|
|
At http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...ml#post9723562 on 30 Mar 2017 is a story about the refurbished BAE Sim at Warton - for SRVL training. Now here is the viddy:
|
Originally Posted by glad rag
(Post 9735551)
|
They can land 100 marines as a boarding party on the deck of a carrier and take it over spacex style
|
Or blow all the superstructure off
|
The relevance being that was a benign ballistic re entry lol.
Now try to imagine 6 metric tons of multiple kinetics say lumps of du coming in... |
Originally Posted by SpazSinbad
(Post 9735877)
At http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...ml#post9723562 on 30 Mar 2017 is a story about the refurbished BAE Sim at Warton - for SRVL training. Now here is the viddy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAPcvOGZ-hY Is that the FMS? |
The story at this link makes it clear I hope that the BAE Warton CVF/F-35B simulator is what it is: http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...ml#post9723562
An FMS Full Mission Simulator for the F-35 is a lot different. Cockpit does not move but has 360 degree DOME screen (almost - with a tunnel for access by pilot in cockpit on rails which then moves up into the dome). FMS seen from 2 minutes onwards. First two minutes are desktop sims in use for switchology training. |
An SRVL approach in the pre refurbished BAE Warton Sim:
|
Quote POTUS 11 Apr '17,
" We have submarines. Very powerful. Far more powerful than the aircraft carrier." Now, he has no real knowledge of this, and that quote will be the essence of the top Mil briefing he has been given.;) OAP |
Submarines have nukes, carriers don't. Unless your operational plan is to go nuclear then the submarine represents a single conventional weapon system against land targets and therefore a single point of failure. A submarine lacks flexibility in the roles of air power it can project -i.e it has missiles that have limitations across a target set that demands full-spectrum treatment.
The carrier is an overt, visible sign of deterrence and coercion with a large air force of its own. I think that's more powerful than any submarine, unless we've now resorted to defining power only kinetically and purely in terms of megatons of equivalent TNT!!! |
Now, he has no real knowledge of this, and that quote will be the essence of the top Mil briefing he has been given. |
I suspect that he has let slip the plan he might use is based upon the use of submarine assets.:rolleyes:
OAP |
So sending the carrier task force into Korean waters is really a ruse, the subs are already there. No wonder Un convened the parliament meeting.:uhoh:
|
Interesting responses and food for thought. I wonder if the Aircraft Carrier in time will become as vulnerable and irrelevant as the Fixed land based Fortress? Might seem like an odd analogy but since the Romans here in the UK a Fortress was built not only to defend the occupants and control the ground but to be as was said above to be "an overt, visible sign of deterrence and coercion"
The trouble is that although land based forts had a good run every few years someone would invent something to negate them; siege engines, ballistas, undermining, artillery and so on. By WW2 the French had invested a fortune in the Maginot Line and Belgium had its fortifications. Blitzkrieg swept past them glider borne assault troops landed on them and they used shape charges to disable them. Carrier groups, especially when deployed into the Gulf or close to Korean shores look vulnerable to me. It only takes one lucky hit or an accident of seamanship for a list to negate most of its firepower. |
Let's assume an aircraft carrier is as vulnerable as many people claim. An utterly false assumption, but for argument's sake, let's assume it is.
Suppose China or North Korea opt to sink or otherwise take out a CVN. Would that be an explicit and very visible act of war? I tend to think so. What would the US response be to such an action, even assuming the US decides not to use nukes as its response? Would whoever took out the CVN shortly be on the receiving end of a VERY devastating (non nuclear) response? I tend to think so. I also tend to think that whoever is contemplating such an action would think so too and upon further contemplation would be dissuaded from even attempting it. |
Originally Posted by MSOCS
(Post 9737453)
Submarines have nukes, carriers don't.
|
Originally Posted by glad rag
(Post 9736786)
The relevance being that was a benign ballistic re entry lol.
