Powered by Invision Power Board


Pages: (4) 1 2 [3] 4  ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Oz F-35bs On Oz Lhds Potential
Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic
Luig
Posted: Jul 4 2014, 05:01 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 2,011
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06
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.

This post has been edited by Luig on Jul 4 2014, 05:06 PM
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
F/A-18 Super Bug
Posted: Jul 5 2014, 01:23 PM
Quote Post


McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet (A21)
*

Group: Members
Posts: 173
Member No.: 6,742
Joined: 30-July 12
QUOTE
As a veteran of 75Sqn Tindal, yes the base is big enough. The Sqn will acquire F-35A's


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 :P

QUOTE
As an ex-raaffie I was peed-off when they got rid of the carriers and the fixed wing FAA.


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
QUOTE
"What you don't know - you don't know you don't know". You need to know what Fleet Base East and West are.


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?
PMEmail Poster
Top
Luig
Posted: Jul 5 2014, 02:42 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 2,011
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06
QUOTE
"...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?"


GOOGLE is a good search engine. That would be a start. Why would aircraft be based at a Naval Ship Base? And so on.....

QUOTE
"...$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..."


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.

This post has been edited by Luig on Jul 5 2014, 02:52 PM
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: Jul 5 2014, 02:56 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 2,011
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06
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
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: Jul 7 2014, 03:29 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 2,011
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06
USMC spends some money to support MCAS Beaufort training with F-35Bs:

http://www.thestate.com/2014/07/05/3549166...n-arriving.html

QUOTE
"......Classes that start in October will be composed of experienced pilots transitioning to the new aircraft, said Troy Ward, MCAS Beaufort Site Activation Task Force program manager. New pilots will begin training in 2015. Foreign pilots are also slated to train at the air station, but their arrival is still being worked out.

Training will take between six and eight months, but won’t involve much use of the vertical capabilities of the aircraft. About 70 percent of the training uses conventional takeoffs and landings, Ward said.....

...Construction of facilities for the new Joint Strike Fighters began with the groundbreaking for a new hangar and pilot training facility in August 2011. When former air station commanding officer Col. Brian Murtha retired from his post in February, nearly $260 million in construction projects had been completed or started, and an additional $300 million in construction projects had been planned over his tenure.

However, construction of new facilities at the air station for the F-35B won’t be completed until the next decade, Ward said.

“We are just at the end of the beginning of adding facilities that support the F-35,” he said. “We have construction underway on two other projects and will start work on a second F-35 hangar this fall. We will not be complete with F-35 projects until the early 2020s.”..."


This post has been edited by Luig on Jul 7 2014, 03:47 AM
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: Jul 7 2014, 12:07 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 2,011
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06
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. B)

Joint Strike Fighter PERSPECTIVES Code One Magazine July 1996 Vol. 11 No. 3
Paul Bevilaqua, Lift-Fan System Inventor
QUOTE
"..."Our lift fan approach is like taking that one large fan on the Harrier's engine, breaking it into two smaller fans, and turning off one of the smaller fans when the airplane converts to the cruise mode," he explains. "The concept doesn't compromise the other JSF variants. Our STOVL concept requires twin inlets, what we call bifurcated inlet ducts, to create the space needed for the lift fan. That is the only design requirement. And bifurcated ducts have low-observable and performance advantages that improve all of our JSF variants."

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/C1_V...449318_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
QUOTE
"...The technical challenges involved in designing a single aircraft for all three services were met by designing three highly common, but not identical, variants of the same aircraft. The STOVL variant, which was designed first, incorporates a shaft-driven lift fan in a bay between the inlet ducts and a thrust-vectoring cruise nozzle. The airframe was designed to Air Force specifications, so that the conventional takeoff and landing variant was developed by removing the lift fan and vectoring nozzles from the STOVL variant and substituting a fuel tank and a conventional cruise nozzle. The Naval variant was similarly developed from the conventional variant by increasing the wing area, designing stronger landing gear, and using stronger cousin parts to handle the larger airframe loads associated with carrier takeoffs and landings. Both the STOVL and Naval variants are about 15% heavier than the conventional variant."

http://pdf.aiaa.org/getfile.cfm?urlX=-%3CW...#33;*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
QUOTE
“...SHIP SUITABILITY DESIGN ‘PENALTY’ page 10 of 11
Because of the numerous factors that influence the design of a ship-based aircraft, many assume these considerations have significantly compromised the mission performance of the CV and STOVL variants. Correspondingly, it is assumed that the remaining CTOL variant carries appreciable "scar impacts" to maintain commonality with its sea-going siblings.

However, the JSF design solution has been quite successful in minimizing the "penalty" of ship suitability....

...the CTOL variant carries virtually no scars as the result of the ship suitability of the other two variants. The JSF program has clearly shown that shipboard compatibility does not have to come at the expense of such critical attributes as lethality and survivability....”

http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA399988 (PDF 1Mb)

This post has been edited by Luig on Jul 7 2014, 01:22 PM
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Nick Thorne
Posted: Jul 7 2014, 08:25 PM
Quote Post


Bell Iroquois (A2)
*

Group: Members
Posts: 23
Member No.: 6,053
Joined: 28-October 11
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.

This post has been edited by Nick Thorne on Jul 7 2014, 08:29 PM
PMEmail Poster
Top
Luig
Posted: Jul 8 2014, 03:16 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 2,011
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06
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
QUOTE
“...DOD's Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (DASD) for Systems Engineering, Stephen P. Welby.  His March 2014 [I have been told elsewhere that this report is actually from 2013 and a 'bit of a storm in a teacup' - so take the inferences from WHEELER with a grain of salt] "Systems Engineering Annual Report" confirms some of the bad news we have already heard from other DOD testing reports, and the report implies some important contradictions to GAO's prognosis of declining F-35 costs and that there is anything approaching new "efficiencies" that can be understood to justify an estimate of lower cost being in hand.  The bad news comes in four categories: Performance, Reliability, Software and Manufacturing, as follows:

• The F-35 is hiccupping on one of its Key Performance Parameters (KPPs).  It happens to be one that many ignore but which is integral to the aircraft's ability to engage in combat.  The issue is the F-35's "sortie generation rate," or how often it can fly in either combat or-very important-training.  In addition, there are problems in other KPPs where DOD has already relaxed the standard, and there are numerous "non-KPP" thresholds where the F-35 is having problems.  DASD Welby puts it as follows: 

o   "Performance: The program is on track to meet seven of the eight KPPs. An issue with incorrect analysis/assumptions is hampering the attainment of the sortie generation rate (SGR) KPP. The program office is examining the sensitivity of the SGR KPP to establish more operationally realistic ground rules and assumptions. As a result, the program plans to reassess SGR. Although on track, the combat radius, STOVL performance, and CV recovery KPPs have limited margins. During a requirements review this year, the program determined of 62 non-KPP ORD thresholds, 16 are not achievable by the end of SDD based on the current plan, and eight others are at risk of not achieving the threshold. The program identified corrective actions or has way-ahead recommendations."...”

http://www.pogo.org/our-work/straus-milita...n-the-f-35.html

This post has been edited by Luig on Jul 8 2014, 08:31 AM

Attached Image
Attached Image
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: Jul 10 2014, 04:14 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 2,011
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06
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

QUOTE
"ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEM
The F-35 Lightning II was designed from the outset with its own electronic warfare (EW) system to enable it to control both the air and the electromagnetic spectrums. The system was developed by a team of leading EW specialists led by BAE Systems at Nashua, New Hampshire. It forms part of the aircraft’s design, alongside its avionics, Communications, Navigation and Intelligence (CNI) and sensor systems.

While all of the aircraft types that the F-35 will replace use EW systems, some of which are very capable against current threats, the F-35’s AN/ASQ-239 enables it to effectively integrate with all of the other onboard systems, each of which is able to inform and interoperate. The aircraft’s network can also link in to larger multi-unit networks, other aircraft or terrestrial platforms via its built-in Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL), which allows the EW system to be networked in attack or defence.

The internally mounted AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda EW system built by BAE Systems completed its flight testing in 2005 and entered low-rate initial production soon after, with a unit cost estimated at $1.7 million.

Weighing some 200lb (90kg), it was developed from the BAE Systems AN/ALR-94 EW suite fitted to the F-22 Raptor, and incorporates technologies – best described as ‘emerging’ – to produce greater capabilities with a goal of achieving twice the reliability at a quarter of the cost.

The ASQ-239 system provides radar warning (enhanced to provide analysis, identification and tracing of emitting radars) and multispectral countermeasures for self-defence against both radar- and infrared-guided threats. It is also capable of electronic surveillance, including the geolocation of radars, which allows the F-35 to evade, jam, or attack them, autonomously or as part of a networked effort.

