World Naval Ships Forums  
VIEW ALL OF OUR CURRENT SPECIAL OFFERS HERE!

Go Back   World Naval Ships Forums > Naval History > Other Naval Topics
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Other Naval Topics Other general naval or navy-related topics.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #226  
Old 22-11-2016, 11:57
Pelican's Avatar
Pelican Pelican is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,735
Exclamation Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Surfgun View Post
A video of higher intensity ops from USS America.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8cYnukFIuOs
Another - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKrv3tYc0vc
__________________
H.M.S. PELICAN - GGCV - L86 U86 B294 & F 86 - WHAT I HAVE I HOLD - 1938~1958 - 'A wonderful bird is the Pelican. Its beak can hold more than its belly can.'
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 26-11-2016, 12:49
Pelican's Avatar
Pelican Pelican is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,735
Exclamation Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelican View Post
What is the reason-thinking of the landing approach pattern - will it be the same on the bigger carriers?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bG5v2d1XrI&sns=em
__________________
H.M.S. PELICAN - GGCV - L86 U86 B294 & F 86 - WHAT I HAVE I HOLD - 1938~1958 - 'A wonderful bird is the Pelican. Its beak can hold more than its belly can.'
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 26-11-2016, 15:08
Surfgun Surfgun is online now
Vice-Admiral
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,586
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

The stern of USS America has two missile launchers, one contains 21 RAM, the other 8 ESS missiles. So it is most likely to practice in case of an engine or lift fan issue to help prevent an aircraft from plummeting into said ordinance.
That's my assumption.
Since at this time the QE carriers will be devoid of such weapons, the aircraft will be free to approach directly from astern for a rolling landing.
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 26-11-2016, 18:12
Pelican's Avatar
Pelican Pelican is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,735
Exclamation Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Surfgun View Post
The stern of USS America has two missile launchers, one contains 21 RAM, the other 8 ESS missiles. So it is most likely to practice in case of an engine or lift fan issue to help prevent an aircraft from plummeting into said ordinance.
That's my assumption.
Since at this time the QE carriers will be devoid of such weapons, the aircraft will be free to approach directly from astern for a rolling landing.
A v.g. assumption S.G. thanks.
__________________
H.M.S. PELICAN - GGCV - L86 U86 B294 & F 86 - WHAT I HAVE I HOLD - 1938~1958 - 'A wonderful bird is the Pelican. Its beak can hold more than its belly can.'
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 26-11-2016, 23:33
gruntfuttock gruntfuttock is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: nottingham
Posts: 1,036
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

As far as I understand, the normal recovery of the F35B will be a vertical recovery. The SRVL method is designed primarily so that the aircraft can recover onboard, with a far heavier load than it would be able to in a vertical recovery. Thus negating the need to jettison valuable weaponary. It is also said to be usefull in hot climatic conditions.

Another point is that SRVL is not as easy or as efficient as is perhaps generaly accepted. Here is an excerpt from Gabriele on the subject.:-

"The SRVL approach exploits the ability of the short take-off and vertical landing F-35B to use vectored thrust to slow the speed of the aircraft while still gaining the benefit of wing-borne lift, by landing with a deck run. This offers a significant increase in "bring-back" payload compared with a vertical recovery and is likely to reduce stress on the single-engined aircraft's propulsion system.
However, deck operations become more complex and a landing runway is needed, instead of a landing spot, so much so that SRVL might require an angled deck, just as CATOBAR technique.
Pilot and deck crew training regimes would have to change, and even F35 flight control laws might have to be adjusted.
A "Bedford Array" visual aid system had to be developed and tested to guide the pilots in this new kind of approach, particularly in rough seas. And you know who liked the idea? The US Navy, which is building on it for its CATOBAR carriers. Once more, a great british idea in the naval aviation field will be exploited in the right way not by Britain, but by the americans. Read this to see how fast the idea is catching on with the CATOBAR pilots of the USN.

Vertical Bring Back Weight is an issue so big that already in 2004/5 the USMC "adopted" the SRVL concept, and sponsored the british activity in this direction, to feed the data into the F35 programme.

