F-35 40 Knot Approach and Landing

[red admiral]

deleted

 

[Butters]

A 'desperation measure' that was in the original JCA requirement and that QinietiQ has been developing for a decade, or did you just choose to ignore that in your fight with FBJ?

Take a hard look at FBJ's 'argument' and you'll see why I can no more be bothered to continue my 'fight' with him than I can be bothered to fight with the Noah's Ark true believers. As for your assertion that that the SRVL was an original requirement for the JSF, I suggest you re-check your sources. Because the original requirement was for the ability to do a RVL, ie; the land-based manouver that Harriers have been using for years.

Here's a link that you can start with: Ares: A Defense Technology Blog: F-35B Challenges

If you check out the UK Naval Engineers site, you'll also see that while the VAAC Harrier made SRVL landings aboard the conventional carrier DeGaulle, it only made simulated SRVLs 'aboard' the Illustrious. This is because they believed it was unsafe to attempt do so on the Illustrious' approx 600 ft flight deck. This with an a/c that is much lighter than the F-35B...

The RSVL just HAS to work, because the much safer true vertical landings cannot be safely made with a CAP-loaded F-35B. Those heavy AAMRAMs and Meteors are a little too expensive to be jettisoned, and contrary to the claims of some, the F-35B DOES lacks the thrust margin vital to safe VL operations. And despite the fact that P&W is almost $3 billion dollars over budget ($7 bil or so, so far...) on a redesign of an existing engine, they now say that they will need both a new fan design and a new CORE for 'future upgrades'. Seems like a lotta money to spend when you already have 'ample'thrust to play with

JL

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Take a hard look at FBJ's 'argument' and you'll see why I can no more be bothered to continue my 'fight' with him than I can be bothered to fight with the Noah's Ark true believers.

Ha - and in the mean time the F-35 rolls down the assembly line to become the most advanced combat plane ever built. As stated until the program is cancelled for 'show cause' all you have are your opinions...

BTW - I like your link, too bad its 3 years old!

 

[Butters]

What's 'rolling' down the assembly lines and straight into the hangers are expensive things that look like advanced combat planes, but can't fight. In fact, they don't even fly. Kind'a like the A and C SDD jets...

BTW, I guess that I'm not gonna be seeing 100 F-35Cs on carrier decks within 5 yrs after all since they've pushed the IOC date to 2016. Which means more new SuperBugs unless they want to use those carrier decks as tennis courts. And as for my dated link, well the newest I could find is from '09, but it's the same old story. Simulated SRVLs seem to be more practical than the real thing when it comes to smaller flight decks, I guess...

QinetiQ solution for F-35B 'rolling landings' (QinetiQ)

The program probably won't be put completely out of its misery , but like the other Power Point dream machines of those living in Cloud Cukoo Land (that long lost place where money flowed like water and people were scared of the commies...) the numbers will be slashed and the unit price will continue to soar. Remember the 132 B-2s and the 750 F-22s? And that 41 cents of every dollar in the US budget is borrowed from folks like the Chinese?

JL

EDIT: Here's a link which clarifies when and why the RN decided to develop SRVL as SOP:

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf1-12.htm

 

[Waynos]

I have been extremely critical of the F-35B myself and I have stated on occasions that not only should the RN buy the F-35C but so too should the RAF as its greater wing area and internal fuel would allow for a decent Tornado replacement, even if we do require a two seater to be engineered, so it is odd that I seem to be in danger of becoming entrenched on the other side of this debate for a change.

I never mentioned the JSF requirement, so I do not know what was or what was not in it regarding VL's, also the article, which was fascinating btw, does not specify a 'when' SRVL's were adopted, as yopu claim, but the the 'why' is very clear. But then it always was. Likewise you seem to be making something out of the fact that Illustrious was considered too small for an actual SRVL and only simulated appraches were made.

Yes, and?

Thiese simulations proved that the Bedford Array work as advertised every time, which was the aim, and the the fact that F-35B could not operate from these 'Through Deck Cruisers' as they were once called, has always been very obvious, which is why the new carriers are so much bigger (if we get them, which is another debate). Indeed they are closer in size to the French carrier in which an SRVL was successfully demonstrated. Also the VAAC Harrier has performed fully automated landings on Illustrious (proper VL's of course) which was done many years ago and is a cornerstone of the F-35B's SRVL systems armoury. So far so good then?

Only you seem to be saying "the F-35 cannot do an SRVL onto a ship it was never intended to operate from - it is, therefore, crap" which does not seem to make a lot of sense.

 

[Glider]

I am a alittle late into this debate but have a few questions/comments on the following post.

What's 'rolling' down the assembly lines and straight into the hangers are expensive things that look like advanced combat planes, but can't fight. In fact, they don't even fly. Kind'a like the A and C SDD jets..

I admit that I cannot see where this comment is coming from. The F35 is being tested and by all accounts is going pretty well. Some delays at the start but you would be hard pushed to find a complex aircraft that didn't have these problems.

