how does the F-35B taxy backwards for on deck parking etc - or is that too 'top secret ? ' - all I can see in the meantime is that an extended noseleg / nose high attitude on deck - ground might give the fan a slight forward component -'don't try & stand around marshalling ?!'

There are extremely avant-garde technology devices that might help with that. Tow tractors, that might be what people will call 'em.

Someone will be around in a minute to invent a more complicated solution that works no better

Modern,

Deck space doesn't seem to be a problem at the moment as we don't seem to have any aircraft to sit on them.

here

The Andrew have used up all their stock of towing tractors.

http://media.shipspotting.com/upload...%21/642673.jpg

They're are having to resort to asking more rotund matelots to lean against aircraft to push them back into position. Luckily Grey Funnel Lines has a large supply of these, especially the models fitted with upside down legs.;)

Navaleye, one does tend to think that additional British rotary-winged assault transport loaded with additional British Army air assaulters is a higher priority than you-know-what.

Re F-35's, here's this from today's Aviation Now:

Component Failures Impact F-35 Flight Testing

Aug 8, 2008
By Graham Warwick

Lockheed Martin continues to struggle to gain momentum in flight testing of the Joint Strike Fighter, with the first F-35 again grounded by component failure and while the second aircraft heads toward a hiatus in flying that will last into early next year.

The issues will not affect the overall schedule, says Lockheed, but they are preventing key risks being retired early. These include additional noise tests funded by the Australians at a time when the F-35's environmental impact has become an issue for some international partners.
…
The first F-35, aircraft AA-1, is grounded awaiting the repair of nacelle vent fans designed to keep the engine bay cool on the ground. The situation has echoes of the overheating problems that dogged the F-22, but Lockheed says it is unique to AA-1.

"The issues we are dealing with are independent of the thermal management system," says deputy program manager Bobby Williams. "Nothing is on the critical path, but the earlier we get the data the better."

The problem involves repeated failures of the nacelle vent fans that force air through the space between engine and airframe to prevent heat from damaging the structure. ( And also for thermal low observability -- Elmo )

While the fan failures may be unrelated, thermal management is the "biggest challenge" in the F-35, says Daniel Kunec, JSF program office director, air system integration. "It is the most limiting feature, and there are still some challenges to be overcome," he told an AIAA propulsion conference in July.

Originally designed for the canceled Boeing Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche, the vent fans are unique to AA-1. "They are one-off fans that were never fully qualified because AA-1 is a one-off," says Williams. AA-1 was built before a redesign to reduce the F-35's weight and is not production standard.
The fans are surrounded by fuel, which is colder than the ambient air, and in the heat and humidity of Fort Worth, Tex., condensation is coating circuit cards inside the units and causing corrosion. The fans are being repaired by supplier Hamilton Sundstrand, but the "long pole" delaying a return to flight is applying a new conformal coating to the cards.

Williams says the problem does not affect the second F-35, production-standard aircraft BF-1, as the vent fans were relocated during the redesign to make them more accessible, avoiding the condensation issue. He expects the fans to be back in AA-1 by the end of August, after which "a couple more flights" are needed at Fort Worth before the aircraft can make its delayed ferry flight to Edwards AFB, Calif., for testing.

Williams plays down concerns about overheating in the high desert of Edwards, although AA-1 does not incorporate design changes made to improve the F-35's thermal management. These include larger engine fuel pumps, which will be introduced during early low-rate initial production to provide the full thermal management capability.

Thermal management is a particular issue for the stealthy F-35. "There are very few areas to reject heat. We can dump it or burn it," says Kunec. "Every component has a heat budget and everything is cooled by fuel." The heated fuel is either burned in the engine or cooled by heat exchangers in the engine fan duct. "The massive fuel/air heat exchanger is our saving grace for coming close to specification."

Based on lessons learned with the F-22, Williams says, the F-35 has a requirement to operate on the ground for 60 min. on a 120F day, with fully heat-soaked fuel and a full solar load. At the end of 2005, the short takeoff and vertical landing (Stovl) F-35B could not meet the requirement, but after redesign now meets the specification, says Kunec.

Meeting specification at the end of a mission remains a challenge for the Stovl variant. "The lift fan is a huge heat source and at the end of the mission there is little fuel left to use as a heat sink, so there is a strong peak in temperature," says Kunec. The requirement is to operate for 30 min. after landing. "We meet that with no margin," says Williams.