When SRVL activities were ongoing, this very significant brief was given, and the awesome website Navy Matters still reports it:

Using SRVL F-35B aircraft would approach the carrier from astern at about 60 knots indicated air speed, 35 knots relative assuming 25 knots wind over deck (the maximum speed of a CVF will be 25 knots, so 25kts WOD is achievable even in dead calm) on a steep 5-6 degree glide path. Touch down would be about 150 feet from the stern with a stopping distance of 300 to 400 feet depending on conditions (wet flight deck, pitching ships etc). That would leave around 300 feet of flight deck for margin or even "bolters". [Note: 400 + 150 + 300 = 850 feet. THE WHOLE DECK IS COMMITTED TO THE LANDING. What about any other flying activity????]


The SRVL technique has a significant impact on ship designs and aviation operations, Commander Tony Ray told a conference in February 2008: "We expect to trade some STOVL flexibility for increased bring-back and fuel. We have to .. check for for relevant CV criteria that apply to slower SRVL operations. For example flightpath control will be a far more important flight criteria for SRVL than it has been for STOVL. It is a CV trait creeping in".

So, the "training gap" between STOVL and CATOBAR further reduces, and deck operations are as affected by SRVL than by an arrested landing.
Or wait, that's actually worse than on a CATOBAR vessel.
Without an angled deck for SRVL, and having to rely only on the plane's brakes, in order to accommodate a bolter, the whole deck, from ski jump to stern, will have to be free and committed to the landing of the "heavy" F35B.

Isn't it awesome? The disadvantages of CATOBAR (and possibly some more) coupled to the inferior performance of STOVL airplanes.
Really smart. Really. I'm so impressed.
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 27-11-2016, 03:17
Surfgun Surfgun is online now
Vice-Admiral
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,586
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

America Class ships likewise may benefit from an angled deck and relocation of her aft armament to the aft corners. The port side aircraft elevator, though would complicate such a modification.
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 27-11-2016, 08:49
Rupert Rupert is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,456
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

The reason that on a VL landing the aircraft approaches down the port side and then slides in is because the downblast would frazzle anything not just weapons. So it would put the aft end of the deck out of bounds for people and aircraft. So there would be no use for the multiple landing spots.
Stuff off the deck (around the walkways for example) can be and has to be protected from the downblast

The criticism of SRVL is missing the point somewhat:

Why do you need SRVL? To increase the "bring-back" weight
When are you going to increase the "bring-back" weight
To avoid dropping unused ordnance in the sea
Are you to need to do that in high intensity ops? Usually not. The point about how intensity ops is that there is a need to drop lots of ordnance. So you don't need to bring it back. In the unusual event that during high intensity ops you did have an aircraft that hadn't dropped the weapons (e.g. returning due to a problem), then you do just rop them in the sea

So SRVL is for low intensity ops or for peacetime missions. When it doesn''t really matter that you take up the entire runway for a single landing.

SRVL is an option, VL is the norm
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 27-11-2016, 14:01
Surfgun Surfgun is online now
Vice-Admiral
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,586
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

An article on the Generation III helmet.

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=97808
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 27-11-2016, 16:55
Pelican's Avatar
Pelican Pelican is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,735
Exclamation Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Surfgun View Post
An article on the Generation III helmet.

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=97808
Assume following links contain information about the same helmet:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...0000-each.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-headgear.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ssor/74650574/
https://www.wired.com/2016/06/course...eality-helmet/
Lets hope that like the planes they will be cost be cost effective.
__________________
H.M.S. PELICAN - GGCV - L86 U86 B294 & F 86 - WHAT I HAVE I HOLD - 1938~1958 - 'A wonderful bird is the Pelican. Its beak can hold more than its belly can.'
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 28-11-2016, 18:05
PhilipG PhilipG is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Arundel, Sussex
Posts: 293
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
SRVL is an option, VL is the norm
Rupert I can see the argument about low and high intensity operations.

My question would be, this is not meant to start a FAA / RAF discussion, will there in a way be two Cadres of UK F35B pilots?

As I see it the low intensity cadre would be fully carrier trained, VL, SRVL, Night landing etc whilst the shall one call it Surge Cadre will be VL trained as the USMC is?

Do you have any knowledge about this?
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 28-11-2016, 22:09
Rupert Rupert is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,456
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

I am pretty sure there will not be amongst british pilots at least. The reason being (and I don't mean this as an insult to any group of pilots) that the F35B is so damned easy to fly. Every piece of information I have read or heard is that it is a doddle to fly (in terms of just flying- not talking combat flying here) and land in either method.

