JonesySeakeeping issues Wan. The semi planing monohull has proven to roll like a drunk at closing time in any kind of swell. The Gulf is a bit more sheltered than the South China Sea.
JonesyAfter Latakia Operation Praying Mantis in the Persian Gulf was probably the clearest example of ship to ship missile combat.
The Iranian Combattante class missile boat Joshan fired a Harpoon at USS Wainwright. The Wainright and USS Simpson returned missile fire with Standards and USS Bagely launched a Harpoon. The USS Joseph Strauss later fired another Harpoon at the Iranian frigate Sahand…which had already been engaged with two air launched Harpoons. Theres a good degree of information out there on the action.
JonesyHow frequently do the CVFs go through refit?
Last I heard the MoD requirement was for major refit intervals of 6yrs with each refit interval to be no more than 6 months duration. Throughout the course of a calender year about 6 weeks would be expected to be set aside for minor refits and defect rectification etc to the duty hull.
JonesyGeoff,
I think it was Qinetiq who stated that the aiming mark would be about 150ft in from the round down. I guess if you are coming in at 40mph you probably have time to pick your spot dependent on conditions. Looks like EODAS is going to be a bloody useful landing aid as well as everything else!.
Russ,
‘Fitted out with’ is probably the term everyone is missing when it comes to the angled deck. There will be deck lighting, landing aid configuration etc that will need to be changed from the axial layout, so, a bit of real work involved in fitting it out over the paint slapping albeit not a great deal!.
JonesyQinetiq did those tests with a Harrier 1 which is pretty stable platform. No SRVL tests have been done with production model (which are heavier to keep the aircraft from ripping itself apart) with any kind of combat loads. Keeping the angled deck extension might be a good idea just in case. Plus, If you need a COD visit from an Osprey, you have space for it to do rolling take-off and landings without having to worry about the big rotors hitting the ski-jump.
Didnt they use the Harrier to validate the testing model they developed?. It was my understanding that Qinetiq modelled F-35B and Harrier then validated the Harrier data with the trials. Harrier data checked out ergo confidence in their model for F-35B.
Besides there’s nothing really all that magical about stopping an aircraft, even one carrying an extra couple of tons of ordnance, from 40mph in the wet in a few hundred feet on brakes alone. The big British Army Fodens tip in at about 38ton loaded and, in the dry, they can pull up from 45mph in about 120ft. Double that up for the wet and then double again for the lower surface adhesion and you are in the ballpark of what Qinetiq says is worst case. In really, really adverse conditions with heavy pitching and icy decks etc maybe there is a bite-the-bullet judgement call and the F-35B does ditch ordnance for the option of a, safer, VL. In those conditions I’m sure the equivalent CATOBAR pilot would be quite happy to be ditching ordnance also before trying for a landing and/or be considering his diversion options!.
As stated I’m all for the retention of an angled deck for SRL when its employed. If McTaggerts could have offered a good price to the Carrier Alliance I’d have had no issue with DAX-II like gear fitted from the outset for a more STOBAR-like configuration….were only getting two ships so lets get all the benefit for UK manufacturing we can and it may have come in handy for future STOL/slow-mover fixed wing UAVs!. I’d also assume that with an 800ft+ flight deck and a skijump adding circa 30% to the run (most oft quoted figure) that a clean Rafale or Super Hornet would stand a fighting chance of getting upiddy-up-up should one have to effect an emergency landing on a QE?!. Shame we wont see it now that the CATOBAR lunacy has poisoned that particular chalice!.
JonesyNot as absurd as Falkland; in fact, not even close.
This is funny. The overarching claim the Argentines have on the Falklands is their proximity to the Argentine mainland. If you support the Argentine position on this doesnt it mean, following the exact same justification, that Scarborough Shoal is a Phillipines possession as its a lot closer to them than China!.
JonesyCue Benny Hill theme tune etc 😀
JonesySRVL approach is roughly 60knts at about a 6 degree glideslope if memory serves. Ship will be steaming at 20-25knts so actual rolling speed on deck will come in at about 35-40knts. Qinetiq state that touchdown point will be about 150ft beyond the round down and, worst case, braking distance wont exceed 400ft.
SRVL, it should be pointed out, will only be employed when heavier than normal bringback is occuring and, under benign conditions, braking roll should be around 200ft. So, with the most extreme combination of factors, free deck of about 550ft will be required and at the end of the 550ft, if the brakes are working at all, the aircraft should be at a rate of knots completely unsuited to a bolter in any understood use of the term!.
That said I think its safe to say that, with nearly 4 acres of flight deck, marking up a shallow angled run to at least partially deconflict landing and takeoff events cant be a bad idea!.
JonesyI don’t think anyone said it would burn to a crisp on first attempt. However it could do far more damage, far faster, than was the case with the Harrier. For us to be ignorant about such issues could lead to big expensive mistakes like needing to fix warped carrier decks!
The inference was from the ‘blow-torch’ image ppp and clearly a spot of blackened paint, at worst case, is a good way removed from melting steel!. Of course its only prudent to keep a watch on deck heating etc, but, if all thats currently of concern is the surface treatment then we are a long way from blow-torches arent we!
JonesyI have heard that the Selex PAR wasn’t good enough but not for the reasons stated. Not many others to choose from, but I think it has to be all re-bid technically
You know what Prom I think you are right there. I remember something to that effect as well….it wasnt to do with inability to handle low-RCS…it was an inability to meet the simultaneous-control requirement or something like that. Will have to check.
