catapults are fully operational on the ships (assuming they are even converted to operate CTOL aircraft), the production of those two aircraft would have ceased long ago.
I believe the new generation of U.S Navy carriers will have electromagnetic catapults. So would they be an option for the RN?
UK was not fully decided on whether the new carriers would be v/stol or catobar carrriers, ie handling v/stol aircraft or cat and trap equipped aircraft. So the carriers were designed to have one or the other, with weight and space allowance for the heavier and space consuming launch and recovery gear. This allowed design of the carrier to proceed while the debate and study of what aircraft would be ordered. It was not a done deal that it would be what we know now as the F-35. Other aircraft were under consideration besides the JSF: F-18, Rafale, Carrier capable eurofighter/typhoon or Grippen, new development, son of sea harrier, etc.
It was later decided that the JSF would be the aircraft. Now to decide which version? V/stol or catobar? F-35 won the JSF award and had 3 versions, with the vstol B and carrier C.
There were pros and cons for each variant. The UK chose catobar and proceedeed down this track for a few years as the F-35C. Later the choice was reversed, and it was decided that the uk would go with the v/stol F-35B. The ships were not fully built at that time, so no major alteration was required. A main reason for reverting to the B was citing training requirements of air crew as carrier arrested landings require much higher levels of initial and recertification training. A smart man once said "easier to stop, then land..." The costs and crew requirements on the carrier are also lesss with a vstol carrier.
So it has been decided that the new carriers will be v/stol carriers. Ski jump and no arresting system. I do not believe this will change unless the B entirely fails for some reason or is cancelled. Changing the ships and version of the F-35 now would be disasterous politically and financially.
The ships COULD be changed to answer your thoughts, remember space and weight were reserved, but would be a major change now that the ships are well along in their build. The airwing could include all the aircraft originally considered above: hook equipped F-35C, F-18E/F, Rafale, Sea Typhoon or Grippen, or very unlikely a new design. Could also now consider E-2 and F-18G and new arrested UAV's.
US indicated that electomagnetic catapult would be available to the UK, but there was and is still some risk with that. Conventional steam catapults were favored in most uk studies if the new carriers were to have catapults.
I see adding catapults and arresting gear at this point to expand the options of the airwing as a non-starter. The choice has been made, and it is v/stol. Hope this helps.
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 sandiego89
There were pros and cons for each variant. The UK chose catobar and proceedeed down this track for a few years as the F-35C. Later the choice was reversed, and it was decided that the uk would go with the v/stol F-35B. The ships were not fully built at that time, so no major alteration was required. A main reason for reverting to the B was citing training requirements of air crew as carrier arrested landings require much higher levels of initial and recertification training. A smart man once said "easier to stop, then land..." The costs and crew requirements on the carrier are also lesss with a vstol carrier.
So it has been decided that the new carriers will be v/stol carriers. Ski jump and no arresting system. I do not believe this will change unless the B entirely fails for some reason or is cancelled. Changing the ships and version of the F-35 now would be disasterous politically and financially.
The ships COULD be changed to answer your thoughts, remember space and weight were reserved, but would be a major change now that the ships are well along in their build. The airwing could include all the aircraft originally considered above: hook equipped F-35C, F-18E/F, Rafale, Sea Typhoon or Grippen, or very unlikely a new design. Could also now consider E-2 and F-18G and new arrested UAV's.
US indicated that electomagnetic catapult would be available to the UK, but there was and is still some risk with that. Conventional steam catapults were favored in most uk studies if the new carriers were to have catapults.
So it has been decided that the new carriers will be v/stol carriers. Ski jump and no arresting system. I do not believe this will change unless the B entirely fails for some reason or is cancelled. Changing the ships and version of the F-35 now would be disasterous politically and financially.
The ships COULD be changed to answer your thoughts, remember space and weight were reserved, but would be a major change now that the ships are well along in their build. The airwing could include all the aircraft originally considered above: hook equipped F-35C, F-18E/F, Rafale, Sea Typhoon or Grippen, or very unlikely a new design. Could also now consider E-2 and F-18G and new arrested UAV's.