So the only reason I can see why a pilot would not be trained for SRVL would be because they hadn't trained for it. And I guess USMC pilots may not (but they may- we will have to wait and see)
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 28-11-2016, 22:43
PhilipG PhilipG is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Arundel, Sussex
Posts: 293
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Thanks for that, I can see where you are coming from.

SRVL I suppose can be practiced at land bases, makes austere operations easier I suppose.
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 28-11-2016, 23:05
Rupert Rupert is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,456
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilipG View Post
Thanks for that, I can see where you are coming from.

SRVL I suppose can be practiced at land bases, makes austere operations easier I suppose.
Yes and no. Remember that SRVL depends on having some wind over deck. Which the ship can always provide even in flat calm. Whereas a land runway cannot. And the F35-B is not a true VTO (vertical take-off) aircraft. So it needs some runway.

Also VL is undoubtedly easier than SRVL.
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 29-11-2016, 03:28
FlankDestroyer FlankDestroyer is offline
Sub-Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 108
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Although this link may be dated it does some provide some insights on Bring Back weight for the F 35.

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/0...3-the-promise/

From what I can gather USMC has built in a bring back weight of 2 AMRAAM and 2 1000lb JDAMs with enough fuel to land with safety margin. We do not want to dump this expensive stuff in the ocean on a regular basis.

As stated on this forum before low intensity operations ordinance requirements will be less although with few F-35s in the Air Wing, operations could be intense for those on the flight deck and in the cockpit especially for a Wing of limited size.

I have read somewhere that quite a bit of ordinance is brought back these days against ISIS for example. A lack of precise targeting information and very restrictive ROE overlap to make delivering weapons more difficult. What the future brings nobody of course knows.

One more thing to think about is rigging a barricade for SRVL approaches. Is that part of the CVF design? Sure would add a measure of safety and may even be a necessity. But for sure there are lots of fragile looking devices sticking out of F-35B. I wonder also whether one can launch and recover at the same time with SRVL and will it constrain the deck park.

Lots of things to learn on the QE when trials begin! I am sure back in the day with Ark Royal there was plenty of discussion about Bring Back when the F-4s were in the air so this subject has been around a long time.

Last edited by FlankDestroyer : 29-11-2016 at 03:41.
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 29-11-2016, 09:57
gruntfuttock gruntfuttock is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: nottingham
Posts: 1,036
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
Yes and no. Remember that SRVL depends on having some wind over deck. Which the ship can always provide even in flat calm. Whereas a land runway cannot. And the F35-B is not a true VTO (vertical take-off) aircraft. So it needs some runway.

Also VL is undoubtedly easier than SRVL.
"And the F35-B is not a true VTO (vertical take-off) aircraft. So it needs some runway"

Really ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW28Mb1YvwY
Reply With Quote
  #241  
Old 29-11-2016, 10:52
PhilipG PhilipG is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Arundel, Sussex
Posts: 293
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlankDestroyer View Post
As stated on this forum before low intensity operations ordinance requirements will be less although with few F-35s in the Air Wing, operations could be intense for those on the flight deck and in the cockpit especially for a Wing of limited size.

I have read somewhere that quite a bit of ordinance is brought back these days against ISIS for example. A lack of precise targeting information and very restrictive ROE overlap to make delivering weapons more difficult. What the future brings nobody of course knows.

One more thing to think about is rigging a barricade for SRVL approaches. Is that part of the CVF design? Sure would add a measure of safety and may even be a necessity.
Very much my thoughts, implicitly targeting say ISIS is a low intensity operation, by which I mean only a few aircraft out at any time, not a target rich environment, so SRVL would seem sensible and appropriate.

The capacity of the brakes etc comes to mind, taking into account the weight problems, at one point I was worried that the B doing SRVL would need the C's double, heavier, front wheels and undercarriage.

There is I think a good argument for a barrier, "Sorry Sir we lost a X million F35B when doing an SRVL when the brakes failed, or whatever, it skidded over the side of the carrier, yes we did the SRVL so as not to have to dump 1.0m worth of weapons in the drink, so we had a total loss of an F35 and all the weapons it was carrying"
Reply With Quote
  #242  
Old 01-12-2016, 14:19
gruntfuttock gruntfuttock is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: nottingham
Posts: 1,036
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...20Bird%20Brief
Reply With Quote
  #243  
Old 01-12-2016, 18:19
Pelican's Avatar
Pelican Pelican is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,735
Exclamation Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