Now try to imagine 6 metric tons of multiple kinetics say lumps of du coming in... I have great trouble imaging the above with a terminal sensor/targeting system with the precision needed to hit a moving CVN, to say nothing of doing it in an intense defensive EW environment. And that completely ignores an Aegis anti-missile system targeting that 6+ metric ton re-entry vehicle which contains the above. |
KenV point taken about an overt act of war. Now assume that one of the carrier group hits a mine in "international waters" try proving that the Koreans or Iranians were responsible? If were the Iranians I would use one of their nice quiet German Submarines to go lay some mines around the straights and not tell anyone.
Has happened before, the RN had a ship hit a mine while travelling between Corfu and Albania many years back. Corfu Channel Incident 1946, Mining of HMS Saumarez and Volage |
The FUTURE CARRIER ashore at RAF Marham after UPgrade: 13 Apr 2017
http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/up...PI-FOR-WEB.jpg &/or Preparing for the Operation of the Lightning Force: Infrastructure, Operations and the Way Ahead at RAF Marham | SLDInfo http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...m.gif~original |
Originally Posted by Bigpants
(Post 9738574)
KenV point taken about an overt act of war. Now assume that one of the carrier group hits a mine in "international waters" try proving that the Koreans or Iranians were responsible?
As for mines, it's doubtful a single mine could sink a CVN, although one might sink a CVBG escort ship. But mines are indiscriminate and very very non-precision weapons, being essentially area denial weapons. Since there are far far more commercial vessels on the seas than military vessels, it's far more likely a commercial vessel will strike a random mine, including a "friendly" vessel. Incidentally, 1946 was not the last time a warship struck a mine. USS Princeton (CG-59) and USS Tripoli (LPH-10) both hit mines during the first Iraq war. And FWIW, these were Italian manufactured influence mines. And although it did not strike a mine, USS Cole (DDG-67) was severely damaged by a suicide bomber attack. These are a very different type of event than a deliberate military attack on a CVN using ballistic missiles. |
And of course there have not been any advances in mine detection ever in the
Last decade or so. Especially one big enough to dent a U.S. nuclear carrier |
Originally Posted by Bigpants
If were the Iranians I would use one of their nice quiet German Submarines to go lay some mines around the straights and not tell alone.
They do have some Russian KILOS ,3 of them as far as I'm aware. |
One issue Spaz, it appears that they wish to operate from a line of sun shelters, well I guess we shall find out just how humidity proof both the avionics and airframe really are then rofl.
|
Originally Posted by KenV
(Post 9737884)
I have zero trouble "imagining" the above.
I have great trouble imaging the above with a terminal sensor/targeting system with the precision needed to hit a moving CVN, to say nothing of doing it in an intense defensive EW environment. And that completely ignores an Aegis anti-missile system targeting that 6+ metric ton re-entry vehicle which contains the above. |
Originally Posted by glad rag
(Post 9739931)
One issue Spaz, it appears that they wish to operate from a line of sun shelters, well I guess we shall find out just how humidity proof both the avionics and airframe really are then rofl.
|
'glad rag' you seem to enjoy making stuff up - Diagram says: "Hardened aircraft shelter refurbishment...". Sun shelters are used in desert locations and elsewhere such as cold LUKE [where de-icing was carried out recently IIRC] or maybe it is warm but anyways have a read of this - you need to read more and I can provide more: for example anotherie: http://articles.sae.org/13902/ OR http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=161 &/or: https://www.f35.com/news/detail/how-...imatic-testing BUT WAIT... there's more if you want it.