US indicated that electomagnetic catapult would be available to the UK, but there was and is still some risk with that. Conventional steam catapults were favored in most uk studies if the new carriers were to have catapults.
There were pros and cons for each variant. The UK chose ^STOVL.
On 30 September 2002 the MoD announced that the Royal Navy and RAF will operate the STOVL F-35B variant. At the same time it was announced that the carriers would take the form of large, conventional carriers, which will be adapted for STOVL operations. The carriers, expected to remain in service for 50 years, will be convertible to CATOBAR operations for the generation of aircraft after the F-35 JCA.
In 2007, the Ministry of Defence confirmed its order for two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers, expected to enter front line service with the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy from 2018.
In 2007, the Ministry of Defence confirmed its order for two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers, expected to enter front line service with the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy from 2018.
Then, in the 19 October 2010 Strategic Defense and Security Review*, the UK decided to switch to^ catobar and proceedeed down this track for a few years ^less than two^ as the F-35C. Later ^on 10 May 2012^ the choice was reversed, and it was decided that the uk would go ^back to^ with the v/stol F-35B. The ships were not fully built at that time, so no major alteration was required. A main reason for reverting to the B was citing training requirements of air crew as carrier arrested landings require much higher levels of initial and recertification training. A smart man once said "easier to stop, then land..." The costs and crew requirements on the carrier are also lesss with a vstol carrier.
Also, the total costs of redesigning not only the bow, but also the electrical distribution systems as well as physical compartments (many of which had been supposed to have been "reserved for possible catapult & arresting gear installation", but which had slowly been allocated for other uses) while the major sections of the ship were already well into build.
Therefore the first (HMS QE) was to be delivered with the ski ramp and no catapults or arresting gear, and the second (HMS POW) would be delivered with catapults and arresting gear. Modification of QE was left "to be determined later" - meaning only one carrier would be fully operationally with F-35C for a long time - if ever!
Then there was the cost of other aspects to the switch - it has been stated that UK law required the formal estimates of the cost to include all related costs as well - including personnel costs for the extra crew needed to operate & maintain the catapults and arresting gear, the added maintenance costs of the new equipment, the added training costs for "cat & trap" operations, providing ship-based airborne refueling capability (recovery tanker) as required by "cat & trap" operations (either buying tanker-capable carrier-compatible aircraft or paying for development and certification of "buddy-tanker" capability for the F-35C - the USN uses F/A-18s for that job), etc. The overall cost increase was considered excessive and unacceptable.
So it has been decided that the new carriers will be v/stol carriers. Ski jump and no arresting system. I do not believe this will change unless the B entirely fails for some reason or is cancelled. Changing the ships and version of the F-35 now would be disasterous politically and financially.
The ships COULD be changed to answer your thoughts, remember space and weight were reserved, but would be a major change now that the ships are well along in their build. The airwing could include all the aircraft originally considered above: hook equipped F-35C, F-18E/F, Rafale, Sea Typhoon or Grippen, or very unlikely a new design. Could also now consider E-2 and F-18G and new arrested UAV's.
US indicated that electomagnetic catapult would be available to the UK ^in fact, the UK had been allocated slots in the EMALS production line, with the second "ship-set" to be delivered for POW (the first "ship-set" had already been committed to USS Ford CVN-78)^, but there was and is still some risk with that. Conventional steam catapults were favored in most uk studies if the new carriers were to have catapults ^but, as mentioned above, EMALS had been selected in the 2010 SDSR^.
* https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ity-review.pdf
Last edited by GreenKnight121; 5th Nov 2014 at 05:14.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typhoon,
I'm sorry about my reply, it was based on the fact that you asked a question that has been answered not only in these forums inhabited only by us sad 'used to fly jets' types - but also absolutely done to death and beyond in the national press. The Lightning II will contribute a quarter, at least, of RAF combat air - so for someone someone even vaguely interested in mil aviation to have missed the most significant debate in recent fast air history is startling.