That should shut up a few sceptics elsewhere.
__________________
H.M.S. PELICAN - GGCV - L86 U86 B294 & F 86 - WHAT I HAVE I HOLD - 1938~1958 - 'A wonderful bird is the Pelican. Its beak can hold more than its belly can.'
Reply With Quote
  #244  
Old 01-12-2016, 20:32
Rupert Rupert is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,456
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by gruntfuttock View Post
"And the F35-B is not a true VTO (vertical take-off) aircraft. So it needs some runway"

Really ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW28Mb1YvwY
As the description of the video you linked to says:

Quote:
While not a capability used in combat, VTOs are required for repositioning of the STOVL in environments where a jet could not perform a short takeoff. In these cases, the jet, with a limited amount of fuel, would execute a VTO to travel a short distance.
So not a true VTO- noting that we were talking about austere ops so fuel and weapons would be needed
Reply With Quote
  #245  
Old 01-12-2016, 21:48
Surfgun Surfgun is online now
Vice-Admiral
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,586
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Summary video of latest testing. Note the sound editing is rough, but the content is good.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nAEur1tHtxA
Reply With Quote
  #246  
Old 01-12-2016, 23:01
gruntfuttock gruntfuttock is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: nottingham
Posts: 1,036
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
As the description of the video you linked to says:



So not a true VTO- noting that we were talking about austere ops so fuel and weapons would be needed

Well if you wish to split hairs, in the link you posted :-

" And the F35-B is not a true VTO (vertical take-off) aircraft. So it needs some runway."

So no. it doesn't need some runway and it is a VTOL. As the saying goes seeing is believing. Whilst saying it isn't used in combat, well to my knowledge that has yet to happen. So wait until the brown stuff hits the fan, then we will see.
Reply With Quote
  #247  
Old 01-12-2016, 23:08
gruntfuttock gruntfuttock is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: nottingham
Posts: 1,036
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelican View Post
That should shut up a few sceptics elsewhere.
Don't hold your breath on that one, it was the same with the Harrier until the Falklands, after that it couldn't do anything wrong. What always amazes me about it's critics, is that I haven't come across one yet who has actually flown it.
Reply With Quote
  #248  
Old 01-12-2016, 23:12
Rupert Rupert is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,456
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by gruntfuttock View Post
Well if you wish to split hairs, in the link you posted :-

" And the F35-B is not a true VTO (vertical take-off) aircraft. So it needs some runway."

So no. it doesn't need some runway and it is a VTOL. As the saying goes seeing is believing. Whilst saying it isn't used in combat, well to my knowledge that has yet to happen. So wait until the brown stuff hits the fan, then we will see.
Austere Ops involves weapons and more than a v light fuel load. So it needs a runway for austere ops which was the topic. Yes it can take off vertically. No that doesn't mean it is a true VTO aircraft. Do the manufacturers ever claim it is a VTOL aircraft? No. The USMC? the RAF? The RN. No, they all describe it as STOVL
Reply With Quote
  #249  
Old 02-12-2016, 10:46
gruntfuttock gruntfuttock is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: nottingham
Posts: 1,036
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

It's a VTOL.
Reply With Quote
  #250  
Old 02-12-2016, 11:09
jbryce1437's Avatar
jbryce1437 jbryce1437 is offline
Forum Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Roker, Sunderland, England
Posts: 8,942
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by gruntfuttock View Post
It's a VTOL.
The manufacturer may disagree with that
http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/us/products/f35.html

Jim
__________________
Old Ships: Raleigh 1963, Collingwood 63, Ark Royal 64, Collingwood 67, Undaunted 68, Porstmouth FMG 70, Exmouth 72, Victory 1974 as JEM, EM, OEM, LOEM, POOEL. Then 28 years in the Fire Service
Reply With Quote
Reply



Ship Search by Name : Advanced Search
Random Timeline Entry : 12th January 2007 : HMS Cumberland : Plymouth Sound

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
HMS Lightning and HMS Lookout TallPaul91 Royal Navy Ships and Crews 18 05-01-2018 20:41
HMS Martin G44 geekgirl101 Royal Navy Ships and Crews 5 21-10-2010 06:46
Lightning/Staunch/Victoria mossie Royal Navy Ships and Crews 0 29-07-2010 19:58
HMS Lightning jbc1 Royal Navy Ships and Crews 4 25-01-2008 22:51


All times are GMT. The time now is 22:50.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.