Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What is up with the F-35? Part II

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why do you want a ski jump?

    There hasn't been a need for one since the AV-8A. Does nothing but take up deck space. AV-8Bs and F-35Bs can take off with a full load from the Wasp/America class with no problem

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
      Why do you want a ski jump?

      There hasn't been a need for one since the AV-8A. Does nothing but take up deck space. AV-8Bs and F-35Bs can take off with a full load from the Wasp/America class with no problem
      But how much extra fuel they burn to do it? And I bet they take longer to fly off...

      Comment


      • Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
        But how much extra fuel they burn to do it? And I bet they take longer to fly off...
        They take off from the #4 spot. With or without ramp they will be at full power.

        Doesn't take a longer roll. Wasp/America is 844ft long. Take off takes up about 2/3 of the deck. QE is 984ft long

        US Navy and USMC don't see the need. And if you are worried about fuel, the Japanese have the V-22. The "Helo DDs" were designed for them also. Use them for a-a refueling like the MC plans to

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
          Why do you want a ski jump?

          There hasn't been a need for one since the AV-8A. Does nothing but take up deck space. AV-8Bs and F-35Bs can take off with a full load from the Wasp/America class with no problem
          David Atkinson, a BAE Systems aerospace engineer. comments below

          'One key element in increasing the capability of the F-35B is the ski-jump ramp, a project Atkinson has been closely involved with. You've probably seen ski-jump ramps on carriers - they are the lip at the end of the flight deck which rises up. They were conceived by a Royal Navy officer in the 70s to increase the payload capacity of the Harrier when launched (they're unnecessary for cats-and-traps carriers). Various exit angles were trialled - the ramp on HMS Invincible was changed at one point - and after being proven it became a global standard for STOVL aircraft. "It reduces the risk from a mistimed launch," Atkinson says. "When a ship's pitching, that is when the vessel is pointing slightly downwards towards the sea, which isn't great if you are on a flat deck, whereas with a ski jump you've always got a positive upwards trajectory when you leave the ship. It reduces the pilot's workload and gives them more time to diagnose issues. It's a safer option for launching a STOVL aircraft and, from a performance point of view, it means you can launch with more weight from a shorter distance on the ship."

          The ski-jump ramp needed to be updated for the F-35B, so a version based on the dimensions of those on the Invincible class was built at the Naval Air Station in Patuxent River in Maryland (where Atkinson was heading after WIRED talked to him). Test flights showed that the F-35B was successful in automatically directing its thrusters when on the ramp. BAE just needed to figure out the ramp's optimal dimensions, which took two years. The new versions are 15 metres longer than the Invincibles', but are the same shape, and are now in place on the two flight decks. No prototypes were needed. "We don't need to with analysis and simulation," Atkinson says.'

          Comment


          • I will agree with him that older (shorter) harrier carriers needed a ramp. Especially the AV-8A. But with a flight deck over 800ft, it becomes wasted space.

            In the decades of flying Harriers off non-ramp ships, the US has never lost one due to a mistimed launch. The same for our CATOBAR ships. Its a training issue

            Global Standard? I don't think so. The country that flies more STOVL aircraft and has more "Harrier Carriers" than the rest of the world combined doesn't use ramps. And they fly off those ships at max load.
            That country also designed the F-35B and still didn't incorporate a ramp on their latest class of STOVL carrier which was designed around a F-35 airwing.

            The RN now has the deck space that they no longer need a ramp. That "concept" has been proved since 1976 when the USS Tarawa entered service.

            You are going from 688ft of deck space to 932ft. The US Navy has shown 14 times (5 Tarawa Class, 8 Wasp class, 1 America class) that ramps are not needed with a flight deck of 844ft.

            The carriers with more than that deck space that do have ski jumps are flying conventional aircraft off their deck. And have arrested recovery capability. Russian design used by 3 countries and flying MIG-33/J-15s.

            My problem with the ramp is that it is wasted space. Ask any Airboss what he wants, and he will say more deck space. With the introduction of the F-18E/F and the retirement of single mission aircraft (A-6/A-7/F-14...) the airwing went from around 90 planes to around 60. That extra deck space allows more sorties to be flown. A more efficient aircraft carrier.
            You guys will only have 2 at most. You need to get the most bang for your money.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
              I will agree with him that older (shorter) harrier carriers needed a ramp. Especially the AV-8A. But with a flight deck over 800ft, it becomes wasted space.