The enhanced capabilities of the ASQ-239 (and integration with the F-35’s other systems) allows it to perform SIGINT (signals intelligence) collection. The aircraft’s stealth capabilities make it possible for an F-35 to undertake passive detection and SIGINT while operating closer to a threat emitter with less vulnerability. When active deception jamming is required, the aircraft’s stealth design allows false target generation and range-gate stealing with less use of power.

The EW system also sends and receives data, status and warning information from other onboard systems via the MADL.

The ASQ-239 has ten dedicated apertures: six on the wing leading edge, two on the trailing edge, and two on the horizontal stabiliser trailing edge. The system can also use other apertures on the jet, most notably the APG-81 Active Electronically Scanned Array radar; and in addition to functioning with the APG-81, the radar array could work as a stand-off jammer when transmitting, but only at high power.

When operating in receive-only mode, the APG-81 provides enhanced SIGINT capability and could also be used, following future upgrades, as an electronic attack weapon. This would enable it to burn out emitters with pure power or inject computer inputs into hostile radars or command and control systems that would provide false targets, misleading information, or cause the system to shut down. Combining these capabilities and the aircraft’s datalink will give F-35s the potential to jam or attack enemy emitters that they locate while defending themselves from threats.

A multi-ship of F-35s will be able collect SIGINT from multiple directions, and then analyse the information gathered to fire missiles, start jamming or launch an electronic attack. Datalinks mean that F-35s can send the information to other platforms in near real-time and have their actions coordinated ‘off-board’, where there will be more access to fused intelligence, greater situational awareness, and less chance of lethal information overload, than in the cockpit of an F-35.

The 513th Electronic Warfare Squadron is part of the 53rd Electronic Warfare Group formed in 2010 at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida and is tasked with introducing the F-35’s EW capabilities at an operational level. A joint squadron with personnel from all US services, the 513th is co-located with the 33rd Fighter Wing, the F-35 school house for pilot and crew chiefs.

The squadron combines the most up-to-date military intelligence with a robust virtual EW range to create operationally tested and verified combat capable mission data tailored to each F-35 variant.

Tactics, techniques and procedures that will be used by the F-35 in electronic combat are being developed by the 513th, which will also provide and update the threat libraries and systems programming to keep the F-35’s systems responsive to changing threats. To do this, the 513th operates a new $300 million reprogramming laboratory at Eglin that opened in mid-2011."

AIR International F-35 Special Edition July 2014

This post has been edited by Luig on Jul 10 2014, 04:17 AM

Attached Image
Attached Image
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: Jul 10 2014, 07:43 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 2,011
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06
RAW POWER July 2014 Chris Kjelgaard, AIR International F-35 Special Edition

QUOTE
"...F135 Propulsion System
The F135 and F119 are both axial-flow engines (air goes through the core of the engine in a straight line) and they share a “highly common core”, Ed O’Donnell, Business Development Director for Pratt & Whitney’s F135 and F119 programmes, told AIR International. From front to back, these two-spool engines are “largely common through the compression system”, said O’Donnell, who noted that the commonality is however mainly in the form of shared engine architecture rather than common part numbers.

Part numbers for the F135 have been designated differently from those for similar components in the F119 because the US armed services want to be able to allocate specific part numbers to particular programmes for inventory management reasons.

Despite their similarities, there are however some crucial differences between the F135 and the F119. One is that the F135 needs to be able to generate up to 43,000lb (191.27kN) of thrust ‘wet’ (with afterburner) for the single-engine F-35, whereas the F119 provides 35,000lb (155.7kN) with full afterburner. So the F135 has a larger inlet diameter (43 inches/1,090mm), larger fan diameter (46 inches/1,170mm) and a larger overall engine diameter (51 inches/1,295mm) than the F119 to achieve a higher airflow.

According to Pratt & Whitney, the maximum thrust of the F-35B STOVL variant is a little lower than that for the F-35A CTOL and F-35C CV variants, at approximately 41,000lb (182.4kN) at full reheat. The F-35B’s intermediate thrust level (that is, dry thrust with no reheat applied) is approximately 27,000lb (120.1kN). The maximum thrust available for a short take-off is 40,740lb ( 181.2kN), while the maximum downward thrust available for hovering and vertical landings is 40,650lb (180.8kN)....

...Aft of the third fan stage the accelerated airflow is split, 57% of it going through the fan duct as bypass air and the remaining 43% entering the core to be compressed, mixed with fuel, ignited and then exhausted as hot gas to turn the turbine stages and produce up to 28,000lb (124.55kN) of dry thrust before afterburner....

...from the outset, the specification for the F-35’s engine called for ‘tri-variant compatibility’ – the engine powering an F-35A is identical to that powering an F-35B or an F-35C. Nevertheless, they are designated differently: the F-35A powerplant is the F135-PW-100; the engine for the F-35C is the F135-PW-400; and the F-35B’s is the F135-PW-600....

...Nor will P&W confirm the dry weight of the F135, but in 2011 an aviation blog cited Warren Boley, former president of Pratt & Whitney Military Engines, as saying the F135 weighs 1,500lb (680kg) more than the F119. This would put its dry weight at around 5,400lb (2,450kg). However, the F135 may have a higher thrust-to-weight ratio than the F119 (the F119’s overall pressure ratio is 26:1 compared with the F135’s 28:1), so the 5,400lb figure might be too high.

Boley also suggested in 2011 that the F135 had an uninstalled wet thrust capability of approximately 51,000lb (226.86kN). If this reads across to an installed basis – in which bleed air and shaft horsepower would be extracted to power aircraft systems, reducing the overall dry-thrust capability by a fraction – it should provide a comfortable operating margin over the 43,000lb (119.27kN) of wet thrust required by the spec....

The Rolls-Royce LiftSystem
...when the STOVL F-35B is hovering, its propulsion system produces very nearly as much thrust without afterburner as the engine does in forward flight with its afterburner fully lit. The F-35B’s engine has to produce 40,650lb (180.8kN) of vertical thrust without afterburner in hover mode, while in conventional flight it produces 27,000lb (120.1kN) of dry thrust and about 41,000lb (182.4kN) with full afterburner.

The F135-powered F-35B relies on two systems to achieve the high level of vertical thrust. First is its full authority digital engine control (FADEC) unit – computers made by BAE Systems and attached to the engine but run on Pratt & Whitney proprietary FADEC software. In hovering flight, the FADEC computers make the engine work harder, increasing dry thrust from 28,000lb to 39,400lb without using afterburner.

Second, the F-35B relies on the Rolls-Royce LiftSystem. This consists of several major components. First is the LiftFan, a horizontally-mounted fan unit located behind the F-35’s cockpit. The 53-inch (1,346mm) diameter, 50-inch (1,270mm) deep LiftFan draws in cold air through a 51-inch (1,295mm) diameter inlet on the top of the fuselage and accelerates it to produce vertical lift [temperature?].

When the F-35B is hovering, the driveshaft delivers 28,000 shaft horsepower to the LiftFan’s clutch-and-bevel-gear system so that the LiftFan provides 18,680lb (83.1kN) of downward thrust as a column of cool air. (In hover mode the F-35B’s coupled F135-driveshaft arrangement acts exactly like a turboprop engine, except that most of its power output is used to drive air vertically rather than horizontally – so the F135 is actually the world’s most powerful turboprop engine when installed in the F-35B.)

In hover mode another 18,680lb (83.1kN) of thrust exits the engine exhaust as hot gas and is directed downwards at the rear of the aircraft by the aircraft’s Three-Bearing Swivel Module (3BSM).... When the F-35B hovers, the FADEC commands the 3BSM – which can direct air through a 95-degree range from 5 degrees forward to horizontally back – to swivel downwards to direct hot engine exhaust air in the same direction as the direction of the cool air produced by the LiftFan near the front of the aircraft.

The 3BSM can swivel fully from horizontal to vertical orientation in 2.5 seconds, completely redirecting its entire 18,680lb of thrust in that time. Together with the 18,680lb of downward thrust produced by the LiftFan and the 3,290lb (14.6kN) of bypass-air thrust directed vertically downwards by the F-35B’s two wing-positioned Roll-Posts (see below) to enable the F-35B to hover, this means the F-35B can turn 18,680lb of horizontally directed thrust into 40,650lb (180.8kN) of thrust directed vertically downward in less than 3 seconds.

This astonishing capability to redirect – in the twinkling of an eye – more thrust than powers two BAE Systems Hawks and, at the same time, more than double its thrust output to turn it into more thrust than powers a Panavia Tornado at full reheat (and nearly as much as powers a fully-reheated Eurofighter Typhoon) is made possible by the F-35B’s enormously sophisticated FADEC software, which was developed by Pratt & Whitney specifically for the F-35B’s propulsion system.