BTW, I guess that I'm not gonna be seeing 100 F-35Cs on carrier decks within 5 yrs after all since they've pushed the IOC date to 2016. Which means more new SuperBugs unless they want to use those carrier decks as tennis courts. And as for my dated link, well the newest I could find is from '09, but it's the same old story. Simulated SRVLs seem to be more practical than the real thing when it comes to smaller flight decks, I guess...

Doing an SRVL on an Illustrious may be small but the proposed RN carriers are a lot bigger than the Illustrious so I don't see the problem.
A lot of fuss is being made about the aircraft landing at 30 knots and hitting the deck in an unrestrained manner. Can I ask how you come to this figure. The ship will not be stationary, it will be going at about 25 knots into a wind which will of course vary, so the touchdown speed will be a lot less probably about 10 knots tops. With your experience on fishing boats you will be able to comment on average wind speeds in the Atlantic better than I.
If we cannot design brakes that would stop an aircraft going these sorts of speeds, we should go back to Sopwith Camels.

A number of comments have been made about the damage that would be done to the flight deck from the heat and blast. I don't see this as a problem. The jet from a Harrier is a lot closer to the deck than the F35 so I don't see that argument. As for the extra power the numbers seem to be unclear but the Harrier with its 23,000lb thrust is no gentle breaze and the blast is I believe more concentrated on the Harrier being effectively in two places with some small jets fore and aft and in the wing tips for control purposes.

 

[Waynos]

Just a couple of small points (though in this discussion we seem to be on the same side). The 'blast' from the F-35 is closer to the deck than from a Harrier, Butters is correct here. The Harrier nozzles being fixed to the side of the aircraft while the rear nozzle of the F-35 rotates down and below the fuselage line whilst the engine itself is close to twice as powerful as the Pegasus 11-21.

The Harrier vertical thrust does merge into a single column with cold air from the front nozzles mixing with the hot air from the rear pair (like a mixer tap) while in the F-35 the hot and cold streams are distinctly separate (like separate hot and cold taps, lol) so it would be the rear nozzle that causes any such problems rather than the front fan

 

[FLYBOYJ]

What's 'rolling' down the assembly lines and straight into the hangers are expensive things that look like advanced combat planes, but can't fight. In fact, they don't even fly. Kind'a like the A and C SDD jets...

The clip I posted was from Friday, the A model has been flying continually at EDW, wanna try again????

BTW, I guess that I'm not gonna be seeing 100 F-35Cs on carrier decks within 5 yrs after all since they've pushed the IOC date to 2016. Which means more new SuperBugs unless they want to use those carrier decks as tennis courts. And as for my dated link, well the newest I could find is from '09, but it's the same old story. Simulated SRVLs seem to be more practical than the real thing when it comes to smaller flight decks, I guess...

QinetiQ solution for F-35B 'rolling landings' (QinetiQ)

And again, based on speculation and half truths

The program probably won't be put completely out of its misery , but like the other Power Point dream machines of those living in Cloud Cukoo Land (that long lost place where money flowed like water and people were scared of the commies...) the numbers will be slashed and the unit price will continue to soar. Remember the 132 B-2s and the 750 F-22s? And that 41 cents of every dollar in the US budget is borrowed from folks like the Chinese?

More delirious ramblings - the B-2 was slashed because it wasn't needed, the cold war ended and that was that, same goes for the number of F-22s. Its funny how you're such an expert when you gather all your information from reading dated internet articles!! Again your perception of how the US spends its military dollars is out of whack, in the mean time the F-35 continues to roll - its funny how when you're stymied in your argument you bring up the US borrowing money and the Chinese!

Better just contact your PM and make sure Canada secures it commitment, I'd bet you'd bitch about the lack of Canadian suppliers when production goes full force!!!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I admit that I cannot see where this comment is coming from. The F35 is being tested and by all accounts is going pretty well. Some delays at the start but you would be hard pushed to find a complex aircraft that didn't have these problems.

Right now that's the only problem the program is faced with and from what I'm told one of the drivers behind the delayed schedule is the supplier base is not performing well in meeting schedule.

As stated, during one of the many DoD audits of the program, no engineering or manufacturing related quality problems were found.

 

[ppopsie]

A nice stable approach. Modern a/c are attractive too.

 

[Butters]

Waynos,

I have never argued that the F-35B cannot perform SRVLs, but rather that the SRVL is inherently more dangerous than a true vertical landing (Which is why Harriers make fuel-consuming and 'bring-back 'limiting VLs ...), and that the need for the F-35B to use an inherently more dangerous landing technique is a reflection of the inherent flaws of the a/c itself. It is quite simply underpowered, not to mention that due to the properties of its jet exhaust (Which FBJ seems to imply is different when at sea than on land...)preclude the possibility of it being landed vertically on existing decks as an SOP.

To gain any advantage from wing lift, a CAP-loaded F-35 must be travelling at a minimum of 60mph, and because carrier captains cannot order up wind on demand, you cannot rely on having a touchdown speed of less tha 30 mph. Higher if you're landing aboard an AAS. Which are after all, the ships the Marines plan on putting their F-35s aboard...

