JonesyAn air motor similar to reverse thrust bucket actuators !!
An air motor you say – so, what, 100psi air, remote actuated valves, impeller vanes, ball races, sprocket teeth…etc!. Sounds like a lot of mechanical bits that wouldn’t like heat and vibration doesn’t it?!.
JonesyI think you missed the main ‘Thrust’ of my post,true we used to remove ‘panel 1’ with monotonous regularity but the thrust vectoring system was simple and low-tech.
The thrust vectoring system on F35B is horrendously complex,involving doors/actuators etc – not to mention the lift fan/gearbox etc…all will be sources of trouble.Also as some posters on here have alluded to…the ‘Hot’ Nozzles on a harrier are relatively cool compared to the single jetpipe on F35B…vertical landing on a metal deck ?? :rolleyes:
If they have to RVL the thing onto the deck then all sorts of other problems crop up and you are probably safer with a Hook/Wire
rgds baz
I just dont get where this idea that the aircraft is this fragile is coming from?. Doors and actuators are not high tech! An actuator is basically a fancy servo!. A door is just a bloody door!. The swivel nozzles on an RR Pegasus may have been chain driven but what was turning the drive sprocket?
Likewise a turbine engine turning a driveshaft through a transfer box is hardly something untried is it?. Turboshafts are fairly solid tech now?. The application may be novel but there isn’t much thats all that revolutionary in there in terms of fundamental technology.
Compare that to something really groundbreaking like EMALS and I think you are letting your personal bias against STOVL close your eyes to where the real risk is here.
Jonesy& if I made up an acronym many people would not understand it.
Quite…..my attempt of ‘PDGLTWH’ doesnt have much of a ring to it in all fairness!.
PDGLTWH obviously standing for ‘Please Dear God Let The Wire Hold’.:diablo:
JonesyCTOL is the slack and easy shorthand given to CATOBAR.
If you accept that catapults and arresting engines are the definition for what is ‘conventional’ in carrier aviation CTOL is a great acronym. It gets my vote for certain as CATOBAR is, in my view, overly verbose nonsense!.
JonesyOut of all the modules you would want to cancel why would you cancel Non-Line-of-Sight Launch System? I presume this was putting something like ATACM Block A onto an LCS so that it can be effective in fire support from the “littoral” combat ships?
NLOS was cancelled due to the simple expedient that it didnt work!. There was a similar, though much shorter ranged, Israeli system (IAI’s Jumper) that was being considered as a replacement, last I heard, to keep the surface warfare module viable.
JonesyDoes Britain need 100% of that capability? The Carrier Strike mission arises from statements in previous Strategic Defence Reviews – http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk//upload/pdf/Carrier_Strike_Brief-LUST_Visit_%282%29.pdf –
Times have changed since then. Lessons have hopefully been learned about the efficacy of expeditionary warfare on the scale implied by the size of the CVFs. And of course the UK’s ability to pay for such grandiose projects is much less than it was 5 or 10 years ago. The MoD would be negligent if they didn’t review the Carrier Strike Mission – along with all other military missions – as part of the SDSR.
Carrier Strike is intended to deliver 108 strike sorties ‘1st day of war’, 72 per day for the ten days following and 36 per day for the twenty days following that. Those are the core requirements for our expeditionary warfighting capability. If we are serious about weighting our forces for expeditionary roles, as the current Govt has stated, then that is what we need to be delivering. You will not achieve it with BPE’s.
Again we are back to the simple equation. Why spend 70% of the cost of the CVF capability to get 30% of that capability?.
If we arent going to do Carrier Strike properly why bother with the amphibious capability?. If we aren’t going to stage out in support of our own foreign policy or in accordance with our commitments to our dependent territories why bother with the BPE’s?. The SSN’s can do forward sea denial to protect our SLOC’s in conjunction with the escort fleet.
Simple answer is that the stated aim of the government, even this new one, is for global engagement. IF the SDSR decides the policy is now unaffordable then why spend money, that is in short supply, on a compromised capability that doesnt achieve what we have already calculated is necessary to do the job?.
JonesyIf one knows anything about a/c technology then we know for sure that the F35B will be very expensive to buy/maintain,it aint rocket science…you end up paying more for the worst performing and highest maintenance cost a/c…
If one knows anything about ships we KNOW for certain that the costs of installing steam cats, the ONLY mature option at this time, will be very high and fixed.
We also KNOW that reducing the buy of stovl aircraft leads to reduced ops costs and that this is not the case with CATOBAR!
JonesyIf – big ‘IF’ – the CVFs were cancelled and two or three BPE/Canberras were ordered instead – cost about £1 billion each? – would that imply that much of the current amphibious fleet could be dispensed with, in light of the amphibious capabilities of the BPE/Canberras? So potentially, three new LHDs – able to operate a number of STOVL fighters also, like the USN LHA/LHD fleet – could replace the two CVFs, Ocean, Albion, Bulwark, and maybe a couple of Bays? Sounds like a good deal.