Jonesyppp,
The QE are going to use the Artisan 3D radar, so maybe they are talking about a different purpose radar from the US?
Wrong kind of radar being discussed there. Geoff’s comment was that they were discussing the CVS ‘approach radar’ as insufficient to get a return off the F-35. The approach radar fitted to CVS was the Selex SPN-720: http://www.selex-sas.com/EN/Common/files/SELEX_Galileo/Products/SPN720.pdf
A relatively low-powered set intended to pick up an inbound jet at about 12nm, with very high resolution, for approach control almost down to the deck. The reason I made the comment that this set being unable to get a return off 35B is bizarre, ably expanded on by Swerve, is that by 12nm the landing aircraft is dirtying-up with wheels down, doors open etc. The idea that SPN-720 cant get a return off a fighter in a distinctly non-stealthy configuration at 12 miles does not seem right!
Bad news especially for the Italians as well….SPN-720 is the Precision Approach Radar currently fitted to Cavour!.
JonesyGeoff,
The switch back to Stovl was brought up (Obviously), they will configure the rear deck for SRVL and that program was ongoing even during the switch to the C
Was this illustrated in any way…is it now a shallow angled deck or still axial?.
the approach radar will switch from the Invincibles version to the US one as the aircraft too stealthy on approach
In a ‘dirty’ configuration, within a radius from the ship to be in its landing pattern, F-35B is too stealthy to be picked up on an ordinary PAR?. Sounds a bit of a bizarre statement that one?!!!
JonesyI think you will find that the handler waving casually from the sharp end is actually signalling that there has been no nozzle or tailplane strike on the edge of the Deck – or the round down as the fishheads called it…as the a/c lifts off you will notice that the nozzle and tailplane both rotate downwards towards the deck and get quite close – hence my comment about ramp clearance with a Heavy a/c…the a/c in the vid clip is probably fairly lightly loaded !
I’m not so sure that was a clean launch signal Baz. If it was it was about the slackest I’ve ever seen and I dont think the later pair do it at all!.
I saw the rotate into takeoff attitude and saw the tail dip as you described…off a skijump an aircraft doesnt actually rotate though does it?. Its progression up the ramp puts it at the correct nose-up attitude as it leaves the ramp without the need to balance it on the way up. The gear oleos seem enough to stop the tailpipe striking the deck at near-full/full compression on landing so, you must assume, they will cope with an MTOW aircraft compressing the gear as it transits from the flat deck to the ramp.
Maybe MTOW could be an issue for the USMC going forward without ski-jumps but, as I understand it, the takeoff run is 550ft with 40knts WoD for a MTOW -35B. Given they’ll have an 800+ft deck of a USMC LHA it doesnt look like MTOW should be all that problematic!.
JonesyYou are absolutely correct swerve,I had misremembered lack of buddy pack as lack of AAR 🙂
Not sure that the UK F35b will ever be fitted for buddy AAR though.
So – no buddy refuels also = MTOW on the ramp…has anybody else noticed how flimsy the nose u/c leg is ?
Is it going to cope with MTOW on the Ski jump ?Heavy Ski jumping puts large loads on the landing gear,the harrier noseleg was built like a brick 5hithouse !!
Also how close is the rear nozzle going to get to the ski jump lip on MTOW take off ??For reference…watch how close the rear nozzle/tailplanes get to the deck edge and then near the end of the clip you can see how flexible/flimsy the landing gear is during the VL at approx 2.50
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki86x1WKPmE
The aircraft is travelling on a ballistic trajectory when it comes off the end of the ramp anyway….why would the nozzle be any more likely to strike the ramp lip than off a flat deck?.
Yep MTOW on deck is whats been promised. The gear looks to be performing quite well in every piece of test footage I’ve seen. Seeing that they’ve had a 250m ground ski ramp at the STOVL Centerfield complex at Pax River since about 2008 (http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.content_detail&key=99E8E3FA-3C12-4BCC-A905-6838819A5C10) you’d hope that small issues like not getting off the ship at MTOW or the nose gear snapping off in the attempt would have been identified by now!
Two things that the youtube clip does show, though, is how much rubbish these claims about jet blast effect on personnel are and how overstated the deck ‘damage’ is that is caused by the hot exhaust.
Watching the takeoffs you cant help but notice the deck crew waving casually at the -35B as it takes off past them about 40ft away. The camera does seem to have missed them getting blown overboard!. The camera also failed to show paint blackening and being scorched off the deck despite repeated shots of the nozzle pointing straight down!. Funny that isnt it?.
JonesyI’d guess it would be a variant of that on the Tons and an Oropesa sweep, but, would have to dig out a couple of the old Janes books I’ve stowed away to confirm it to be honest.
Until then if you follow the link below and look towards the bottom of the page you’ll see as good a description, and illustration, of the constituent parts of the Mk3 gear as I’ve seen.
http://www.kenthistoryforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=4154.0
There are a few associations covering RN MCMW with online presence which, I take it, you will be familiar with?. I did find an entry by a poster claiming to be the former CO of one of the IMS boats at http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/showthread.php?t=28439. I can dig out some stats etc but my guess is you want to be talking to that chap more!
Good luck.
Edit: Bit more detail here on the basic technique – http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/navy/nrtc/14160_ch8.pdf
Sign In
