Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
ADF Serials Message Board > Navy Aircraft - Royal Australian Navy Fleet Air Arm > Oz F-35bs On Oz Lhds Potential |
Posted by: Luig May 17 2014, 05:38 AM |
Jump jets on Defence radar 17 May 2014 Nick Butterly, Canberra, The West Australian https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/national/a/23583014/jump-jets-on-defence-radar/ "Australia could buy "jump-jet" Joint Strike Fighters to base aboard new landing ships, giving the nation its first aircraft carrier since the early 1980s. Defence Minister David Johnston told The Weekend West the Government was considering buying the "B" model of the F-35 - a specialised variant of the stealth jet being built to operate from aircraft carriers. Last month, Australia committed to buying 72 of the conventional model F-35s from US aircraft manufacturer Lockheed Martin at a cost of almost $20 billion. But the Government has left the door open to buying more F-35s and the minister says the F-35B will be considered. "Now that aircraft is more expensive, does not have the range but it's an option that has been considered from day one," Senator Johnston said. The F-35B has a shortened take-off distance and can land vertically, just like the legendary Harrier jump jet. The British Navy and the US Marines are buying the F-35B to station aboard aircraft carriers. Australia is soon to bring into service two large ships called landing helicopter docks. Though they resemble small aircraft carriers, the Government has maintained until now they would be used only to deploy helicopters and troops. Senator Johnston said stationing the F-35 aboard an LHD would be costly and technically challenging, but it could be done. [Not a bad idea given the LHD was designed by the Spanish to operate the F-35B!] "The deck strength is there for such an aircraft," he said. The Hawke government mothballed [frickin' sold it you dummy] Australia's last aircraft carrier, HMAS Melbourne, in 1982. Commissioning an aircraft carrier is considered a significant strategic statement of military might by a country. China recently launched its first aircraft carrier. The sea trials are being watched closely. The F-35B has less range than the conventional F-35 owing to the complex systems of jets used to allow it to land vertically. The B variant has been the most trouble-plagued of the three F-35 models. Testing was stalled this year after cracks were discovered in the aircrafts' bulkheads. [This is ground stress testing of airframe - flight ops fine.] The F-35 will replace Australia's fleet of F/A-18A/B Classic Hornet aircraft, due to be withdrawn in 2022." |
Posted by: F/A-18 Super Bug May 17 2014, 02:09 PM | ||
I really wonder how many auxiliary staff are needed to operate one F-35B? I mean you have to have: Mechanics, Electricians , Ordnance handling (attaching and storing), Fire fighting, although that should already be there for the helos, Refueling - the F-35B has a fuel capacity of 13,100 litres compared to say our MRH 90 helos which have a fuel capacity of 9,084 litres. I tried but I couldn't find out how much aviation fuel is stored aboard the new Canberra class LHDs. "Shooters" (yellow shirts on US A/C carriers) that direct the aircraft into take off position and then give the take off signal. White shirts = Air wing quality control personnel, Squadron plane inspectors, Landing Signal Officer (LSO),Air Transfer Officers (ATO), Liquid Oxygen (LOX) crews, Safety Observers, Medical personnel. Blue - Plane Handlers, Aircraft elevator Operators, Tractor Drivers, Messengers and Phone Talkers. As the new LHDs don't have catapults or arresting wires we won't have to do what the majority of what the "green guys" in the US Navy do which is Catapult and arresting gear handling, Air wing maintenance personnel, Cargo-handling personnel, Ground Support Equipment (GSE) troubleshooter. Hook runners, Photographer's Mates, Helicopter landing signal enlisted personnel (LSE). I would love to see us return to having a fixed wing aircraft navy however to train all these people in the position listed above from zero to Fully Operational is going to cost I would ASSUME $100s of million of $dollars and I don't think either Labour or the Liberals would sign off on it with our Budget deficit at the moment. Also what would be the military doctrine of these new LHDs if we had F-35Bs? Would we just be playing mini carrier games in the north of Australia with other US Marine Corp LHDs (like Exercise Talisman Saber) or would they travel around and participate in exercises like RIMPAC or would we actually deploy them to hot zones around the world? These are all rhetorical questions I quasi-guess. See pic at bottom of our Blackhawks on the USS Boxer. However I would also love to see us possibly use other Marine Corp aircraft that they use on US Navy LHDs such as the MV-22 or buy a couple of Sikorsky CH-53E Super Stallions which have a better range, capacity and greater lift than our CH-47Fs. PS I'm just grinding your gears Luig however weren't you over talking about the F-35B and the new LHDs? |
Posted by: Luig May 17 2014, 03:03 PM | ||||
I'm over going over the same ground again and again. It is tiresome and it has been a long time since ANY politician expressed ANY interest in having F-35Bs on LHDs. If you have not cottoned on to this 'fact'. The politicians make the final say on everything. As a matter of fact here is a link to a recent radio talk where much of this 'who decides' in Oz is explained. So go download and listen. Australia's Defence and the Strike Fighter Purchase 09may2014.mp3 http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=18877 (.MP3 2.6Mb) ________________________ Meanwhile here is a factoid recently disputed by none other than Prof Hugh White. I'm not sure why he said what he said but anyway here is what the DMO says happens to monies for new F-35A purchases.... Defence Portfolio Budget Statements 2014-15 Defence Materiel Organisation page 158 http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/14-15/pbs/2014-2015_Defence_PBS_04_DMO.pdf (0.7Mb)
___________ And here is a decade old report on this topic for the then Parliamentarians responsible for it in Fed Parliament.....
______________ Now back to the beginning one more time. The LHD for Oz is more or less the same as the original Spanish LHD - especially on the outside. The LHDs are quite capable of operating F-35Bs with suitable deck cover / paint material which is now readily available. However DO NOT IMAGINE any LHD as an ersatz Aircraft Carrier. IT IS NOT. Read the 2004 report. I'll post a link to some now slightly outdated but still relevant RAN LHD material in a PDF online: Look in the 'Documents & Videos Various' folder on the 'SpazSinbad' OneDrive page here: https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=CBCD63D6340707E6&id=CBCD63D6340707E6%21116 For two PDFs with names beginning with 'LHD...' (both around 35Mb). Now that there is renewed interest I'll updates these PDFs but not sure when. Also GoogleDrive may have some material - I'll look... Similarly on the SpazSinbad page on GoogleDrive in the ''folder will be an LHD pdf "LHD+F-35BinfoJan2013pp123.pdf" same as on OneDrive. https://drive.google.com/?authuser=0#folders/0BwBlvCQ7o4F_aDhIQ0szeVJFY0U __________________ Of course doctrine will change if we do buy some F-35Bs. Again I stress these will/should be used sparingly on LHDs as required and not as one may imagine an aircraft carrier with dedicated fixed wing assets. When not on LHDs in transit these marvellous F-35Bs will be hop skipping and jumping around northern Australia, being everywhere and nowhere, and certainly not an any fixed base for any length of time. No worries about missiles hitting hardened shelters because the F-35Bs will be elsewhere - not even on a bare base - but elsewhere. Perhaps on LHDs on the high seas. Go figure. :-) |
Posted by: Luig May 17 2014, 03:27 PM |
One item in the superbug list earlier is not required. LOX is not an issue as like most modern miljets the F-35 family have OBOGGs OnBoard Oxgen Generating Capacity that does not emulate the problems discovered with the F-22 system over the last several years. Training for the new LHDs has been ongoing for several years now at a dedicated facility in the eastern suburbs - a lot of virtual reality training there also - as well as a dummy deck at NAS Nowra for the new/old rate of "Aircraft Handlers" to become reaccustomed to their exacting craft. Anyway again I'll stress - all is supposition so far. Changes can be made to our LHDs in a refit cycle - if required - to allow F-35Bs on our LHDs for a short time. [The Spanish LHD requires some internal changes that are designed to be made easily for the four roles they have outlined including acting as a mini aircraft carrier for F-35Bs (and at moment only Harriers)]. Ships are changed in refit all the time. HMAS Melbourne the aircraft carrier had many improvements over the 25 year life she had. Imagine a transit to an island such as Fiji where Oz citizens need rescuing. Parking an LHD offshore with helos and an odd F-35B onboard would be intimidating? NO? HMAS Melbourne the aircraft carrier used to visit Fiji regularly back and forth between engagements up north and SEA and the odd side trip to the West Coast USofA. Sheesh we could even intimidate the sheep in New Zealand with our LHDs outfitted with a few F-35Bs! |
Posted by: Warhawk May 17 2014, 08:10 PM |
Wonderful. You know it could be a part of zee master plan to reduce the new SEA 1000 numbers to a more manageable "one for one" replacement,ala "Off the shelf in bipartisan production" (They build them, we paint them) with the Swedes ( Providing one for one Swedish temporary worker and a Blonde Bombshell Swedish Bird immigrant) or the Nipponese( now there's FTA, and new diet legislation). Then the bucks saved, could be to re-introduce on-board Fighters to rebalance the NAVY FAA or ok, reality check here,.....for the Blue Boys,..Pelican Fleet Co-op No 9 Sqn RAAF re-born so that they can fly top cover for the Army's 4 on-board LPD based ARH Helios. Perhaps, like the USN,..they can have their Unit nickname on the jets,.." the Shagbags",..sort of a port of call or final combat outcome catchcry? Seriously,....though I joke above,....it may be more acceptable then frightening our greatest trade partner with 12 new NG Subs, at half the cost, yet opening up more options and less risk for the government at a fraction of the cost for only having to purchase say 16 jets max (8 IE/ 4 IT/ 4 IR) and their support,..with a few mods per weapon storage, painting of take-off strips and support per the LPH. Just have to get 1000lb Bombs rather then 2000lb Bombs to fit.Guess that's why the espanards retired their young carrier (1990's built)and use the LPH now for AV-8B Plus Harrier ops. (Aside from the lack of bucks) Rumours in Defence already murmur a reduction of New Generation Sub hulls from 12 stated by the previous government, so it could be a hatching of a thought bubble. Mind you,..even I can't see it "floated" for a decade or more due to the current economic outlook and public outcry of the last budget. Close of Production of the F-35 Family is set at 2039,..so patience,. Plenty of time. Not too sure of the Life of the LPHs,.......about 35 years old seems to be the limit. 2045-2050AD. Just in time to sail past Manus Island for a "show of force" flight for the next riot ,.....perhaps LOL Gordy |
Posted by: Luig May 18 2014, 12:15 AM |
Gordy, the flat deck ships in both the Spanish Navy and RAN are LHDs. Yes - still many rivers to cross before we see any Oz F-35Bs on our LHDs and they will be in our far future for sure if purchased. This rubbish about budgets is just that. Rubbish. If we need 'em - we will get 'em. As indicated these 'F-35Bs' will be most useful distributing themselves around the top end mostly on a daily basis - where they end up on a daily basis - no one will know. Quite a shell game compared to any fixed based F-35As up that way. Do we want to play however? That is the question. |
Posted by: Grumpy Cobra May 18 2014, 12:36 AM |
Brightest news for 30 years ... put a smile on my face at last, hold on though I am not that young anymore - might kick the bucket before they enter service.... Better not have Airforce stickers on them though or I will kick the bucket |
Posted by: Luig May 18 2014, 06:16 AM |
Heheh. I will have lost the will to live IF ONLY RAAF pilots get to fly them F-35Bs from our LHDs. I'll accept a setup such as the UK has with RN/RAF co-op. BUT IF the only way we / Oz can get some F-35Bs WITH ONLY THE RAAF to fly them then so be it. I'll just go outside - I may be some time. Anyway as I have mentioned several times now - most use of the Bs is up North playing hide n seek with opposing missile batteries (whenever/where ever they may be) with only sometime use on an LHD then ashore to secure the airfield proper for the A model. Thankfully the RAAF can operate easily in STOVL mode ashore and afloat - no big deal with the B. |
Posted by: Luig May 26 2014, 05:57 AM | ||
This special edition of the NAVY pdf online is worth having a look at if at all interested in 'Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs'. Attached is one article excerpt as described with info below on the other articles....
|
Posted by: Warhawk May 26 2014, 11:04 AM |
In all seriousness, after several laterals in humour, I suspect the only F-35Bs that will grace our LPDs on a regular/irregular basis will be Darwin Based USMC F-35Bs that will eventually be based "up there" when the future rotations expand in the coming years. And that would be only to get "hands on" training for all. Currently the first Marine Aviation deployments will happen this year with 4 CH-53E Super Stallions, to be based at RAAF Darwin. Add AH-1Z Super Cobras and UH-1Ys deployments soon, with F-35Bs in the 20's ...its gets pretty heavy. Meanwhile,.....MRTTs, E-7s and AP-3Cs supporting F/A-18Fs and F-35As will do, and with a high level of confidence. The Opforce rationale for operating any F-35Bs is just not there for us. "Who are they and what they have now or in tens years isn't going to cut it. We have our Bases in NT and , I'm sure, we can operate on the opposite side of the Timor Gap in East Timor in a pinch, along with PNG Strips. At a pinch, Singapore if all of the RSAF don't come home, or strips in the Philippines . Thus all Sea Lines of communications are covered. Just one thing,...(yes humour input) for Gawd's sake, paint those Seaborne Army choppers with dull mid-grey paint! Best Gordy |
Posted by: Luig May 26 2014, 01:49 PM |
You may have a point. Nevertheless that two senior politician have expressed what they have said in public - stating that the F-35B must be considered in the next White Paper - does mean something. Humour it ain't. I have no inside track to any information so I'll await more information with interest. As the PDF above indicates - air power from land bases over the sea does not cut the mustard. I'm not talking about invading a far superior opponent but protecting what we have with a small contingent of F-35Bs on LHDs when that mission of convoy protection is warranted. This used to be done on the ASW centric early MELBOURNE with 4 A4Gs. IF the US / USMC have flat decks, despite having airfields all over the place with agreements to use them, then that says something. The wide blue PACIFIC with many small islands scattered around our region puts a real strain on any land based airpower/convoy protection solution. So scoff away but please do not change maps or scales of maps to improve range etc. Read the entire 3+Mb PDF as indicated. You may learn something that is not land/RAAF centric. |
Posted by: Warhawk May 26 2014, 08:13 PM |
You may be right, I may have to eat my starched green yet rotting giggle hat! "Prime Minister Tony Abbott has instructed the authors of the new Defence White Paper currently in preparation to consider the acquisition of the STOVL F-35B variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to operate from the Navy’s forthcoming LHD amphibious ships. “It is understood Mr Abbott has instructed planners working on his defence white paper to examine the possibility of putting a squadron of 12 of the short takeoff and vertical landing version of the JSFs — the F-35B — on to the ships,” a report in The Australian newspaper on Friday says. A spokesperson for the Prime Minister contacted by the newspaper did not confirm or deny the suggestion the F-35B would be considered as part of the White Paper process, only noting that the White Paper’s Force Structure Review would: “examine a range of capabilities and will provide the government with options to ensure Australia maintains a sustainable, versatile and highly capable defence force in coming decades”. AAV Mag FIK,.. 2 Alpha Out |
Posted by: Luig May 27 2014, 12:29 PM |
A lot of toing and froing IN PUBLIC will have to take place over some years for the idea of F-35Bs on LHDs to have any public traction/support. Videos of same with USMC F-35Bs reaching for the sky cross decking will help. It is interesting to me that over a period of years one RAAF spokesperson I took an interest in (BINNY) was saying that the RAAF only required ALL F-35As and I thought 'fair enough'. Then a politician (now referred to as smart but not at the time) bought 2 dozen Super Hornets for the RAAF. Then another smart politician bought a dozen Growlers for the 'ALL F-35A RAAF'. Binny has usually countered any mention of 'F-35Bs on LHDs' with NO! end of. Things change and change again. Whoda' thunk. |
Posted by: F/A-18 Super Bug May 27 2014, 01:36 PM |
This may change the possibility of RAN F-35B operating off our new Canberra class LHDs: http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/05/johnston-raises-possibility-of-acquiring-f-35bs/ Defence Minister Senator David Johnston has again raised the possibility of Australia acquiring a number of Lockheed Martin F-35B short take off and vertical landing (STOVL) versions of the Joint Strike Fighter for operation from the RAN’s new Canberra class LHD vessels. Speaking to The Weekend West on May 17, Senator Johnston said the acquisition of the F-35B was “an option which has been considered from day one.” His comments echo those he made to an ASPI dinner in October 2012 where he described the LHDs as “…STOVL capable.” Defence officials have consistently tried to pour cold water on the possibility of Australia buying F-35Bs over the years, despite its commonality with the conventional takeoff F-35A version of which the RAAF is acquiring 72 examples. The Canberra class LHDs are being built optimised for amphibious operations using water craft and helicopters, and do not have sufficient fuel and weapons bunkerage to operate F-35Bs without a considerable upgrade in the RAN’s support ship fleet. Further, and while the possibility of cross-decking with F-35Bs of the USMC, the UK and other partner nations exists and will likely be encouraged, the LHDs do not have the thermion heat-resistant deck coating required to accommodate the F-35B’s exhaust for extended operations. The F-35A and B models share about 60 per cent of their structure and a much higher percentage of their key systems and have similar handling characteristics in conventional flight regimes, meaning the logistics and initial training requirements would be broadly similar. But the F-35B is projected to cost about 20 per cent more than the F-35A, will be operationally limited to 7.5g and has about 30 per cent less range due to the need to accommodate the large lift fan, and will require a specialist flight training regime for deck operations and specialist maintenance training for under-way sustainment and support. You remember that list I made in another thread in which I listed all the support staff needed to launch and recover aircraft from a aircraft carrier or LHD. The new Canberra class LHDs are basically copies of the Spanish ship Juan Carlos I which operate AV-8B Harrier II STOVL so either the deck of our new LHDs is different than the Juan Carlos I or the F-35B has a hotter exhaust for Vertical Landing or Take Off? Hopefully it's not too hard to somehow make a thermion heat-resistant deck coating... The Juan Carlos I holds 800 tonnes of JP-5 fuel and 2,150 t of diesel fuel. More knowledgeable people on here would now how long both those types of fuel would last if we had F-35Bs whilst also using including all our helicopters of course. http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.infodefensa.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FJCI_en_v2.pdf&ei=IgSEU4LOBobkkgXok4DABQ&usg=AFQjCNERG4L4QleE_8iRChZQUU-zBEpIjg&sig2=i6CLwqwdtQy1B1ROp9VOJg&bvm=bv.67720277,d.dGI |
Posted by: Luig May 27 2014, 03:22 PM | ||
For a start the F-35B is listed as being only 7G capable. That is an excellent pdf (highlighted some time ago on several other forums by me but I do not own it). Probably it has been made clear that our LHDs were optimised internally for the operations described on the RAN LHD website. When I last looked there were two such missions which did not include the two others on the Spanish LHD website one of the missing being the 'aircraft carrier' mission. As I understand the aircraft carrier mission for the Spanish Navy requires their LHD to undergo some quick alongside temporary mods but not being conversant with all the details of either LHD (which are probably not public) then other than bolting up the stern ramp I have no idea what the Spanish Aircraft Carrier mods are. Probably something to do with more aviation fuel but that is only a guess. Certainly there is a huge amount of space inside these LHDs that can be used for different missions. http://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/ships-boats-craft/lhd
I'll repeat this till I die probably. Our LHDs - as they are configured now and likely until they rust away - will not be configured as 'aircraft carriers' but they may be able to temporarily embark four F-35Bs for transit to the op area where they will disembark - to take / hold a proper airfield (with the troops onboard) to be then resupplied by the MASSIVE RAAF cargo aircraft and be joined by the F-35As and their and the F-35B then refueller KCs. Fairly simple really with not a lot of drama for anyone except perhaps bumping off some 'not required' for that mission ARMY helos. The thing about such a large flat deck ship is that the aircraft mix can vary a lot - even if only temporarily. And then back to the mission.... |
Posted by: Luig May 27 2014, 03:37 PM | ||
Ride the Lightning: Testing the Marine Corps' latest fighter 27 Mar 2009 Dave Majumdar http://www.examiner.com/article/ride-the-lightning-testing-the-marine-corps-latest-fighter
|
Posted by: F/A-18 Super Bug May 28 2014, 02:15 PM | ||
If the new Canberra class LHDs can't operate any type of VTOL aircraft because our decking" does not have the thermion heat-resistant deck coating required to accommodate the F-35B’s exhaust for extended operations." Same probably goes too with the AV-8B Harrier II. So who dropped the ball on this one, is it a high ranking RAN Officer or is the Defence or Defence Materials Minister? Basically who authorized a LHD that DOESN'T have a heat-resistant deck coating for possible VTOL? @Luig I only got around to listen to half of how military hardware is procured and now it's unavailable. If you could fixed the link I would really appreciate it mate. Australia's Defence and the Strike Fighter Purchase 09may2014.mp3 http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=18877 (.MP3 2.6Mb) Also if we are doing cross decking with US Marine aircraft operating from the US Navy's Wasp-class amphibious assault ships when we are doing cross training exercises to get our new LHDs up to Full Operational Capability. The USMC F-35Bs won't be able to land on the HMAS Canberra let alone get refueled by us whilst on board because we do not have sufficient fuel and weapons bunkerage to operate F-35Bs without a considerable upgrade in the RAN’s support ship fleet I am seriously surprised that in a new ship like the HMAS Canberra and Adelaide that if we were to operate F-35Bs we wouldn't have many and there HAS to be room in these massive ships to store the ordnance. I mean if this ship can carry a dozen 65 ton M1 Abrams tanks it must be able to store bombs, missiles and 25mm rounds for the F-35B. Lockheed Martin states that the weapons load can be configured as all-air-to-ground or all-air-to-air, and has suggested that a Block 5 version will carry three weapons per bay instead of two, replacing the heavy bomb with two smaller weapons such as AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles
Are you talking about the PDF about the specifications about the Juan Carlos I LHD? Even though you've already read it... Lastly again I gave the list at the top of the thread of what all the cololured shirts in the US Navy mean and why they are required. So if we do get F-35Bs in say 5-10 years down the track we are going to require a specialist flight training regime for deck operations and specialist maintenance training for under-way sustainment and support. So are we going do all our homegrown training or try do Officer and SNCO exchanges with crew on the Juan Carlos I with the Spanish? However we have in the last several years seen the landing of Australian Blackhawks and other helos on board Wasp class LHDs off Darwin and USMC billeting at Robertson Barracks. So that's good warm up From what I've read the the US is looking to possibly base its United States Pacific Command Marine Air-Ground-Task Force in Darwin and could possibly base a LHD up there one day. From Wiki: An Australian Army S70A-9 Black Hawk and a CH-47D Chinook assigned to Australian 5th Aviation Regiment, conduct flight operations from the flight deck of the amphibious assault ship USS Boxer (LHD 4) in support of Talisman Sabre 2005. |
Posted by: Luig May 28 2014, 02:43 PM |
Puhleez about the RAN training appropriate deck crew. This has been ongoing for many years now with a specific virtual reality trainer in a warehouse in the eastern suburbs as I mentioned. If you do not bother to download and peruse my PDFs I'm not going to regurgitate them piecemeal here. Ask a question from the material and I'll know you have gone to the trouble. Just guessing about what you do not know is pathetic. The F-16.net website has been down most of the day our time. The website will be back whenever then you can hear more I guess. When that is I do not know. Resurfacing the LHD deck with THERMION or equivalent will be easy when appropriate. Does not need to be done this very minute because both the ship and any F-35Bs on it are years in the future. Do not stress about F-35Bs landing on our LHDs for a ski jump or two. The LHD deck is stressed for the F-35B already as are the lifts - these are the Spanish design specs. As I mentioned provisioning for a long stay of any number of F-35Bs is NOT how our LHDs are set up. They have been modified slightly for the two missions (out of the Spanish four) as seen on the RAN website. This is not a secret. Can you imagine two ships able to operate F-35Bs in the needed vicinity? If only our LHD then that ship will be near an appropriate BINGO landing place ashore for any demo of probably USMC F-35B capability ops. This is not a lengthy process. Planning for this event will have been considered years ago. So far the F-35B has been twice aboard USS Wasp for testing in Oct 2011 for about 72 VLs and STOs; then again in Aug 2013 for some 90 odd similar but under more difficult conditions, such as wind and a fuel internal load. No problems were to be seen. USS Wasp is the oldest in that class and the one that has not been upgraded much over the recent years, for whatever reason. However it was modified for the first F-35B trials and again for the second. Now it has gone into a long refit where many non-related to F-35B parts of ship; and of course those parts related to operating F-35Bs, are being modified. So what? Happens all the time with ships (in refit) and unsurprisingly with aircraft. The F-35 family are slated for modification on a regular basis for both software and hardware alternately and then both at a regular interval (several years) over their lifetime. Any objections? |
Posted by: Luig May 28 2014, 02:45 PM |
As appropriate exchanges with relevant friendly foreign navies occur all the time in large or small groups over long or short times. Here is one example:' http://news.navy.gov.au/en/Aug2013/Fleet/320/Sea-riding-in-the-Spanish-LHD-–-a-glimpse-of-what’s-to-come-for-Canberra's-company.htm |
Posted by: F/A-18 Super Bug May 29 2014, 03:11 PM | ||||||
Sea-riding in the Spanish LHD – a glimpse of what’s to come for Canberra's company http://news.navy.gov.au/en/Aug2013/Fleet/320/Sea-riding-in-the-Spanish-LHD-%E2%80%93-a-glimpse-of-what%E2%80%99s-to-come-for-Canberra%27s-company.htm Seeing as though I'm not up to up to date I knew there had to be many RAN personnel getting to know how the Spanish Navy's Juan Carlos I is operated and SOPs so the HMAS Canberra could get off the ground running so there is a smaller gap between launch date and commissioning date. I'm a bit surprised that the Spanish are continuing with their AV-8B Harriers II although maybe they might just wait out to see how the F-35B aircraft operates with other countries around the globe with LHDs?