Already delayed more than a month, AA-1's deployment to Edwards is to perform inflight engine shutdown testing over the dry lakebed. The deployment will also be used to collect additional noise data requested by Australia. Several countries face public concerns over the noise produced by the F-35, which with 40,000 lb. of thrust is considerably more powerful than the F-16 it will replace. In Norway, there are concerns noise issues could force construction of a new base to avoid local opposition at existing facilities.

"We are working the environmental issue, but we are not doing anything from a design standpoint," says Kunec, adding, "There is a lot of misinformation on F-35 noise." Near-field noise level is comparable to legacy fighters, he says. Lockheed has said the noise footprint that reaches the base perimeter is less severe, but Kunec says far-field or community noise "is at or close to the highest level." Flyover noise data collected with AA-1 at 1,000 ft. "is right at the top, but then everything over 90-100 dB. is a problem," he says.
…

ttp://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/aw081108p2.xml&headline=Component%20Failures%20Impact%20F-35%20Flight%20Testing

Fascinating debate... it's amazing what people get up to when you're off the intartubes for a week, navigating a rental truck across half the US.

SSSETOWF - You're in grave danger of sliding into the philosophical error of the Lory in Alice in Wonderland. The Lory finally concluded every argument by saying "I'm older than you, and must know better" but still refused to disclose its age. Arguing (as many do) that only those who have access to the JSF program are qualified to discuss it (or criticize it) is equally fallacious, as is the similar argument that only those who have worn uniform or seen combat are qualified to comment on military matters. Contest the facts, not the source.

You're also picking holes in a piece from a year or more ago, when the SRVL speed parameters hadn't been disclosed. And for the record I don't recall a Sweetman book entitled "Modern Air Combat" - wasn't that Mike Spick?

Points well taken, though: The extra capability will be needed only on a hot, low-pressure day when it's essential to launch with weapons (not training) and they have to be retained if not used (tactical uncertainty). That is, in combat in the world's hotter places, which is where most of the world's armed and disgruntled people live.

NaB's basic point still seems to stand, though: you've got nowhere to run in the event of a problem, which is why RVL wasn't initially part of the program. Having had recent experience of about 12000 pounds of mass moving 35 mph and up (see above) I respect it.

As long as everyone can respect everyone else's background knowledge, though, it does sound as if a pub session with Sweetman, SSSETOWTF and NaB might be interesting... with Ann Widdecombe behind the bar, of course.

And it seems that someone's reading this thread, too...

Ares Homepage

I've hesitated to contribute to this thread, mainly because I was associated with the JSF programme and don't want to get into the 'I can't tell you why I'm saying this' situation that LO points up. But there are a few aspects that I might be able to assist with.

There seems to be an opinion that RVLs are a response to F-35B weight issues. Partly right, but mostly wrong, in my view.

Partly right, because it's a powered lift aircraft, and will always have a challenge with weight. When your minimum flying speed is zero, and it's all down to balancing aircraft mass on the jets, you will always be looking to get weight out. F-35B weight problems have been very publicly aired (contrast with some other aircraft programmes one could mention) and were very significant, which is why the aircraft was extensively revised. But, the weight issues actually affected all 3 variants, especially the CV, and they have all benefitted from the weight reduction effort. I'm sure that it will continue through the life of the aircraft, as will work to increase thrust in the hover at higher temperatures.

Mostly wrong, though, because the UK wants the aircraft to do more than it was required to. The programme adopted a single US definition for 'hot day', and this does not cover certain conditions on certain days in certain parts of the world. The UK have commissioned a number of studies into how the 35B can bring more back to the deck in these conditions, and RVLs came out of those.

The folk looking into RVLs are taking a very measured, pragmatic and informed approach to the issue and as far as I know, all the issues raised here are being addressed. A couple of points to consider:

Firstly, comparing braking performance of F-35B to Harrier is not viable. Harrier braking is really awful by any standards (it was actually deficient in the 60s). The gear layout isn't good for braking, the brakes are tiny and the controls are fairly primitive. F-35B has a really meaty set of brakes on well located gears, with state of the art controls and backup systems.