F135 CTOL/CV Engine Design
Maximum thrust 43,000lb (191.3kN)
Intermediate thrust 28,000lb (128.1kN)
Length 220 inches (5.59m)
Inlet diameter 43 inches (1,090mm)
Maximum diameter 46 inches (1,170mm)
Bypass ratio 0.57
Overall pressure ratio 28

F135 STOVL Propulsion System Design
Maximum thrust class 41,000lb (182.4kN)
Intermediate thrust class 27,000lb (120.1kN)
Short take-off thrust class 40,740lb (181.2kN)
Hover thrust 40,650lb (180.8kN)
Main engine 18,680lb (83.1kN)
LiftFan 18,680lb (83.1kN)
Roll-Post 3,290lb (14.6kN)
Length 369 inches (9.37m)
Main engine inlet diameter 43 inches (1,090mm)
Main engine maximum diameter 46 inches (1,170mm)
LiftFan inlet diameter 51 inches (1,300mm)
LiftFan maximum diameter 53 inches (1,340mm)
Conventional bypass ratio 0.56
Powered Lift bypass ratio 0.51
Conventional overall pressure ratio 28
Powered Lift overall pressure ratio 29"

AIR International F-35 Special Edition July 2014
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: Jul 10 2014, 02:43 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 2,011
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06
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
QUOTE
“...The DT I test plan was released as a 150-page document, one of the most complex ever written for any aircraft and requiring countless meetings over an 18-month period to finalise. Maj Rusnok said: “That’s a real tribute to the folks with the knowledge base and the wherewithal to write that kind of stuff.”

Pilots, Training and Embarkation Four pilots were selected for DT I: Peter Wilson of BAE Systems and three US Marine Corps test pilots, LtCol Schenk, LtCol Matthew Kelly and Maj Richard Rusnok. Each required ten vertical landings in their pocket as a test plan prerequisite prior to starting workups for the ship. Peter Wilson, the STOVL-lead pilot with the F-35 ITF at Pax, the test conductors and test directors played a pivotal role in the training to get the pilots ready to go. The process involved each pilot undertaking multiple simulator events to mirror the daily morning and afternoon flight periods available on the ship – which lasted for up to five hours and took place between May and October.

Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) simulators at Pax were developed for the test mission and can be linked to the test control rooms on the base. Landing Signal Officers (LSOs) and carrier suitability engineers took part in the simulator training and provided the calls usually made by controllers in the bridge of the ship, primary flight control and the tower. “We started with just the basic mechanics and worked our way into specific test points, emergency procedures and eventually to periods involving every conceivable type of test. You name it, we basically simulated it,” said Maj Rusnok. The next training requirement was Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) at Pax for which a deck painted to look like a ship with instrumentation was set up in the middle of the airfield and equipped with a landing aid used on LHDs.

FCLPs were flown with the support of sailors assigned to Pax with prior LHD experience. Two weeks before embarkation, the entire Wasp flightdeck crew came to Pax for academic training. “We had the fire fighters learning how to rescue a pilot out of an F-35 – because there are so many unique aspects about the jet – and the full deck crew with the air boss and the mini boss running our flight period on the airfield,” said Rusnok.

On the afternoon of October 3, lead government STOVL pilot LtCol Schenk took off from Pax River in BF-02, flew the short distance to the USS Wasp under way off the coast of Wallops Island, Virginia, flew a couple of passes alongside the ship and then executed a vertical landing – the first aboard an LHD-class ship – to ‘spot seven’.

He also made the first launch the next morning, and completed a further three take-offs and landings in the first flight period. Maj Rusnok flew in the second period. Each pilot completed a nominal CQ qualification period inside the envelope before venturing into more interesting pieces of the envelope.

“We didn’t learn anything too crazy. We were pleasantly surprised at what we saw – there was no smoking gun, we didn’t have any near misses and the deck crew was happy with what they were doing,” said Rusnok.

Spray Coming onto the Ship
All of the initial missions flown from the Wasp during DT I were in the daytime and involved the jets recovering to the ship to a ‘case one’ pattern: coming into the break over the top of the ship, turning downwind, and then approaching the ship from approximately one mile aft of the stern.

“We generally come out of a final approach turn somewhere between 375 and 400 feet above the water for a three-degree glide slope to decelerate abeam the ship, usually about a wingspan’s worth off the ship,” said Rusnok. “As we get down and ready to cross the deck we do so at 90 or 45-degrees depending on how our closure is on our control and what the LSO is clearing us to do. He’s really running the pattern.

“At that point we’re somewhere in the vicinity of 110 to 120 feet above the water, and that’s when you start to see some of the wash coming up – but from the pilot’s perspective you don’t even know it’s there. The only time we [the pilots] saw any spray was during tailwind test points, at the edges of envelope. There were no adverse handling characteristics caused by the spray; you just see it because it’s getting blown back towards you as expected.

“There was concern that spray was a potentially big issue. Because we have our closure under control we can keep the aeroplane moving right across the deck, that’s really no issue, but if time is spent dwelling at that position there’s time for a mini tornado to develop – and we see that ashore with dust as well. At sea, generally we didn’t even know it was there and it wasn’t affecting the guys on the flight deck or the tower, so it was a non-event in that respect.” The test events were undertaken methodically, and not at war ops high tempo, to ensure procedures were conducted correctly and that nothing broke.

Aircraft Handling Around the Ship
Maj Rusnok described flying the F-35B around the ship: “The aeroplane in all its basic flying qualities, especially in STOVL mode, is kind of magical, it really is. You sit at 150 feet in a hover and it’s like sitting in this chair except that you’re elevated. The aeroplane is incredibly stable. Hypothetically, you could put a drink on the dashboard and it’s not going to spill.

“If you watch it from the outside, you’ll see the control effectors actually moving very rapidly and making all kinds of corrections – I’m not. They’re not making big swings, but making minute movements, keeping the aeroplane in the rock-steady hover that we experience in flight; and we saw that at sea in just the same way albeit with some forward speed to continue to fly formation with the ship as it moves through the water.”

Taking an aircraft to the ship presents concerns: the salt environment, the potential for disruptive interaction between the ship and the aircraft caused by the burble (the unusual air flow around the ship), the compatibility of the avionics with the ship, and the basic vehicle interface and displays – are there unknowns that have not been thought about?

“We never saw any of that at sea,” said Rusnok. “Was everything perfect? Absolutely not, that’s why we do developmental testing. But do I feel comfortable with a properly trained F-35 pilot, who’s not a test pilot, taking an aeroplane out to sea to do basic daylight landings? Absolutely, based on what we saw, especially in the nominal envelope they’ll provide the fleet with for initial operation.”....

...STO-ing...
...Maj Rusnok noted: “We weren’t only stepping through flying with varying crosswinds but also various centre of gravity load-outs for the aircraft, done with fuel. To achieve the very specific weight bands on the aircraft required to match the model, sometimes we had to refuel on the deck or wait to burn down fuel to meet the requirement of the specific test band. So not very fast launches, but very controlled. We’d take off and burn the fuel down to a specific landing weight to maintain divert options ashore and stay in the weight band.”

There are three ways to conduct a short take off (STO) in the F-35B: stick STO, button STO – and auto STO. “That’s a completely automated way to STO the aircraft off the flight deck. You punch in a distance and the aircraft will auto rotate to its optimal fly-out condition. It’s all based on distance: we know where the aircraft is spotted [before it starts its take-off run] and where it should start its actual rotation,” explained Rusnok. “Unlike a Harrier, which launches off the end of the ship flat, the F-35 rotates at about 225 feet from the bow, sits on two wheels until it gets to the end of the ship and actually takes off, a much different process to a Harrier. From a pilot perspective, you lose some sight of the front of the ship; in a Harrier you can see all the deck. But that’s all part of optimising a 35,000lb aeroplane to get off the ship compared to the Harrier, which is only 16,000 to 25,000lb.”

With stick STO the pilot controls the take-off by pulling back on the stick, holding it there and then rotating to the optimal pitch angle to fly off. In button STO, the pilot uses a trim switch which rotates the aircraft when pushed in, activating it when the aircraft passes the yellow STO rotation line positioned 225 feet from the bow of the ship.

“That was a temporary marking applied on the flight deck for this trial and is now being permanently installed on the ship with lighting,” explained Rusnok. “It’s based on optimising the performance of the aircraft and its flying qualities, so we can get the aeroplane off with the maximum amount of nozzle clearance and performance. The STO line is our visual cue to either pull the stick aft or hit the button; or if you’re on automated STO you should start seeing the aeroplane’s flight controls moving by the line, otherwise the pilot can intervene and pull back on the stick. We’ve never had to intervene.” [joker]

The pilot also has command of the throttle. Two power setting options are available for take-off: Mil STO and Max STO [have not read about this before], as Maj Rusnok explained: “When you taxi to the tram line you stay in mode one, the conventional flight mode. You convert the aircraft into mode four, the STOVL flight mode, and it takes about 15 seconds or so for the doors to open up and the lift fan to engage.

“Then you push the throttle about halfway up the throttle slide into a detent position at about 34% engine thrust request. It sits there and you check the engine gauges: if the readings are okay you slam the throttle to either Mil or Max position and then release the brakes simultaneously. Pushing through to max is like an afterburner detent. But it’s not an afterburner – you can’t go to afterburner in mode four.