Absolutely not. The ships you indicate can not cover the Carrier Strike mission. We would end up spending 60-70% of the costs of CVF and getting 20-30% of the capability. Its pure idiocy even considering it – as the govt. are well aware.
JonesyI’m still not sure that Typhoon/Tonka 4 ops wouldn’t be suitable prep work for the FCA and what deck experience could be handled by cross decking using GR9s when Illustrious or Ark Royal operate with US carriers. I don’t quite know how this works but if we have a situation where one Harrier squadron, 800 for instance is shore based because one of the carriers is in refit/reserve or operating in the rotary wing only roles, whilst 801 is at sea, it could deploy in full or detachment strength to a US flat top for a time to give the pilots large deck experience, I’m thinking something like the 4 ship detatchment by 892 in 1969 to Saratoga.
Tonka cross-training would be pointless – the whole idea is to give the pilots experience in a high-performance single-seat swingrole strikefighter. GR9 cannot replicate that from a deck and the GR4, obviously, has the back seat chappie to play with the bombs. Typhoon would, therefore, be the only real candidate and I dont think its all that good a fit to be honest. Especially not when compared to what the USN/USMC could offer.
There would be no, none, nil chance whatsoever of GR9’s operating off a US CVN. It is a core principle of US Naval Aviation that STOVL and CATOBAR operational cycles are incompatible on a flight deck. Its nonsense of course…the real reason is that mixing the two has, historically, been too daft to consider owing to the Harrier’s short legs. There is absolutely nothing operationally inhibiting the flying programmes of the two techniques.
Or we could do what the Chinese have done and build a mock flight deck to work with.
Mock flight decks ashore are airfields!. They are great for teaching the approach, but, offer nothing in terms of the actual crunch part!.
On a side bar, if we do go CATOBAR I could easily imagine that training would be conducted by the US Navy not us and the first genertation of flight-deck hands who would operate the cats and wires would also get their CV legs on the other side of the pond.
Thats the way the Aeronavale do it and the Indians something similar. It does seem the only logical way to get pilots up to speed seeing we will only have one deck operational at any one time. Problem is that means us sending pilots off to the US for, at least, a few weeks before we can send ’em out to operate from the duty CVF….that is of course IF the USN can offer places on the course at short notice and IF the action the carrier is needed to deploy against is going to last the few weeks to bother getting the pilots re-rated for. Such is the handicap of CATOBAR.
JonesyI can’t find the quote, but earlier in either this thread or a related one someone explained away the presence of the UK exchange pilots flying F/A-18s with the US Navy and Marines in the context of a F-35B purchase as giving them experience of flying a supersonic strike aircraft, if that was the case, why not simply have them fly Typhoons or (whilst we still have them) Tornado GR Mks here in the UK? After all if they are Harrier vets they’ve already had experience of rolling take offs from a carrier equipped with a ski jump and I imagine it would be cheaper.
It was my comment and the simple answer is realism. Its difficult to get a Typhoon or Tornado to take off from a large deck carrier after it has landed on one!. We can put GR9 pilots through the Typhoon training programme (Tornado GR4 is no good for obvious reasons) and get out pilots who are capable of operating a land-based supersonic combat aircraft though one that has, at present, limited strike capabilities.
Alternately we can send them to the US where they will get deck qualified and get hands on experience of a strike-optimised genuine swingrole type in a naval environment. Plus have access to USMC AV-8B+ and legacy Hornets….the latter being a rough approximation of the performance capabilities F-35B will bring as I understand it. They will also get exposure to the pressures involved in large deck, multi-squadron, carrier operations and will gain an appreciation for the capabilities our most important military ally can put in the field and….who knows…maybe even learn a new trick or two from them.
If the latter is available without incurring ridiculous costs does anyone think that the Typhoon option is anywhere near comparable in terms of what the pilots will come out with, and be able to pass on, down the line?.
JonesyAaah good old STOBAR – diseased product of a deranged imagination – only cottoned onto by the Russians because they couldnt get a steam cat to work!
STOBAR is the method that forces half your airgroup into the air pre strike-generation, carrying buddy fuel packs, because the strikers need to reheat their way off the deck unassisted then orbit round while the rest of the strike package forms up and tops off for the ingress to target. Luckily you dont need to strip the buddy packs off the gas-passers as they are always useful come recovery time to pick up the bolters on the return aboard.
Does tie up your airgroup and pilots a bit and tends to chew through airframe trap cycles on sorties that dont result in any kind of effects on target…which is something of a shame!. More so if you dont have all that big an airgroup and are facing a requirement to generate 108 strike sorties in the 1st 24hrs of combat as CVF is!.
Well they will need to modify the ships for rolling landings anyway, they will probably need an emergency barrier to stop an aircraft that may overshoot together with landing aids for the lining up on the stern rather than the VL method of coming alongside and landing amidships where the wave motion has least effect.
