Quote:

---

By the way, my background is Air Force not Navy, but I find carrier ops a very
interesting topic.

---

I hope you had a chance while serving to go out there and see it for yourself. Nothing quite like it. :ok:

4.4GB PDF about RAN Fixed Wing + Helo Ops
 

'Bushranger 71' said: "...By the way, my background is Air Force not Navy, but I find carrier ops a very interesting topic."

We probably have a mutual friend LEUT 'Bomber' Brown (+ others) No.9 Sqdn South Vietnam (however I was back at NAS Nowra with the A4G). You will see not only a bunch of stuff about the RAN Fixed Wing in those years but also a fair bit about RAN Helo Ops including EMU and No.9 (but only a small amount compared to the overall size of the PDF). Otherwise individual smaller PDFs may be found on these same web pages. There is some info about the LHDs and whydontwegetsomeF-35Bsonem...

Some 1,000 odd pages mostly at beginning of this PDF are about 'Carrier Ops and How to Deck Land' in general including old RN ops and current USN ops, with reference to the beginning and future F-35 ops; and of course including a bunch of A4G stuff aboard HMAS Melbourne scattered throughout the PDF. :eek:

On this SpazSinbad SkyDrive page is a segmented (.RAR/.EXE) version of the latest 4.4GB PDF dated 06 March 2013 in this folder:

https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=cbcd6...6&sa=822839791

FOLDER: '_Final_06mar13_A4G_4-4GB-PDF'
_______________

Otherwise entire same PDF on GoogleDrive (sign in for free):

https://drive.google.com/?authuser=0...DhIQ0szeVJFY0U

FOLDER: 4.4GB PDF A4G Skyhawks RAN FAA

FILE NAME: A4G-FAA_Scrapbook_06mar2013_9,631ppFINALv11.pdf (4.4GB)

This 4.4GB may be archived on a DVD but best viewed when file on computer hard drive.

Bushranger, I'd be thinking more about under water stuff

'B71' said: "Hi SpazSinbad; thank you for the beaut info. I guess I am breaching 'security' now, but JB (Bomber) and I have had lots of dialogue over the past couple of years re the OV-10 Bronco study."

'B71' yeah 'Bomba' put me on to that Bronco / Super Bronco train a while back - pages from the Navy League story about 'Broncos on LHDs' used to be in the BIG PDF - I took 'em out when that idea seemed to get no traction.

Another Navy League story by ex-A4G pilot then RN SHAR pilot Mark Boast is in the large PDF in the beginning pages in 'How Deck Land' section around page 1487 is his 'How to Land a SHAR' from 'The NAVY Jul-Sept 2008 Vol.70 No.3 - The Magazine of the Navy League of Australia':

http://navyleague.org.au/wp-content/...3-Jul-2008.pdf
________________

A few pages also from another Navy League Magazine about 'how to beg for F-35Bs on our LHDs' in the LHD section around page 4754. The original PDF is here:

THE CHALLENGES OF AN ORGANIC FIXED WING CAPABILITY FOR AUSTRALIA’S LHDS
Oct 2010 By Mark Boast in THE NAVY VOL. 72 NO. 4

http://navyleague.org.au/wp-content/...4-Oct-2010.pdf

“The best way to overcome a challenge is to understand it. With this in mind former Sea Harrier squadron commanding officer Mark Boast takes a look at the challenges that could confront the ADF adopting organic CAS for the new Canberra class LHDs."..."

SpazSinbad, Bushranger,

Not sure if it made the press in Oz but your SecDef had a very good look around F-35B at NAS Pax River last year. Hopefully someone in the RAN has at least thought about the possibilities of embarking a USMC or UK F-35B det on board, even if the economics mean that Oz can't afford it's own.

Seems a shame to have a ski-jump and never use it....;)

There is talk of Lilly-padding, but I guess that would be only for those forces that are cleared for a ski-lift

There is a CVF style ski jump at Pax River for F-35B testing. I'll guess that the Spanish LHD will require F-35B trials so expect the USMC at least (I doubt if the CVFs will ever appear near Australia but who knows) to trial their F-35Bs on Oz LHDs with VLs and STOs during exercises to the North of Oz at the end of this decade.

I think I read somewhere (probably in the same Navy League Magazine) that the Oz LHDs left the ski jump in the design because it was easier than redesigning the bow area. This didn't stop the government insisting that the ships didn't have the extra jet fuel capacity or the magazines to carry the weapons to support the F35B on board in any useful way.

A USMC or RN F35B landing on a RAN LHD in Sydney Harbour would be a good way to grab some public support...

Interesting suggestion:

What if China Not Just Hacked — But Sabotaged — the F-35? | emptywheel

Oh, yeah. Can't possibly be an American corporate cock-up

Must be Chinese sabotage

or maybe it was Bigfoot, or Aliens......:hmm:

Shareholders desperately want to believe in boards of directors and corporate executives. To suggest otherwise is apostasy.

So, finally, just ...
15 years after the MOCK-UP,
13 years after the first flight of the X35,
7 years after the first flight of the F35A,
and now with some 50+ of them flying around,

"somebody" at the DOT&E finally discovered the "rearward" visibility might not be up to F-16 standards?

Some design flaws are really hidden well below the surface, and takes years of intense research to reveal.

I am deeply impressed by this stellar analytical performance of the DOT&E.

Luckily they found out in time.

Uhm, and just in case, you guys at LM run out of ideas to solve this dilemma, I have one of this cute little rearward looking cameras on my car, you might take a look...:}

Even better still ... Bolt a R2D2 Droid on top ... Bob's your uncle, job done :ok:

Even more crazy install a fully articulating Nav :}

The Chinese didn't sabotage the data when they hacked in. They inserted mind control software that made the engineers introduce manufacturing flaws. There's worse to come now, as they work on a computer virus that can infect people. It's true.

Back to the thread, didn't we comment a year or more ago that the visibility from the F35 cockpit looked really poor? All the talk about sensors mitigating that issue brushed concerns aside. Maybe LM designers should have listened to us at PPRuNe.

A recurring observation about the F-35, here and elsewhere, is that it's a densely packed, 'fat' shape. Stealth needs aside, there's none of the coke-bottling of area ruling and nor could there be; the weapons bays see to that.

The canopy has always looked broad by comparison with that of, say, the F-16. Broadness equates to shallow viewing angles from the pilot's eyeline. Does this really come as a surprise, then, or is it something else that was conveniently overlooked/was hoped would be 'alright on the night'?

One advantage to the F-35 Poundstretcher's broad cockpit will be having plenty of space to stow magazines and what not. For those long sorties :cool:

I find it funny that people are over looking eodas, this was a questionnaire regarding block 1a after all

Joint Program Office DOT&E OUE Response
(Source: F-35 Joint Program Office; issued March 6, 2013)

The U.S. Air Force conducted the Operational Utility Evaluation for its F-35As and determined its training systems were ready-for-training. F-35 operational and maintenance procedures will continue to mature as the training tempo accelerates.

The DOT&E report is based upon the Joint Strike Fighter Operational Test Team report which found no effectiveness, suitability or safety response that would prohibit continuation of transitioning experienced pilots in the F-35A Block 1A.1 transition and instructor pilot syllabus.

There are no issues identified in the DOT&E report that the Air Force and the F-35 Joint Program Office didn't already know about, and are working to resolve.

There is a deliberate process in place to validate the training system's effectiveness through advancing training blocks as they are made available to the warfighter.

JSFfan, it's bad news. Accept that fact.