“It’s a very fast acceleration. The closest we would spot from the bow is 400 feet, so about 175 feet before we would actually start rotating the aeroplane [at the STO rotation line]; so very, very quick.”

One of the big test points for DT I was to ensure adequate nozzle clearance in all the different test conditions. The engine nozzle swings down and back up during the take-off in accordance with inputs from the aircraft control laws.

“It’s all automated,” said Rusnok. “The pilot is not in the loop whatsoever – either they’re pushing the button and letting the aeroplane do its own thing or pulling back on the stick to help it. Monitoring systems cue when something is wrong, so you have to rely on them to keep you safe because the flight controls are being moved unbelievably quickly.”

Maj Rusnok said the take-off was very much like that ashore, with very little sink off the end of the deck. “The aeroplane is ridiculously powerful in STOVL mode. Just raw, unadulterated power.”

Recovery to the Deck
Generally, each time an aircraft took off it would burn down its fuel load by flying around the ship and making approaches until the appropriate landing weight was reached for the test points required. Landing spots seven and nine were used: seven is the primary location for STOVL jets on LHD ships, while nine is further aft on the tram line. The landing spot selected for each flight was mainly driven by NAVSEA’s environmental engineers who specified a certain number of landings on each one to determine their flow characteristics – and how that affected minimum time between landings – ultimately working up to demonstrate two-ship F-35B operations.

Both spots were instrumented to measure different parameters: seven for deck deflection and nine to measure heat on an experimental non-skid deck surface called Thermion. According to NAVSEA this new coating – a bond of ceramic and aluminium designed to be more resistant to extreme heat, and wear and tear, from flight operations – showed no signs of heat stress during DT I.

“Sometimes BF-04, the mission systems aircraft, would fly instrument approaches to come alongside the ship and side step over to the flight deck . But we were primarily testing compatibility of TACAN and carrier-controlled approaches, not the full transition from an instrument approach across the stern to a landing,” said Maj Rusnok....

...Feedback from DT I
Over the course of the 19-day DT I test period the two jets logged 28 hours’ flight time and completed 72 short take-offs and 72 vertical landings in conditions of up to 33 knots of wind-over-deck and 10 knots of starboard crosswind....

...The Director, Operational Test & Evaluation’s Fiscal Year 2011 Annual Report (DOT&E FY2011 AR) said: “As expected, high starboard crosswinds produced the most challenging environment. One approach to hover prior to a vertical landing was waved off by the pilot due to turbulence in the ship’s air wake.

“A minimal nozzle clearance of two inches was observed at rotation during a short take-off with high starboard crosswinds when the pilot made an aggressive correction to maintain centreline....

...The good story was the tyres. We thought they were going to be eaten up by the non-skid because that’s a pretty rough surface out there. We only changed two.” He was enthusiastic about the aircraft’s performance during DT I: “We’ve proved the F-35B is compatible with LHD ships and we’ll eventually prove that with the UK’s CVF-class ships too. We didn’t hurt anybody, we didn’t break anything and the aeroplane performed outstandingly in terms of flying qualities and maintenance.”

Development Test Phase Two
On August 10, some 21 months after the conclusion of DT I, USS Wasp hosted the follow-on F-35B sea trials – known as Developmental Test Phase Two, or DT II.

Just like DT I, VX-23 deployed four pilots, two jets and a 200-strong team for an 18-day test period. Pilots selected for DT II were LtCol Jimi Clift and Maj Mike Kingen of the US Marine Corps, Squadron Leader Jim Schofield from the Royal Air Force and BAE Systems’ Peter Wilson, the only pilot to fly in both sea trials.

DT II was undertaken to expand the F-35B’s allowable wind envelope for launch and recovery, conduct the first-ever night operations and initial mission systems evaluations at sea, evaluate the dynamics associated with aircraft operations on a moving flight deck and further test shipboard sustainment of the F-35.

“We tried as best we could to keep all the flying fleet-relevant, as opposed to DT I where there were a lot more tests to maintain configuration for longer periods of time,” said Maj Mike Kingen.

Test Events
VX-23 devoted considerable time in 2013 to clearing the envelope to be used onboard the USS Wasp and vigorously testing the In-Service Release (ISR) of the propulsion system. There are two standards of the propulsion system: First Flight Release (FFR) and ISR, each distinctly different in terms of software and hardware. The two aircraft used for DT II incorporated the different standards – BF-01 is an FFR, and BF-05 is an ISR, the only such aeroplane in the SDD fleet.

“That gave us a unique opportunity to take the ISR propulsion system to the boat and compare it back-to-back with the capabilities of the FFR system: we only found very minor differences,” said Peter Wilson, STOVL-lead pilot for the F-35. An ISR propulsion system has more capability than an FFR and is able to cope with wider variations in aircraft centre of gravity (CG), a key factor when bringing weapons back to the boat. With forward CG, such as when weapons are carried internally, the lift fan must produce more thrust than the three-bearing swivel module (3BSM) in order to balance the aircraft at a steady hover attitude. “You have more capability to handle off-nominal CGs but that doesn’t necessarily mean you always have more performance because of knock-on effects. If for example a gust pushes the nose up, the control system has to vary the balance of forces between the lift fan and the 3BSM to bring it down again. All this happens automatically in very quick time such that the pilot doesn’t even know it. But the adjustment process may lose the aircraft a couple of feet because maximum thrust is not always available while adjusting the attitude in the hover. This happened twice during DT II.”

As part of the test programme, VX-23 undertook crosswind and tailwind envelope expansion. This included what Peter Wilson described as “some very interesting test points” with the aircraft positioned with a tailwind – which involved tracking the centreline with various bank angles moving backwards at 25 knots or so, “really testing close to the limits of the propulsion system’s capability. So we’ve hit the corners of the envelope going backwards and sideways”.

VX-23 also conducted vertical landings with a 15-knot crosswind and with expected hot gas ingestion from the ship’s funnels. “We’ve completed extreme descent rates touching down at 12ft/sec and not exceeded the load limits of the landing gear,” said Wilson.

Crosswind testing is an interesting scenario.

There are two ways to achieve the required objective. The pilot can generate crosswind in the hover by turning 90-degrees away from a headwind to generate crosswind from the natural wind and then move sideways over the ground to achieve the required test condition. The wind can be forced to come at any angle to the aircraft. The alternate way is to test when the desired wind speed is available naturally, pedal turning the aircraft until the direction required by the test point is achieved.

“DT II was about crosswind envelope expansion; getting out to 40 knots of headwind; tailwind envelope expansion; and the internal carriage of inert weapons during take-offs and landings for the first time,” said Wilson.

Carriage of weapons in the internal bays moves the aircraft’s CG forward, which makes it behave a little differently. Testing it was a DT II goal. Wilson explained: “We also had to periodically jettison weapons to meet the necessary landing weight. DT II was the first time the F-35B had jettisoned weapons. We also wanted to fly at night, conduct landings with ship motion to increase the loads envelope, evaluate the effects of motion on the control system, and how the pilot would track the motion, and further stress the Thermion flightdeck coating.”

US Marine Corps test pilot LtCol Jimi Clift flew the first night vertical landing on August 14. VX-23 also performed regression testing of the test points that failed during DT I. Take-offs during DT I showed that the nozzle swung, in some angles, just two inches from the flight deck, requiring improvements to the flight control system. “You can’t test that scenario ashore, so we repeated some of the conditions seen during DT I to prove that the corrections made aligned with the simulation,” said Wilson.

Night Ops, HMDS, Mission Systems and Crosswinds
Maj Kingen and Squadron Leader Schofield gained their carrier qualification on the first day of DT II, after which the flight test team was ready to conduct night ops.

“I had a ridiculous grin on my face when I returned to the ready room after my first night mission. I’d never flown a night mission to a boat before feeling anything other than stressed,” said Wilson. “That’s what the Harrier was like at night. You really felt like you got away with it. You’re highly trained so you’re probably going to be fine, but you always knew not much had to go wrong and you’d be screwed. “In the F-35 the experience was so different because it holds the height for you, it looks after you and you can actually leave it alone, which is often the best thing you can do. And it holds a beautiful hover, far better than you could do manually.

“It’s really a task that requires you to just monitor the systems. Having done three vertical landings in about two hours, taking fuel, launching again and returning was a doddle by comparison to the Harrier.”

The testing sought to prove the pilot could improve the night landing task relative to the Harrier by using the naked eye and the Gen II Helmet Mounted Display. “That’s what we did supremely,” said Wilson.

He confirmed that the functionality problems of the Gen II-standard HMDS are not encountered with STOVL operations. “You see effects at sea that you don’t necessarily see ashore. For example, low sun on the horizon can bounce back off the water and potentially wash out some of the HMD symbology. It’s not fantastic, but it’s okay. The primary issue with the helmet occurs when the aeroplane starts to buffet. We don’t get much buffet in STOVL mode and it’s a comfortable ride most of the time.”