I try read your links but some of them just don't come up for example the: CAS___NavAv_The_Navy_Vol_72_No_4_Oct_2010.pdf just came up with nearly 100 pages of all random characters you could find on a keyboard. If you are talking about the: http://navyleague.org.au/wp-content/upload..._4-Oct-2010.pdf I'm about to read that now. Unfortunately the F-16.net site is still down. Also OneDrive you have to sign up then I have no idea how to use or which PDF to view.
I've seen on YouTube the successful Short Takeoffs and Vertical Landings of the F-35B off the USS Wasp and other testing ages ago. Seeing as though the Wasp class is a completely flat deck so will our 13 degree ski-jump make the MINIMUM take off length for our possible F-35Bs shorter? The minimum take off length for a maximum weight (fuel and weapons) is 167.64 metres while the flight deck length of the HMAS Canberra is 202.3m long. Doesn't seem like much room for error, unless it takes off without much fuel and hits the tanker soon after launch?
Just like updating the software on your iPhone from time to time Lastly like I brought up do we have the ability to store enough jet fuel and diesel on aboard without a replenishment ship escorting it? Also once the new Hobart-class Air Warfare Destroyers are built I might guess they will escort the new LHDs like a mini US Carrier Battle Group? In the meantime I would ASSUME that they would have an Anzac-class or Adelaide-class frigates by their side for anti-air? If I said or assumed anything erroneous it is not intentional. Cheers! |
Posted by: Luig May 30 2014, 12:59 AM | ||
Despite what I read about Adobe Reader for Windows on the internet it is always best to use the latest version which is available for your platform here: http://get.adobe.com/reader/otherversions/ Having once again downloaded the full version of the Navy League PDF and then the excerpt here OK (try right clicking on the URLs to download the PDFs rather than just left clicking on them) I suggest you try again. Yes F-16.net is down and I have no idea why. IF you look at the instructions about the folders and PDFs for either OneDrive or GoogleDrive you should be able to fathom what is what. All the names of things have words joined, with separate words usually beginning with a capital letter. You will get used to it. The first part of your question is correct whilst the second part is just a fabrication from ignorance.
You seem to want to forget that the LHD was designed by Spain to be able to operate the F-35B. Why would they not have sufficient deck length with ski jump to NOT be able to STO JUMP with a full internal weapon/fuel load? This is a vital KPP [Key Performance Parameter - which are well documented in the F-35 PDFs for example] for both the USMC and UK F-35Bs. I operate in feet being an oldie so the Oz LHDs are quite capable of launching an F-35B as described. No ship - any kind of ship including a replenishment ship - operates anywhere at sea for any length of time without having to be replenished. As simple as that and a completely every day manoeuvre for all concerned. The UK old CVSs used to operate their SHARs during RASs (Replenishment at Sea). Not even a CVN can carry all the requirements needed without RAS - other than the diesel for their nuke engines of course. That the Oz LHDs will be escorted by our Air Warfare Destroyers I hope has been made clear and not just by me inadvertently. These LHDs will not go anywhere in other than peacetime unescorted. HMAS Melbourne the aircraft carrier had a destroyer escort all the time or the potential for one nearby. Why? Mostly so that MELBOURNE itself would provide fuel and sometimes other stores for the escort(s). Otherwise a replenishment ship was there also for the same task. Sometimes (there are photos) of various combinations of three ships alongside one another RASing at the same time. |
Posted by: Warhawk May 30 2014, 12:29 PM |
Sigh So the first F-35 ski jump testing will be done by the RAF/RN circa 2015-16. The original concept of the SHAR Invincible Class 9 degree(Original), later the perfect 12 degree ramp along with her sisters and Hermes is well documented. Spain is broke and is in the middle of their "Austere" Budget cuts and restructure, and is now only operating Radar AV-8B Plus type after withdrawing their surviving AV-8Bs. Italy, a AV-8B Plus operator, who actually will assemble their own F-35A/Bs in country, has "cut" their program from 130 plus to down to near 96 in a mix, but may and most probably go down further to a 60 mix. One Airforce and one Armada Sqn worth each, plus Air Force F-35A Sqns. No Mention that Thailand? will they replace their grounded ex Spanish AV-8As per their 12 Degree Ramped 90's Spanish built Aircraft Carrier either (Yeap they have the newer sister ship of the now retired Spanish Carrier) UK is set to order 14 F-35Bs as we tap, on top of the 4 already, to equip 617 Sqn with an IOC in 2018,.........with RNFAA numbered Sqn forming second per the next incremental order. Looks like 48 will be the eventual number. Then there's the Scottish Independence Referendum in September 2014, will they demand a carrier?(Sorry tongue in cheek on that one!) So its all look "if ,when or maybe" at present Per software, I find that if you just follow the idiot queues, you can't go wrong! I'm a case in point. So on that note, I shall retire from this string "Go Navy" Gordy |
Posted by: Luig May 30 2014, 12:46 PM | ||
Not sure what you are getting at in your post above Gordy but never mind - my problem - I'll reread it a few times. Yes Spain will upgrade their AV-8Bs to soldier on without buy any F-35Bs - for the time being. Budgets improve we hope but who knows. Thailand is out of the picture I have no idea why you bring it up but anyway... The USMC plan to retire their AV-8Bs by 2030 and have several upgrades in the works. It takes time to buy the required F-35B/C aircraft in bunches, year by year, to replace the USN/USMC fleets - as required. I can provide more detail on that. Meanwhile - back at the ranch.... The Cost of Defence ASPI Defence Budget Brief 2014–2015
Source: https://www.aspi.org.au/publications/the-cost-of-defence-aspi-defence-budget-brief-2014-2015/CostofDefence2014.pdf (6.4Mb) |
Posted by: F/A-18 Super Bug May 30 2014, 01:17 PM | ||||
Cheers Luig as always, I'll try get the latest Adobe PDF reader if I don't unknowingly have it already and I'll keep trying F-16.net as that at a quick glance is a wealth of information!
Oh so what's the difference between the Juan Carlos I and the new Canberra class? I mean the Spanish have no plans to buy the F-35B (see link below)? Or did the Spanish Defence Force when they designed their Juan Carlos I way back in the early 2000s leave the door open for F-35B (which would have just been drawings back then). http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/154245/spain-drops-plan-to-buy-f_35b,-will-upgrade-av_8bs-instead.html Spain will extend the service life of its AV-8B Plus Harrier shipboard fighters until at least 2015 as it cannot afford to buy F-35B STOVL fighters to replace them, as it originally planned. (Armada photo at bottom) One of the biggest concerns of the Spanish navy about its future -- the 'expiration' of the Harrier fighters and their complicated succession – has now been solved by a 70-million euro plan to extend their service life beyond 2025. Their intended replacement, the American F-35B, must wait "until it becomes financially accessible" for Spain. Spain has secured the future of its naval air wing, after years of uncertainty about what vertical takeoff fighters it would operate after 2020. After the loss of the aircraft carrier 'Principe de Asturias’ -- an ideal platform for STOVL fighters, but which has now been retired -- the Navy had begun a process of reducing its Harrier force. Four of them were 'retired' after having been modernized at a total cost of about 11 million euros (about 3 million euros each) as no economic resources were available to operate and support them. With an outlay of 70 million euros-spread over ten years, Spain has gained access to the equipment and spare parts necessary to ensure that its fleet of AV-8B Harrier Plus fighters continue flying beyond 2025. One of the options being considered for the future is that, once the US takes these STOVL aircraft into service, it could hand over a few of them to Spain until the Spanish economy improves enough to allows the purchase of an F-35B package of its own. I wish the US would lend us a few F-35Bs until we have some spare change or a budget surplus! The minimum takeoff length of a F-35B is just 400 feet however I can't find the minimum takeoff length of a AV-8B Harrier II. One thing I am second guessing is why didn't the architects of our LHDs didn't install thermion heat-resistant deck coating required to accommodate the F-35B’s exhaust? Even if we don't have our own F-35Bs we do want the ability for cross decking with Allied ships (USMC mainly) that do operate F-35Bs? I mean the Spanish Navy operate their STOVL Harriers so they must have thermion heat-resistant decking so maybe the RAN is waiting until we actually have F-35Bs in the pipeline so why spend the money now I ASSUME.
Can I get your opinion on whether our new LHDs need more weapons systems (we only have 4 x 25mm and several .50 cals) especially when you compare it to the US Wasp class ships with an arsenal of anti-air, anti-ship missiles, guns and cannons? Lastly can you see the RAN FAA or the RAAF ever buying a V-22 Osprey VTOL tiltrotor aircraft in the future to operate from the LHDs? If this has already been discussed on another military forum or a RAN/RAAF newspaper then I apologise for not being up to date with possible future aircraft of any kind. They do fold up nicely as to not take up so much real estate either up top or in the hanger. Thanks as always!! 2 x Spanish AV-8B Plus Harriers |
Posted by: Luig May 30 2014, 02:25 PM | ||
F-16.net for the audio is back online:
|
Posted by: Luig May 30 2014, 02:40 PM |
Again try reading up on your questions - just ask a question without proffering some bollocks as your answer already. Just proffer the bollocks without the question if you follow my drift? Anyway it is well known and on several official Spanish websites (which have to be in English) and several old news reports (often in the PDFs online) that the Juan Carlos I was designed with the F-35B in mind. Go there if you do not download the PDFs and read this info for yourself. I could post a URL but you give me so much to do I just can't be bothered at moment. The Spanish Government have also paid LM to provide information about operating F-35Bs from their LHD. This makes sense - no? The Spanish like a lot of EURO countries have budget troubles. What they have done is delayed considering buying F-35Bs by upgrading their Harriers and prolonging their support contract. The USMC do this also (in their way) by making sure their Harriers or what is left of them will be going until 2030. This end date has been put back by more than a decade over the last decade as the USMC realised the delays in the F-35 program. The Brits gave the USMC a gift by selling their Harrier hardware to them on the cheap. I fail to see how the USMC lending anyone their F-35Bs will be helpful. Perhaps they will operate with the Spanish as they will anyway. No one is stupid here. In the same way the USMC will flop off our ski jump when they can. Once again download the LHD and the F-35 and the 'how to deck land' PDFs when you can. There is a tonne of info about THERMION in these PDFs. THERMION is only recent. Only recently it was revealed that the CVFs will have a similar - if not the same - deck coating (the UK seem to NOT want to say what it is yet). Why does everything have to happen tomorrow? Our guvmnt has not even decided to have our F-35BS on our LHDs and you want the deck covered in THERMION? Sheesh. The first LHD has not been accepted by the RAN yet. Even. The Spanish LHD will have appropriate deck coating for their Harrier fleet which have qualified for operations onboard. End of. You seem to be a bit slow on the uptake. What self defence weapon is better than an F-35B on fleet defence duties? I can see the ADF putting one foot in front of another on any question of new equipment especially for example the V-22. Wait until the USMC PROVE their new missions with the mission equipment for air refuelling (already under development) and other missions slated for their V-22s. Australia has apparently expressed some interest but nothing much more than that. I'm sure the Brits would find them useful but once again they have to have the funds and a reason that they discover for themselves. All this takes time. They have yet to even launch their first CVF etc. Cartoon from: https://www.aspi.org.au/publications/the-cost-of-defence-aspi-defence-budget-brief-2014-2015/CostofDefence2014.pdf (6.4Mb) |
Posted by: Luig Jun 1 2014, 09:48 AM | ||
F-35B JSF for the ADF—a viable option in the 2015 White Paper? (Part 2) 30 May 2014 Malcolm Davis http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/f-35b-jsf-for-the-adf-a-viable-option-in-the-2015-white-paper-part-2/
MAP: https://www.aspi.org.au/publications/taking-wing-time-to-decide-on-the-f-35-joint-strike-fighter/SI70_F35_decision.pdf (2Mb) |
Posted by: F/A-18 Super Bug Jun 1 2014, 03:29 PM | ||||
I am loving this F-16.net mate! I had never even heard of an Advanced Super Hornet until today. There's a lot for me to to catch up on. http://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense-space/military/fa18ef/ So does the RAAF have any plans to upgrade our current Super Hornets into "Advanced"?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2149237/New-500m-jets-set-cost-taxpayers-MELT-ships-decks.html The controversial replacements for the Harrier jump jets may cost taxpayers even more than their £500million asking price - because the heat from take off could melt aircraft carriers' decks. The fumes from the U.S. Joint Strike Fighters are so hot that special heat-resistant paint will be required to protect the take-off strip. But American military experts are still developing the coating, which the Britain will now have to beg for as well as the new planes. The flaw is the latest problem to hit the ministry of defence's 6.2billion plan for two new aircraft carriers after scrapping the Ark Royal and selling off the Harriers. It comes just two weeks after Defence Secretary Philip Hammond was forced into an embarrassing U-turn over the purchase of the new jets. He scrapped plans to replace the Harriers with conventional F-35C planes, which take off from an runway, when the £2billion cost of fitting the new warships with catapult take-off systems was discovered. The Government then had to revert to the previous Labour government's plan to purchase 12 F-35B 'jump jets', at a cost of up to £500million each. The turnaround cost taxpayers an estimated £250million. The new heat-resistant 'Thermion' coating has been developed in America after U.S. tests showed that exhausts from the jets could melt ships' decks. An MoD spokesman said the cost of the new paint would be 'negligible' and were 'greatly offset' by the savings from not fitting the £2billion 'cats and traps' to the aircraft carriers. Work to identify a suitable deck coat is ongoing so exact costs are not yet available,' the spokesman said. The new aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, are set to be completed in 2020. The project has been branded an 'omnishambles' by Labour defence spokesman Jim Murphy. A spokesman for the MOD said: 'The MoD will save £2BN by not fitting "cats and traps" and this will greatly offset the relatively small cost of specialist deck coating which has always been factored into our plans. 'Deck coating was always part of the STOVL variant ship specification. Work to identify a suitable deck coating paint is ongoing with our American partners in this project.' So although the size of the Queen Elizabeth class would enable it to accommodate most current and projected carrier-based fixed-wing aircraft the lack of arresting gear and angled flight deck means that, as initially completed, it is only capable of operating STOVL aircraft. Therefore I ASSUME that the UK's MoD has crunched the numbers and worked out it's cheaper and easier to operate STOVL aircraft F-35Bs, Harriers and possibly V-22s rather than a conventional A/C carrier aircraft with the catapult and arresting gear for say the F-35Cs or Super Hornets in the future. These V-22s have landed on the HMS Illustrious in the past and ironically they also have the same problem with their exhausts causing deck heating problems.