Secondly, I agree that landing on a deck with aircraft, people or stuff in front of you is a really average idea. I'd like to see the CVF team look at doing RVLs across the deck, using the landing area that comes from the deck's ability to accommodate an arrested landing layout. Painting a second, angled set of lines across the deck (or using suitable lighting systems) seems to me a good way to give the aircraft somewhere safer to go in an emergency.

Finally, moving about on deck - I'd expect the CVF deck to operate far more like a CVN, where most of the moves are carried out by taxying the aircraft under power, rather than using tractors. There's enough space to do so, if you are worked up and have practiced it.

Hope this post helps the thread along,

regards

Engines

I have a picture in my office of various P112this and P12that proposals for what at the time was called ASTOVL. I happened to be explaining what they all were to a junior colleague today and, with the benefit of a "few" years association with ASTOVL, aSTOVL, SHR, SSF, CALF, FCBA, JSF, JCA etc (plus a memorable excursion to rummage in Yakovlev's rubbish bins) I felt fairly comfortable in running across the entire set saying "wouldn't have worked, wouldn't have worked, definitely wouldn't have worked, would have looked spectacular trying to work but wouldn't have worked" etc, notwithstanding the heroic efforts of people better than me to try to get them to work if they'd been asked.

Of course sometimes one does just has to press-on and try something, because despite what people say, it might work. Which is why whilst some people are happy to just write about SRVLs , others have actually been out there and had a go. So it's just possible that the people with direct knowledge of SRVLs, whilst never short of "Sorry tales of STOVL aviation" to remind them not to get carried away, have a better idea of the issues around SRVLs than those who have to rely on guesswork and rumour networks. Fun though that might be. :)

NohoverWell it might, and I defer to those who know about such things.

However, as one of (cripes, and could that mean a taxpayer also?) I have an interest.

The 'Elephant in the living room', regarding JSF, being; seeing as how we are getting big carriers anyway, why not just go for the C version? Now the argument that the cat trap boys spend all their time practicing landings, to the expense of all else, seems a good one. But now I'm are wondering, how difficult are RVLs going to be? Will they be spending all their time practicing equally complex procedures? Just to get airborne in a less capable plane. Just as an aside, isn't it about time cat landings were de-skilled, oops I mean automated?

Now of course that elephant is really only hiding another, much bigger one. The one pointed up in my Spey Phantom post, which recalls how Britain spent shedloads of money screwing up, what was at the time, the worlds greatest fighter plane. That sorry tale was also supported by technical argument, which history has shown to be mainly b:mad:cks, most especially that the RAF M models must have Speys too, (the RAF wanted standard), so that they also could operate off the carriers! Total nonsense of course, the M model didn't have nose gear extension, or catapult bridle attachments.

Well that's all a long time ago, things are done much differently now. Maybe, but that remaining elephant is the one about how defence spending always has to buy a big slice of jobs in Britain. Well, post Thatcher, we are not 'permitted' to support British industry in any other way. But it just might be time to confront that elephant, and then maybe what's best operationally might come first, for once.

My take on a complicated subject.

LO,

I love your philosophical point. But, while there is indeed a danger of those 'in the know' being the Lory, on the other side of the coin the critics/doubters run the risk of looking like Harry Enfield's "You don't want to be doing it like that!" character.

I would argue that the majority of the time you're best leaving aircraft design to full-time aircraft designers and engineers, and leaving development of military operating procedures to military pilots. That's my personal take on it and you may well disagree. But I'm also one of those dullards who believes that doctors know more than me about medicine so I don't question their every decision, and I don't walk around public buildings tapping on walls to check that the structural engineer has got his calculations right etc. And sometimes those people do indeed get it wrong.

Jetex,

I don't know the detail of why the -B is still preferred to the -C for the UK buy. I recently sat through a presentation about it from a suitably senior rank who flashed up some bar charts (with no scales) with the ubiquitous 'TEPIDOIL' procurement cost labels that were supposed to conclusively prove that the -B was the best for us. (Can't remember what half of them stand for I'm afraid - Training, Equipment, Personnel, Infrastructure.... Logistics? I'm sure someone who reads these forums is a procurement guru?) Some of the woolly handwaving was that cats & traps cost more initially, fatigue airplanes more quickly, require more pilot currency training, require larger deck crews, who all need training and accommodating on board, steam generators need building/maintaining etc. I'm assuming that the smart people have done their sums right, and that the auditors who probably check the figures for multi-billion pound programmes quite closely have done their job right. Perhaps if you're really interested a FOI request might get you some documentation that puts figures on all the various bits that you could challenge?