Test events were also undertaken while the jets were airborne, as Wilson explained: “We conducted mission system tests to ensure interoperability with the ship: communications, navigation, TACAN and IFF. We also flew instrument approaches in visual conditions by day and by night to simulate our ability to get back to the ship in bad weather.”

Another aspect of STOVL ops tested during DT II determined the effect of wind coming around the ship’s island. When an aircraft is in the hover, the island is on the right. If the wind comes from the right it makes its way around the island and catches the aircraft from various angles. “That makes the hot gas coming out of the ship’s stack come at you, which is bad news. Aeroplanes don’t like ingesting hot gas: it reduces performance,” said Wilson. “We had mixed results, some good, some bad. With the wind coming from ‘round the back of the island, the aeroplane starts to feel like it’s jostling around. And the effects of the hot gas coming from around the front eroded our performance margin, but not to a point we were concerned because the aircraft has the capability to withstand the effects. We opened out to 10 knots of crosswind from the right and 15 knots from the left, which is a super envelope. It was a great success.”...

...During the 18-day sea trial the two jets completed 95 take-offs and vertical landings, both forward and aft-facing, and 17 night take-offs and landings in 10 days of testing.

“It was an extremely successful at-sea period. We hashed out the envelope and we got the fleet something they’re going to be able to work with. In fact we’ve got everything except for elevated sea state,” said Maj Kingen."

AIR International F-35 Special Edition July 2014
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: Jul 16 2014, 06:02 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 2,011
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06
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
QUOTE
"Aviation Week's Amy Butler talked to Lockheed Martin F-35 test pilot Billie Flynn and BAE Systems test pilot Pete 'Wizzer' Wilson about the F-35 program during the 2014 Farnborough air show."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFZ0bbLIcQg
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Grumpy Cobra
Posted: Jul 17 2014, 01:26 AM
Quote Post


GAF Mirage III (A3)
*

Group: Members
Posts: 122
Member No.: 1,724
Joined: 30-October 08
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.-...p-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-he...sign-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]

This post has been edited by Grumpy Cobra on Jul 17 2014, 01:30 AM
PMEmail Poster
Top
Luig
Posted: Jul 20 2014, 02:27 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 2,011
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06
Carrier countdown 30 June 2014 Tim Robinson
QUOTE
"...TIM ROBINSON talks to some of the engineers responsible for putting the 'air' in aircraft carrier.

“The thing to bear in mind with the QEC,” says David Atkinson, F-35 Integration Lead, BAE Systems, “is the sheer scale of the flight deck. It is just huge — three times bigger than the Invincible-class deck.”...

...Leveraging simulation
Integration of the F-35 with the QEC, in particular, has harnessed the growing power of simulation and synthetic modelling to de-risk the process. Inside a F-35 motion simulator at BAE Warton's facility, test pilots can assess the aircraft in the landing pattern, develop CONOPS (CONcepts of OPerationS) and take-off and land on a ‘virtual’ HMS Queen Elizabeth. The simulation is not bound to the F-35B and QEC either — it can also emulate F-35C and CVN characteristics. Additionally, to enhance realism and develop procedures for take-off and recovery, other multiple ‘virtual’ F-35s can be inserted into the simulations — to allow the pilot to assess how a formation of aircraft would recover to the ship. Says Atkinson: “There is a unique capability here in the UK at BAE Systems at Warton, which is to simulate operation of the F-35 with our, or anybody else’s, aircraft carrier who provides their model to us.” He observes: “It is the result of many years of [flight simulation] experience in the facilties at Warton which has resulted in the leading edge that we have and can bring to bear on these two hugely important programmes.”

Though the F-35B’s advanced fly-by-wire flight control system has taken much of the hard work out of vertical landings — the simulation has already proved its worth in helping test the Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) manoeuvre, which is a UK-specific landing technique that allows higher ‘bring-back’ (several thousand pounds additional weight) of weapons and fuel — especially in hot climates. SRVL sees the pilot land in hover mode but with forward speed — enabling the wings to generate useful lift. Unlike a traditional carrier approach at 130kts, where the pilot is prepared to ram the throttle open in case of a 'bolter' — the SRVL ends with the aircraft automatically moving the propulsion system to idle and the pilot applies the brakes. Input from test pilots in the simulator has also added SRVL-specific symbology — a ship-referenced velocity vector to the pilots HMDS (Helmet Mounted Display System), to better judge the approach path using this recovery technique.

Lights, camera, action
Indeed the SRVL concept has also made another change in the F-35/QE integration — that of a new stabilised lighting system or ‘Bedford Array'. Independent of the two glide path indicators (for both helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft) in the port catwalk, this proprietary system, developed by QinetiQ and manufactured by AGI Ltd uses LED lights in the deck tramlines to provide a gyro-stabilised glidepath alignment cue and a forward and aft limit line to F-35B pilots carrying out SRVL approaches. The ‘Bedford Array’ approach lighting was trialed with QinetiQ's VAAC Harrier testbed in 2008. Indeed, work on the QEC visual landing aids goes back even further, to the very start of the CVF programme and these aids have been progressively developed using the Warton flight simulator.

The lighting on the QEC is innovative in other ways. Giant TV-style ‘departure boards' on the side of the islands allow information (and even video) to be viewed by flight deck personnel or aircrew sitting in readiness. It can also, if needed, project white light, acting as floodlights for maintenance or other operations at night.

Not your father's ski-jump
The QE-class's ski-jump, too, has been carefully designed and engineered from the beginning... The QEC's ski-jump is longer (200ft) than the Invincible-class (150ft) and designed so that the aircraft has all three (including the nose) wheels in contact right up until the point where the aircraft leaves the deck — giving positive nosewheel authority throughout. Additionally, the F-35Bs smart flight control system ‘knows’ when it is going up a ramp and will pre-position the control surfaces and effectors to launch at the optimum angle to avoid pitch-up or down.

Thermal challenges
However, the biggest engineering challenge in F-35 integration, says Atkinson, is the aero-thermal environment surrounding the hot-exhaust gas of the F-35B and its 40,000lb thrust F135 engine. This challenge is not novel to the F-35 but has been known about since the 1960s and the Hawker Siddeley P.1154, when it was realised that any supersonic P.1127/Harrier follow-on would need extra effort to tackle this problem. Indeed, a scale F-35 hot-gas test rig has been used at Warton for some years to explore the aircraft's external thermal environment.

For the QE-class this has been dealt with in the development of a thermal metal spray to protect the flight deck against high-exhaust temperatures. This says Atkinson, was a unique challenge — while thermal metal spray existed, for use on an aircraft carrier it had to combine heat-resistant properties with those needed by a flight deck — for example the friction characteristics needed to grip aircraft tyres in wet conditions. Thermal proofing measures such as higher temperature resistant paints and shields also extends to the catwalk and liferafts. Says Atkinson: “The historic STOVL knowledge and experience that was developed throughout the 60s to 80s has allowed UK understanding of ground erosion and hot gas to be brought to bear on this aircraft's ship interface.”..."

http://aerosociety.com/News/Insight-Blog/2...rrier-countdown
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: Aug 6 2014, 08:50 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 2,011
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06
NUSHIP Canberra sails into Sydney Published on Apr 11, 2014 RANmedia
QUOTE
"NUSHIP Canberra made history last month when she sailed into Sydney Harbour for the first time.

The first of two Landing Helicopter Dock ships being built for the Navy, Canberra's visit to Sydney was part of the contractor sea trials and testing program. This program proves systems and equipment prior to the ship being delivered to Defence.

The ship conducted a planned commercial docking in Sydney for a hull clean and final paint. As Canberra docked down, her size and scale was readily apparent.

The Sydney-based ship's company took the opportunity to conduct important familiarisation and induction training while the ship was in her future homeport. The ship's four Duty Watch teams carried out security and damage control training in preparation for taking responsibility for the ship.

Canberra has now departed Sydney to continue contractor sea trials. These trials will include a set of propulsion, speed and endurance trials on the way back to Melbourne.

Canberra is returning to Williamstown to prepare for the final phase of Contractor sea trials involving communications and combat systems."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97CUMkQIYoc
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Dave Masterson
Posted: Aug 7 2014, 05:54 PM
Quote Post


C-17A Globemaster III (A41)
*

Group: Members
Posts: 528
Member No.: 25
Joined: 24-June 05
Thanks Luig..Good bit of film there. :D
PMEmail Poster
Top
FlyCookie
Posted: Aug 16 2014, 08:32 AM
Quote Post


Douglas Skyhawk (N13)
*

Group: Members
Posts: 99
Member No.: 519
Joined: 31-August 07
FYI Canberra is back in the oggin for her second round of sea trials.