DISCLAIMER (if this has already been discussed on said website I'm sorry) So if the UK have been operating their Jump Jet Harriers from their Invincible class aircraft carriers for decades then what deck coating did these ships have that allowed the Harriers the Vertically take off (if they needed to) and land vertically without melting their carrier's deck? Or is the heat from the F-35B exhaust way more hotter than the Harriers? I'm getting mixed messages from my research of the exhaust temperature of a F-35B vs an AV-8B Harrier. Below taken from: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/26/why-can-t-america-s-newest-stealth-jet-land-like-it-s-supposed-to.html The F-35B—the version of the Joint Strike Fighter that the Marines and the British are buying—is designed to take off in a few hundred feet and land vertically, like a helicopter. Its advocates say that will allow the Marines to use short runways worldwide as improvised fighter bases, providing air cover for expeditionary forces. But to do VL, the engine thrust must be pointed straight downward, and the jet is twice the size of a Harrier. Result: a supersonic, pulsating jackhammer of 1,700-degree F exhaust gas. In December 2009, the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (Navfac) issued specifications for contractors bidding on JSF construction work. The main engine exhaust, the engineers said, was hot and energetic enough to have a 50% chance of spalling concrete on the first VL. (“Spalling” occurs when water in the concrete boils faster than it can escape, and steam blows flakes away from the surface.) Lockheed Martin, the lead contractor on the F-35B, was dismissive. The specifications were out of date and based on worst-case assessments, the company said, and tests in January 2010 showed that “the difference between F-35B exhaust temperature and that of the AV-8B [Harrier] is very small, and is not anticipated to require any significant… changes” to how the new plane was operated. Hmmmm who to believe? |
Posted by: Luig Jun 1 2014, 04:08 PM | ||
I'll just post this effort to help NON STOVL operators (including me) understand how the F-35B flies. The F-35 PDFs online or the "HOW TO DECK LAND" PDFs especially have plenty of info on this aspect and how it was achieved (VACC Harrier). ‘GREEN KNIGHTS’ The F-35B in service with VMFA-121 May 2014 Gary Wetzel www.combataircraft.net Combat Aircraft Monthly May 2014 Vol 15, No 5
|
Posted by: Luig Jun 1 2014, 05:06 PM |
Until you provide evidence that you have at least downloaded the F-35 specific PDFs from my webpage as mentioned I'm not going to put a lot of effort into answering your questions (that seem to stem from ignorance and reading the 'Daily Fail'). How credible is any news report that says the F-35B will melt the decks of ships. The reporter is either blind, has no access to the internet and must have come to earth in the last shitshower. For Fsake. IF you look at the PDFs as mentioned you will see a HEAP of info about THERMION. endof. Yes you have a lot of catching up to do to inform yourself generally and specifically about the F-35s and CVFs and all the other things. Get to it. Then there is Bill Sweetman the self nominated arch enemy of the F-35s specifically the F-35B and the USMC in particular. No one in the US answers his e-mailed questions these days. Go figure why. See the first sentence of this paragraph. There must be credible information out there? No? IF NOT why has the F-35B conducted two successful at sea deck landing and take off trials by day and night with heavy and light loads under all kinds of wind conditions. HOW is that correct? Someone has their head up their arse and it ain't me and it should not be you if you what? Download and read the PDFs online. Specifically what Sweetman has a bee in his bonnet about the concrete is that for long term vertical landing use (with an occasional but not operationally required vertical takeoff) the permanent concrete pads at the various F-35B or potential F-35B training / landing places must have very specific strong concrete made pads. Again all this info is in the PDF. Ashore there are many places suitable for seldom VL use and if any length of suitable material available (such as a runway - even an old macadam runway) then the F-35B can accomplish a dazzling array of variations of VLs from Creeping, to Slow and aboard a flat deck ship SRVL Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing. The SRVL requires more airspeed for some wing lift at around 60-70 KIAS depending on landing weight. With the ship making WOD Wind Over the Deck at perhaps 20 knots plus natural wind speed of 10 knots for example then the WOD is 30 knots. That means the ground speed of the touch down F-35B during and SRVL on CVF (no other place) will be 30-40 knots. The F-35B has computer controlled brakes. It will be able to stop in the required distance after clearing the stern of the ship with a higher than a conventional carrier landing aircraft glideslope. IF there is a problem it is thought that the F-35B can then accelerate down the deck and get airborne again off the ski jump (this would be called a bolter in conventional carrier ops). Where is a huge amount of info on how to deck land and how to specifically do this F-35 stuff? Any other VL places one would consider NOT PERMANENT including the decks of suitable ships. So for example to ameliorate the effect of the heat on the current USN LHAs it is said that the VL spots will be varied slightly for each sortie so that any wear/tear is spread over the entire deck more or less and NOT just in the same spot over and over. This repeated heat stress on one spot will cause a problem over time. Thermion is a new hard wearing non slip deck coating that should last for a decade, rather than the half year life of the current 'Harrier capable' deck coating. Think about the money saved by not having to repaint the deck twice a year. As for sources for good info this will probably seem strange to you but a regular Military/Aviation website with some history of publishing would be a start. New websites publishing crap, including the DAILY FAIL, don't cut it of course ;but - whatever. Ask a question from the PDFs and I can be more wordy perhaps. However saying the same things over and over is beyond tedious. |
Posted by: F/A-18 Super Bug Jun 2 2014, 10:08 AM | ||
Before I get to the rest of your post I'll answer your question for you:
http://defensetech.org/2011/10/25/the-wasps-new-heat-resistant-flight-deck-coating/ Remember a few weeks ago when we ran the picture above showing an F-35B Joint Strike Fighter hovering over what appears to be a new deck coating aboard the USS Wasp? We wondered is the coating was designed to absorb the F-35B’s hot exhaust that many had worried would melt the ship’s deck. Well, the Navy has just put out a little more detail on the coating in a press release announcing the end of F-35B sea trials. It turns out, this is indeed a new, heat-resistant deck coating called Thermion. It’s made of bonded ceramic and aluminum and was applied to landing spot nine on the Wasp’s flight deck — “a small area used for vertical landings,” according to the Navy. The press release quotes a Navy technician who worked on the deck coating as saying, “the Thermion shows no signs of heat stress, which is good for the F-35, and eventually good for all surface ships.” Interesting. I wonder if Thermion will be applied to the entire flight deck on amphibious assault ships slated to carry F-35Bs or is it too heavy and expensive to apply to the entire flight deck? The Bravo isn’t slated to return for more sea trials aboard the Wasp until 2013, “after Wasp receives additional modifications for F-35B operations,” states the release. Speaking of modifications, we also noticed that a large radome has been removed from the ship’s port side, just off the flight deck area where the F-35s were landing. Relocating this radome could be one of the modifications the release is talking about. Read more: http://defensetech.org/2011/10/25/the-wasps-new-heat-resistant-flight-deck-coating/#ixzz33R4JxSzP Defense.org |
Posted by: F/A-18 Super Bug Jun 2 2014, 10:13 AM |
This is the opinion of a friend of mine who is coming up to 20 years in the US Navy and is currently with SWCC but has served on Carriers and a Destroyer, below is his comment: I have a friend at NAVAIR, now an LDO Officer. AFAIK Thermion was needed on Wasp due to the extremities of the testing. Operational Conditions won't near the levels they do in the trials. The Navy isn't going with Thermion on every LHD/LHA, its simply too expensive. So I doubt any other country will. Ive seen Thermion in action in the past. It used to be part of the Passive Countermeasures System (PCMS) used on Aegis Ships and Amphibs to make them a little more stealthy. The RCS benefits on the Burke Class was actually substantial. But in the long run it just wasn't worth it for the benefits. Ive actually seen it applied. First you have to flame-spray aluminum, which is expensive in itself. Then you roll on a special sealant. Then you basically have to melt on these special epoxy plates, which in turn gets covered with a thin ceramic. The wire-spray aluminum on top of that. Then a special paint which costs about 5k for a 5 gallon bucket. On top of that another sealer. On top of that goes a special flight deck non-skid with some kind of special silica in place of the sand. Overall the situation is overblown. It simply means there is a bit more frequent re-application of the flight deck material. This is not just an F-35 issue. Many jump on it, just to get on the F-35 bandwagon. Its actually always been a problem on many ships with many aircraft. The V-22 is actually the worst of all on the decks. Tomcats, when they started carrying bombs, were notorious for deck wear. The heavy F-18Fs do damage too. |
Posted by: Luig Jun 2 2014, 11:26 AM |
Well one can fixate on THERMION till the cows come home. Something is expensive if it is not needed. If it only needs to be applied where it is needed every decade then sure sounds like good value to me. Stories from your mates are just that. I have photos of CVN decks that make it look very ragtag indeed but that is only the spot where most aircraft have landed catching the target No.3 wire after a long cruise. So - whatever. THERMION will actually be a better heat conductor to heat the steel deck plates underneath. That is a minor issue. What THERMION does is provide the non-skid surface (especially when wet / icy conditions) so that aircraft and machines and people can move around more safely. THERMION is hard wearing so that - wait for it - it does not need to be applied every 6 months. Go read the PDFs online (download them first). THERMION or equivalent will be especially important for CVF for SRVL (if SRVL is deemed safe for operational use. SRVL may not be required. Still early days after a decade of development interrupted by the Brits nonsensical switcheroo from F-35B to F-35C and back to F-35B again. Oh those Brits are a barrel of laughs. __________________________ Pushing forward on the stick to go down vertically from a hover still makes my skin crawl. :-) AUTO STO 450 feet & VL in Simulator - 60 Mins TV http://www.cbsnews.com/news/f-35-60-minutes-david-martin/ |
Posted by: Luig Jun 3 2014, 08:19 AM | ||
Because the success of the F-35B - firstly with USMC - is important to the notion of having F-35Bs on our LHDs then here is some news.... MORE detail at the jump if interested. I just ONLY bring you the good bits. Marine Joint Strike Fighter on Track to Meet 2015 Goal 02 June 2014 Dave Majumdar http://news.usni.org/2014/06/02/marine-joint-strike-fighter-track-meet-2015-goal
|
Posted by: Luig Jun 3 2014, 10:06 AM | ||
I have been told ad nauseam that our Oz LHDs have been internally modified to disallow some of the things the Spanith Navy can do with their LHD as described below (with an interesting insight into the 'sky jump' [referred to as this in illustrations therein] additional usefulness).
http://www.navantia.es/ckfinder/userfiles/files/sala_pr/folleto%20LHD_marzo_para%20navantia_ingles.pdf (2.3Mb) |
Posted by: F/A-18 Super Bug Jun 3 2014, 02:14 PM | ||||
Thanks for the info on whether the ski jump makes a difference to maximum take off weight or possibly a shorter take off length. How the hell did you get all that in English when the link is all in Spanish! So anyways you were saying that the Spanish Defence Force have designed the Juan Carlos I with four mission profiles. Obviously you know the specifications well so I'm confused which of those four mission profiles we can't achieve with our LHDs. The ship will be able to land our new Marines (2RAR) and possibly USMC in amphibious mechanized landing craft e.g. Ex Talisman Sabre, transport troops from 1000 standard and 1600 overload to war zones and what it will be mainly used for is Humanitarian relief missions after natural disasters. It can operate F-35Bs and MV-22s after it has had a deck coating in just a couple of "parking spots" not the whole deck surface.
Just a reply about Flight Deck Shipboard preservation. There is no coating on any ship in history that lasts 10 years. Flight Deck Life Cycles are typically short of a year when the ship has been in a deployment rotation. The carriers/LHDs/LSDs/LPDs/DDGs/FFGs/CGs almost always go through flight deck resurfacing during every Yard 'Availability'. This process is expensive enough and the certification is as time consuming as the application. I participated in 2 DDG Flight Deck Resurfacing projects. And I was at one point a crew member on Wasp before I was close looped into my NEC. Ive seen what the Harrier's do to the deck. Ive done quite a bit of deck resurfacing and preservation as I was originally a Boatswain's Mate. A typical non Flight Deck Surface 12 x 12 costs 1200 dollars to resurface in non skid. No labor costs of course. I say 12 x 12 because that is what 1 5 gal can covers. A small deck Flight Deck CG/DDG/LPD/LSD costs 2 times that because of the need to flame/wire spray prep. Now this one does need labor costs added because it can only be done by Civillians. It costs 3000 a can for CVN/LHD ramp area non skid. All in all 5 different grades of non-skid for the whole deck. 12 x 12? for the whole deck you do the math. Carrier don't reapply the whole surface every time but the ramp, yeah all the time. Yes Thermion is too expensive to re-apply nearly every 12 months. If the US Navy is any evidence, they are not going to apply it to the new LHA's. If the SecNav and NavAir aren't going to flip for it, who would? |
Posted by: Luig Jun 3 2014, 03:56 PM | ||
It seems some one here lacks serious memory and or reading skills. Look at the post above dated 27 May this year from moi. This is the relevant part replicated from above post but I guess you will complain that you cannot find what I'm referencing: http://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/ships-boats-craft/lhd]
NOW I am fed up with your friend B/Sing about THERMION. IF ONLY to get this question settled (but I guess not as you seem to be a troll anyway) I will attempt to make a PDF smaller than the file size allowed here to post here. Otherwise it will go to OneDrive and GoogleDrive. Probably there are named PDFs there but I have not looked specifically for them there lately. The content of these webpages and their folders changes over time. You do not seem willing to download any information. This is the last time I do this specifically. 'F/A-18 Super Bug': Just answering bollocks questions from 'DailyFail' info and your mythical mates is beyond me. I have gone to a lot of trouble to provide information on the drives online as specified. A lot of your questions would be answered if you cared to download and riffle through them. BTW all can be 'text searched' for a specific word or phrase even. There are usually bookmarks to make jumping around to specific topics easy. But go ahead and disregard all this quality information. What that means however is that I will cease answering your specific questions here. GO HERE: http://www.thermioninc.com/nonskid.php |
Posted by: Luig Jun 3 2014, 05:27 PM | ||
Some SOBRE advice from the Gents re F-35Bs on LHDs.... Jump jets on navy's agenda as Tony Abbott orders air strike rethink 03 Jun 2014 David Wroe http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/jump-jets-on-navys-agenda-as-tony-abbott-orders-air-strike-rethink-20140603-39gl0.html
|
Posted by: Martin Edwards Jun 3 2014, 10:09 PM |
I am not taking sides but it is worrying when Tony Abbot's opinion determines Defence Policy and procurement options. |
Posted by: Luig Jun 4 2014, 02:57 AM |
Not at all. What the pollies interest implies is that: 1. They know something - someone has briefed them either by getting their attention or by their own longstanding interest. If the possibility of F-35Bs on LHDs has been there since day one (current DefMin) then of course there are back of the napkin plans at least. 2. The first LHD comes on line this year. Seems to have gone relatively smoothly. Now there is capability why not investigate that with the asset almost ready to use. No big deal. I will not reiterate why having occasional use of any Oz F-35Bs on our LHDs is a good idea. As mentioned the bigwigs in ADF have to figure out: All the things mentioned above and more. Perhaps this idea will bear fruit a decade from now. At least it is worthwhile investigating now that the F-35B is on track along with the LHDs. Ultimately politicians make the final decision influenced by many factors including their briefings. I'll say again. First we had an all F-35 Airforce. Then we had 2 doz Supers then an extra doz Growlers. What happened to that plan? Do not be surprised by anything especially if CHIN up north wants to stick their head out. Perhaps I have not repeated this enough. In early 1960s the RAN had decided to have only an ASW helo force aboard HMAS Melbourne by about 1965. Then the 'konfrontasi' happened. Lo and Behold the RAN changed course to re-instate a fixed wing force which came about onboard by 1969. Youse know the rest. What a turn about due to the changing situation up north. Expect same if the north goes feral. |
Posted by: Luig Jun 5 2014, 04:11 AM | ||
Anyone a subscriber? Air Force looking at F-35B/LHD combination 04 Jun 2014 Nigel Pittaway | Canberra
http://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/air-force-looking-at-f-35b/lhd-combination |
Posted by: Luig Jun 6 2014, 04:05 AM |
At last we get to see some official info about what may be required to modify our LHDs for use by our potential F-35Bs. A 0.5Mb PDF made from the transcript here is available for download from here: http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=18996 (PDF 0.5Mb) OOps did not realise the link was broken.... Otherwise the entire transcript is online here: Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee - 02/06/2014 - Estimates - DEFENCE PORTFOLIO http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Festimate%2Fc5d61275-a1aa-4194-b861-cfe08f848ab3%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Festimate%2Fc5d61275-a1aa-4194-b861-cfe08f848ab3%2F0000%22 Use the EDIT > Search on this page IE function to search for "F-35B" without the quote marks to find the start of the argybargy. |
Posted by: F/A-18 Super Bug Jun 6 2014, 04:50 PM | ||||||
Thanks for this PDF link it answered quite a few questions but unfortunately none of the Brass were willing to "speculate" on anything, maybe they just prefer to live on official estimate or facts. Lt Gen. Morrison: I think that all of the answers that you have been given from this side of the estimates table about joint strike fighters do not need any additions from me. Senator CONROY: It sounds like it might get in the way of your group. It is not like you have asked for it. Air Marshal indicated they did not ask for it; Admiral Griggs has indicated that he has not asked for it and from the sound of it you have not asked for it. ‘Abbott aims for aircraft carriers’ is the headline. I am just trying to get an understanding of what is involved in that. Thank you for that. I am happy to pass over to someone else, Chair, if there is anyone else. I have more questions in this area but if someone else wanted to jump in; Senator MacDonald is always keen…. So Admiral Griggs, Lt Gen. Morrison, Air Marshall Brown, and ADF Chief Hurley haven't asked for the F-35Bs so it seems like it is coming from Politicians.
Having the RAAF running our hypothetical F-35Bs would just be double handling and cost more. It would mean embarking RAAF personnel aboard the LHDs such as mechanics, electricians, ordnance handlers, aviation fuel handlers, plane directors, squadron plane inspectors etc. The rest such as Helicopter landing signal enlisted personnel, Safety observers, Firefighters, Aircraft elevator operators, Tractor drivers and Cargo-handling personnel can all be looked after by RAN personnel.