From my personal perspective, it's horses for courses. With a -B you've got less range (but enough to go bombing in Tain from Cottesmore) and slightly smaller weapons bays (but big enough for a healthy number of SDB2, or similar sized stores), but you've got basing flexibility (the old 'the world's full of 3000ft runways' thing) and lower overall costs to operate off boats. I'm fairly sure though that it's a BMW 7-series vs Mercedes sort of an argument - they're different, but either one will do the job very nicely.

Double Zero,

In case you still don't feel that your question's been answered - both the lift fan and the nozzle can provide a component of thrust forwards to decelerate the jet / make it taxy backwards. But it's just the same as for the Harrier - you've got to ask yourself some serious questions about why you're doing it as the chances of FODing your engine have just gone up an awful lot.

SSSETOWTF - You missed my point slightly, probably because I didn't explain myself properly. I fully respect all the boffins and TPs working on JSF and I'm sure they are doing their upmost to generate the best solution available. However, there is a long and distinguished list of things that we as an aviation community, and especially we as Brits, didn't quite get right. And some of those instances may have been avoided had we learnt lessons from history. At the risk of sounding like a staff college academic, I'll abandon that thread there!

My main point was frustration at the prospect of 'very talented people making sub-optimal things work' (which we as a military are very good at...probably because we have to be with some of the things we are asked to make work!), when there is a more capable alternative available. I am very supportive of the JSF and think it is essential for the UK to operate it. In fact, I wish the powers that be would consider JSF as not just a Harrier replacement but one for Tornado as well! The SRVL debate is a side issue. The main debate is the overall capability of both the JSF model that the UK invests in and of the CVF as a platform.

Why would you invest in a STOVL JSF when you could have CV? The only argument that seems to keep cropping up against CV is training burden - I thought the JSF was going to have an auto-land capability? I'm sure conventional carrier approaches are a training burden, but I'm sure that would be manageable and wouldn't occupy all your time. The STOVL has all the added complications of achieving STOVL and must therefore have an equivalent increased risk of developing an emergency - why take that risk when balanced against the alternative model? The CV exceeds STOVL in range, time on stn, weapons load...all those things we need from a strike platform in the first place, and for my money the things we should be prioritising when deciding on the JSF model we want.

As far as CVF goes, why on earth would we put a ski ramp on the front, as I have seen in the latest artist impressions? Wouldn't that limit other ac from operating on our carrier? Surely we would want to get our money's worth from CVF and operate other ac types, like coalition allies flying non-JSF ac when all the JSF guys need a rest from ops, perhaps a decent fixed wing C2 asset, perhaps some organic AAR asset....maybe mapping the capability on a natural evolution of the very successful Nimitz Class.

As for non-CVF ops, surely we aren't going to contemplate putting JSF into a field site? Austere ops on some form of runway is probably as far as we would go, even with STOVL. If that is the case, with the take-off performance comparison I bet you could operate CV from most places that you can operate STOVL, especially if you bang a cable into the austere base to account for the recovery differences.

CVF, with CV JSF, with fixed wing C2, with organic AAR would be an awesome capability and a worthwhile investment in the future of UK military.

There is no denying that CVF, with STOVL JSF, with rotary C2, with no organic AAR is a second rate, less capable solution.

Being really cynical...perhaps the only thing keeping STOVL JSF ahead of CV is the reluctance to admit that JSF could replace Tornado as well.

And please make the right decision early before we end up with someone suggesting again that we could marinise Typhoon!!!

Good and interesting points...

One basic issue is that STOVL is difficult, which is why it has taken 45 years to get to a practical supersonic STOVL aircraft. The bring-back load is still a small fraction of the total landing mass, so that any problem or deficit can wipe it out rather quickly.

The cost and lack of flexibility involved in CV is real. That could be fixed with automatic landing, but that hasn't been demoed yet (people on real programs tell me it's possible), as could the lifetime-eating nature of CV ops. But as it stands I can see where STOVL is the only solution for a joint force as the RAF and RN plan.

But - Enfield Schmenfield - show me where troubled programs insulated from outsiders have ever put themselves right. Unquestionably it is up to the qualified to act and to make decisions. However, military operational experts, procurement insiders and engineers brought us the Boulton-Paul Defiant, the K-Class submarine and the Nimrod AEW.3. (And the insiders behind the last were mightily P:mad:ed at the World In Action crew who blew the whistle.)