I viewed your question to be something akin to 'You know what, shouldn't we have an under sea rail link to France by now?'
Then again, only a few weeks ago you were asking about the variants as if working out the difference between A, B and C models was as troublesome as the Breguet Range Equation.
Lastly, I was being slightly pointed about 'technology' as the steam powered cats are somewhat legacy now and a main spar in the cats and traps argument was the cost and availability of EMALS.
Incidentally the true story of the carriers is that the Aircraft Carrier Alliance inflated the price of conversion to cats and traps until it was out of the MoD's price range - because they weren't able to meet the task. But it'll be a generation or two before they admit it.
I'm sorry about my reply, it was based on the fact that you asked a question that has been answered not only in these forums inhabited only by us sad 'used to fly jets' types - but also absolutely done to death and beyond in the national press. The Lightning II will contribute a quarter, at least, of RAF combat air - so for someone someone even vaguely interested in mil aviation to have missed the most significant debate in recent fast air history is startling.
I viewed your question to be something akin to 'You know what, shouldn't we have an under sea rail link to France by now?'
Then again, only a few weeks ago you were asking about the variants as if working out the difference between A, B and C models was as troublesome as the Breguet Range Equation.
Lastly, I was being slightly pointed about 'technology' as the steam powered cats are somewhat legacy now and a main spar in the cats and traps argument was the cost and availability of EMALS.
Incidentally the true story of the carriers is that the Aircraft Carrier Alliance inflated the price of conversion to cats and traps until it was out of the MoD's price range - because they weren't able to meet the task. But it'll be a generation or two before they admit it.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Top post GreenKnight.
It is important to remember this piece of political buffoonary / ****wittery in the immediate nuclear winter-esque aftermath of the 2010 UK General Election.
Tax pounds 'wasted'? Maybe
Nudge pressure from lobbyists? Maybe
I look back and wonder how much more pressure the B model would have come under - and therefore pressure on USMC fast air post-Harrier - had the UK stayed with the -C.
The Sea Dave certainly looks a belle, both on the cat and when trapping (can I recall the 'Cats and Flaps' line of yesteryear as well?).
It lacks the Doorman's neck and shoulders of -B, and with the wingspan has much more grace. Not knocking the technology / technologies - just the aesthetics.
The F Off nose gear structure is mighty meaty too.
It is important to remember this piece of political buffoonary / ****wittery in the immediate nuclear winter-esque aftermath of the 2010 UK General Election.
Tax pounds 'wasted'? Maybe
Nudge pressure from lobbyists? Maybe
I look back and wonder how much more pressure the B model would have come under - and therefore pressure on USMC fast air post-Harrier - had the UK stayed with the -C.
The Sea Dave certainly looks a belle, both on the cat and when trapping (can I recall the 'Cats and Flaps' line of yesteryear as well?).
It lacks the Doorman's neck and shoulders of -B, and with the wingspan has much more grace. Not knocking the technology / technologies - just the aesthetics.
The F Off nose gear structure is mighty meaty too.
Last edited by Finnpog; 5th Nov 2014 at 06:07.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Four Years in the making
The first flight of the CF1, the first F35C, was over 4 years ago on 6th June 2010, this was it was said a "Very Historic Day" in the sweep of naval history by Tom Burbage.
I can only assume that the landing must also be construed to be a Historic Day, has there ever been so long a gap between the first flight and first carrier landing of a fighter?
I notice that the F14 first flew in December 1970 and was being deployed less than 4 years later in September 74.
No doubt people would be very happy if the USN was declaring IOC with a squadron or so of F35Cs now, instead of it being pencilled in for about another 4 years, (8/2018 -2/2019).
I can only assume that the landing must also be construed to be a Historic Day, has there ever been so long a gap between the first flight and first carrier landing of a fighter?
I notice that the F14 first flew in December 1970 and was being deployed less than 4 years later in September 74.
No doubt people would be very happy if the USN was declaring IOC with a squadron or so of F35Cs now, instead of it being pencilled in for about another 4 years, (8/2018 -2/2019).