Took at lot of reading but it just seems that the politicians are asking a lot of questions about whether the billions of dollars being spent on 90-100 JSFs will keep us still powerful in the region and are still worth the investment... |
Posted by: Luig Jun 6 2014, 06:16 PM | ||
Here is some info about the CVF: Start of a momentous year for Carrier project 3 Feb 2014 David Downs
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/home/blog/guest-blog/start-of-a-momentous-year-for-carrier-project/1017934.article#ixzz2sGrXdsvd You still do not seem to understand what was being said. The PM/DefMin have asked that the White Paper due in 2015 process should look at having F-35Bs on LHDs. This was not looked at earlier apparently because it was not a specification of previous White Papers specifically. The ADF Chiefs work out how to implement the White Paper whilst the politicians will eventually OK and be responsible for what happens after that. In effect the PM/DefMin have asked these chaps to look at the question. They will comply they say and until they have more information on that specific question they will not speculate. Sadly that does not stop you reeling out a list of irrelevant stuff though. |
Posted by: Luig Jun 7 2014, 07:42 PM |
Only pages about F-35Bs on LHDs repeat PLUS the chat about buying F-35As from the 02 June 2014 Senate Hearing in Australia PDF attached from: Original PDF: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/estimate/c5d61275-a1aa-4194-b861-cfe08f848ab3/toc_pdf/Foreign%20Affairs,%20Defence%20and%20Trade%20Legislation%20Committee_2014_06_02_2526.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22committees/estimate/c5d61275-a1aa-4194-b861-cfe08f848ab3/0000%22 (280Kb PDF) Edited PDF: http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=19016 (PDF 200Kb) |
Posted by: F/A-18 Super Bug Jun 8 2014, 03:16 PM | ||
Quote from my US Navy friend regarding the CVF and it's supposed "heat resistant paint scheme...coating system will later be applied across the whole flight deck...": Never witnessed a F-35 in person. If I stay at my current command long enough, I likely will see the F-35C in action though. I have seen V-22s in action and landing on the carrier. Anything about the RN is mere speculation though. Everything I have read in your link and elsewhere is either dreamy speculation or best guess. They don't have the ships complete, not even close to doing trials with the F-35 or knowing what will work and won't work. Right now the only precedence they have is by what the USN is having issue with. If they think on that one forum that there will be a lifetime coating they are sadly mistaken. I think there is some confusion in and around about deck coatings. Thermion and other heat resistant/corrosion resistant deck coatings are not new. They have been around a long time. Thermion and the application on Wasp is a short term solution for a time critical mission. That mission is to torture test the F-35B at sea, integrate the pilots to its operation at sea, train flight deck personell and work platform issues. What the F-35B is doing on Wasp is repetitionally far in excess of what the F-35B will do operationally on LHD's or LHA's. Comments from PAO's are merely defensive in the fact they never say anything in the affirmative for fear that something else will develop. There are big differences between the LHD/LHA landing areas and the CVN decks of course. What is being described about the deck edge stuff on QE seems to be taken out of context really. There is no reason to protect the entire deck from F-35B jet blast. USN LHD/LHA AV-8 ops and soon to be F-35B ops occur unconventionally. VSTOL approaches do not approach the ramp like traditional fixed wind a/c do on traditional carriers. They will almost always come in at an angle from port abaft the beam, breaks on, to land vertically on a 'Spot'. Which is almost always Spot 5 for VSTOL. In emergency conditions like bingo fuel or hung ordnance, there is a chance they will come in on the centerline. But Ive never seen it, not once. AFAIK QE will employ the F-35B landing over the ramp on centerline and rolling, just because this is the RN methodology for the Sea Harrier. So the whole deck and deck edge coating is merely a normal corrosion control method. There are also other concerns in regards to the QE class. It was designed to be cheaper to build by building to commercial standards and not military standards. Meaning the structures are not as robust and therefore more short lived. The biggest problem on Wasp has not necessarily been the flight deck. When the F-35B comes in slowly at an angle is has to go over things before it gets to the Spot. Breezeways, Catwalks and platforms. Breezeways and Catwalks contain lesser decking, life rafts and antennae. Platforms contain weapons systems, radomes, etc. These were things unaffected by AV-8's but, now they have to be either moved or reinforced. Since there really is only 1 VSTOL landing spot, the whole deck is not at risk of the heat problems. VSTOL on LHDs and LHAs is roll off centerline and AFAIK there is no heat problem in that regard. The issue is a little overblown. |
Posted by: F/A-18 Super Bug Jun 8 2014, 03:26 PM |
Thank you for the links to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee - 02/06/2014 - Estimates - DEFENCE PORTFOLIO even if you have given some different links to the same Estimates hearing. |
Posted by: Luig Jun 9 2014, 02:25 AM | ||
Hmmm, the original PDF link is broken - maybe I can fix it - I think because it was a draft it has now been overtaken by a final copy. Anyway the other PDF link was to an EDITED version of the original. Which is not the same thing. Your mythical friends are amazing. Here is one quote that is just wrong:
Incorrect. Perhaps the RN/RAF will use sometimes the SRVL Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing for their F-35Bs to increase bringback payload above what is the maximum allowed/available for a vertical landing. At moment this is a 'maybe'. The RN/RAF Harriers have only ONCE made a rolling vertical landing onboard and that was due to an emergency caused by ground fire during the Falklands War. Otherwise the rolling landing was NEVER done on any RN ships [because it was considered TOO DANGEROUS on their much smaller decks (compared to CVF)]. Otherwise RN/RAF Harriers have in the past transitioned to be over the deck either horizontally or diagonally depending. They certainly have a different way of doing a circuit compared to the USMC flat deck LHA way. As for the hearsay about THERMION. I only claim what I claim from knowledge gained from news reports at around the time of WASP F-35B testing for example or from the manufacturer website as indicated earlier. I can spin yarns all day long about this and that but how worthwhile these yarns are to anyone is probably not worth bothering with. As I say the PDFs online have a lot of information about THERMION and how it will be used. IF you and your mythical friends want to have a chat to say something different then please have at it. AND remember this. The CVF has been designed from the start to be compatible with the F-35B. The WASP was not. Old LHAs not. The latest USS America needs some work whilst it has been said that the next LHA in line afterwards will be compatible with the F-35B totally. What really interests me is the impact of an F-35B on our LHDs (not yet in service). Got any yarns about that? |
Posted by: Luig Jun 9 2014, 06:49 AM | ||||
Some BiGbOys need THERMION baby.... In era of tight budgets, how many aircraft carriers are enough? 08 Jun 2014 Jon Harper
http://www.stripes.com/news/in-era-of-tight-budgets-how-many-aircraft-carriers-are-enough-1.287563 Photo of a worn USN (probably old) carrier deck will follow: Development of Multiple-Deployment Nonskid Coatings Charles Tricou Applied Research Laboratory Penn State University 27 March 2007
http://www.ncms.org/wp-content/NCMS_files/CTMA/Symposium2007/presentations/Track%201%20-%20Tuesday/Tues%20T1%200400%20Tricou%20DNSC.pdf (PDF 2.2Mb) |
Posted by: Luig Jun 10 2014, 11:20 AM |
There is a lot of info at SLDinfo.com as well as elsewhere about the synergy of the F-35 with other networked weapon carrying assets. Here is a recent one: http://thediplomat.com/2014/06/would-you-like-an-f-35-to-go-with-your-aegis/ How valuable are a few F-35Bs able to network with our RAN assets to fire weapons and vice versa? The USN has NICF-FA and I guess we will have some of that also - eventually. |
Posted by: Luig Jun 14 2014, 01:08 PM | ||
If anyone has questions about F-35Bs on CVFs here are some answers: [CVF] Commons written answers 12th June 2014 Column 238W
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/403669/F35B#reply-403669 |
Posted by: Luig Jun 18 2014, 02:04 AM | ||||
Some old history about F-35B with mention of the VL auto and how much the LiftFan has compromised the F-35 family design... Joint Strike Fighter PERSPECTIVES Code One Magazine July 1996 Vol. 11 No. 3 Mike Skaff, Pilot-Vehicle Interface [PVI]
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/C1_V11N3_SM_1271449318_7528.pdf (13.8Mb) __________ Joint Strike Fighter PERSPECTIVES Code One Magazine July 1996 Vol. 11 No. 3 Paul Bevilaqua, Lift-Fan System Inventor
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/C1_V11N3_SM_1271449318_7528.pdf (13.8Mb) |
Posted by: Luig Jun 18 2014, 03:05 PM | ||
F-35B Engine Exhausts 16 Jun 2014 Defence in the Media (Source: UK Ministry of Defence)
Source: http://www.blogs.mod.uk/ Cartoon / News Source: http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/article1422839.ece |
Posted by: F/A-18 Super Bug Jun 18 2014, 08:09 PM |
This may sound stupid but does anybody know what the minimum stopping distance that you can get out of a F-35A/B when doing a conventional landing? Our new LHDs flight deck is 230 metres so I was thinking would you be able to land a F-35B on our LHDs if we were to use a deployable drag chute like the Canadians have down for decades on their CF-18s for landing on short, icy runways. I tried to look up the F-35 specifications but all 3 variants are listed as "unknown", also on the specs the F-35B has a Take Off Distance of 450ft with the ski-jump. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-specs.htm Thanks for the updates Luig! |
Posted by: Luig Jun 19 2014, 03:39 AM |
Do some research I would suggest. I guess recommending you download and look at the 'How to Deck Land' PDFs would not be helpful to you? It is difficult to know where to begin. Firstly the F-35B can VL on an LHD and that is the end of that. |
Posted by: F/A-18 Super Bug Jun 19 2014, 01:05 PM |
We've discussed this, of course it can Vertically Land and Take Off however it's going to melt the deck of all the ships it's going to land and take off from vertically unless the whole flight deck is coated in anti-heat resistant spray or at least a couple of painted landing spots. |
Posted by: Luig Jun 19 2014, 04:19 PM |
You have not read a thing - or understood anything at all - it would seem. I'll just ignore your claims from now on. |
Posted by: Judwin Jun 19 2014, 08:13 PM |
This is worth a read if you're worried about melting stuff. http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.co.uk/ Latest roumors from here in Blighty is that at least one F-35B will perform a flypast at the naming ceremony for the first CVF HMS Queen Elizabeth in Rosyth on 4th July. 3 F-35B's (1 RAF and 2 USMC) are due to arrive at RAF Fairford late this month for their European airshow debuts at RIAT and Farnborough. |
Posted by: Luig Jun 20 2014, 07:10 AM | ||
Thanks 'Judwin' a good overview there. Online my PDFs have similar & more detailed material (especially about F-35B SRVLs and Ski Jumps) or part material, with URLs pointing to the missing material (in the PDF). Some good stuff there on the web page on the Harrier (which is not featured much in the online PDFs - why? - because they are on the way out). This 25Mb PDF mentioned at end of the above article has an overview of the UK Harrier History as well as the history of the CONTROL LAWS developed with the VACC Harrier to power the F-35B so easily under the UNIFIED version (by John Farley - an expert in all things Harrier & a pilot / test pilot): [John Farley was one of the instructors who took two A4G pilots onboard HMAS Melbourne in 1977 in a two seat Harrier to demonstrate how 'easy' it all was.]
http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documents/research/RAF-Historical-Society-Journals/Journal-35A-Seminar-the-RAF-Harrier-Story.pdf (25Mb) Another GABRIELE URL to read: Does it melt the decks or not...? 25 May 2012 http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/does-it-melt-decks-or-not.html |
Posted by: FlyCookie Jun 20 2014, 08:49 AM |
A splendid and highly informed return of fire to much of the rubbish masquerading as informed comment out there in interwebs world has just been posted on the ASPI site. Excerpts follow. ++++++++++++++++++++++++ LHD and STOVL—An engineer’s view 20 Jun 2014 By Steve George As a military aircraft engineer, I’ve been associated with STOVL aircraft operations for around 30 years, and have worked on the F-35 program. So I’ve followed the current discussions around potential use of F-35B from the Canberra-class LHDs with interest. In my view, it’s remarkable how much the debate focuses on the problems that the aircraft would face in operating from those ships rather than the potential benefits to be gained. Assertions abound about the ‘limited’ nature of F-35B operations from an LHD, and the ‘severe challenges’ involved in generating a militarily ‘decisive impact’ from ‘small’ platforms. And yet for 30 years or more the UK and US (using AV-8Bs and Sea Harriers) have delivered significant operational effect from similar platforms. Clearly, STOVL at sea can work. So I’d like to offer a few observations that might assist and inform the debate. For STOVL aircraft, the Canberra class isn’t a ‘small’ ship. They’re actually much larger than the RAN’s last carrier, HMAS Melbourne, and significantly bigger than the UK’s highly effective Invincible class. Their flight decks are nearly as big as Wasp class LHDs decks, for which the F-35B was designed. Indeed, the Canberra class actually have more suitable decks for F-35B operations; their ski jumps would deliver significantly improved launch payloads and safer launches. The point here is that STOVL is a truly disruptive technology. It allows LHD-sized vessels to deliver a level of maritime aviation capability previously limited to large conventional carriers. Read the whole thing via the link, here - http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/lhd-and-stovl-an-engineers-view/ |
Posted by: Luig Jun 20 2014, 10:39 AM | ||
Thanks 'FlyCookie' I'll check it out - meanwhile some good clips of arrests and VLs in this lot.... F-35 Family of Aircraft Published on Jun 19, 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUZ6SMmTKns |
Posted by: Luig Jun 20 2014, 12:13 PM | ||
And for the concrete heads out there here is some more news.... Copy/Paste the broken (by spaces) URL below.... High Performance Airfield Pavements (HPAP) Dec 2013 NAVFAC NavAir Facilities Command
https://www.navfac.navy.mil/content/dam/navfac/Specialty Centers/Engineering and Expeditionary Warfare Center/PDFs/ci_tech_data_sheets/TDS-NAVFAC-EXWC-CI-1402.pdf (83Kb) |
Posted by: F/A-18 Super Bug Jun 20 2014, 01:29 PM |
Fair go Luig I'm not spinning your wheels and wasting YOUR time here and I did go back to "OneDrive" and tried to search "'How to Deck Land' in one of the PDFs. I tried to skim and search through the 125 pages on just ONE PDF. So thanks for putting all those PDFs together. You put a new PDF in every new post (which makes for current discussions) and I apologise if I haven't read every page yet. Some PDFs are 120+ pages long with very small print. To prove I have been spending a lot of time reading your PDFs and one quotes a US Marine Corp General saying that a a F-35B won't be a true Fifth-generation jet fighter with stealth features until it has Block 3 software (I personally don't know what different software does to the computer in the jets). If I can find out the direct quote again I'll post it, I've got tabs and PDFs open everywhere. Oh and off on a tangent here but in my opinion if the RAN buys and operates F-35Bs you'll see a rise in Navy recruitment like after the release of Top Gun. Cheers! |
Posted by: Luig Jun 20 2014, 03:45 PM |
At last you give indication that you have gone to the websites. The best option is to DOWNLOAD the PDFs. Probably due to your specific interest perhaps in the F-35 variants then there are specific F-35 folders with specific F-35 PDFs. Remember I cannot replicate how you use these sites. My experience is going to be different depending on how I log in or not OR, which web browser I use to do so, and of course with Windows or that other thing. Again I'll repeat - look at the folders and look at the titles. Download the PDF and then you have it to 'word search' or even 'phrase search' with the latest edition of Adobe Reader suitable for your OS. NOW that there is a recent 'flood' of F-35B specific info on LHDs and concrete and stuff - I should make new PDFs suitable to upload. However there is only so much I can do in any one day/week/month/year. What is there already is very informative. Sure there is a lot of reading but how else do you gain knowledge? The opinion of one person is just that. Unless they are the only one to make a decision what they say/think/write is very much irrelevant if the bulk of the opinions etc of the people who are making decisions carries any weight. And of course this is the nub. There are any amount of naysayers out there with the program moving along despite all the 'negatives'. There are many 'positives' that are often dismissed by the naysayers. NOT MY PROBLEM. IF the USMC have decided (and they can - it is their call) to go IOC with BLOCK 2B then so be it. The USAF go differently later and then the USN later still with the BLOCK 3F - again their responsibility. Do not worry - be happy. |
Posted by: Luig Jun 23 2014, 03:44 PM |
These pages are the LHD & F-35B & Harrier excerpts from 22 June 2014 edition of ‘A Pictorial History of Royal Australian Navy Fleet Air Arm Skyhawk A-4G & all other FAA Aircraft...’; + ‘How to Deck Land VL & SRVL style’ with Harrier and F-35B examples. FOLDER: '__LHD & F-35B Info VL + Harrier': URL: https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=CBCD63D6340707E6&id=CBCD63D6340707E6!298 File Name: LHDs & F-35Bs + Harriers Info ONLY 22 June 2014 Excerpts.PDF (270Mb) URL: http://1drv.ms/1ioph3s RIGHT MOUSE CLICK ON THE ICON or whatever file name seen as above and download this file. |
Posted by: Luig Jun 23 2014, 04:26 PM |
Osprey MV-22 on Juan Carlos I LHD test 18 Jun 2014: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.armada.mde.es/ArmadaPortal/page/Portal/ArmadaEspannola/conocenos_noticias/prefLang_es/00_noticias--2014--06--NT-116-OSPREY-EN-JCI_es%3F_selectedNodeID%3D1754123%26_pageAction%3DselectItem&prev=/search%3Fq%3DMV-22%2BJuan%2BCarlos%2BI%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DqDz%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26channel%3Dsb |
Posted by: FlyCookie Jun 24 2014, 02:06 AM |
This short article just went up on the Flight Global site. There's a long, detailed introduction and overview article on this subject by the same journalist in the forthcoming (July) issue of Australian Aviation magazine. That article will not be be available online - readers have to buy the magazine. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Australia reveals interest in F-35B By Andrew McLaughlin Australian defence chiefs have told a hearing of the Senate’s Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation committee that Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s coalition government is considering whether to acquire a number of short take-off and vertical landing Lockheed Martin F-35Bs. Canberra confirmed in April it will acquire 58 F-35A Lightning IIs for the Royal Australian Air Force under Project Air 6000 Phase 2A/2B, adding to the 14 already on order to replace the RAAF's Boeing F/A-18A/B "classic" Hornet fleet. Australia has long-stated a requirement for 100 air combat aircraft. However, because it acquired 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets in 2009-2010 as a bridging capability between the retirement of the General Dynamics F-111C and the introduction of the F-35A, it has deferred a decision on Phase 2C of the project until the early- to mid-2020s. The F-35B proposal is being pushed by Abbott’s office, and if acquired the aircraft would be fielded from the Royal Australian Navy’s two new LHD-class vessels – the first of which is to be commissioned as HMAS Canberra later this year. “There has been a White Paper evolving for a while,” chief of the defence force Gen David Hurley said in response to opposition defence spokesman Senator Stephen Conroy. “The prime minister has a view about a capability that he thinks might be relevant to the ADF [Australian Defence Force]. He has asked us to look at that. "We have a process in place at the moment that depending where we come out on that process, we would then go into all of those technical decisions about the nature of ship and force structure implications for the ADF.” The two 27,000t LHDs currently under construction in Melbourne, Victoria are based on Spain’s King Juan Carlos 1 (L-61) vessel, built by Navantia. When ordered, the LHDs were intended for amphibious and regional humanitarian assistance missions. They have capacity for a battalion of troops, up to 100 vehicles, four large amphibious watercraft and a dozen or more helicopters to be embarked for such missions. There has long been an intention to conduct operational ‘cross-decking’ operations with US Marine Corps and UK Royal Navy fixed and rotary-wing aircraft. However, in lieu of a planned Force Posture Review and new defence White Paper being finalised for release in early 2015, there are currently no guiding policy documents or stated strategic imperatives for Australia to pursue the option of acquiring F-35Bs and to operate these vessels as fixed wing aircraft carriers. HMAS Canberra will be followed by HMAS Adelaide in 2016. |
Posted by: Nick Thorne Jun 25 2014, 09:58 AM | ||
Interesting and relevant article: http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/lhd-and-stovl-an-engineers-view/.
