|
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 19:02. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.