This post has been edited by FlyCookie on Aug 16 2014, 08:33 AM
PMEmail Poster
Top
Warhawk
  Posted: Aug 18 2014, 12:48 PM
Quote Post


ADF Serials Research Co-ord
*

Group: ADF Serials Admin
Posts: 1,986
Member No.: 82
Joined: 9-March 06
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
:)
PMEmail Poster
Top
Luig
Posted: Aug 19 2014, 03:08 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 2,011
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06
LHD Juan Carlos I, el gigante español Published on July 17, 2014
QUOTE
"The LHD 'Juan Carlos I' was launched on March 10, 2008 and delivered to the Navy on 30 September 2010 has 231 meters long and displaces 26,000 tons full load. It can reach a maximum speed of 20 knots and has a range of 9000 miles at 15 knots. It has four main decks: deck dock and garage for vehicles and heavy equipment, enabling main deck, hangar deck and garage for cars and light material, and flight deck with SKI-JUMP to port. A provision is made for 261 people: 30 officers, 49 NCOs, 59 corporals and 123 first corporals and seamen."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WofHJmUYTBU

This post has been edited by Luig on Aug 19 2014, 03:18 PM
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: Aug 20 2014, 04:27 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 2,011
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06
NUSHIP CANBERRA embarks on final trials 18 Aug 2014 BAE
QUOTE
"MELBOURNE, VICTORIA: NUSHIP CANBERRA, the first of two Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) ships being built for the Australian Defence Force, has sailed on her final contractor sea trials before delivery to the Australian Government.

The ship departed Williamstown shipyard on 12 August as planned with the trials taking place in both Port Phillip Bay and off the southern coast of New South Wales before returning to Williamstown around the end of August.

Final contractor trials involve testing of the combat and communication systems along with some platform systems trials....

...The final trials also provide an ideal opportunity for a number of the crew to familiarise themselves with the ship following their training at the BAE Systems facility at Mascot, NSW, in which state-of-the-art simulation technology was developed and utilised to achieve technical competence in a cost-effective environment.

As well as demonstrating the ship’s capabilities, the trials will provide the team with valuable feedback regarding the effectiveness of the training program.  The utilisation and extent of virtual training within LHD has been a new approach for the RAN and the feedback received from the crew so far has been very positive...."

http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_175...on-final-trials
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Grumpy Cobra
Posted: Aug 22 2014, 08:29 PM
Quote Post


GAF Mirage III (A3)
*

Group: Members
Posts: 122
Member No.: 1,724
Joined: 30-October 08
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! :D
PMEmail Poster
Top
Luig
Posted: Aug 23 2014, 02:20 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 2,011
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06
Monitor Coatings to supply U.K. carrier flight deck coatings 22 Aug 2014 MarineLog

QUOTE
“After a two-year test program, Monitor Coatings Ltd. has been awarded a contract to provide a nonskid, thermal gas wash resistant deck coating for the two largest ships ever built for the U.K. Royal Navy, the aircraft carriers HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales.

The lead ship, HMS Queen Elizabeth, is scheduled to commission in early 2017, with initial operational capability from 2020 and has a 19,500 sq.m flight deck.

In May 2012, Monitor Coatings Ltd was contracted to investigate and deliver a suitable deck coating that would withstand the aerothermal environment and gas wash exhaust when the F35B STOL variants of the Joint Strike Fighter that will operate from the carrier conduct a hover transition and vertical landing.

Monitor Coatings contract included the development of techniques required for large scale preparation and application of a Thermal Metal Spray System (TMS) over an area in excess of 19,500 sq.m, the development of process-technology readiness and manufacturing capability levels acceptable for large scale application and long term support for the decks of the two carriers.

The scope of work culminated in a two day demonstration of the process application, quality system and in-service repair program of the Monitor Coatings Thermal Metal Spray System. The demonstration day was well received by senior naval officers and civilians from the marine engineering community.”

http://www.marinelog.com/index.php?option=...ings&Itemid=231
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
FlyCookie
Posted: Aug 24 2014, 04:10 AM
Quote Post


Douglas Skyhawk (N13)
*

Group: Members
Posts: 99
Member No.: 519
Joined: 31-August 07
QUOTE (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!


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.

This post has been edited by FlyCookie on Aug 24 2014, 06:14 AM
PMEmail Poster
Top
Luig
Posted: Aug 29 2014, 07:21 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 2,011
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06
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
QUOTE
"Run & Jump!
Aircraft ski jumps interested the military for two reasons. The Air Force and Marines wanted a way for aircraft to operate from the short stretches of runway remaining after airfield bombing attacks. The Navy and Marines wanted a way to reduce the length of carrier flight deck needed for an aircraft to become airborne—without the aid of a catapult. The Air Force decided not to use ski jumps, but the Navy proceeded with the idea. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Naval Air Test Center (NATC) performed ski jump tests at NAS Patuxent River using the T-2, F-14, F/A-18, and AV-8 Harrier.

However, the ski-jump design has drawbacks: the forward part of the flight deck is no longer available for parking aircraft and there is less space available for moving aircraft around on the already crowded carrier deck. In addition, the upward push of the ski jump also means that aircraft structures may need to be stronger to bear the extra launch loads. This could lead to aircraft that weigh—and cost—more.

Flight tests showed that the basic theory was sound: all aircraft tested took off in significantly shorter distances than they could from flat decks. But except for the AV-8 Harrier, none of these aircraft ever flew from ski-jump-equipped carriers.

The F-35B VSTOL (Vertical/Short Take-Off & Landing) version of the Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will soon take its turn on a new ski jump at NAS Patuxent River. These tests will support the Marine Corps and JSF partner nations Great Britain and Italy, which operate carriers designed with ski jumps."

http://api.ning.com/files/xEh6B1KdSWQzOLt*...2014reduced.pdf (1Mb)

This post has been edited by Luig on Aug 29 2014, 07:24 AM
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
F/A-18 Super Bug
Posted: Aug 31 2014, 06:14 PM
Quote Post


McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet (A21)
*

Group: Members
Posts: 173
Member No.: 6,742
Joined: 30-July 12
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

Tour of Nuship Canberra
PMEmail Poster
Top
Luig
Posted: Sep 6 2014, 01:26 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 2,011
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06
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
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Brendan Cowan
Posted: Sep 6 2014, 02:10 PM
Quote Post


Messageboard Co-ordinator
*

Group: ADF Serials Admin
Posts: 2,458
Member No.: 48
Joined: 20-September 05
Very funny Phil!

:D

BC
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: Sep 6 2014, 03:44 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 2,011
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06
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
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: Sep 10 2014, 06:58 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 2,011
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06
Stepping-Stones Tony Osborne AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY / SEPTEMBER 8, 2014
QUOTE
"...Particular emphasis has also been placed on how the F-35 will launch from the Queen Elizabeth's ski jump, which gives the aircraft valuable vertical impetus, allowing for greater takeoff weights as well as a positive rate of climb. The F-35B's flight control logic has been written for the Queen Elizabeth's new 12-deg. jump, which at 200 ft. long, is some 50 ft. longer than that used on the Invincible-class carriers.

With the aircraft lined up for takeoff, the pilot presses the short-takeoff-and-vertical- landing (STOVL) switch, activating the lift fan and rear nozzle. The lift fan is fully operational within 15 sec. The F-35B uses the same process and partially opens its weapons bay doors, which help provide more lift. As the aircraft hits the ski jump, its flight control logic recognizes it is on the ski jump and uses the rear nozzle to keep all three wheels on the ground. The aircraft should be airborne at around 90 kt.

"It's a luxurious way to get airborne,'' says Wilson. "The pilot simply uses the pedals to keep the aircraft straight, and the aircraft recognizes the presence of the ski jump." Test pilots have tried out the ski jump only in the simulator, but that work has been very valuable in addressing early concerns about the ground clearance between the ski jump and rear nozzle...."

AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY / SEPTEMBER 8, 2014
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
FlyCookie
Posted: Sep 12 2014, 06:12 AM
Quote Post


Douglas Skyhawk (N13)
*

Group: Members
Posts: 99
Member No.: 519
Joined: 31-August 07
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.
PMEmail Poster
Top
F/A-18 Super Bug
Posted: Sep 13 2014, 02:51 PM
Quote Post


McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet (A21)
*

Group: Members
Posts: 173
Member No.: 6,742
Joined: 30-July 12
QUOTE
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.


I hope they show us some pictures of the rudder tests like the US Navy does with their Aircraft Carriers:


(IMG:http://www.web-l.com/things-you-wont-see-on-cnn/aircraft-carrier-tips-as-it-makes-sharp-turn.jpg)
PMEmail Poster
Top
FlyCookie
Posted: Sep 19 2014, 02:58 AM
Quote Post


Douglas Skyhawk (N13)
*

Group: Members
Posts: 99
Member No.: 519
Joined: 31-August 07
First helo deck trials scheduled for next March.
PMEmail Poster
Top
Grumpy Cobra
Posted: Sep 20 2014, 11:51 PM
Quote Post


GAF Mirage III (A3)
*

Group: Members
Posts: 122
Member No.: 1,724
Joined: 30-October 08
QUOTE (Luig @ Jun 26 2014, 01:00 AM)
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.