As I have said before, the idea that the RAAF could supply any sort of effective air cover to support maritime operations from land based airfields using conventional aircraft is ludicrous. Time on task and turn around time is all important, you need your aircraft near the action to do this and putting them on ships is really the only effective solution. |
Posted by: Luig Jun 25 2014, 12:44 PM |
'Nick' "FlyCookie" pointed to that excellent Steve George post above on the 20th June. I'm awaiting more info in future about the specifics required for Oz Bs on LHDs - interesting times that the PM and DefMin get excited about this. Similar 283Mb PDF about F-35Bs on LHDs and How to do it is now on SpazSinbad Page on GoogleDrive: (same as the one on OneDrive above) https://drive.google.com/?authuser=0#folders/0BwBlvCQ7o4F_SUZES0VEM2ZvOXM Folder: RAN LHD + RNZAF A-4K PDFs + Videos LHDs & F-35Bs + Harriers Info ONLY 25 June 2014 Excerpts.pdf (283Mb) |
Posted by: Nick Thorne Jun 25 2014, 08:53 PM |
Fair enough, Luig, I missed that one, d'oh! Still, some food for thought for those that think naval aviation should be confined to rotary wing aircraft. |
Posted by: Luig Jun 26 2014, 01:00 AM | ||
I agree. No worries. Perhaps I have mentioned this however my idea is similar to how the early 8 A4Gs (four on VF-805) were the 'fleet defence' for the ASW carrier and escorts back in the early 1970s. With later more A4Gs the tasks could change depending on requirements. My idea for a few F-35Bs onboard our LHDs is 'as required' for fleet defence and when not required these Bs should disembark and get on with flying with the RAAF 'as required'. I would hope they have a role with the RAAF and then they can jump back onboard as required etc. This quote is instructive however from the past.... The PDF was referenced earlier near the top of the previous (first) page of this thread. Hobbs was in the RN around my time in the RAN and I think we share similar views about the 'air force' - that is another story. I have been told that air force is more joint these days in Oz and I can believe that. However that was not my experience (nor Hobbs) back in the early 1970s anyway. CARRIER-BORNE CLOSE AIR SUPPORT Historical and Contemporary perspectives CMDR David Hobbs MBE, RN (Rtd) The NAVY Vol 72 No 4 Special Oct-Dec 2010
http://navyleague.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/The-Navy-Vol_72_No_4-Oct-2010.pdf (3.2Mb) |
Posted by: Nick Thorne Jun 26 2014, 09:12 AM |
Interesting read Luig. In the Nick Thorne Defence Master Plan™, the army would become an even more highly mobile force (like a Marine Corp), eg - no need for main battle tanks etc, and the FAA would assume all front line strike/fighter, ASW & AEW roles while the RAAF, if retained, would become a support force - transport etc. Instead of building large FIXED fighter air bases we should build several more (now what is the word I am looking for? Oh yes,...) aircraft carriers so that we can move the air assets to where they are required when they are required. Actually what we need is a Navy, a FAA and a Marine Corp. OK, not entirely serious, but I am afraid that the domination of defence thinking by ex RAAF fighter jocks has given us an unbalanced defence force that ignores the realities of Australia's place in the world both politically and geographically. We are a maritime nation, our defence force should reflect that. Much of our country is sparsely inhabited and we have no land borders. If we ever need to defend ourselves, or more likely one of our more remote territories, such as Christmas Island for example, we do not have the right equipment or force structure to do it. We need to be able to move our forces to where they need to be. We don't have and could not possibly afford the heavy lift capability to move significant forces long distances, a job done easily by sea. Of course such heavy lift would be dependent on there being a convenient air base at the destination - can we ask all future enemies to only attack near an air base, pretty please. Ships like the LHDs for moving the ground forces in combination with similarly sized but dedicated fixed wing carrying ships would be a much better investment. In the meantime, let us not nobble our selves by excluding fixed wing assets on the LHDs. |
Posted by: Dave Masterson Jun 26 2014, 12:18 PM |
Well said Nick...I like |
Posted by: FlyCookie Jun 27 2014, 06:45 AM |
The July issue of Australian Aviation is now available. The LHD/F35B article is well worth looking for, although the Sweetman/APA/Palmer/Davis crowd might not agree. |
Posted by: Luig Jun 27 2014, 12:39 PM |
Thanks for cover. 'Davis'? Who is? |
Posted by: F/A-18 Super Bug Jun 27 2014, 02:31 PM | ||
Is this available online somewhere or do I have to spend $12 at the newsagent? I wouldn't mind reading more about our new Growlers... |
Posted by: Luig Jun 27 2014, 02:51 PM |
I would never buy an iPad nor use one - I wonder why there is no PDF edition available online for PC users? Whatever. https://itunes.apple.com/wa/app/australian-aviation-magazine/id490008686?ls=1&mt=8 |
Posted by: Luig Jun 27 2014, 07:20 PM | ||
Back in 2008 John Bird had a say to Parliament Feds: I agree with this part at least.... A SELF RELIANT DEFENCE FORCE 28 July 2008 John Bird Submitted to the Defence White Paper Team
http://www.defence.gov.au/Whitepaper/2009/submissions/01_Strategy_International/Bird_John.pdf (276Kb) |
Posted by: Luig Jun 27 2014, 07:38 PM | ||||
Back in the DIM past this signal was promulgated: SUBJ: ESTABLISHMENT OF AN AVIATION SUPPORT CATEGORY
Royal Navy Aviation Aspects of the New Amphibious Ships Commander David Hobbs, MBE, RN (Rtd) AUSTRALIAN MARITIME ISSUES 2009: SPC-A ANNUAL
http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/PIAMA32.pdf |
Posted by: FlyCookie Jun 28 2014, 02:56 AM | ||
Yes it is available online, via the iTunes llnk posted above by Luig. It is not free: Australian Aviation is a business, not a charity. Luig, Davis = Malcolm Davis wrote a pair of spectacularly stupid and zero-knowledge pieces for the ASPI site. |
Posted by: FlyCookie Jun 28 2014, 03:15 AM |
BTW so far as I know an iPad or other Apple kit isn't necessary to buy stuff from iTunes. Maybe someone else here can clarify on that point? |
Posted by: Luig Jun 28 2014, 04:36 AM |
I am happy to buy the magazine / article online however it seems the PC is / was neglected. AFAIK the initial iTunes on Windows for PCs was iffy - yet by this time (after initial problems) it may work OK on Windows. I'll give it a try soonish. More preferable would be a way for Windows users to download a PDF? Thanks for info on Davis I'll attempt to check it out without joining FaceBook. Looking around for 'Davis' I found articles at ASPI. Meanwhile found this one which may interest.... The logic of interoperability Australia’s acquisition of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Adam Lockyer | Winter 2012-13 | International Journal http://ussc.edu.au/ussc/assets/media/docs/publications/130430_InternationalJournal_Lockyer.pdf (100Kb) |
Posted by: Luig Jun 28 2014, 04:12 PM |
Apple - Aust Aviation - iTunes can kiss my whatname. I have spent more than an hour downloading the latest Windows 64 bit iCreepyTunes and spent some time getting 'signed in'. So they send me an e-mail to my address (which is correct) however it is completely blank. DUH. WTF? I cannot use the store - I have no Apple ID nor will it allow me to create one. An hour of my time so far with no result. End of. Because I'm an idiot I have spent another hour attempting to confirm (somehow) that I am who I am by responding to THREE more completely empty e-mails. Even the fourth one that was supposed to 'learn' me how to go about confirming with FAQs or whatever was also completely BLANK. iWateringTunes is now Uninstalled. Thank you and goodnight. |
Posted by: Grumpy Cobra Jun 28 2014, 08:51 PM |
Sounds like you are experiencing F-35 "system architecture" problems Lui Jokes aside - I did not see that Aus Aviation Journalist pushing/considering the F-35B for Oz in any of his navy/airforce aviation articles prior to the recent hoopla - funny that ain't it all of a sudden he jumped on the band wagon... |
Posted by: Luig Jun 29 2014, 12:36 AM |
Perhaps I'll never know but anyway I had a thought about the BLANK e-mails from the rotten APPLE iStunk asking for 'confirmation' of my ID. (BTW I know who I am.) That was this - THUNK DIFFERUNT: reply using the blank e-mail. WOILA! I see what is inside the otherwise BLANK e-mail with a long URL link that actually does confirm that I exist. I am so pleased. Now the worm ridden iSore will not open because it is closed temporarily. Probably for good in my case. I even downloaded some stinkin' app with an .IPA extension which is actually only good for an iPartWithMySenses iPad. For gorsake do something Aust. Avn. cause you ain't gonna be sellin' much to me. |
Posted by: F/A-18 Super Bug Jun 29 2014, 06:15 PM | ||
So the question remains if we do end up getting F-35Bs for our LHDs is it the RAAF or the RAN FAA going to cover all the maintenance, avionics, electrical, ordnance etc? So when those F-35s are aboard the ships are they going to be operated by organic RAN personnel or would RAAF F-35B mechanics come aboard for the cruise? It stands to reason that using RAAF rather than the RAN FAA ground crews to maintain the (possible) squadron because they have way more experience in fixed wing fighters, saving the government million of dollars in training. You would have to train RAN FAA personnel from scratch! Off-Topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7nKtEZZT48 |
Posted by: Luig Jun 30 2014, 03:47 AM | ||
Probably best to highlight from whence quotes come - rather than just mixing them up. However to answer the question it would appear that the venerable John Bird has the right idea:
Issue solved [as you yourself seem to suggest]. Probably some Navy Pilots will may fly on exchange with the RAAF or some arrangement or even exchange with RN/RAF or USMC perhaps. You seem to be obsessed with relatively minor details when the big picture 'F-35Bs on LHDs' has not been decided. As mentioned the old rivalries are likely less severe these days as some people have informed me and my comment is 'I hope so'. The ADF is used to being flexible I would hope. HOW in the past has the RAN managed to first of all start their own Fleet Air Arm (FAA) back in 1948? Why they dragooned a bunch of RAF and RAAF pilots mostly, with some RN types mixed in as well. You oughta read up on some history. The 4.4GB PDF would be a good start or the older prop aircraft PDFs at the usual sites would contain some hints. Probably if you join the military in some position you will become acquainted with how things work. Your comments about what the ADF 'must' do are a little ignorant. People are 'trained from scratch' in ADF all the time - including you at some point. Not forgetting that helicopter maintenance (especially on small ships) is no laughing matter. But hey - you knew that - right? Anyway training already experienced helo maintainers in jet maintenance or just helping support them with the RAAF crews onboard will be a no brainer. The VIDEO about the AV-8B No Nosewheel landing has been highlighted already here: http://www.adf-messageboard.com.au/invboard/index.php?showtopic=2542&st=0entry15657 |
Posted by: F/A-18 Super Bug Jun 30 2014, 12:58 PM | ||||||||||||
You're being a bit hypocritical you seem to post a new article every day on even the slightest changes and updates on the F-35A/B and in most posts. I put "ground crews to maintain the (possible) squadrons". I know you personally would love to see the RAN return to a fixed wing FAA. I'm not sure what year you left the RAN and what was your MOS (I don't know the ADF equivalent)?
Are you retired because some of the PDF are huge: http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files...nts/PIAMA32.pdf is over 300+ pages long!
I did finally fined this in your Goggle Drive SpazSinbad. Even with the fastest ADSL 2+ the 4.4GB file it is taking ages to download. I have now downloaded it and now it says: Format Error: Not a PDF or corrupted.
All I'm saying is that training from scratch costs a lot more money rather than using RAAF ground maintenance crews with YEARS of knowledge of fixed wing fighters. So why not deploy RAAF personnel aboard the LHDs for the possible acquisition of F-35Bs rather than train the RAN FAA? Also where are the possible F-35Bs going to be based on land when not deployed... The RAN FAA based is at Nowra but do they have the ability capability to maintain a fighter squadron there as they have only been for rotary winged aircraft for decades now? The F-35Bs I'm ASSUMING would be located at RAAF Base Amberley.
I'm not here to say they MUST do anything rather just an opinion from layman taxpayer interested in the military. You obviously know a *beep*load more about the F-35 but not has much about the LHDs. For example when our Australian Army Aviation aircraft start landing like the Chinook, Blackhawks and Tiger ARH who is going to "look after them" on the LHDs?
Damn it I thought I'd be the first person to look cool and post it but was beaten to the punch |
Posted by: Luig Jun 30 2014, 02:37 PM |
I cannot answer why you cannot view the PDF. However as I have said you must use the latest Adobe Reader for your Operating System. Is this the case? Does the file size approximately match what you have downloaded? The SpazSinbad page on Microsoft OneDrive is another source where the 4.4GB PDF is in 100Mb RAR/EXE sizes (.EXE is the first file to double click when all the parts (approx. 46- or 47-) are downloaded into the same directory to then reassemble the 4.4GB PDF. Depending on which one you download you will see me at the front or the back. Or somewhere in the middle. If you just ask questions here you may receive reasonable answers. However making ignorant statements/ and or assumptions is not a good idea as I have mentioned. You are lucky I continue to answer your 'questions/statements'. Some may disagree on that score - one way or the other. I'll repeat - for the moment do not trouble yourself with events that may not happen. You need to gain knowledge about more likely events - such as the F-35A for the RAAF and the LHDs and some history of the RAN FAA at least. All these topics are in the 4.4GB PDF or in smaller PDFs at the two websites. You seem to prefer to ignore my suggestions however. I do not know what MOS means either nor do I care. Some 40 years ago now I last flew an A4G, earlier in mid 1972 I last catapulted from HMAS Melbourne in an A4G. [During my year on VF-805 I was catapulted almost 100 times with some at night. With over 100 deck landings and a devil dozen [13] deck landings at night - including a rampstrike on my second night deck landing touch and go - which did not count however.] I learnt how to fly in the RAAF during all of 1968 after joining the Navy at beginning of 1966. I left the Navy in mid 1975. I have some 1,600 hours in mostly RAN aircraft, minus the 100 odd hours in a Winjeel with the RAAF at the beginning. I have too many hours in Vampires, Sea Venoms and Macchis, compared to my A4G/TA4G hours; but those were the times when arriving at NAS Nowra beginning of 1969 I had to wait one year for my OFS (Operational Flying School) in the A4G. I did not fly the Sea Venom from HMAS Melbourne however. The RAN Vampires were more or less the same as the RAAF Vampires I trained on, whilst the Macchi MB326Hs were the same exactly. I have worked on the PDFs for about a decade now. They are comprehensive in many ways - with lots of things omitted probably - but that all depends on the reader. If you have no interest in Naval Aviation in general, or our old Fixed Wing Fleet Air Arm in particular - DO NOT BOTHER TO DOWNLOAD anything. Yes I am only interested in ships when they can carry fixed wing aircraft. Until recently the LHDs were going to operate only helicopters. I have no interest in helicopters. Boom Boom hence no interest in LHDs until? |
Posted by: Nick Thorne Jun 30 2014, 11:23 PM | ||||
Well, all training starts from scratch. There is nothing magic about fixed wing aircraft that only the RAAF understands. The Navy already conducts maintenance on its aircraft, having F-35Bs will just be another type. Deep maintenance would no doubt be conducted by an external company anyway (neither RAAF nor RAN) as has been the case for decades, so we are only talking about regular maintenance. Every aircraft has its idiosyncrasies the F-35B will be just the same. Why would the aircraft be based at RAAF Amberley? If there were two or three squadrons of F-35Bs, given the lead time for any such purchase there is more than enough time to build facilities at Nowra if there are not existing ones that can be converted. The experiment of having Air Force aircraft on Naval ships has been tried before. It was not a success and it was proven that the Navy needed control over its its own aircraft, maintenance and aircrews. Nothing has changed that would lead me to think that it would be any different now. The idea that the RAAF can do it all is wrong and frankly dangerous.
As an opinionated layman taxpayer interested in the military you come across as one who is grossly ignorant of just what is involved in military service and operations, especially naval ops. You have been pointed time and time again at places where you could potentially gain some knowledge but instead you keep coming on here and spruiking utter nonsense. You simply don't know enough about what you are talking for your opinions to be worth considering. I am astonished that Luig gives you the time of day. |
Posted by: Luig Jul 1 2014, 02:55 AM |
Nick: "...I am astonished that Luig gives you the time of day." It is because I'm an old fart these days.... And 'the kid' has to start somewhere. IF and IF the F-35Bs are only on the LHD temporarily on an odd occasion (with copious short exercises of course to keep them in practice) then having the RAAF (with RAN exchange pilots) fly / maintain the F-35Bs - which will mainly be in RAAF service - but as 'BIRD' (or I say more specifically) says have them onboard on a needs basis then I do not see the issues as you see them perhaps. The punch ups (yep almost had one in the Willytown Mess with a drunken yobbo Miracle pilot haranguing my goodself one time) of yesteryear I'm told have gone. Hooray for that. There was never any need for the RAAF to bully the very small RAN FAA Fixed Wing of that era. But whatever. I see OUR BINNY has taken over the reins yesterday so here is to a bright future. |
Posted by: F/A-18 Super Bug Jul 1 2014, 02:40 PM | ||||
First off Luig thank you very much for your service of our country and I do really mean it. To know your a former fighter pilot is even cooler (sorry if that's the fanboy coming out in me) and looking it up there were only 20 A4Gs built and you were lucky and skilled enough to fly one of them!! So now I'm reading that 10 of those 20 aircraft were actually lost and two pilots died some I'm glad your still alive mate. So the A4G was introduced in 1967 but I'm reading on Wiki that the HMAS Melbourne didn't see action in Vietnam other than an escort ship for the troop transport HMAS Sydney. I'm sure you would have loved to have served over there. Another point I read is that the A4G that you flew in didn't have the ability to operate guided air-to-ground weapons like the US A4F. Just so I'm positive these are the TWO drives that you will upload new PDFs and articles to? Look in the 'Documents & Videos Various' folder on the 'SpazSinbad' OneDrive page here: https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=CBCD63D63407...6340707E6%21116 and Similarly on the SpazSinbad page on GoogleDrive in the ''folder will be an LHD pdf "LHD+F-35BinfoJan2013pp123.pdf" same as on OneDrive. https://drive.google.com/?authuser=0#folder...aDhIQ0szeVJFY0U MOS stands for Military Occupational Specialty code or basically what is your job description in whatever branch your in...you definitely explained that down to a tee
Because that's where they have the most facilities, eqipment and logistics, its houses all our Super Hornets, C-17 Globemasters, eventually our EA-18 Growlers and our Airbus A330 MRTT aerial refuelers and thus they can conduct training using different assets and aerial refueling.
What's your bonafides after about a dozen posts that makes you come here and tell other posters to not give me the time of day? Luig has previously told me to pull my head in before and search questions myself. However my current question is when our Army helos (Blackhawks, Chinooks and Tiger ARH) are aboard the new LHDs who is going to be responsible for them? Thank you guys! |
Posted by: Luig Jul 1 2014, 03:01 PM |
On OneDrive and GoogleDrive my page is called 'SpazSinbad' or 'Spaz Sinbad'. This is OneDrive: SpazSinbad Main Page then look at FOLDERS: https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=cbcd63d6340707e6 This is GoogleDrive: Spaz Sinbad [join before viewing] Main Page etc. https://drive.google.com/?authuser=0#folders/0BwBlvCQ7o4F_aDhIQ0szeVJFY0U ONE THING about PDFs: You have not said computer/OS/Adobe Reader version. IF you have an old computer from say the WinXP days then you will not have the computer resources to view the 4.4GB PDF. IF you still have the PDF that will not open then burn that PDF to a DVD and take it to another computer to see what happens there. Always best to have the latest and greatest computer resources - particularly Windows - about Apple/MACs I have no idea. And always best to view the PDF from hard drive rather than a DVD. |
Posted by: Nick Thorne Jul 1 2014, 11:01 PM |
>>(F/A-18 Super Bug,Jul 1 2014, 02:40 PM) >>>>Why would the aircraft be based at RAAF Amberley? >>Because that's where they have the most facilities, eqipment and logistics, its houses all our Super Hornets, C-17 Globemasters, eventually our EA-18 Growlers and our Airbus A330 MRTT aerial refuelers and thus they can conduct training using different assets and aerial refueling. Oh, I see, and those aircraft have exactly what in common with F-35Bs that makes Amberley so much more suitable than, say, Nowra? >> >>>>As an opinionated layman taxpayer interested in the military you come across as one who is grossly ignorant of just what is involved in military service and operations, especially naval ops. You have been pointed time and time again at places where you could potentially gain some knowledge but instead you keep coming on here and spruiking utter nonsense. You simply don't know enough about what you are talking for your opinions to be worth considering. I am astonished that Luig gives you the time of day. >>What's your bonafides after about a dozen posts that makes you come here and tell other posters to not give me the time of day? Luig has previously told me to pull my head in before and search questions myself. The number of posts I may or may not have made on this site has absolutely no correlation with my bonafides (sic) as you put it. I might ask you exactly how much experience have you had in carrier fixed wing operations? I served on VS816 Squadron embarked in CVS-21 HMAS Melbourne, so I do at least have a little experience from which to speak. Additionally I have been a close observer of the whole area of Naval aviation for the thirty years since I left the Navy, and indeed since before that time. That is not a layman's experience, but that of someone who has had inside knowledge of the game and has kept up with developments, because it is an area of abiding interest for me. Oh, and re-read my post, I never told anyone not to give you the time of day, I do not take kindly to being misquoted. >> However my current question is when our Army helos (Blackhawks, Chinooks and Tiger ARH) are aboard the new LHDs who is going to be responsible for them? The same people who will look after them regardless of whether the LHDs embark an air group of F-35Bs or not. The question is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. --- Edit: something weird happened with quoting in my post, edited for clarity |
Posted by: Luig Jul 2 2014, 03:59 AM |
A PDF on OneDrive and almost the same one on GoogleDrive (just a few added pages in the same time frame) with this name: https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=cbcd63d6340707e6&sa=822839791 Folder: __LHD & F-35B Info VL + Harrier ONEDRIVE: 'LHDs & F-35Bs + Harriers Info ONLY 22 June 2014 Excerpts.pdf' (270Mbs) ____________________________ https://drive.google.com/?authuser=0#folders/0BwBlvCQ7o4F_aDhIQ0szeVJFY0U FOLDER: RAN LHD + RNZAF A-4K PDFs + Videos GoogleDrive: 'LHDs & F-35Bs + Harriers Info ONLY 25 June 2014 Excerpts.pdf' (270+Mbs) IF either one of these PDFs is downloaded a lot of your questions will be answered. Guaranteed. |
Posted by: F/A-18 Super Bug Jul 3 2014, 07:10 PM | ||||
Firstly thank you Luig for setting up your two "Drives" and when I get time I will absolutely read them!