4 page PDF about climatic testing: http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=20185 (0.8Mb) OR Anotherie: http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=22735 (2.5Mb PDF) "...On September 29, 2014, the ITF deployed a team of 40 testers to the McKinley Climatic Laboratory (MCL), the world’s largest environmental testing chamber. The 96th Test Wing, a US Air Force Materiel Command unit, operates the MCL at Eglin Air Force Base in Fort Walton Beach, Florida. For six months, the Pax River ITF Climatic Test team and key members of the Edwards ITF have capitalized upon the MCL’s proven capability to recreate nearly every weather condition on Earth as they assessed the performance of aircraft BF-05, the short take-off/vertical landing (STOVL) variant, in a wide array of temperatures and meteorological conditions. Testers put the aircraft through extremes such as -40°F/C up to 120°F (48.8°C) and featured wind, solar radiation, fog, humidity, rain intrusion/ingestion, freezing rain, icing cloud, icing build-up, vortex icing and snow. By placing BF-05 onto a purpose-built frame, test pilots were able to ‘fly’ a standard profile in accordance with defined test sequences. This profile featured a normal start-up, a VSBIT (vehicle systems built-in test) to check the onboard systems, a simulated short take-off, a climb out, full afterburner runs in conventional mode, and a simulated vertical landing. Each meteorological condition was fully tested and featured 60% ground operations and 40% flying, including engine runs and simulated flight in both conventional and STOVL modes. Testers also ensured the collection of accurate and representative data during the icing evaluation by installing additional F-35A and F-35C icing detector probes according to each variant’s design. “This type of testing doesn’t happen every day,” says US Navy test pilot Cdr Tony ‘Brick’ Wilson. “What the McKinley team has pulled off at Eglin is a real feat of engineering; it’s been a very surreal experience to walk from normal Florida weather into the hangar where it’s like the Arctic and test the F-35. We’ll complete our testing at the end of March 2015 and I’m pleased to say that the findings have been very positive to date.”... Web Exclusives : Aerospace Testing International |
Spaz, yes, the HAS will be used by 617 Squadron but daily operations will take place under sun shelters. For the OCU, jets will use the purpose-built hangar and sun shelters for daily ops.
F-35 is very resilient to extremes of climate; tested to such as your link describes. One aspect of being quite "buttoned up" due to stealth is that there's a lot of sealed areas for avionics. That helps quite considerably, alongside the conditioning systems. |
Has it been decided if/where a UK land based ski jump will be? Wittering jump still intact?
|
Lots of yabba yabba here about 'tornados' bothering Marham but no mention of a jump de ski:
RAF Marham Gears Up For F-35 Lightning ll By Howard Wheeldon, FRAeS, Wheeldon Strategic Advisory Ltd. | BATTLESPACE Updates |
No practice ramp SD, all done in the FMS and done for real at sea. Training Needs Analysis demonstrated no requirement for a land-based device because it neither replicates ship motion and brake release cadence for ship pitching, nor is there a need for pilot input as the jet leaves the ramp lip - the aircraft senses the ramp profile and pitch as it goes up and rotates/spins up lift fan and 3BSD deploys automatically.
PS - believe the WIT ramp still there but serviceability is unknown. Anyway, it's likely unrepresentative and not designed for F-35's weight or thermal profile. |
Originally Posted by MSOCS
(Post 9740063)
No practice ramp SD, all done in the FMS and done for real at sea. Training Needs Analysis demonstrated no requirement for a land-based device because it neither replicates ship motion and brake release cadence for ship pitching, nor is there a need for pilot input as the jet leaves the ramp lip - the aircraft senses the ramp profile and pitch as it goes up and rotates/spins up lift fan and 3BSD deploys automatically.
