F-35C Roll-In Arrestment Tests OK - May 2012
 

How well is F-35 testing going? 07 June 2012 by Barry Graff

http://whythef35.********.com.au/201...ing-going.html

“...All numbers and events are as of May 31st [2012].... CF-3 performed a total of 18 successful roll-in arrestments [MK-7 (6 with risers and 4 with no risers) and E-28 (8 arrestments)] at Lakehurst from 80 to 100 knots ground speed....”

Thanks Engines. That Sea Typhoon is a non-starter was my conclusion too but I just wrapped it up in so much gasbagging the point got lost in the confusion.

ICBM wrote:

I rather doubt it - several billion will have been spent, and HMS QE & PoW are a bit big to be LPHs forever. They'd get converted for cats 'n' traps, which whilst embarrassing would get us back to the right answer.

S41

We would sell them to a country who could afford to convert them

the Brazilians or the Chinese might take them............... the Indians certainly would

HH

I agree. India would convert them and fit any type of Cat and Trap to put their jets on. It's hard to see them not making an offer if F-35B does become a victim of events. They have plenty of Rupee to do it with.

Politically I don't think China would get a look in.

If I were 1st Sea Lord I'd pray STOVL endures.....or our Defence Budget increases to afford a conversion for both

China is no chance but India already have their hands full, don't think they have the budget for another carrier.

The F-35B isn't going to be cancelled, there is too many countries depending on it and its capabilities make it irreplaceable (in the next 20 years).

The A and C can be dropped, as long as the US wants to continue to use 1960 designs for the next 20 years.

The F-35 is a short range aircraft, if they want to start a war with China (which they will lose no matter what) they a new aircraft like the J-20 will be needed and its a completely different requirement.

The F-35 does what it does and its nearly ready, talk of cancelling is stupid at this stage.

Your definition of 'Nearly' is probably very different from most peoples :)

My bold
US Marine Corp at 340 ish
RAF/RN at <138
Marina Militaire at 22

Can't see any other customers and we were the ones wanting to pull out.
Smoke and mirrors, I suspect MoD have gone back to the expensive short legged version to dig the MC out of a hole, maybe under threat of losing that national design sovereignty stuff of a couple of years ago?

You forgot to mention Spain which will probably be wanting 22+ F-35Bs around the end of the decade and then thee is also the question of Japan, which is building up a fleet of flat tops...:ok:

What about Thailand their AV-8S (if any are still flying) must be close to scrap by now.
Would the F-35B fit on the Chakri Naruebet?

Peter - the F-35B could be cancelled and that is what is being loosely thrown about here as a mere supposition. I'm sorry but if the F-35A goes the Programme goes as the cost per JSF will become unaffordable; also FYI there are more countries interested in buying the A than all of those buying the other variants - USAF, Netherlands, Turkey, Australia, Denmark, Italy, Singapore, Israel, Japan. The potential order book for the A is around 70% of the total anticipated JSF build. Performance in test will dictate how that changes and right now F-35B is due to IOC 2 years later than the USMC desired therefore 'nearly ready' is a tad optimistic. I think nearly ready technically occurs in Nov 2014.

Obi Wan,
SPAIN. Buying F35???? Are you havin a larf... They are about to sink in a mire of eurodebt, as are Italy. After they default and the euro drowns, then standby for F35 to be struck off the order books in droves.

High Spirits,

Didn't say they could afford them, just said they wanted them! They have two STOVL flat tops (1 new), their Harriers can last another decade probably after which they may be in a position to order replacements which means F-35Bs. Maybe they will still be in the crapper economically, maybe not. Doesn't change the fact the requirement is there.

As for Thailand, Chakri Narubet can accomodate F-35Bs, but their budget can't afford the running costs of the AV-8As they already have (betond minimum ops for show). Unless their economy seriously revives they won't be ordering new aircraft anytime soon.

Engines,

It occurs to me that STOBAR makes more sense if you ask a different question.

