Bager1968She’ll be in & out of port for months, then likely spend a few more months undergoing repairs to fix the problems the trials WILL find*, possibly to include some drydock time.
Only then will she actually enter commission.
Whether the first aircraft trials will be done before or after that repair period is the only question.
* every major warship built by any nation has something that needs to be fixed before the builders can hand it over to the “owners”.
Bager1968And she isn’t Queen Elizabeth II, just Queen Elizabeth.
Technically, Queen Elizabeth (II).
Placing the parenthesis indicates that this is the second ship with the same name… the first being HMS Queen Elizabeth, lead ship of her class of 15″ battleships, commissioned in January 1915.
Bager1968The Air Force is giving Lockheed a $24 million contract to conduct a “hypoxia root-cause analysis” in addition to work on “titanium crack growth” and other engineering tasks, according to Defense News’ Dave Majumdar.
So there are many different things the money is going for… the OBGS problem is only one of them.
The OBGS isn’t even an F-22-unique item… the same system in in all other USAF fighters… as well as post-1990 USN/USMC fighters.
Bager1968More discussion here: http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/18325/HMS-Hermes-originally-intended-to-operate-F-4-Phantoms
Arresting wire pull-outs should be similar between Victorious, Hermes, and the USN’s modified Essex-class carriers. Whether this would be enough for Phantoms, or just Crusaders and Buccaneers, is another question.
Bager1968You mean the “Divine Wind”?
Japanese name: Kamikaze?
Bager1968You’re correct, but the H-40 also got its designation before 1962 as well…
So I still see a a discrepancy.The H-2 and H-3s initally had designations under the old Navy system, so they had to have new numbers post 16 Sept 1962. But there was no need for the Huey to change from the H-40 because, like the C-141, it had a USAF-style designation.
But the change from XH-40/YH-40 (assigned 1955 by the US Army, 3 and 6 built respectively) to HU-1A occurred in March 1960 when the production orders were placed.
This was 2½ years before the system change, so it was an internal US Army decision… perhaps some period publication gives a reason.
Bager19683 QEC would be 4800 and one Ford is 4660 I believe. So the QEC complement would be slightly greater (including air wing) but only if you had 50% more aircraft in total. So you could get more bang for the same buck, or less buck for the same bang
Even with the reduced manning in the Ford class, the USN manning schemes are not, and would not be, as “lean” as the RN’s… the ship’s company numbers in USN service would be at least 20% higher than the RN’s are.
Then add in the reality that the USN wouldn’t have just 12 F-35C aboard each “CVF” like the RN plans… they would have at least 24 F-35C & F/A-18E/Fs, plus some EA-18Gs and E-2Ds along with at least as many SH-60R/S as the RN would have HM.2 Merlins (likely more).
This would add more air wing personnel as well (some 5-10 maintenance personnel per extra aircraft, as well as aircrew).
Bager1968Note that the government of Iraq is allowing the Turkish raids, and condemns the PKK’s actions:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/10/20/2464237/iraq-condemns-pkks-raids-into.html
Posted on Thursday, 10.20.11
By ROY GUTMAN
McClatchy NewspapersBAGHDAD — Iraq’s central government and Kurdish regional authorities on Thursday condemned Kurdish PKK militants for their latest lethal attacks on Turkish security forces. But they left it to Turkey to crack down on the movement, which operates out of northern Iraq.
The Iraqi Foreign Ministry, headed by Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurd, roundly condemned the PKK incursion into Turkey and offered no criticism of its powerful neighbor, which launched air and ground operations inside Iraq Wednesday after PKK attacks killed 34 Turks, including five civilians.
But the Kurdish regional government in Erbil, whose security forces would have to enforce any Iraqi action against the PKK, took a more nuanced stance, indicating that while it would not come to the aid of the PKK, it also would not crack down on the movement.
“We have no intention of sending any reinforcements to the site of the conflict on the border,” said Jabbar Yawar, spokesman for the Kurdish peshmerga defense force, adding that this was “because force is not the answer.”
The United States, its European allies and other countries have designated the PKK as a foreign terrorist organization, but Kurds living on both sides of the Iraq-Turkey border have supported the group’s aims, to achieve more autonomy for Kurdish-dominated southeastern Turkey.
The Iraqi Foreign Ministry on Thursday made no mention of the PKK’s political aims but charged that the aim of the latest attacks on Turkey “is to demolish border security, undermine trust and to damage Iraqi-Turkish relations.”