PS - believe the WIT ramp still there but serviceability is unknown. Anyway, it's likely unrepresentative and not designed for F-35's weight or thermal profile. Thanks for the replies on the ski jump. While I realize the ski jump has been pretty much a non-event (except by a few detractors insisting it was huge unknown risk) I do find a bit surprising that there will not be a ski jump in the UK. I believe the recent F-35B ski jump trials at Patuxent River were done on the old left over ramp that has been there for years (1980's?). Unsure if they had to do any mods to it for the B. |
Sandie,
i think the ramp used at Pax for the F-35B work is a new build. Can any PPruners out there confirm/deny, please? Best regards as ever to all those working the ramp, Engines |
Engines, I thought the Pax ramp was new also.
|
Cool buildings. Some young architect will probably get an award, but they remind me of this:
http://megkwonderly.weebly.com/uploa...0_orig.jpg?607 Meanwhile - all that talk about "synergies" in the SLDInfo puff piece makes me sleepy. |
Originally Posted by KenV
(Post 9737884)
I have great trouble imaging the above with a terminal sensor/targeting system with the precision needed to hit a moving CVN, to say nothing of doing it in an intense defensive EW environment. And that completely ignores an Aegis anti-missile system targeting that 6+ metric ton re-entry vehicle which contains the above.
Regarding the movement of a CVN - well in truth they really don't move all that much when compared to the inbound speed. At say 13m/s it takes around 25 seconds for the stern of a cruising CVN to pass over the same spot vacated by the front of the flight deck. The maximum lateral displacement it can achieve in that time is also not a lot. By contrast the kinetic penetrator of the inbound weapon can be nudging 7000m/s (over 13,000kts) making a CVN look almost stationary, with just a small amount of lead to calculate. The other concerning aspect of such speed is that even a direct hit from an intercepting missile may do little to influence the final trajectory - in the same 25 seconds that it took the ship to move its own length the inbound will complete its final 75 miles. Of course, MIRVs complicate matters further. |
1 Attachment(s)
Back in the dream time of 2005 a contract was let for the PaxRiver Ski Jump:
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportun...e6724&_cview=0 In 2008 WEFL built it at Pax River: https://www.wfel.com/news/wfel-set-t...american-deal/ 2009 info: EAF enables JSF landing anywhere, everywhere | NAVAIR - U.S. Navy Naval Air Systems Command - Navy and Marine Corps Aviation Research, Development, Acquisition, Test and Evaluation This 2015 9.25Mb PDF has info: http://www.janes.com/images/assets/2...aily_Day_1.pdf 2016 tweak ski jump anomaly: http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/...i-jump-anomaly Only a small excerpt from a great skiddyjump article below. I'll try to attach 2 page PDF now.... EXCERPTs attached. Salty Dogs & Funky Jets October 2015 Mark Ayton "... The reader may be surprised to learn that the ski ramp built at Pax River is based on the type used on the Invincible class aircraft carriers which is a little bit shorter (50ft) and slightly shallower (0.5º) than the ramp on Queen Elizabeth-class carriers. Sqn Ldr Edgell explained: “The Pax River ramp design process dates back to 2005 but, at the time, the Queen Elizabeth ramp profile was not known. Analysis conducted in 2005 showed we simply needed to use a ramp with a profile that allows us to stay just under the predicted F-35B ultimate loads and the Invincible-class ramp achieved this.” Pax River’s ramp allows the test team to make adjustments for different profiles and encompass everything below the ultimate loads of the aircraft. “Though the verification of our models during phases 1 and 2 we can tweak the control laws to work off other types of ramp, none of which are the same,” said Sqn Ldr Edgell. When the aircraft comes off the end it is ballistic and accelerates to the fly away air speed, typically 10-20kts higher than launch speed, and therefore reduces ground roll...." Air International OCTOBER 2015 Vol.89 No.4 http://i65.tinypic.com/11ljtzs.jpg |
Fortunately, George K Lee, you'll never have to set foot in those buildings. What's your point anyway?
|
Thanks all for the info on ski jump- I had confused the old Pax River jump and the new one. Believe they were in the same location.
http://theaviationgeekclub.com/wp-co...A-Sky-Jump.jpg |
An old 2013 'odds & sods ski jump accumulation' pdf on Scribd. I could make a new up to date one but it is near 0100 here.... There are a couple of pages of photos or Googie Overheads or airfield maps of the ski jump loc innit.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/131971810...ormation-F-35B |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:58. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.