              In the decades of flying Harriers off non-ramp ships, the US has never lost one due to a mistimed launch. The same for our CATOBAR ships. Its a training issue

              Global Standard? I don't think so. The country that flies more STOVL aircraft and has more "Harrier Carriers" than the rest of the world combined doesn't use ramps. And they fly off those ships at max load.
              That country also designed the F-35B and still didn't incorporate a ramp on their latest class of STOVL carrier which was designed around a F-35 airwing.

              The RN now has the deck space that they no longer need a ramp. That "concept" has been proved since 1976 when the USS Tarawa entered service.

              You are going from 688ft of deck space to 932ft. The US Navy has shown 14 times (5 Tarawa Class, 8 Wasp class, 1 America class) that ramps are not needed with a flight deck of 844ft.

              The carriers with more than that deck space that do have ski jumps are flying conventional aircraft off their deck. And have arrested recovery capability. Russian design used by 3 countries and flying MIG-33/J-15s.

              My problem with the ramp is that it is wasted space. Ask any Airboss what he wants, and he will say more deck space. With the introduction of the F-18E/F and the retirement of single mission aircraft (A-6/A-7/F-14...) the airwing went from around 90 planes to around 60. That extra deck space allows more sorties to be flown. A more efficient aircraft carrier.
              You guys will only have 2 at most. You need to get the most bang for your money.
              The US marine corp have assault ships, ok they can be used as baby carriers but that's not their primary function.So I mean if they added a ski jump that would negate their true purpose plus it would take up two heli landing spot which would defeat the object of having the ship in the first place. Lets be honest here if the US marine corp are carrying out an assault then a super carrier will be alongside in support leaving the assault ship to carry out its true function. I take your point that there is enough deck space to not have a ski ramp but having one enables takeoffs with more weight and less end-speed than required for an unassisted horizontal launch aboard U.S. aircraft carriers. My big question is the refueling problem which isn't being answered.... its got to be answered somehow. and I'm not sure the Merlin AEW system is adequate either

              and from what I've read design issues are becoming a major bone of contention with the America class. Is it a carrier or is it an assault ship?? The F35B seems to be asking many questions in terms of what gets priority.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
                But how much extra fuel they burn to do it? And I bet they take longer to fly off...
                I wrote this on the QE thread.

                "Navy/USMC think it is better to have airspeed/performance/control ability and less air than a shorter t/o roll and more air under the aircraft. If you dribble on to the freeway at 35 mph/56km and the traffic is moving at 80mph/129km you don't take your foot off the gas and decrease fuel consumption."

                Coming off the ramp although you are probably flying the right profile at a low rate of speed and minuscule rate of climb. Loss of thrust the aircraft rate of climb is a negative value, easy decision eject.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Toby View Post
                  The US marine corp have assault ships, ok they can be used as baby carriers but that's not their primary function.So I mean if they added a ski jump that would negate their true purpose plus it would take up two heli landing spot which would defeat the object of having the ship in the first place. Lets be honest here if the US marine corp are carrying out an assault then a super carrier will be alongside in support leaving the assault ship to carry out its true function. I take your point that there is enough deck space to not have a ski ramp but having one enables takeoffs with more weight and less end-speed than required for an unassisted horizontal launch aboard U.S. aircraft carriers. My big question is the refueling problem which isn't being answered.... its got to be answered somehow. and I'm not sure the Merlin AEW system is adequate either

                  and from what I've read design issues are becoming a major bone of contention with the America class. Is it a carrier or is it an assault ship?? The F35B seems to be asking many questions in terms of what gets priority.
                  That's not current and future doctrine for the USMC and USN. The Expeditionary Warfare Groups are intended to be self-sufficient. A CVN is a nice to have, not a got to have.
                  “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                  Mark Twain