"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 :D see below picture - says it all really!

35 for 805 - go on repeat it - you know you like it!

(IMG:http://aquellasarmasdeguerra.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/harrier-accidente-malvinas-1982.jpg)

This post has been edited by Grumpy Cobra on Sep 20 2014, 11:52 PM
PMEmail Poster
Top
Luig
Posted: Sep 21 2014, 03:18 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 2,011
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06
You can be as grumpy as you wish. B) 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.

(IMG:http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/albums/Skyhawk-N13-155052/N13_155052_871.sized.jpg)
(IMG:http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/albums/Skyhawk-N13-154906/PT_N13_154906c.sized.jpg)

This post has been edited by Luig on Sep 21 2014, 03:48 AM
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: Sep 22 2014, 07:57 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 2,011
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06
Plan Jericho - Introducing 5th Generation Capability July 2014 ADM Magazine Nigel Pittaway
QUOTE
"...A STOVL F-358 for Air Force?
CAF also revealed that Air Force is currently studying the potential operations of a short take off vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B from the decks of Navy's new Landing Helicopter Dock ships.

The Abbott government is reportedly interested in expanding the LHD role by the addition of combat jets and analysis is now being undertaken to determine what will be required.

Air Force has previously (and repeatedly) said that the F-35B was not under consideration and that modelling showed the LHDs could be adequately protected by shore-based F-35As.

"Any idea is worth a look at, because the situation changes, circumstances change. STOVLs have their place, they are a more expensive aeroplane, they have a lot less range and they don't have the weapons capability," he noted.

"It depends on how you see the LHD. If you want to convert it to take STOVL, there are a lot of considerations that you have to take into account and JSF/STOVL by itself isn't a capability. It needs weapons and it needs fuel.

"And I think that if you go and look at the changes you have to put in place to operate STOVL off an LHD you will see that it's got its challenges. That's what we'll work through over the next few months is to articulate what those challenges are, what additional cost, if that's the way we decide we want to go."

July 2014 ADM Magazine
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Grumpy Cobra
Posted: Sep 22 2014, 07:30 PM
Quote Post


GAF Mirage III (A3)
*

Group: Members
Posts: 122
Member No.: 1,724
Joined: 30-October 08
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...
:o

35 For 805! Go on sing it! :P

This post has been edited by Grumpy Cobra on Sep 22 2014, 07:35 PM
PMEmail Poster
Top
Aardvark
Posted: Sep 22 2014, 09:03 PM
Quote Post


General Dynamics F-111 (A8)
*

Group: Members
Posts: 241
Member No.: 3,706
Joined: 1-October 10
Sometimes decisions have to be made with the head not the heart!
PMEmail Poster
Top
Luig
Posted: Sep 23 2014, 06:05 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 2,011
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06
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
QUOTE
"...Now the Royal Australian Air Force is fighting a rearguard action against the decision [bury F-111s], and it won't care which government it has to undermine. It's very practised at it. The parallel with the retirement of the navy's aircraft carrier, HMAS Melbourne, is enlightening.

A colleague once described the aircraft carrier as a "dag on the arse of naval progress". HMAS Melbourne was retired only because we had an astute secretary of Defence who made a cabinet submission available the night the Hawke government was elected, and advised the new government to be expeditious with its commitment. It was.

The F-111s are a malignant dag on the whole-of-defence rump...."

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opini...px?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.

This post has been edited by Luig on Sep 23 2014, 06:33 AM
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: Sep 27 2014, 09:13 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 2,011
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06
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
QUOTE
"...HARRIER LEGACY
Comparisons are frequently made between the F-35B and the Harrier; they are usually misleading. But in the case of BAE Systems’ F-35/carrier flight simulator, earlier work with the legacy jet and Invincible class ships has helped lay the foundations for Warton’s 21st century simulator design. As David Atkinson, F-35 Carrier Integration Lead at BAE Systems, explains, the result is a flexible system with capabilities beyond F-35B: “We’ve been conducting flight simulation at Warton for over 50 years for many projects, including simulating Harriers operating from the recently retired Invincible CVS class. The F-35/carrier flight simulator has been developed to support the integration of the F-35 to the QE class ships. It is, however, capable of simulating F-35C to aircraft carriers with catapults and arrestor gear, and has been used for assessment of various flight control developments for F-35C to CVN and, while the UK was considering a CV-converted QE class ship, for F-35C to QE.”

Unlike the more familiar full mission simulator, the F-35/carrier sim focuses on the near-ship environment, primarily for the assessment of launch and recovery operations, including circuits around the ship. It uses a Lockheed Martin F-35 six-degrees-of-freedom mathematical model validated against extensive flight test data; a QEC ship motion model provided by the Aircraft Carrier Alliance (ACA), based on tank test data; and a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) ship-airwake flowfield that is being further developed and validated by the University of Liverpool.

Realism has been further enhanced by the recent addition of a landing signal officer’s (LSO) station. The LSO’s role will be similar to that aboard an Invincible class ship, but according to Atkinson there will be “a larger workstation and more sophisticated situational awareness aids and information displays”.

Describing the simulator’s design and how the LSO station is integrated, Atkinson continues: “From a physical point of view it has a hydraulic motion platform within a dome and uses motion-cueing algorithms to enable the pilot to feel aircraft motion in a very realistic way, despite remaining very firmly on the ground. High-specification projectors are used, with a very high-resolution projector for the pilot’s forward field of view. It has a second projected screen display to represent part of the FLYCO – the LSO workstation, at which a pilot can operate as an LSO, interacting with the pilot flying the simulator, while watching the aircraft maneuver in real time. The combined motion simulator and FLYCO representation have proved very valuable while developing maneuvers, operating procedures and display layouts.”

SIMULATOR AMBITION
Allowing pilots to fly F-35B approaches in cooperation with an LSO, as they will on the real carrier at sea, is already delivering immense value to the program, but Atkinson says that the simulator is scheduled for much greater capability. “Our ambition is for the simulator to be used for wider purposes than pilot and LSO interactions...."

300 Take-off run in feet from QEC for lightly loaded F-35B

800 Take-off run in feet from QEC for fully loaded F-35B

AEROSPACE TESTING INTERNATIONAL September 2014
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Nick Thorne
Posted: Sep 30 2014, 10:13 PM
Quote Post


Bell Iroquois (A2)
*

Group: Members
Posts: 23
Member No.: 6,053
Joined: 28-October 11
Not sure if this has been posted here before, but it is an interesting read:

LHD and STOVL: an engineer’s view
PMEmail Poster
Top
Luig
Posted: Oct 1 2014, 04:20 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 2,011
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06
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...ofcaropsPTT.pdf (4.6Mb)

OR

http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/2012/03/ho...perations-work/

http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/cvf/

This post has been edited by Luig on Oct 1 2014, 04:35 AM
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Invader26
Posted: Oct 1 2014, 08:29 PM
Quote Post


Supermarine Spitfire (A58)
*

Group: Members
Posts: 48
Member No.: 4,189
Joined: 30-January 11
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]...
PMEmail Poster
Top
Luig
Posted: Oct 2 2014, 08:10 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 2,011
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06
Two carriers take shape at Rosyth 01 Oct 2014 David Downs, ACA engineering director
QUOTE
"...The aviation facilities of the ship are also progressing with installation of the hangar doors, setting to work of the aircraft lifts, installation of the Flyco windows and completing installation of the take off ramp all underway.  Work to reinstate the facilities needed for the operation of STOVL aircraft is ongoing, including modified flight deck landing lights and aids, provision for the Precision Approach Radar, mission rehearsal training provision and enhanced security arrangements in key mission planning spaces.

Of particular interest is the work to provide a heat resistant coating for the flight deck, while also providing the required coefficient of friction and being the expected colour and having the required flight deck markings.

The F35B  - the STOVL variant of the Joint Strike Fighter - that will be embarked on the carriers is very different to the Sea Harrier aircraft that naval aviation in the UK has been based on in recent years.

In comparison the F35B is larger, heavier, with a much increased payload and is capable of Mach 1.6. The installed power in the jet is much larger than the Harrier and when directed downwards onto the deck during a vertical landing, the temperature and pressure of the jet exhaust plume is capable of removing conventional flight deck paint systems.

After extensive research using amongst others the facilities of the hot gas laboratory at BAE Systems Warton, a Thermal Metal Spray coating developed with Monitor Coatings Ltd near Newcastle has been developed.  This coating system has been applied to limited areas of the flight deck with work now ongoing to establish the process and procedures to apply it cost effectively to the entire four and a half acres of flight deck. All this through a Scottish winter and with the ship moored in a quite exposed location!..."