Again thank you for your service to this great nation! It means that when training our potential F-35Bs pilots can work together with our Super Hornets and also work on using along Electronic Warfare aircraft as well as hitting the tanker instead of being based down in Nowra flying around by themselves. I haven't even started on the logistics of parts, ground crews and maintenance costs, leave Amberley as our fixed wing aircraft base and leave the rotary winged Navy FAA to Nowra just like where the new MH-60R Romeo Seahawk will be based. However if you think that the NAS Nowra should get them then OK. Can I please ask an unrelated question? That is although we've used the CH-47 Chinook since back to Vietnam or whenever and that we are actually getting 7 new CH-47Fs however if you had your choice would you buy the Sikorsky CH-53E Super Stallion or the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey (for our LHDs) (artillery, vehicles lift and for troop insertion/extraction) as our heavy lift rotary aircraft?
You said I am astonished that Luig gives you the time of day. now you didn't tell him not to give me the time of day yet you did imply "why the *beep* are you wasting your time with this kid. Yes or No? |
Posted by: Luig Jul 4 2014, 06:35 AM |
No need to pick fights here 'buggy'. IF RAAF operate F-35Bs in the future then they are best based where training will occur. Depending on how many are bought then IF two squadrons then one may go on permanent deployment around Australia and on an LHD from time to time. Practising bare base deployments around the top end would be useful and of course a lot of time would be spent at bases where these F-35Bs could be maintained as required. The F-35Bs should fit in with whatever the RAAF have in store for the F-35As - just that from time to time they will go onboard an LHD as required. Training on an LHD is part of the deal as one might imagine. IF only a small number of F-35Bs bought then that is NOT such a big deal as both As and Bs fly the same in conventional mode with the exact same equipment. The only difference in the cockpit is that the 'emergency' hook handle/button for the A is replaced by the 'RED Button' for STOVL MODE. By all accounts so far the B is very easy to fly in STOVL mode and has been made so over many years of developing the STOVL control laws / incepts via the VACC Harrier beforehand. Use of simulators will enable easy transition for A pilots to B aircraft as required. Of course they will have to practice their new B skills in the aircraft however it is said that 50% of F-35 training time will be in the FULL MISSION SIMULATOR - FMS - which again by all accounts is very realistic and far better than any recent other simulator. There is also a portable simulator (for those northern bases - which more or less replicates the FMS with fewer screens) while pilots can access a desktop simulator also which are as realistic as the FMS. It is all go for sims these days. In actual practice the Bs will fit in with the As seamlessly - yes there are airframe differences - plus STOVL mode for pilots - but that is all. |
Posted by: Luig Jul 4 2014, 08:32 AM |
This is how easy it is to VL the F-35B (USS Wasp) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Mewdfv0rOM |
Posted by: F/A-18 Super Bug Jul 4 2014, 02:37 PM | ||||
Roger that Luig and I like the nickname too, I might use it from now on I will definitely this weekend go through all your "Drives" and read all the PDFs.
So you're saying that IF we get a squadron of F-35Bs they will be operated by the RAAF not the RAN FAA? So the home base of the two LHDs will be Fleet Base East so where best to base potential F-35Bs in your opinion? So being the armchair general that I am I thought maybe we should have one at Fleet Base East and the other one at Fleet Base West. Fleet Base West receives a lot of port calls from the US Navy from their subs to their Nimitz class aircraft carriers with their escort warships so maybe they could do some joint training exercises and cross decking while they are in the region? Unless New Zealand invades us like you said these LHDs will be spending a lot of time in the Top End working with the US Marines already up there training with our RAR Battalions especially 2RAR (our new Marines ) I'm sure you've been to RAAF base Tindal (I don't know how big it is?) in your time in the ADF and it operates F/A-18s with No. 75 Squadron. So is it OK to ASSUME that at least a squadron from 12-24 F-35As would be based there out of the planned 72 with an option for another 28? Thanks mate! |
Posted by: gomer Jul 4 2014, 04:16 PM |
Hi Bug As a veteran of 75Sqn Tindal, yes the base is big enough. The Sqn will acquire F-35A's and answering Luig, there will most probably be a full sim. IF any "B" models are acquired they should go to Williamtown, this will be the main hub for the -35's. As an ex-raaffie I was peed-off when they got rid of the carriers and the fixed wing FAA. My 2 cents worth anyway |
Posted by: Luig Jul 4 2014, 05:01 PM |
Firstly bugsmasher you need to know what Fleet Base East and West are. All the other stuff about what goes where is already decided for the RAAF F-35As. We have not even got any F-35Bs yet and you want to base them at mythical places. Just get up to speed with what you do not know. That would be magic. When I first arrived at NAS Nowra beginning of 1969 the Commander Air told a group of us sprogs: "What you don't know - you don't know you don't know". Chew on that. We found out until the day we die there are things we will never know. Just deal with what is important and all the rest comes along - first you have to know what is important. Find out what Fleet Bases East and West are. AND another thing which is really silly of you to do. Stop assuming either you know what I am thinking or know what I know. For example as far as I recall I RAAF Tindal did not exist up until the mid 1970s when I left the RAN. As far as flying north I have only ever been up to the airfield at Forster in a Macchi. I never went west to Pearce in an A4G although others did. I went to Woomera in a Macchi though - wow. Mostly our op area was south of Nowra in the early 1970s although it did expand later to include the WEST and Brisbane AFAIK. I went to Willytown a couple of times but that was it in the early years although as I mentioned others ventured further because that is what happened. STOP assuming stuff and riffing off on these imaginings. |
Posted by: F/A-18 Super Bug Jul 5 2014, 01:23 PM | ||||||
As you stated RAAF Tindal will get ONE Squadron and RAAF base Williamtown will get TWO Squadrons once all of the first batch of 72 are delivered. However it looks like both bases are getting a major investments: Around $1.6 billion in new facilities and infrastructure will be constructed, including at RAAF Base Williamtown in New South Wales and RAAF Base Tindal in the Northern Territory From RAAF website. $1.6 billion is a hell of a lot of money to spend on "facilities and infrastructure". Maybe another tin shed hanger or two should do the trick
Look I'm just a kid here so my opinion lacks knowledge and experience however hear me out. As Australia does not power project like the US does or like the RN once did then there is no need for an aircraft carrier. The Royal Australian Navy since it lost the HMAS Melbourne ceased to be a Blue-water navy. Yeah sure we'll send an Anzac class frigate across to the Persian Gulf or part of an international Task Force combating Somali pirates off near the Gulf of Aden but that's about it isn't it? I do know that HMAS Anzac fired the first RAN shot in anger since Vietnam (31 year gap) back in the Invasion stage of the 2003 Iraq War being only her 5 inch gun supporting British Royal Marines landings. Other than that all they seem to be doing from the public POV now is intercepting illegal people smuggling boats (and now turning them back), protecting our northern EEZ from illegal fishing and terrorism on our oil rigs and maybe possible drug runners on a rare occasion. Some buddy told me that it costs about $250,000 a day to keep an Anzac class frigate running and they only have a complement of about 160 sailors. So imagine what these new LHDs are going to cost fully loaded. @Luig
That's why I'm here to learn! Anyways what am I missing here mate about the Fleet bases? They are our two major Navy bases on both sides of the country. What else is there? |
Posted by: Luig Jul 5 2014, 02:42 PM | ||||
GOOGLE is a good search engine. That would be a start. Why would aircraft be based at a Naval Ship Base? And so on.....
Ah the joys of reading one of my PDFs with F-35 material OR just searching the internet eh. I do not know how many FMS the RAAF will buy however AM Brown has said that they will need more. Why? Because a lot of training will occur in the FMS particularly when networked. Why? Because the RAAF plan to operate the F-35A in groups of four. Why? Because they network well along with other networkable assets. Why? Because that is one of the new features of warfare these days. Without a network for SA situational awareness youse are doomed. The US are constantly working to upgrade their networkability particularly now that two stealth aircraft are in the mix they also need stealth comms. The F-35 has MADL and there are ways that the F-22 and F-35 will communicate stealthily in the works then pass that info down the line to be disseminated (in the works also). I'll imagine our RAAF are up on this game also along with the Super Hornets and Growlers. Infrastructure such as new hangars, extending runways and building new support buildings for new aircraft is never cheap. The RAN is building new infrastructure at Nowra just for the new ROMEOs and has already built new stuff for all the new recent helos including the one that never was (seasprite). A funny story exists about all the buildings (probably most since demolished these days) at NAS Nowra. The PDFs show the early days after WWII when it was just a couple of dirt strips on cleared land. I would not recognise the place today after 40 years away. Maintaining and supporting modern aircraft is never going to be cheap. No point having expensive aircraft idle because they lack proper support/spares and all the rest. |
Posted by: Luig Jul 5 2014, 02:56 PM |
SRVLs Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landings will not occur on LHDs nor on USN LHAs however it may be successful on the CVFs as required. Here is a video about them. SRVL F 35B Demo CVF Sim + extras https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uPWjq23vL0 |
Posted by: Luig Jul 7 2014, 03:29 AM | ||
USMC spends some money to support MCAS Beaufort training with F-35Bs: http://www.thestate.com/2014/07/05/3549166/f-35b-training-squadron-arriving.html
|
Posted by: Luig Jul 7 2014, 12:07 PM | ||||||
Just in case someone says (Simon?) that the F-35B STOVLie has mucked up the F-35s then copy/paste this little lot. Sadly they will not read the rest of the material from whence came quotes but youse'll did youse best eh. Joint Strike Fighter PERSPECTIVES Code One Magazine July 1996 Vol. 11 No. 3 Paul Bevilaqua, Lift-Fan System Inventor
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/C1_V11N3_SM_1271449318_7528.pdf (13.8Mb) Genesis of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter 2009 Paul M. Bevilaqua JOURNAL OF AIRCRAFT Vol. 46, No. 6, November–December 2009 2009 WRIGHT BROTHERS LECTURE
http://pdf.aiaa.org/getfile.cfm?urlX=-%3CWI'7D%2FQKS%2B%2FRP%23IW%40%20%20%0A&urlb=!*0%20%20%0A&urlc=!*0%20%20%0A&urld=!*0%20%20%0A (PDF 7.7Mb) The Influence of Ship Configuration on the Design of the Joint Strike Fighter 26-27 Feb 2002 Mr. Eric S. Ryberg
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA399988 (PDF 1Mb) |
Posted by: Nick Thorne Jul 7 2014, 08:25 PM |
The unspoken influence on aircraft mission performance for both the Naval variant and the STOVL variant is that the main "penalty" that these versions suffer from is a reduction in range with hardly any actual aerodynamic performance or payload differences. However, this is well offset against the much shorter distance the aircraft have to travel in order to get on task and return. I would suggest that in most mission scenarios, in terms of time on task and number of sorties a given number of aircraft can perform in a given time (in other words the amount of time on task as a proportion of actual elapsed time), the Naval and STOVL versions would out perform the CTOL version by a significant factor in all real world circumstances except where there happened to be a convenient forward air base, close to the action. Of course, that is exactly what an aircraft carrier is, a convenient forward air base. But hey, what would I know? The RAAF can do it all from Willamtown, Amberley and Tindall... or maybe not so much. |
Posted by: Luig Jul 8 2014, 03:16 AM | ||
Heheh, Nick. The F-35B has a Key Performance Parameter (KPP) [which MUST be met by the manufacturers] for sortie generation for each F-35 variant. I'll post that info. Not only will the time to target be shorter (because the flat deck with the B has to be closer due to the shorter F-35B range - which by the way is probably not so much short in actual reality - I'll explain later) but the KPP requires more 'sorties generated' by the F-35B. How cool is that? :-) In the graphic below 'surg' = surge and 'sust' = sustained sorties The F-35C in use at moment only by the USN will have at least airborne tanker support back at the ship for landing contingencies. However the C requires more fuel onboard overhead (despite the tanker) to take care of all pre-landing contingencies. This amount of fuel required may vary according to the circumstances (where carrier may be in relation to target/threats - weather and any holdups from deck being foul and whatnots). This amount of fuel required for the C can be nebulous so I'll not try to quantify it - however in comparison to the F-35B the difference can be or will be substantial. Harriers are guaranteed to land - even if no usual spot available they will land in a clear space (or land in an emergency on a nearby suitable spot on another ship etc.) The weather has little influence on the ability of the F-35B to land whereas it is more significant for the F-35C. Yet both will take advantage of JPALS (a new approach technology demonstrated by the automatic carrier landing of the X-47B recently) so that both aircraft will be able to operate in most weather conditions when the flat deck movement is within their respective operating limits. Big CVNs move a great deal in the rolling Pacific swell. There are a nice bunch of videos online about this aspect. PBS Carrier - Landing on a Pitching Deck Pt. 1.mp4 (PACIFIC SWELLS) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ki8Ji4HQVU & PBS Carrier - Landing on a Pitching Deck Pt. 2.mp4 (NIGHT TIME!) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTVj_ZSwxGE Anyway my point is that with the restrictions on the C, and the less amount of fuel required overhead for a VL by the B, then the range of both could be quite similar. However - like the question: "how long is a piece of string" - it all depends. KPPs can be an artificial way to measure performance and I do not have access to how these KPPs are constructed other than what you see. However it is clear that the 'surge/sustain' sortie rate is going to be recalculated and what that will be in future - again - I have no idea: Three Reports on the F-35: One of Them Informative 02 Apr 2014 Winslow Wheeler
http://www.pogo.org/our-work/straus-military-reform-project/weapons/2014/three-reports-on-the-f-35.html |
Posted by: Luig Jul 10 2014, 04:14 AM | ||
Now Lads - I kid thee not - would thoust NOT like to see a few of these with this capability alone on our LHDs? Why the RAAFie Chappies can join in with all their Networkable stuff along with the RAN ships and your uncle is bob. The AIR International July 2014 F-35 Special Edition is excellent value and very informative as seen by this quote below. Panoramic Cockpit Display July 2014 David C Isby AIR International F-35 Special Edition
AIR International F-35 Special Edition July 2014 |
Posted by: Luig Jul 10 2014, 07:43 AM | ||
RAW POWER July 2014 Chris Kjelgaard, AIR International F-35 Special Edition
AIR International F-35 Special Edition July 2014 |
Posted by: Luig Jul 10 2014, 02:43 PM | ||
Some more GREAT Material from the above magazine. I have not read about the two setting STO throttle before - find it in all the woids below.... Jumping Jack Flash July 2014 unknown author AIR International F-35 Special Edition
AIR International F-35 Special Edition July 2014 |
Posted by: Luig Jul 16 2014, 06:02 AM | ||
Great explanation by Wizzer about STOVL Mode for the F-35B with the INCEPTS and STO differences with Ski Jump and VLs: Farnborough Airshow 2014: F-35 Test Pilot Interview 14 Jul 2014
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFZ0bbLIcQg |
Posted by: Grumpy Cobra Jul 17 2014, 01:26 AM |
Don't know how this one slipped under the radar but Gen Bogdan visited Quickstep at Bankstown recently! Did not know he was in the country! http://www.quickstep.com.au/news/Lt.-Gen.-Chris-Bogdan-visits-Quickstep-10-March-2014 Apr 8, 2014 The F-35 Program Executive Officer U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan met today with employees and management of Quickstep Holdings Limited at their manufacturing facility in Bankstown Airport where high-grade carbon-fibre components are produced for the F-35. "I was impressed with Quickstep's manufacturing processes and technology, they appear to be world class," said Lt. Gen. Bogdan. "The technologies I saw have great potential to improve aerodynamic performance and help to keep manufacturing costs down. Quickstep's contributions to the F-35 program are highly valued today and will be for years to come." And speaking of Farnbro slightly off topic I note Bell/Boeing (see http://www.janes.com/article/40720/bell-helicopter-submits-v-280-design-for-jmr-td ) According to Gehler, Bell's team has emphasised cost in its "clean-sheet design" of the Valor. Known for its V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft, which it builds with Boeing, Bell aimed to provide the speed and agility of a titlrotor design at a relatively low price for JMR, Gehler said. "We conducted a lot of activity to reduce cost on this aircraft," he said. "You get great performance with a tiltrotor, but cost is sometimes an issue so we decided to take that into consideration from the moment we began designing." He noted that costs were mainly reduced by dropping weight and increasing reliability. "Every aspect of this aircraft has been looked at from a cost perspective," said Gehler. For example, the company decided to simplify or outright forego design features such as the automatic wing fold on the V-22 that it saw as unnecessary for JMR.[COLOR=red] |
Posted by: Luig Jul 20 2014, 02:27 PM | ||
Carrier countdown 30 June 2014 Tim Robinson
http://aerosociety.com/News/Insight-Blog/2300/Carrier-countdown |
Posted by: Luig Aug 6 2014, 08:50 AM | ||
NUSHIP Canberra sails into Sydney Published on Apr 11, 2014 RANmedia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97CUMkQIYoc |
Posted by: Dave Masterson Aug 7 2014, 05:54 PM |
Thanks Luig..Good bit of film there. |
Posted by: FlyCookie Aug 16 2014, 08:32 AM |
FYI Canberra is back in the oggin for her second round of sea trials. |
Posted by: Warhawk Aug 18 2014, 12:48 PM |
Apparently a few issues with Nuship Canberra on her shake down cruise,..Propeller (Pod)shaft seal leak, shaft vibrations at speed,.... and a hull crack to name a few. All fixable. All mappable/mapped and preventable for Nuship Adelaide's shake down cruise now in a few years time. Gordy |
Posted by: Luig Aug 19 2014, 03:08 PM | ||
LHD Juan Carlos I, el gigante español Published on July 17, 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WofHJmUYTBU |
Posted by: Luig Aug 20 2014, 04:27 AM | ||
NUSHIP CANBERRA embarks on final trials 18 Aug 2014 BAE
http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_175743/nuship-canberra-embarks-on-final-trials |
Posted by: Grumpy Cobra Aug 22 2014, 08:29 PM |
I would hope they have finally painted the flight deck! And the betting will be on at Albatross on who will be the first birdie to "trap" on her! |
Posted by: Luig Aug 23 2014, 02:20 AM | ||
Monitor Coatings to supply U.K. carrier flight deck coatings 22 Aug 2014 MarineLog
http://www.marinelog.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=7611:monitor-coatings-to-supply-uk-carrier-flight-deck-coatings&Itemid=231 |
Posted by: FlyCookie Aug 24 2014, 04:10 AM | ||
The flight deck has been surfaced and, indeed, been painted. Six helo spots to port, along the centre-line, a la RN/Nato specs. ADF or, more likely, BAE should have some PR photos available soon. On the F35B front, it's worth getting hold the current (i.e. August) issue of Australian Aviation, as there's a long-form piece by Steve George about some of the technicalities of the idea. Not likely to sway any of the naysayers of received anti-STOVL wisdom in Canberra, but highly recommended reading, nonetheless. |