Voicing sympathy for the families of the fallen Turkish soldiers, it pledged the backing of the government in Baghdad and the regional authorities in Kurdistan “to maintain the security of the borders, and to cooperate with the Turkish government to prevent the recurrence of such acts.”
(Special correspondents Ipek Yezdani in Istanbul and Sahar Issa in Baghdad contributed to this story.)
Bager1968Fighters and transports pretty much stuck with the new lower number designations (with certain exceptions…C-141 & F-111 to name two) which is why we now have the F-35 and C-17.
The C-141 received its designation on 13 March 1961, before the 16 September 1962 “rationalization”. The prototype C-141A had the serial 61-2775, indicating it was ordered in FY1961 (1 Oct. 1960-30 Sept. 1961).
The F-111 received its designation in 1961 as well (29 September), so it kept its number (the USAF system was used as the basis for the unified system, so all the USAF aircraft kept their existing designations).
I believe it is the F-117 that is the oddball you were thinking of.
Bager1968The US military still owns a decent amount of rolling stock.
Hill AFB (Ogden, Utah) is home to the “Defense Generator and Rail Equipment Center”, which rebuilds locomotives every seven to nine years, and then places them back into service elsewhere. Hill Air Force Base is also responsible for the annual inspection and maintenance of all DOD rolling stock.
Bager1968All I can add is that 25.4 mm = 1″.
Bager1968Not only that, but the greater number of smaller carriers would actually need more total crew (including air-group)… and personnel costs are the largest part of the operating costs for ships of the RN & USN (initial build cost is much smaller than lifetime operational costs)!
Then add in the additional escorts that would need to be built, manned, and maintained (unless you plan to always operate your USN CVFs in groups of 3 with the same number of escorts as 1 CVN)… lots more expense there, isn’t there?
Bager1968it was introduced because it was lighter than the two doors system (as the aircraft was overweight, they needed to change a number of things, and it was one of them)
The new door actually added weight.
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2008/articles/apr_08/f35transition/index.html
(Link is now dead)
Lift Fan Inlet
The lift fan inlet doors were changed from a bi-fold, side-hinged configuration to a single, aft-hinged door. The change added some weight, but significantly reduced lift fan flow distortion, which increased lift fan performance and operability.
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/gallery_slideshow.html?gallery_id=34
go to X-35 top view
The auxiliary inlet provides an additional source for low distortion air for the engine during powered lift operation. When open at slow speeds, about sixty percent of the air at the engine face comes from the auxiliary inlet. The X-35B had a smaller opening with two doors hinged on the centerline of the aircraft. The F-35B has two doors hinged on the outboard sides of the opening. The change improves inlet flow performance. The increased size reflects the largest inlet within the structural constraints of the aircraft.
Note the pics of the variable area vane box nozzle and the roll posts in this image gallery… these help control the F-35B while in hover.
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/gallery_slideshow.html?gallery_id=14
Bager1968When/why was a single piece rear-hinged lift fan door introduced? (initial info indicated left and right opening split doors, just like the aux vent right behind the main lift vent.)
With the side-opening doors there was a reduction in airflow into the lift-fan chamber when the aircraft was moving forward.
The new door channels more air into the chamber as forward speed increases.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lift-fan-inlet-door-problems-led-to-rethink-214382/
Lockheed Martin redesigned the lift-fan inlet on the F-35B with an aft-hinged door after problems with the bifold doors on the X-35 concept demonstrator.
…..
“The bifold doors did not work well with forward speed,” says Rob Burns, propulsion director with the Joint Strike Fighter programme office.
There is also a side-effect of the new door that helps in other ways… it reduces loads on the auxiliary-inlet doors behind it.
So I have just read on the F35 thread in aviation Obi.
Still looks unnatural to me. Probably a good job I’m not an aircraft designer.
Any idea what the take-off speeds (when leaving the deck and when the aircraft is now properly flying so that the vertical lift is not needed) are and what the maximum air speed of the funnel is. I would be intrigued to know what the margins between the 2 are.
I suspect the values may be classified though
The door remains fully open to 165 knots.
The lift-fan door was programmed to open to 65 deg. below 120 kt., and to 35 deg. above that airspeed. But with the large door fully open, loads on the auxiliary-inlet doors behind it are reduced, so the schedule has been changed to keep the lift-fan door open 65 deg. up to 165 kt. during a short takeoff, says J.D. McFarlan, vice president of F-35 test and verification.
Bager1968And the rest of the “good news” from the F-35B sea trials…
The hazard zone around the jet therefore has shrunk to about the same size as that of a Harrier, he said.
Similarly, the “outwash” on take-off is far less harsh than anticipated, Cordell said.
Sign In