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                    That's not current and future doctrine for the USMC and USN. The Expeditionary Warfare Groups are intended to be self-sufficient. A CVN is a nice to have, not a got to have.
                    I thought I had read this doctrine was a result of the Navy withdrawing from Guadalcanal after the loss of four cruisers. The MEU ships are still Navy manned Navy ships does the Marine O-6 have command of those vessels? I maybe miss-interpenetrating this.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                      That's not current and future doctrine for the USMC and USN. The Expeditionary Warfare Groups are intended to be self-sufficient. A CVN is a nice to have, not a got to have.
                      I'm just trying to figure out whats so wrong with the F35B and the ship the RN have designed. So far all I've heard are just peoples preferences. It seems to me the F35B fits RN needs perfectly. Certain questions still need to be answered to achieve a greater range for this plane. I'm sure they will be answered.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Dazed View Post
                        I thought I had read this doctrine was a result of the Navy withdrawing from Guadalcanal after the loss of four cruisers. The MEU ships are still Navy manned Navy ships does the Marine O-6 have command of those vessels? I maybe miss-interpenetrating this.
                        You misinterpreted.

                        The Expeditionary Warfare Groups are built around the LHAs/LHDs and are expected to operate without the support of CVN BG. There may be instances where they will have that cover but the USMC has deployed in many an operation with only AV-8B/AH-1 for coverage.

                        And the EWG is commanded by a Navy Rear Admiral with the Marine contingent of the MEU by a Marine O-6, the MAB by a Marine O-7.
                        “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                        Mark Twain

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Toby View Post
                          I'm just trying to figure out whats so wrong with the F35B and the ship the RN have designed. So far all I've heard are just peoples preferences. It seems to me the F35B fits RN needs perfectly. Certain questions still need to be answered to achieve a greater range for this plane. I'm sure they will be answered.
                          I am not making that argument at all.

                          I was just correcting the statement at the EWG would operate from air cover from a CVN BG...they don't.

                          I think the entire argument here was Gunny was stating the ramp on the QE was a waste of deck space and that the USN/USMC has 40 years of experience operating from amphibs with flat decks quite successfully.

                          And as for your comment regarding building the vessel in a British yard...I have no argument on that. But I agree with Gunny that an LHA would probably have met the RNs needs quite well. It could have been a license build deal...kind of like in WW 2 when we built hundreds of vessels of British design in US yards....LSTs, LSMs, etc.
                          “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                          Mark Twain

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Toby View Post
                            I'm just trying to figure out whats so wrong with the F35B and the ship the RN have designed. So far all I've heard are just peoples preferences. It seems to me the F35B fits RN needs perfectly. Certain questions still need to be answered to achieve a greater range for this plane. I'm sure they will be answered.
                            For that matter, why is the RN using a mechanically scanned Crowsnest radar on a Merlin HM2 for AEW instead of a hybrid or AESA AEW radar on an MV-22? The MV-22 is already plumbed for auxiliary internal fuel tanks for greater endurance, is faster than a traditional helicopter, and most importantly has a higher operational ceiling to give the AEW radar the best view possible.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                              I am not making that argument at all
                              I know

                              I was just correcting the statement at the EWG would operate from air cover from a CVN BG...they don't.
                              Ok, I accept that. So in a high intensity situation, would 2 USMC Carriers be required. One specifically flying F35B's and one Helo's? Because if that's the case then I am beginning to understand the design of the RN new carrier as it can clearly do both without much of a problem

                              I think the entire argument here was Gunny was stating the ramp on the QE was a waste of deck space and that the USN/USMC has 40 years of experience operating from amphibs with flat decks quite successfully.
                              and if the QE was an amphibious assault vessel I would understand that point but it isn't

                              And as for your comment regarding building the vessel in a British yard...I have no argument on that. But I agree with Gunny that an LHA would probably have met the RNs needs quite well. It could have been a license build deal...kind of like in WW 2 when we built hundreds of vessels of British design in US yards....LSTs, LSMs, etc.
                              If its an American design that fits the bill and its built in British yards, fine by me! To my knowledge we drew on alot of American expertise when we built the Astute class of Sub, as we'd lost certain skill sets due to the time gap of the previous subs built at Barrow. I'm not anti- US at all. I'm just very aware of losing trades due to lack of investment in British industry

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
                                For that matter, why is the RN using a mechanically scanned Crowsnest radar on a Merlin HM2 for AEW instead of a hybrid or AESA AEW radar on an MV-22? The MV-22 is already plumbed for auxiliary internal fuel tanks for greater endurance, is faster than a traditional helicopter, and most importantly has a higher operational ceiling to give the AEW radar the best view possible.
                                I agree, budgetary short term fix with fingers crossed??

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X