Posted by: Luig Aug 29 2014, 07:21 AM | ||
History of Ski Jump Testing at NAS Patuxent River - soon to be for the UK/Italian F-35B probably (any more Bs?). Single page of this text with graphics of named aircraft may be downloaded here: http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=19372 (200Kb PDF) The Kneeboard Winter 2014 Patuxent River Naval Air Museum Association
http://api.ning.com/files/xEh6B1KdSWQzOLt*6Obkl-o0BM3q-SWX-dPNkEiSNU4zPiQadll1LZc25fyGf9FsagaZJyoSrzjuoPESusZ4iYKXtOXO6wOC/KneeboardWinter2014reduced.pdf (1Mb) |
Posted by: F/A-18 Super Bug Aug 31 2014, 06:14 PM |
Hey he might be the "best man for the job" however the new Captain of our newest, biggest most capable warship ever built is a British born Canadian with a thick accent. That will great at RIMPAC making calls over the radio lol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWx2AnVQYy8 |
Posted by: Luig Sep 6 2014, 01:26 PM |
This is the sort of testing the F-35C will undergo whilst the F-35B will have and will have had similar testing for the B capabilities with the SKI JUMP and SRVL yet to come. WHO Introduces VX-23 HOOK14 This squadron does the fixed wing carrier suitability trials with obvious stress testing of the aircraft in all kinds of odd landing situations to try to mimic on land what may happen out at sea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDUmNUCm29Y |
Posted by: Brendan Cowan Sep 6 2014, 02:10 PM |
Very funny Phil! BC |
Posted by: Luig Sep 6 2014, 03:44 PM |
Here is another one from same source. If you are interested in USN NavAv then the TAILHOOK 2014 is on this week end with the streaming videos showing parts of the event (panels of bigwigs mostly talking about NavAv) here: http://new.livestream.com/wab/tailhook Shake Rattle & Roll VX-23 Hook14 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEGhrsVmoR0 |
Posted by: Luig Sep 10 2014, 06:58 PM | ||
Stepping-Stones Tony Osborne AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY / SEPTEMBER 8, 2014
AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY / SEPTEMBER 8, 2014 |
Posted by: FlyCookie Sep 12 2014, 06:12 AM |
Just to get back to Australia for a moment........the Canberra is due to handed over to the RAN on September 25, and commissioned at Garden Island on November 28. Recent sea trials went well. |
Posted by: F/A-18 Super Bug Sep 13 2014, 02:51 PM | ||
I hope they show us some pictures of the rudder tests like the US Navy does with their Aircraft Carriers: |
Posted by: FlyCookie Sep 19 2014, 02:58 AM |
First helo deck trials scheduled for next March. |
Posted by: Grumpy Cobra Sep 20 2014, 11:51 PM | ||
"The F-35B should be operated by the Airforce" argument is complete bollocks! The Airforce does not know how to operate from boats and never will. 35 for 805 I say! Why "Crabs" should not operate from boats see below picture - says it all really! 35 for 805 - go on repeat it - you know you like it! |
Posted by: Luig Sep 21 2014, 03:18 AM |
You can be as grumpy as you wish. What is different is that there is no fixed wing fleet air arm whatsoever these days. Generating one for the F-35B (but first getting some) in this situation is probably a step too much, IMHO. Perhaps what is not well understood is that the F-35B by every account is easy to VL. Overall the F-35s are easy to fly to enable pilots to use all the fused sensor information provided to carry out their mission. I would suggest that a VL on a flat deck is no big deal (as has been claimed by those who have never done that before). IF the RAAF have a role for their F-35Bs ashore most of the time then going onboard as required will be no big deal either. I would imagine that the RAAF may have even more bare base conops in store for their Bs so that shifting to a comfy flat deck would be sheer looxury. In this manner the operation and maintenance for the Bs is on the RAAF and it will be not much different to their A maintenance. Hoorah for commonality. Having been trained by the RAAF aeons ago now, in a time (late 1960s) when they seemed to be very anti Fleet Air Arm (not just the boggies) when we had a viable fixed wing component then having F-35Bs in the FAA is a no brainer. I have been told that 'jointness and co-operation' is the order of the day these days in our modern ADF. Good oh. Taking that cue... going afloat every now and then for practice; and perhaps for real, should be easy-peasy for those daring young men in their flying machines - and doable. One picture says nothing in my deck landing experience. Stuff happens. For sure ensure that RAN personnel are embedded in the RAAF F-35B operational squadron (no need for a training B squadron, let them learn the way of the B after first doing their training on the A). The RAN aircrew/maintainer component can help disseminate the sea lore required and that should be no big deal. The more low key this all is makes it all that much more doable. Make a song and dance unnecessarily and the RAAF chaps will not bite the bullet. Politicians may make them however. Best if the RAAF gets there through there own interest in providing fleet defence for all concerned. I'm thinking this aspect has motivated the PM and MinDef interest in same. |
Posted by: Luig Sep 22 2014, 07:57 AM | ||
Plan Jericho - Introducing 5th Generation Capability July 2014 ADM Magazine Nigel Pittaway
July 2014 ADM Magazine |
Posted by: Grumpy Cobra Sep 22 2014, 07:30 PM |
Nothing remarkable there - ill informed people with no leadership or vision, that think history is the last 24 hours, keep propagating the no fixed wing argument for Navy - product of the last 30 years, nothing but no fixed wing... nothing but. Reporters that don't know any better just jump on the band wagon (I did not see one article from them advocating F-35B prior to the recent hoopla) - while I credit you with advocating F-35B for Australia along with the rest of the boys whom used to write on OTR for many years, what is remarkable is that an ex Navy fixed wing jock should advocate a continuation of the "No fixed wing for Navy" status quo... 35 For 805! Go on sing it! |
Posted by: Aardvark Sep 22 2014, 09:03 PM |
Sometimes decisions have to be made with the head not the heart! |
Posted by: Luig Sep 23 2014, 06:05 AM | ||
Hmmm.... I would suggest what is doable - for now - preparing for the near future (next decade?). Unless WWIII starts in the next few hours there will be no carrier(s) for any RAN FAA Fixed Wing aircraft to operate from. So there is that. What we have almost now are 1 (soon two) LHDs which will have the capacity from time to time to embark some F-35Bs - BUT NOT AS THE MAIN PURPOSE of the function of said LHDs however. These LHDs have a role already. Get that sorted and prepare for some F-35Bs in the second tranche in the never never. I'm no expert on the future though. We'll see. And as for the 'no one has talked about F-35Bs on LHDs in the past' that is just false. The PDF online is not up to date however it does have some of that 'in the past - past my arse' at least stuff. Recently a new 4.4GB PDF is online about the history of RAN Fixed Wing also includes the LHD and F-35A/B stuff relevant. Folder: LHDs & F-35Bs + Harriers Info ONLY 22 June 2014 Excerpts File: LHDs & F-35Bs + Harriers Info ONLY 22 June 2014 Excerpts.PDF (270Mb) This 'editorial' is no longer online so you will have to download the PDF to read it. Shooting down fighter myths MIKE GILLIGAN 10 Jan 2008
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/shooting-down-fighter-myths/134942.aspx?storypage=0# I'm no Oz crab hater however I well recall what it was like back in the late 1960s and early 1970s. I'll never forgive - nor forget the crabs of that era. |
Posted by: Luig Sep 27 2014, 09:13 AM | ||
General info about QE simulator with take off stats (from the Jump De Sky) at end [which gives a clue for any F-35B OPs off of (Americanism) our LHDs]. Ship Shape F-35/QEC simulator SEPTEMBER 2014 AEROSPACETESTINGINTERNATIONAL.COM; PAUL E EDEN
AEROSPACE TESTING INTERNATIONAL September 2014 |
Posted by: Nick Thorne Sep 30 2014, 10:13 PM |
Not sure if this has been posted here before, but it is an interesting read: http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/lhd-and-stovl-an-engineers-view/ |
Posted by: Luig Oct 1 2014, 04:20 AM |
Steve wrote an excellent overview of carrier aviation some years back also: The Particular Mechanics of Carrier Aviation by Steve George 2012 http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/mechanicsofcaropsPTT.pdf (4.6Mb) OR http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/2012/03/how-carrier-operations-work/ http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/cvf/ |
Posted by: Invader26 Oct 1 2014, 08:29 PM |
Steve's words accord with the current engineering thinking with our LHD's. The prophets of gloom and disaster will always stir up emotional clap-trap. Calm rational thinking is what is needed. The F-35B/LHD combo with two ships give Australia a big range of options indeed. The next challenge that is being looked at is the Amtrak requirements. Taking armour ashore in a barge will not always work [one at a time too]... |
Posted by: Luig Oct 2 2014, 08:10 AM | ||
Two carriers take shape at Rosyth 01 Oct 2014 David Downs, ACA engineering director
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/blog/two-carriers-take-shape-at-rosyth/1019275.article |
Posted by: Grumpy Cobra Oct 3 2014, 08:33 AM |
A clear sign from the "Gods" that NAVY may end up with F-35B, as the pictures show the Australian roundel on the wing - as we all know Crab Hornets and Mirages were sans the roundel over wing whereas NAVY Skyhawks were proud to display the "Rat" over wing and any other said part of the anatomy of the scooter - so this is clear evidence that NAVY is on the books - in fact rumour has it that these OCU puppies are testing the position and size of the "roundel" for our NAVY admirals before they commit to buy F-35B over lunch pic from Australian Aviation |
Posted by: Invader26 Oct 3 2014, 12:21 PM |
even painted "battleship grey"... |
Posted by: Luig Oct 14 2014, 06:45 AM | ||
Interesting FACTOID in this story about the F-35B heat - often quoted as being 1,700 degrees F (which I always thought was the afterburner signature - the F-35B is NOT in A/B during a VL - but anyway...). We have some clues about LHD mods - if required - so not otherwise relevant but context is worthwhile. Shipshape Amphibious ship upgrades vital to JSF and MV-22 deployments 13 OCT 2014 Michael Fahey AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY; DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
13 OCT 2014 AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY; DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL |
Posted by: F/A-18 Super Bug Oct 14 2014, 12:54 PM | ||||
So it looks like we have decided or have no say on what colour our new F-35As "battleship grey" or nearly black come off the production line... Maybe Luig can comment on this having been up in the clouds so is it harder to see the light grey of our current types of Hornets compared to Russian Flankers painted in a sky blue and white camouflage bleow? Compared to what other nations do with their air superiority fighters like the Sukhoi Su-27: or
So we've been discussing for months this year that any LHD (whether US, UK or even us) would need a certain type of Thermion coating for the F-35B exhaust on a VL. Cheers. |
Posted by: Luig Oct 16 2014, 04:01 PM | ||
NUSHIP Canberra trials lately have gone well with ship likely to handed to RAN soonish. Meanwhile training for deck crew takes place at NAS Nowra on DUMMY DECK shown in VIDEO (and in a large simulator building in Sydney - not shown). SEARCH for more videos using 'NUSHIP' at main page URL below.
PHOTO: http://i842.photobucket.com/albums/zz349/ontheroger/nowra_dummydeck_1_zps9d46766c.jpg |
Posted by: Luig Nov 6 2014, 01:34 PM |
We oughtta name this forum 'Kotter' so we can say 'Welcome back Kotter'. But anyway.... old news I guess that the F-35Cs X 2 have successfully arrested and catapulted on at least the last Mon/Tues this week and meanwhile.... A 2015 White Paper submission Oct 2014 PDF is here. Written by a gang led by Dave Baddams, ex-A4G & SHAR CO and Oz Hawk Production Test Pilot: http://www.defence.gov.au/Whitepaper/docs/082-Baddams.pdf (126Kb) I'll attach it. And it woiked! GOOD ONE! :-) |
Posted by: Luig Nov 9 2014, 05:21 AM | ||
Some stats on the carrier testing for the F-35C so far.... F-35C Initial At-Sea Testing Progressing Aboard USS Nimitz 08 Nov 2014 USN PR
http://www.noodls.com/view/B897F88AD410EBE824A86D7EFF67A516C780BB35?6527xxx1415467656 |
Posted by: Luig Nov 9 2014, 12:35 PM | ||
Dave Baddams gets a Guernsey on SLDinfo: Australia and F-35Bs: Examining an Option for the Australian Defense Force 08 Nov 2014 SLDinfo
http://www.sldinfo.com/australia-and-f-35bs-examining-an-option-for-the-australian-defense-force/ |
Posted by: Luig Nov 17 2014, 12:58 PM | ||
No time to read this PDF yet but will do soon. Meanwhile.... Jump jets for the ADF? 17 Nov 2014 Richard Brabin-Smith, Benjamin Schreer | Australian Strategic Policy Institute
http://apo.org.au/research/jump-jets-adf https://www.aspi.org.au/publications/strategic-insights-78-jump-jets-for-the-adf/SI78_jump_jets.pdf (200Kb) |
Posted by: Grumpy Cobra Nov 17 2014, 09:56 PM |
These ASPI clowns wouldn't know anything about the benefits of STOVL - what a load of rubbish - they clearly have no idea - foregone opportunity cost of operating Ospreys what tripe - these clowns probably don't even know the LHD has only one flight spot for Ospreys; Low intensity Pacific island ops - says it all about the knowledge of the authors |
Posted by: Warhawk Nov 20 2014, 01:11 PM |
Gotta say,..in respectable Adult-ship talk, we really can't afford or resource them. Threat levels current with FTA's (free trade agreements) signed or to be signed( Japan, Sth Korea, China, and India next year) is low,.....it seems that the US of A is the only heart ache who doesn't want to "get on" (Aside from North Korea, ISIL and Russia) Maybe the money would be better spent on a fourth AWD(or at least a warehouse full of SM6's and Land Attack Missiles for the 3) and three more KC-30's. Always worried about the basic bomb Truck issue of using a $105 million dollar aircraft to take out a $50 Thousand 23mm truck mounted weapon or a $2 million Patrol Boat verses the magic BB SAM Shot. Keep the Supers for that, and resource both them and the F-35A till 2035. Mind you we did resource the RANFAA during Indo Konfronski from Mid 1965 ordering A4s and S2s,...but they didn't arrive until after the events some three years later!!! Some thinking needed on that one. Then again,..was it the SAM Bloodhounds based in Darwin that scared them off? As a tax payer,.....I worry at nights about directions we sometimes go to ensure a viable industry based economy,..but aside from the Bushmaster and Frigate upgrade,...we ain't doing us proud( ie:AWD/Subs) So why not base purchases on Service use first,..then the carrot of Industry involvement. But,......both Italy, UK, Japan, and even Israel manufacture "major" components quite out of proportion to the number being bought compared to our buy of 72 F-35As and our involvement. So why so????? It just gived me a headache as there is no direct answer on the where and why so,...... Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Gordy |
Posted by: Luig Nov 20 2014, 02:17 PM | ||
Yeah I guess revisionist history is easy. However the RAN was worried about Indonesian Badgers and Kennel missiles. Buying stuff during/after an event may indicate the worry of a repeat? And yet I like the way the RAAF rarely went anywhere with their fast jets over decades until only relatively recently (with Binny at the helm). Perhaps I'm being revisionist in a funny way? Fleet Defence is important to the FLEET - if not to the RAAF. Plenty of accurate historical information in my PDFs here: https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=cbcd63d6340707e6&sa=822839791 OR https://drive.google.com/?authuser=0#folders/0BwBlvCQ7o4F_aDhIQ0szeVJFY0U
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu-16.htm |
Posted by: Luig Nov 23 2014, 02:58 PM | ||
This info e-mailed to me today which may prove interesting for some? A mixture of F-35 topics in this audio interview however the F-35B and CVF are mentioned most so it'll go here. Sea Control 28 (East Atlantic) – The F-35 March 2014 By LT Matthew Hipple speaking to STEVE GEORGE
AUDIO: http://cimsec.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Sea-Control-28-East-Atlantic-F-35.mp3 (28Mb) Source: http://blog.usni.org/2014/03/31/sea-control-28-east-atlantic-the-f-35 |
Posted by: Aardvark Nov 23 2014, 06:16 PM |
Luig Not exactly sure what you are trying to say here with your quote "And yet I like the way the RAAF rarely went anywhere with their fast jets over decades until only relatively recently (with Binny at the helm)." Could you elaborate please. |
Posted by: Luig Nov 23 2014, 07:01 PM | ||
Sure. You missed the last sentence which I had hoped explained it all:
|
Posted by: Luig Nov 26 2014, 04:23 AM | ||
Another weigh in on the Bs on LHDs from a knowledgeable source. It is good to see some claims other than 'it can't be done' for XYZ reasons. The White Paper may reveal more about the 'ease of fitting Bs on LHDs'. I can happily accept that any special RAN Fixed Wing is dead with some salt water DNA injection into the crabs via Willytown exchanges. :-) It is sad to know that STOVL experienced former A4G personnel are not employed to help out with the White Paper (I'm not one of those of course). Perhaps that can be remedied easily. Binny knows about A4Gs. F-35 strike fighters for the Canberra-class? 24 Nov 2014 David Baddams
http://navalinstitute.com.au/f-35-strike-fighters-from-the-canberra-class/ 212Kb PDF attached is perhaps readable on a tablet? I have no idea - no tablet. |
Posted by: Luig Nov 28 2014, 07:36 AM | ||
ONLY some woids from this excellent 6 page PDF article from Dec 2014 edition of Air International are excerpted below. Cats, Traps & a Rooster Tail December 2014 Mark Ayton Air International
pp 42-47 Air International December 2014 |
Posted by: Aardvark Dec 4 2014, 10:05 PM |
RAAF personnel are already part of HMAS Canberra's crew. http://airforcenews.realviewdigital.com/#folio=6 |
Posted by: Luig Dec 5 2014, 07:25 AM |
Thanks. I absolutely detest these online ADF news websites - YMMV - I go look for the PDF editions which are so much more readable and of course usable for my purposes. So go here: [or download the page attached here] YOU MUST RIGHT MOUSE CLICK on the PDF ATTACHMENT link below to 'SAVE AS' to your computer otherwise tears before tea time methinks? http://www.defence.gov.au/news/raafnews/editions/5623/5623.pdf (9Mb) |
Posted by: Aardvark Dec 5 2014, 10:12 AM |
Given that one of them is wearing a RAN camo suit these three may be the only people in the ADF entitled to issue of all three camo suits. We may be moving to a Canadian type system without even realising it. |
Posted by: Luig Dec 17 2014, 07:37 PM | ||
Some ideas about how the USMC will go about their Bee Basing Business.... Marines Propose Rapidly Mobile F-35 Operations Marines push shell-game plan for JSF survival 16 Dec 2014 Bill Sweetman | Aviation Week & Space Technology
http://aviationweek.com/defense/marines-propose-rapidly-mobile-f-35-operations |
Posted by: Luig Feb 5 2015, 10:55 AM |
This Magazine Cover was sent to me so I have not read the contents - looks interestin' - no? THE NAVY Jan-Mar 2015 Vol. 77 No.1 |
Posted by: Luig Feb 25 2015, 12:57 PM | ||
Lockheed F-35 heads for the ski jump in next key round of tests 24 Feb 2015 Andrea Shalal (Editing by Matthew Lewis)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/24/lockheed-fighter-testing-idUSL1N0VX2AK20150224 |
Posted by: Luig Feb 25 2015, 05:55 PM | ||
Avalon 2015: Bell touts AH-1Z as maritime attack platform for Australia Gareth Jennings, Melbourne 24 Feb 2015
http://www.janes.com/article/49417/avalon-2015-bell-touts-ah-1z-as-maritime-attack-platform-for-australia |
Posted by: Luig Mar 14 2015, 11:49 AM |
L 61 Juan Carlos I Apontaje de un harrier - Spanish aircraft carrier operations Published on Dec 24, 2014 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KIagzoiytI |
Posted by: Luig Jun 23 2015, 08:47 PM |
First F-35B ski-jump launch, June 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIO5K-fUMzQ |
Posted by: Luig Jul 8 2015, 03:44 AM | ||
PM's floating fighter jet plan quietly sunk by Defence 07 Jul 2015 John Kerin
http://www.afr.com/news/politics/pms-floating-fighter-jet-plan-quietly-sunk-by-defence-20150707-gi6qxj |
Posted by: Luig Sep 28 2015, 02:48 AM |