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/blog/two-carr...1019275.article
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Grumpy Cobra
Posted: Oct 3 2014, 08:33 AM
Quote Post


GAF Mirage III (A3)
*

Group: Members
Posts: 122
Member No.: 1,724
Joined: 30-October 08
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 :D :P :lol:

pic from Australian Aviation
(IMG:http://australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/CarlRichards-09292014-F-35A-AU-01-FirstFlight-129.jpg)

This post has been edited by Grumpy Cobra on Oct 3 2014, 08:34 AM
PMEmail Poster
Top
Invader26
Posted: Oct 3 2014, 12:21 PM
Quote Post


Supermarine Spitfire (A58)
*

Group: Members
Posts: 48
Member No.: 4,189
Joined: 30-January 11
even painted "battleship grey"... :ph34r:
PMEmail Poster
Top
Luig
Posted: Oct 14 2014, 06:45 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 2,011
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06
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
QUOTE
"As the U.S. Navy prepares to commission the "next-generation, aviation-centric" amphibious assault ship LHA 6 America this month, the service and contractor continue to work on modifications. These are geared to making the ship and other large-deck amphibs capable of handling the added heat, downwash and other operational oddities created by the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft.

The vertical-landing-and-liftoff operations of both aircraft create a need for structural ship changes, equipment relocation and operational shifts in the amphibious fleet that will carry the aircraft, which represent the linchpins for Marine aviation operations in coming decades.

The Navy is examining new flightdeck coating materials - including a metalized spray coating from Thermion Inc. - which are resistant to the high temperatures created during F-35B and MV-22 operations, Navy officials say. These materials were in trial use on the USS LHD 1 Wasp during F-35B flight developmental test operations and have thus far withstood the high temperatures and "exhaust downwash/outwash."

The Wasp has become a testbed for the amphib assault-ship modifications. The vessel is slated to be completely outfitted and altered for the F-35B by November while the America is scheduled to receive its JSF modifications in late 2015. LHA 7 Tripoli, which is now under construction and 10% completed, will be the first LHA ship to be delivered "fully ready to integrate the entire future air combat element of the Marine Corps to include the F-35B." Navy officials say.

The Navy identified more than a half-dozen "cornerstone" ship changes for LHD ships Nos. 1-8 that cost roughly $20 million. These include: voltage regulators; Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), JSF weapons support; off-board mission support; and expendable countermeasures stowage.

The service also identified more than a dozen changes costing $34 milljon for shops, services and "external environments." These include: communications equipment and systems; warfare systems; firefighting protection; ventilation; JP-5 fuel station protection; fiight deck structures; life-raft stowage relocation; aviation weapons; safety nets and Life rails; and lithium-ion battery stowage.

The Navy continues to study the logistics support necessary for F-35B operations....

...Heat and stress continue to be priority problems for the aircraft. The F-35B creates 10-20 sec. of thermal input - 400-500F exhaust - during landings, Navy documents show, apparently requiring a 12 X 12-ft. steel plate 1-in. thick for specific primary landing spots to dissipate intense heat and prevent deck warping. There also is concern about "built-up thermal loading with multiple close-sequence landings."..."

13 OCT 2014 AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY; DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL

This post has been edited by Luig on Oct 14 2014, 06:46 AM
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
F/A-18 Super Bug
Posted: Oct 14 2014, 12:54 PM
Quote Post


McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet (A21)
*

Group: Members
Posts: 173
Member No.: 6,742
Joined: 30-July 12
QUOTE
even painted "battleship grey"... ph34r.gif


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?

(IMG:http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/albums/Super-Hornet-A44-202/A44_202_20100318raaf8540677_0008_lo.jpg)

Compared to what other nations do with their air superiority fighters like the Sukhoi Su-27:

(IMG:http://www.prideaircraft.com/images/Su27/Flanker16800T-c.jpg)

or

(IMG:http://img.mota.ru/upload/wallpapers/2009/07/15/07/03/2943/avia_150-preview.jpg)

QUOTE
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.


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.

This post has been edited by F/A-18 Super Bug on Oct 14 2014, 12:56 PM
PMEmail Poster
Top
Luig
Posted: Oct 16 2014, 04:01 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 2,011
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06
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.
QUOTE
NUSHIP Canberra Live Aircraft Collective Training
Date: 26.08.2014 Duration: 2:11 RAN

"NUSHIP Canberra's Air Department conducted collective training with live aircraft on the multispot "dummy" deck which is used for Landing Helicopter Dock flight deck training at HMAS Albatross. Check this video out for more information about the training."

48Mb .MP4 video: http://cp114370.p1.videos.viostream.com/do...85385_mp4hd.mp4
_____________________

NUSHIP Canberra AVN Mission rehearsal Training
Date: 28.07.2014 Duration: 2:46 RAN

"NUSHIP Canberra's Air Department conducted mission rehearsal training on the multispot "dummy" deck which is used for Landing Helicopter Dock flight deck training at HMAS Albatross. Check this video out for more information about the training."

63Mb .MP4 video: http://cp114370.p1.videos.viostream.com/do...41228_mp4hd.mp4
__________________________________

NUSHIP Canberra Duty Watch Certification
Date: 09.10.2014 Duration: 2:58 RAN

"Members of NUSHIP Canberra’s first Duty Watch teams are preparing to take responsibility for the first Landing Helicopter Dock – the largest ship ever built for Navy. The Duty Watch teams will be responsible for the safety and security of the ship while in harbour. Find out what the teams are up to by watching this video."

67Mb .MP4 video: http://cp114370.p1.videos.viostream.com/do...47351_mp4hd.mp4
______________________________

NUSHIP Canberra sails into Sydney
Date: 11.04.2014 Duration: 2:00 RAN

"NUSHIP Canberra made history last month when she sailed into Sydney Harbour for the first time. The first of two Landing Helicopter Dock ships being built for the Navy, Canberra’s visit to Sydney was part of the contractor sea trials and testing program. This program proves systems and equipment prior to the ship being delivered to Defence. The ship conducted a planned commercial docking in Sydney for a hull clean and final paint. As Canberra docked down, her size and scale was readily apparent. The Sydney-based ship’s company took the opportunity to conduct important familiarisation and induction training while the ship was in her future homeport. The ship's four Duty Watch teams carried out security and damage control training in preparation for taking responsibility for the ship. Canberra has now departed Sydney to continue contractor sea trials. These trials will include a set of propulsion, speed and endurance trials on the way back to Melbourne. Canberra is returning to Williamstown to prepare for the final phase of Contractor sea trials involving communications and combat systems."

44Mb .MP4 video: http://cp114370.p1.videos.viostream.com/do...12899_mp4hd.mp4

Source: http://video.navy.gov.au/?mediaId=a1b7cc7b...ec-9faee6ab8bf6

PHOTO: http://i842.photobucket.com/albums/zz349/o...zps9d46766c.jpg

(IMG:http://i842.photobucket.com/albums/zz349/ontheroger/nowra_dummydeck_1_zps9d46766c.jpg)

This post has been edited by Luig on Oct 16 2014, 04:03 PM
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: Nov 6 2014, 01:34 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 2,011
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06
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! :-)

This post has been edited by Luig on Nov 6 2014, 01:35 PM

Attached File ( Number of downloads: 603 )
Attached File  F_35Bs_on_LHDs_082_Baddams.pdf
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: Nov 9 2014, 05:21 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 2,011
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06
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
QUOTE
"SAN DIEGO (NNS) -- The F-35C Lightning II, the carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter, continues initial sea trials aboard the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68) off the coast of Southern California.

Through Nov. 6, the fourth day of at-sea testing, two test F-35C aircraft have completed 12 flights. During those 12 flights, the aircraft flew a combined 12.7 flight hours and accomplished 203 test points.

The Navy's newest fixed-wing fighter performed 55 catapult launches, 84 planned touch-and-go landings and 57 arrested landings. Through four days of at-sea testing, the test team successfully landed during every attempt, with zero bolters, or failures to catch an arresting cable on the flight deck.

With the last of the four test pilots completing carrier qualifications Nov. 6, all aircrew members are now carrier-qualified and able to fly the aircraft in test events.

During the first stage of developmental testing, the test team conducts a series of events designed to gradually expand the aircraft-operating envelope at sea. Events scheduled for Nov. 7 center on crosswind catapult launches and crosswind approaches to test the aircraft's ability to perform in both nominal and off-nominal conditions.

At-sea test delivers the opportunity to conduct operations in preparation for Navy F-35C initial operational capability scheduled for 2018."

http://www.noodls.com/view/B897F88AD410EBE...27xxx1415467656
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
« Next Oldest | Navy Aircraft - Royal Australian Navy Fleet Air Arm | Next Newest »

Topic OptionsPages: (4) 1 2 [3] 4  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 



[ Script Execution time: 0.0323 ]   [ 11 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]

Powered by Invision Power Board(U) v1.3 Final © 2003  IPS, Inc.