I think it's generally agreed that any aircraft will be limited off STOBAR versus a cat or a runway. But even so, how would the range, payload and performance of the Typhoon or Sea Gripen compare with the F-35B, from the same deck roll?

just came across this by Sharkey - written in January
Sharkey's World: "Navalised" Typhoon

would appear to be quite an argument against Typhoon STOBAR - and presumably the same arguments would affect Gripen?
However how accurate is he?

The USA has cancelled some pretty big programs in the past - all the way back to the Valkyrie and Skybolt

The F-35 cancellation is the easiest single cost saving open to whoever comes in as President in January

At the cost of world credibility as a military program partner
If F-35 gets cancelled, no-one will ever trust the USA with a major joint project again.

Milo,

The article in 'Sharkey's world' is accurate - but then I would say that as I contributed the technical piece for it at his request.

I stand by my assessment on Typhoon and STOBAR - the launch issue revolves around how fast it can accelerate (with a heavy payload), how fast it can enter the ramp, and then how slowly it can fly away. Without vectored thrust (and that thrust operating throughout the CG) flying a Typhoon away from the ramp would be an interesting exercise. It really needs a reaction control system (which BAE proposed), and that would take more thrust from the already hard worked engines. At any realistic combat payload, a Typhoon launch would require very high end speeds. I'm not at all sure it can get there in a short deck roll.

The recovery issue is just as demanding - how do you get the aircraft to fly a good 30 to 40 its slower than a normal runway landing, catch the wire and then stop? BAE's ideas involved sprung decks and RB211s to generate an artificial upwind, as they knew that getting the necessary landing gear strength for a normal 'trap' would severely compromise the airframe. Trying to catch a wire flying some sort of 'dynamic false' manoeuvre is, in my view, a non-starter. And we haven't even mentioned the structure needed for the all new hook system. Typhoon is a very weight sensitive aircraft, as it should be to achieve its shatteringly good air to air performance.

I would think that any 'Sea Gripen' would encounter the same issues.

LO, very hard to answer your question without adding a lot of detailed assumptions about launch methods and performance calculations that I can't do without data. However, I would take a hefty bet that even from the same land runway, F-35A, B or C would all outperform Typhoon or Gripen in a strike role. That's because the F-35 is optimised to perform in the strike role - internal weapons bays deliver a massive range boost, and it has a very large fuel fraction. All its sensors (like EOTS) are already built in. Typhoon has to carry all that stuff (fuel, weapons, pods) externally. Typhoon is optimised for the air combat role, and very well optimised too - but that large wing and high thrust to weight ratio degrade performance in the strike role.

I spent a few years on the T-45 Goshawk programme, and that experience of modifying a very good light training aircraft to operate from a ship does, I admit, colour my opinion.

This issue has been around the buoy a number of times now, always happy to respond, though. In short, if you want a world beating land based air to air combat aircraft, buy Typhoon. If you want a ship based strike aircraft, don't.

Hope this helps,

Engines

MM - Ward is a bit behind the times on the Seaphoon proposal, which is now based on thrust vectoring to reduce Vapp without an extreme angle of attack (which in turns means that the pilot can see the deck). He's also a little unclear on how a non-STOVL jet can benefit from a ski-jump - the physics are the same as STOVL although the speeds are higher. And the reason you don't have ski-jumps on land is that you would thereby make the runway one-ended, and unusable for landings.

[Engines posted while I was writing this. I don't see reaction control systems in the latest Seaphoon proposals. I am not a big fan of Seaphoon, anyway.]

As for Gripen, the pitch (which I am not endorsing, just conveying) is that the existing jet is already designed for STOL, so it has low Vapp (125-160 kt), good low-speed handling, inherently precise approach, and the structure for no-flare landings; the E/F's new gear and centersection is being designed so that a higher-sink-rate version can be generated quite easily; and that it can be STOBAR or CATOBAR according to choice.

Also, some expeditionary services might care to note that the Gripen will fly happily all day long off an 800 m runway, which is shorter than what they expect to use for F-35B. And I would love to see what an F-35A would do on an 800 m SCREECH CRASH BANG road base.

I expect that F-35A should haul its internal load further than most things from an unrestricted runway. What I was speculating about was whether a STOBAR fighter, particularly F-35B-sized, could match its 3000 lb/450 nm HHH from a realistic deck run.