Salty Dogs & Funky Jets October 2015 Mark Ayton "...Ski Jump Trials Her Majesty’s Ship Queen Elizabeth (R 08) is fitted with a ski jump like no other: a new design tailored to be used by very expensive new aircraft. Launching a 60,000lb F-35B off a ski jump requires some serious maths, engineering and testing. The F-35B ski jump test campaign should have started in March of this year, but was delayed due to brutal sub-zero temperatures and snow that blighted Patuxent River at the time. Aircraft BF-01 was originally assigned to conduct the ski jump events but was unable to remain at Pax while the weather improved. It was already scheduled to deploy to Edwards Air Force Base, California to conduct wet runway and crosswind testing. The test programme comprises two phases, the first of which eventually began on June 19 when BAE Systems test pilot Peter Wilson conducted the first take-off using the ski jump at Pax with F-35B BF-04. Sqn Ldr Edgell told AIR International: “Phase 1 is a risk-reduction phase designed to highlight any significant hardware or software updates that may be required prior to commencing the bulk of testing. It comprises 29 ski-jump launches. “Phase 1 will ensure our models and predictions are correct. If anything needs addressing we can do so in a timely fashion and then go into the 140-sortie Phase 2.” The ski jump used on HMS Queen Elizabeth has a curved leading edge designed to simultaneously launch an F-35B upward and forward with a greater take-off weight and less end-speed than required for an unassisted horizontal launch aboard an LHD-class amphibious assault ship, such as USS Wasp (LHD 1). The reader may be surprised to learn that the ski ramp built at Pax River is based on the type used on the Invincible-class aircraft carriers which is a little bit shorter (50ft) and slightly shallower (0.5º) than the ramp on Queen Elizabeth-class carriers. Sqn Ldr Edgell explained: “The Pax River ramp design process dates back to 2005 but, at the time, the Queen Elizabeth ramp profile was not known. Analysis conducted in 2005 showed we simply needed to use a ramp with a profile that allows us to stay just under the predicted F-35B ultimate loads and the Invincible-class ramp achieved this.” Pax River’s ramp allows the test team to make adjustments for different profiles and encompass everything below the ultimate loads of the aircraft. “Though the verification of our models during phases 1 and 2 we can tweak the control laws to work off other types of ramp, none of which are the same,” said Sqn Ldr Edgell. When the aircraft comes off the end it is ballistic and accelerates to the fly away air speed, typically 10-20kts higher than launch speed, and therefore reduces ground roll. “There’s a fine line between ensuring we have suitable gear loads and fly away speed,” explained Sqn Ldr Edgell. “We want lots of margin on both of those. To achieve margin for gear loads we need to be slow, i.e. start right at the bottom of the ramp. To achieve margin on minimum fly away speed we need to start towards the back of the run-up. We blend the two aspects together and meet in the middle to gain the safest launch spot. For the very first sortie, our spotting distance will be conservative and will launch the jet off the end of the ramp straight into a previously flown flight condition.” Such regimes have been flown several times during short take-offs at the field and STOVL departures. Sqn Ldr Edgell explained an interesting fact about the take-off : “You can be lined up three, four, five hundred feet back from the start of the ramp and as you slam the throttle forwards, the jet doesn’t know it’s about to go up the ski jump. It waits for certain triggers to alert it to the fact it’s going off the ski jump, at which point its flight control system moves the horizontal tails and the nozzles into the optimum position. It needs to hit 45 knots going up the ramp. “The throttle needs to be above 65% ETR, with 6 degrees of attitude and a pitch rate of 6 degrees per second. At that point it moves all of the effectors into the right place. Bear in mind the ski jump at Pax is only 150 feet long, so the aircraft hits all of those parameters with less than 100 feet remaining. By the time it goes off the edge of the ramp all the surfaces and the nozzles are at the optimum position, the aircraft rotates up to the optimum pitch attitude to fly away. It’s pretty clever stuff.” Sqn Ldr Edgell described the launch process: “You slam the throttle and guard the stick. There is no input on the stick required. As the aircraft moves down the tramline of the deck you track the centre line with your feet, just like any other carrier deck take-off, but there’s no pitch input required. The jet flies away. It’s effortless.” In the event of any kind of malfunction, the pilot takes control and manually flies off the edge of the ramp, which is why he must guard the stick during the roll. There is no significant part for the pilot to play in the take-off – the result of a design philosophy to minimise the pilot’s workload. A good example is tracking the centreline on a rolling pitching deck at night. That’s a challenge in a Harrier but in the F-35B it’s his only task so he should do a much better job. The administrative burden on the pilot has been significantly reduced: in this situation to an effortless level. Phase 2 will introduce crosswinds, external stores, asymmetry, minimum performance (minimum deck) launches from the bottom of the ramp, and simulated performance degradation all to increase the aircraft’s flight envelope in Block 3F configuration. That’s imperative work for the UK which will undertake first-in-class flight trials on HMS Queen Elizabeth in the final quarter of 2018...." Air International Magazine OCTOBER 2015 Vol.89 No.4 |
Posted by: Luig Dec 5 2015, 07:42 PM |
HMAS Adelaide online 04 Dec 2015 Four page (two side be side) into a two page PDF made from URL attached. http://news.navy.gov.au/en/Dec2015/Fleet/2545/HMAS-Adelaide-enters-service.htm EARLIER STORY HERE: http://news.navy.gov.au/en/Dec2015/Fleet/2541 |
Posted by: FlyCookie Feb 14 2016, 03:33 AM |
Nice report from, Channel 7: the journo obviously did some homework before his sea ride. Good for him. Nice use of a camera-drone, too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFV3EfR4n2g |
Posted by: Grumpy Cobra May 3 2016, 11:33 AM | ||
If below report is accurate Turkey will be first operator of F-35B/LHD Kebab Combo! Why has that not made Western mainstream media yet? Perhaps because the President's speech was in Turkish? or it was an Abbott style Captain's call or it has been lost in translation...? Now will the ADF take the "No F-35B on LHD Horse Blinkers" off? Construction of TCG Anadolu (Turkey's LHD) started on 30th April https://turkishnavy.net/2016/05/02/the-construction-of-the-multipurpose-amphibious-assault-ship-tcg-anadolu-has-started/
|
Posted by: Demon50 May 3 2016, 12:17 PM |
Interesting development Grumpy. I wonder if people are taking note in Canberra ? I for one certainly hope that the Turkish plan to operate F35Bs from their LHDs is a success and shows a "can do" to other Navies. |
Posted by: FlyCookie May 4 2016, 05:35 AM | ||
It is. Confirmed in multiple mainstream Turkish media, and on the president's site. Pic shows the man himself giving the speech, with suitably accoutred LHD model. BTW Grumpy, kebabs in Turkey are surprisingly crap. Strange but true....... |
Posted by: Grumpy Cobra May 4 2016, 09:33 AM |
Good picture that, Navantia must be licking their chops with a very successful design with one unit for the Armada and 3 exported (for a total of 4 so far) Demon50 & Flycookie I can imagine the day when a Spannish, Turkish and Australian boat conduct a PASSEX in the Med, Navantia marketing Gold (I am sure our lot will have an excuse to attend some Jubilee or the like in those nether parts - if not I will settle for Juan Carlos Primero and Anadolu PASSEX for Silver) The Turkish Navy already operate fixed wing maritime patrol aircraft so it would not be a unsurmountable stretch for their Navy to operate the Lightnings - especially as they are not politically correct like us! Flycookie I do not know which unreputable establishment served you a crap Kebab, but I wish them a thousand Camel Flies! PS me thinks the armament on Anadolu is superior to our 4 x 25mm TyHoons for starters |
Posted by: Luig May 4 2016, 10:13 AM |
Some NEW some OLD info on the Turk F-35Bs on Turk LHD: http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2016/may-2016-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/3907-turkey-started-the-construction-of-its-future-lhd-tcg-anadolu.html Earlier: http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/year-2015-news/january-2015-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/2304-turkeys-future-lhd-could-be-modified-as-an-qaircraft-carrierq-to-deploy-f-35b-jets.html Model Pic: http://www.navyrecognition.com/images/stories/news/2015/may/Turkish_Navy_LHD_aircraft_carrier_F-35_B_IDEF_2015_3.jpg |
Posted by: Grumpy Cobra May 5 2016, 06:39 PM |
That CIWS on the bow seems to be mounted on a specially built platform to provide extra elevation (the CIWS is effectively nearly as high as the island) and appears to have a firing arc on both sides of the ship as such, although they have traded flight deck space for it. I think the second CIWS is mounted on the aft of the island. But where have they mounted the RAM? An interesting photo from Navy daily showing one of the RAAF Air Traffic controllers aboard L01 - RAAF type in NAVY fatigue uniform complete with RAAF flag and RAAF rank insignia! |
Posted by: Grumpy Cobra May 16 2016, 04:55 PM |
Latest RAAF news says our CRABS to post on exchange to fly USMC F-35B's... (No spelling mistake either) |
Posted by: Luig May 16 2016, 07:05 PM | ||
That's a turnip (spelling mistake for 'turn up') for the books. Where do ya geddit?! RAAF News 19 May 2016 http://www.airforce.gov.au/News/Air-Force-Newspaper [PDF Page attached]
|
Posted by: Martin Edwards May 17 2016, 11:44 AM |
There is a long history of ADF pilots flying foreign types on exchange. It doesn't necessarily mean Australia will acquire that type. |
Posted by: Luig May 17 2016, 03:19 PM |
Did anyone say otherwise? I know we have and have had RAAF pilots flying F-22s and we are not getting those OR any other types etc. What may be interesting in future is a RAAF pilot flying off a USMC LHA or even a CVF (USMC F-35Bs are guaranteed to use the CVFs in their early years of CVF service) with some potential to also work on one of our 'modified for the task' (THERMION) LHDs - however unlikely that may be. I would imagine the USMC/ADF would want to know if the LHD could be a 'spare deck' for an emergency. Now that is not difficult at all. |
Posted by: Warhawk May 29 2016, 08:51 PM |
Yes,..multi exchange postings and reciprocal Foreign postings do help the head shed planners and paper writers get a operational doctrine paper and knowledge at best on return, and a insight of the type's capabilities at the least. Latest is the UAV Predator exchanges This can only serve us well , perhaps as a guest speaker to ambush a Senate Committee with facts! If there's a change of Government soon,..god help us |
Posted by: Luig May 29 2016, 08:58 PM |
A LOT off topic however perhaps our Navvy may invest in this tech for fifty year? British companies have developed a new thermal metal coating for use on the flight deck of the UK Royal Navy's Queen Elizabeth Class (QEC) aircraft carriers 25 May 2016 http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newsbritish-companies-develop-new-thermal-metal-coating-for-queen-elizabeth-class-aircraft-carriers-4901601 & VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3GVSir5OSI "The coating will protect the carriers' flight deck from the heat generated by the thrusters of the new F-35B Lightning II fighter jets. Developed in partnership with Tyne and Wear-based Monitor Coatings, the protective coating is a combination of aluminium & titanium that can endure heat levels of up to 1,500°C (2,700°F). The coating is expected to provide a long-term protection through the life of the aircraft carriers and is considered a key part in the preparation of the first carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth for sea trial next year, followed by flight trials in 2018. Of the total 19,000m² flight deck area of QEC carriers, the coating is applied on the sections measuring 2,000m² by a specially developed robotic spray that fires powdered metal through a plasma jet at a temperature of approximately 10,000°C (18,000°F). The molten drops quickly condense and flatten to create a 2mm-2.5mm thick, rough and tough coating with the steel structure. The thermal coating work is expected to be completed prior to the sea trials.... ..."Working with experts in the UK, we have developed a unique coating to provide the necessary protection to the flight deck of the aircraft carriers and this will ensure they can deliver the UK's carrier strike capability for the next fifty years."...” |
Posted by: Grumpy Cobra Jun 14 2016, 11:03 PM |
Looks like HMAS Canberra has had her first foreign visitor, (Note: Have not seen anything to suggest a KIWI NH-90 trapped aboard Canberra during Fiji Assist) Te Kaha's Sea Sprite (one of the ex RAN air frames) cross decked to Canberra on 8th June 2016 while off Sydney http://images.defence.gov.au/fotoweb/cache/5003/DefenceImagery/2016/S20161426/20160608ran8100087_027.t575f4cb6.m2048.xe89e20ba.jpg Jolly Good Edit: OK disregard FlyCook has already posted this in the Kiwi thread... |
Posted by: Grumpy Cobra Dec 28 2017, 06:46 PM | ||
Crikey which planet is this journalist on, just saying like because Japan and or South Korea might modify their flat tops to operate F-35B that we will as well - practically zero chance we will !!!!!! Our Navy and Airforce has no appetite for fixed wing/LHD ops... full stop! http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17199/japan-and-south-korea-eye-f-35b-for-their-helicopter-carriers
|
Posted by: Grumpy Cobra Feb 9 2018, 06:34 PM | ||
And another critic bags the F-35B/LHD combo... Its as if the critics are afraid we might actually purchase the F-35B and then operate them off the LHDs - all the negative waves they keep generating...
|
Posted by: Invader26 Feb 12 2018, 06:57 PM |
Well written - Not! These pseudo academics only look at one aspect of things. For a start the Spanish Armada have successfully operated their AV-8's from their LHD like ship. Australia has two LHD's. Its conceivable that one could be configured for the F-35B like the Spanish and USMC [soon Japan] and the other as an assault helicopter carrier. As one who has served on Melbourne in her A-4/S-2/Sea King days the ship has a presence that our learned friend does not and will probably never understand. Parking a jet equipped LHD off Timor could have been useful as a deterrent or CAS if it had been required. There is more but sadly the naysayers hold the floor,,,, |
Posted by: Luig Feb 12 2018, 07:17 PM | ||
I'm not a joiner to 'linkedin' however Serchen BIO here: https://au.linkedin.com/in/andrew-serchen-099085147 As indicated at end of the article above: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/should-australia-buy-f-35b-lhd-andrew-serchen
I've been told Andrew Serchen was a Senior Surface Warfare/Aero birdie type in the RAN. |
Posted by: Invader26 Feb 12 2018, 08:03 PM |
When I see stuff like the shipborne F-35B doesn't add anything to the longer ranging F-35A methinks he's spent too much time comparing apples with oranges [not lemons!]... |
Posted by: Grumpy Cobra Feb 15 2018, 08:06 AM |
Serchen obviously thinks that the RAAF can provide 24 hour CAP with only 5 KC-30s at present a couple thousand miles off shore... lets see how long that lasts... Have not read all his critique - but does he believe a maximum compliment on the LHD is only 8 F-35B's ? Why does he not also consider MV-22 Osprey Tanker in the mix...? The Brits operated both Hermes and Invincible during the Falklands adventure why does he not consider the 2 LHD mix...? Would have thought the F-35B on LHD would be worth it for our fleet just for the stealth sensor suite alone to network with our DGG and Frigates in taking out threats over the horizon - distributed lethality... not to mention all the other benefits... I don't see any consideration by Serchen of the F-35B being employed from land locations either and all the benefits The B brings to bombed out runways that a KC-30 and F-35A cannot... Thank our stars Singapore and Japan don't have his centric limited mentality... |
Posted by: Luig Feb 15 2018, 03:11 PM |
"...Would have thought the F-35B on LHD would be worth it for our fleet just for the stealth sensor suite alone to network with our DGG and Frigates in taking out threats over the horizon - distributed lethality... not to mention all the other benefits..." YEP. All the talk about working together RAN/ARMY/RAAF seems to get lost in PELORUS/whatever/JERICHO plans. Seems the people at the top are as DOZY as they appear. :-) As I have mentioned (probably elsewhere a zillion tymes) let the RAAF operate F-35Bs ashore and when required (which may be NEVER) have some of them onboard an LHD and get them OFF ASAP so that they are again supported ASHORE. Ffsake. :-) But hey the RAAF has to develop usefulness WITH THE ARMY with F-35Bs ashore. GET TO IT - MAKE IT SO. |
Posted by: Grumpy Cobra May 7 2018, 11:37 PM | ||
Well the new F-35 weapons load trainer just delivered to Williamtown
so there is hope yet we might acquire the F-35B (not that there is any choice in configuring the weapons trainer differently)... http://australianaviation.com.au/2018/05/raaf-f-35a-training-systems-delivered-to-williamtown/ |
Posted by: Luig May 8 2018, 02:59 AM |
Bit of nostalgia for youse neuralgia: Russian (okay Ukrainian actually) Plane uses ALL of Canberra Airport's Runway https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZGXwbPfwQs |
Posted by: Grumpy Cobra May 9 2018, 11:33 AM |
Meanwhile HMAS Canberra hosted the French President in Sydney and demonstrated to him all the fabulous and very functional and very lethal mostly French designed rotary assets we have acquired (TIGER and MRH90) in a non flying capacity of course... After which HMAS Canberra promptly shut down her VIP tour deck (AKA flight deck which is superfluous anyway) and (for all the cat lovers out there) has grown some monster size cat whiskers on her flight deck - rumour is she will be transmitting "ABC Radio Australia" non stop 24/7 to the South China Sea in which case the Chinese will abandon all their claims for territory in the absence of any real and credible RAN LHD Air Wing - no I am not kidding see following image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/seawaves/41981433541/ BTW HMAS Adelaide just spent another 3 weeks in dry dock - she is back in the water now...or should I say back on the VIP Tour circuit and will be working up her red carpet skills for hosting more important VIP's during the RIMPAC bash! I say Jolly Good Show WOT - Carry On! |
Posted by: SpazSinbad May 4 2021, 01:14 AM |
Two very good recent Oz accented videos explaining the F-35 with the first one of course relevant exactly to the thread title. The F-35B Option: the Future of Australian Naval Aviation? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QIA4bn4Pvc Hypohystericalhistory's guide to the F-35 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQgNwrtVoZ4 |
Posted by: SpazSinbad May 4 2021, 11:20 AM |
Good points and 'money money money always funny in this part of the world' seems to be less of an issue. Having a third STOVL optimised LHD is a great idea with enough F-35Bs flown by whoever wants to do it could be a goer and a nice announcement for the 'PM announcer' with follow through in the never-never I suppose. However the idea of "F-35Bs on LHDs" plays out the video makes a good point of 'we have not enough Oz public information' to make a decision which lack allows the naysayers freedom. Yes the YESsayers can have the same freedom to invent but we would rather NOT TELL LIES eh. <sigh> The video about the F-35 makes it clear I hope how useful the F-35 is whatever variant is in use. Not much else to say until someone in the ADF wakes up. :-) |
Posted by: Grumpy Cobra Jul 6 2024, 06:37 PM |
Hats off to Italians they are operating both Harriers and F-35B at same time on Cavour on its current cruise which will take part in Ex Pitch Black shortly... What a wasted opportunity with our 2 LHD's, Navantia LHD's are a very bad luck story for the F-35B with Turkey forbidden from acquiring the type to operate from their LHD, Spannish Armada not having funds to acquire the type and Australia with 2 x LHD, with our heads buried deep in the sand! Wonder if RAN will consider going with Bayraktar TB.3 on our LHD's once/if proven on TCG Anadolu... but thats enough brain farts the sceptics will say as our LHD's will require a Gazillion dollar upgrade, will take away from the Army vehicle and deck spaces and cannot be done regardless... |