The F/A-18E/F was two years from first flight to first carrier landing, and it didn't have the issues with it's arrestor hook location that the F-35C had.
The interesting question re future UCAVs is (a) if the QE class could be fitted with arrestor gear at a practical cost, and (b) if a UCAV could operated on a ski-ramp take off and arrested landing basis ...
The interesting question re future UCAVs is (a) if the QE class could be fitted with arrestor gear at a practical cost, and (b) if a UCAV could operated on a ski-ramp take off and arrested landing basis ...
T93 - search for not-a-boffin's posts.
The important development in my view took place after the 1998 defense review confirmed the need for a carrier capable of defending itself and sustaining offensive air ops (and from a Labour government at that). That was when MoD/RN/BAE looked at the size of the aircraft, the sortie generation rates required (and therefore number of aircraft) and support assets (AEW &c) and realized that the resulting ship was big enough for CATOBAR deck ops.
This was all being discussed by 2003, after the first couple of ship-design iterations, and did open up the possibility of a CATOBAR carrier. Also, the late 2001 selection of LM confirmed that there would be a big range difference between the CV and STOVL airplanes (in Boeing's design both had about the same fuel capacity). But at the same time, the original US plan for 680 Marine F-35Bs was being cut back and there were concerns that the STOVL version would come under attack, particularly if the Brits dumped it.* And STOVL was a big part of the UK contribution to the program.
So there was a lot of political pressure to stick with STOVL, as well as practical concerns about training and CONOPS, since a key advantage of STOVL was that the CV aircrew would need to spend less time training. (As it is, JPALS/Magic Carpet may change that equation on the flying side, and naval ops are more than just flying. And nobody was ready to commit to EMALS at the time, which meant providing space for steam generators.
*Some people may have known at the time that the STOVL version was deep in the weeds and needed a major redesign, too, but the public story was still that STOVL had lift to spare.
The important development in my view took place after the 1998 defense review confirmed the need for a carrier capable of defending itself and sustaining offensive air ops (and from a Labour government at that). That was when MoD/RN/BAE looked at the size of the aircraft, the sortie generation rates required (and therefore number of aircraft) and support assets (AEW &c) and realized that the resulting ship was big enough for CATOBAR deck ops.
This was all being discussed by 2003, after the first couple of ship-design iterations, and did open up the possibility of a CATOBAR carrier. Also, the late 2001 selection of LM confirmed that there would be a big range difference between the CV and STOVL airplanes (in Boeing's design both had about the same fuel capacity). But at the same time, the original US plan for 680 Marine F-35Bs was being cut back and there were concerns that the STOVL version would come under attack, particularly if the Brits dumped it.* And STOVL was a big part of the UK contribution to the program.
So there was a lot of political pressure to stick with STOVL, as well as practical concerns about training and CONOPS, since a key advantage of STOVL was that the CV aircrew would need to spend less time training. (As it is, JPALS/Magic Carpet may change that equation on the flying side, and naval ops are more than just flying. And nobody was ready to commit to EMALS at the time, which meant providing space for steam generators.
*Some people may have known at the time that the STOVL version was deep in the weeds and needed a major redesign, too, but the public story was still that STOVL had lift to spare.
Last edited by LowObservable; 5th Nov 2014 at 13:36.
Orca, the objective is to hit the 3 wire.
There are 4 wires to account for the fact that a not quite perfect approach can often provide a satisfactory landing, particularly when the deck moves about in bad weather.
If you get "OK 3 wire" from the LSO all is sweetness and light. If you hit the 4 wire, the 2, or the 1, you are still on board, but the LSO will probably discuss some of the fine points of technique with you in the debrief.
As stated: the objective of each approach is the OK 3 wire.
There are 4 wires to account for the fact that a not quite perfect approach can often provide a satisfactory landing, particularly when the deck moves about in bad weather.
If you get "OK 3 wire" from the LSO all is sweetness and light. If you hit the 4 wire, the 2, or the 1, you are still on board, but the LSO will probably discuss some of the fine points of technique with you in the debrief.
As stated: the objective of each approach is the OK 3 wire.