And somebody here brought up the delays to Typhoon... which were publicized and addressed in the mid-1990s, by journos looking down the barrels of the Baron's legal goons, including the legendary Carter-Ruck. And what had suggested that there were problems? If you look at the better contemporary reports, it was that, a year or more after first flight, only a few dozen hours of testing had been carried out.

And of course the insiders said nothing was wrong, that the journos didn't have the qualifications to talk about the subject, and (above all) God forbid that they had found a black hole in the envelope that the jet couldn't get out of. (Cough) ALSR (cough).

That could be fixed with automatic landing, but that hasn't been demoed yet (people on real programs tell me it's possible), as could the lifetime-eating nature of CV ops. ...

Flight testing of the F/A-18E/F automatic carrier landing system

Prickett, A.L.; Parkes, C.J.
Aerospace Conference, 2001, IEEE Proceedings.
Volume 5, Issue , 2001 Page(s):2593 - 2612 vol.5
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/AERO.2001.931220

Summary:The F/A-18E/F is the U.S. Navy's premier strike fighter aircraft, manufactured by the Boeing Company. The F/A-18E/F aircraft, while maintaining a high degree of commonality with the F/A-18C/D aircraft, has a lengthened fuselage, larger wing and control surfaces, strengthened landing gear, an improved propulsion system including a growth version of the General Electric F404 engine designated the F414-GE-400, and larger high performance inlets. This paper concentrates on the development, test, and evaluation of the F/A-18E/F Automatic Carrier Landing System (ACLS) up to and including the Third Sea Trials, upon which the aircraft was initially qualified for Mode I, totally automatic, approaches and landings to the aircraft carrier. The paper briefly describes the key components of the F/A-18E/F's ACLS, including cockpit displays and controls, antennas, autothrottles and flight control implementation, and interface with the shipboard AN/SPN-46(V) ACLS. Test procedures and methodology are presented as well as test results and interpretation. Finally, lessons learned are presented and recommendations are made for future aircraft ACLS developmental test and evaluation efforts

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/7416/20148/00931220.pdf?arnumber=931220

I think the correct answer has been listed earlier in this thread by someone else (but I can't be bothered to check)

Steam catapults cost a hell of a lot to run and maintain. Basically we cannot afford them. EM catapults should in theory be more maintainable, but are a bit too risky at present. Hence the MoD decision to go ahead as a STOVL ship but with the option to convert to CV if the EM catapult technology gets sufficiently proven.

I haven't seen the figures so I cannot put hand on heart and say its right but the logic seems fair enough (if frustrating)

Argh!

A cat and trap carrier with C-model JSFs would require a full time air group, because CV ops would impose a heavy training burden in a way that STOVL ops don't. Using RAF Harriers on the CVS carriers was always practical in a way that using RAF Buccaneers or Phantoms never would have been.

B's
 

Agree with Jacko. Buying C's would effectively mean handing them all over to the FAA full time. Whilst I am obviously a big fan of having the carriers, I can also see the common sense of having an aircraft than can flex from CAS in Stan to providing CAP to carrier group in short order.

CTOL is too expensive overall to be first choice.

ProMAs against the Cost of Ownership of STOVL aircraft, goodness me, and steam cats are 1940s technology!

Jackonicko hmm, dashed disapointing that by now, no training savings can be realised by automating CV procedures.

SSSETOWTF Yep, hide the 'weightings' and you can prove anything.

Regardless of how you minimise it (STOBAR, angled deck etc), CV operations mean restricting the deck space used for turning/launching other aircraft/RW. At which stage you back into operating using launch/recovery windows/cycles - which impose their own significant limitations on when you launch and recover, which implications for additional fuel at launch/recovery, deck allert reaction timings, tactics etc etc.In short, the ramifications don't stop at the aircraft.

So, to summarise recent events. We send a "strike carrier" to the Gulf sans strike aircraft. JFH manages to cobble up 4 aircraft for a week. Big deal. Our would-be Ampbi capital ship goes over to JFTEX without any UK escort and no troop helos and has to borrow them off the US, just like Illustrious on April. What a joke they must be laughing at us. This utterly useless incompetent government has made a laughing stock out of our armed forces.