SRL is what it says on the tin….short. The aircraft, on profile, is coming in at 40-60KIAS….with the carrier steaming at 25knts on the same heading the overtake is only on the order of 15-30knts….an overshoot at 15knts shouldnt be all that wild and uncontrollable. Also remember that SRL will only ever be necessary when bringback margins are tested. In routine, scheduled, ops VL will be perfectly feasible if a deck reconfiguration isnt convenient.
JonesyUK MoD is skint. Many RAF chickens are about to come home to roost. STOVL F35B, still does not work -and is about to be put back yet again- it might well still be cancelled.
The head of Boeing Defence Europe has already been approched by UK MoD on a lease to buy deal for Super Hornet. Boeing think they stand a very good chance given the continuing problems with very expensive, not yet working,, yet less capable, STOVL F35B.
Understand that NO-ONE wants catobar right now.
The FAA lads in the states are training up on supersonic strikefighters because F-35B IS a supersonic strikefighter and we have neither the aircraft nor flight deck to get the experience with.
Its not reliable right now but it is working!. It is customary to let an aircraft reach operational capability before commenting on its readiness!. Isn’t it?.
Last point, because i’ve made every point I can, we aren’t about to lease fighters when we’ve made every fuss about operational sovereignty with JSF – we’d, rightly, be a laughing stock!.
JonesyI hinted at heat dissipation problems in a previous post,one odd thing all the way through this thread is that people keep quoting technical/pricing issues which are not relevant to F35B.
I believe that the F35B heat dissipation issues are unique to the F35B !!
Pricing is also unique to the F35B !
The fuel heatsink issue is a common system. Apparently its a feature of the airframes LO design to minimise external fuselage openings for air cooling intakes.
Pricing is unique per variant, naturally, as differing numbers are being bought of all three. There is no obvious problem with this. The problem comes when people try to spin the cost of CATOBAR aircraft without incorporating the cost of the CATOBAR bits.:rolleyes:
JonesyGeoff
Except most of those 74 flights are not with BF-1 but the other 4 BFs and flying in CTOL mode only. BF-1 is doing the STOVL trials and finding all the problems as a result.
So the flight envelope expansion is not to be considered important?. As stated issues like the fuel dump heat sinking are ones that would occur in routine flight and not just in STOVL mode. Yet CTOL flight systems seem to be progressing tidily even with the ‘dodgy’ -35B!.
Overheating due to unpredicted temps found in compartment and insufficient cooling, drive shaft linking the fan drive also not temp rated and a replacement part is not due till 2012. Actuator failures on the Doors needed to engage STOVL mode and the ione thats stumped them is the excessive heat on the down blast having too much of an effect on the surface it encounters.
Overheating in which compartment? The fan bay?. Insufficient cooling where? Is this the fuel heatsink issue?. In case you’d not noticed a pair of 35A’s just undertook a 1000nm non-stop ferry flight from Texas to California….not exactly the frozen artic wastes…they didnt burst into flames as you seem to insinuate. Same fuel heatsink system in all three JSF variants.
Then of course you also ignore that fact that the F-35B is not meeting the UK JCA requirement, i think you’ll find thats the concern for the SDSR at the moment, its over inflated price and for the aircaft that doesn’t meet the original spec.
The only JCA requirement I have heard about not being met is in bringback weight and thats what SRL is all about. What other criteria arent being met?. Reliability?. Please…the aircraft isnt through its development program yet!.
The MoD are either going to drop their expectations and give LM the time and money needed to get the F-35B operational, or they choose an alternative path…..
Well Geoff as sweeping generalisations go thats a winner!. Seeings as we arent asking them to deliver us a squadron by Dec 2012 we’ve probably got the time to give LM to get the component changes they’ve identified put through the system!. Given that the alternate, for us, is either a steam cat system that no-one wants or an EMALS system that is even more unproven than STOVL JSF it does seem the sensible move to let LockMart spec up some tougher door actuators doesnt it!.
Jonesythen given the investment in Cerberus and Searchwater 2000 the MoD would simply choose a twin turbo-prop for its COD design and then buy a few extra to convert to AWACS aircraft fitted with Cerberus and Searchwater 2000
All sorts of options for MASC were studied pre-02 downselect. The ‘cheapo’ one was to buy the best ten or so S-3B’s out of AMARC, regenerate them, and have Thales adapt them for Searchwater.
Personally, for one duty carrier, I doubt we’d go to the expense of bringing in a dedicated COD capability. I could be wrong here but I dont think that the Aeronavale have done either. Cheaper to pay the Yanks for ‘courier services’ on an, as necessary, basis if they have a C-2 near where we are operating I would have thought.
Besides you dont need CATOBAR to operate a twin turboprop radar platform from a carrier. I believe Mantis (twin turboprop) could be converted quite successfully to lift a Searchwater array. With 9000kg of payload capability I could even envisage a non-radar equipped model doing a fair job of delivering the mail and any small-scale stores necessary!.
Sign In