The problem with bringing the aircraft to a stop with brakes alone is not running off the other end of the deck. The problem is with veering off a straight path. A 16-18 ton airplane on three high-pressure tires is not the same as car, or even a semi. There's a lotta mass and inertia to deal with, esp on a deck that may be rolling, pitching, yawing, and wet. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that things can get dicey very quickly. Esp when the a/c cannot bolter if things go awry. BTW, doesn't it strike you as somewhat strange that even with a skilled test pilo, a minimal load in a lighter a/c, and the luxury of choosing the weather conditions, they didn't attempt a single SRVL landing on the Illustrious?

If you need an 800+ ft flight deck to safely carry out SRVLs, you might as well install catapults and arrestor cables so you can operate a/c that are not handicapped by the range, load, and aerodynamic limits that STOVL capability necessarily imposes.

Oh well, it's looking like moot point for the RN anyway, since it seems that they can afford either the carriers or the JSFs, but not both...

Glider: The blast from the hot nozzles of a Harrier is not only much slower, cooler(reportedly approx 1200 F versus 15-1700F), and significantly less, it's also less concentrated (2 nozzles on either side) and I suspect higher above the deck than the F-35B's aft nozzle. But if you wanna ignore what the USN says, and believe Lockmart, that's up to you.

JL

 

[Waynos]

Yes, I do see where you are coming frm with all that, but is it really such a problem?

Sea Harriers, or as we now have instead, 'Harriers at sea', have always used a standard VL because there was never any other option for recovery. It was also always a manual process.

The first automated landing by a STOVL aircraft at sea was only achieved in 2002, SRVLS must be automated I believe. Maybe the RN could have tried to develop it sooner, but would it have offered enough advantages to make it worthwhile?

I believe that the SRVL was always going to be required on the F-35, even without needing to generate wing lift to increase the 'bring back' load, exactly because of the concentrated jet blast you describe. It is not concievable to me to think that anyone ever thought this aircraft would do a standard VL onto a ship?

I also wonder how ill advised might have seemed catapults and arrestor wires when first proposed and this appears a much 'gentler' recovery opton than either of those?

Plus, I do agree that we might as well have a standard CV model anyway. It has superior range, payload and combat capability so I don't actually see where selection of this type over the STOVL model was 'marginal'?**



** oops, silly me. a higher proportion of the STOVL version is UK sourced of course.

I also have a feeling that we will manage to afford both, but it will mean the RAF having to replace Tornado with it too, another reason I would choose the F-35C as standard.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Waynos,

I have never argued that the F-35B cannot perform SRVLs, but rather that the SRVL is inherently more dangerous than a true vertical landing (Which is why Harriers make fuel-consuming and 'bring-back 'limiting VLs ...), and that the need for the F-35B to use an inherently more dangerous landing technique is a reflection of the inherent flaws of the a/c itself. It is quite simply underpowered, not to mention that due to the properties of its jet exhaust (Which FBJ seems to imply is different when at sea than on land...)preclude the possibility of it being landed vertically on existing decks as an SOP.

Prove that please

To gain any advantage from wing lift, a CAP-loaded F-35 must be travelling at a minimum of 60mph, and because carrier captains cannot order up wind on demand, you cannot rely on having a touchdown speed of less tha 30 mph. Higher if you're landing aboard an AAS. Which are after all, the ships the Marines plan on putting their F-35s aboard...

Did you forget about the natural headwind the aircraft will always be landing into based on the moving ship??????

The problem with bringing the aircraft to a stop with brakes alone is not running off the other end of the deck. The problem is with veering off a straight path. A 16-18 ton airplane on three high-pressure tires is not the same as car, or even a semi. There's a lotta mass and inertia to deal with, esp on a deck that may be rolling, pitching, yawing, and wet. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that things can get dicey very quickly. Esp when the a/c cannot bolter if things go awry. BTW, doesn't it strike you as somewhat strange that even with a skilled test pilo, a minimal load in a lighter a/c, and the luxury of choosing the weather conditions, they didn't attempt a single SRVL landing on the Illustrious?

Even older fighters moving at 30 knots can be quickly stopped, examine the brake system on the F-35 and you tell me why it won't work over a distance of say 100 feet, more than ample room needed for the F-35 to come aboard an AAS???

If you need an 800+ ft flight deck to safely carry out SRVLs, you might as well install catapults and arrestor cables so you can operate a/c that are not handicapped by the range, load, and aerodynamic limits that STOVL capability necessarily imposes.

Data?

Oh well, it's looking like moot point for the RN anyway, since it seems that they can afford either the carriers or the JSFs, but not both...

Perhaps, but again that argument lends nothing to any of your points

Glider: The blast from the hot nozzles of a Harrier is not only much slower, cooler(reportedly approx 1200 F versus 15-1700F), and significantly less, it's also less concentrated (2 nozzles on either side) and I suspect higher above the deck than the F-35B's aft nozzle. But if you wanna ignore what the USN says, and believe Lockmart, that's up to you.

JL

"You Suspect." Like everyting else you're coming up with?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Yes, I do see where you are coming frm with all that, but is it really such a problem?

Sea Harriers, or as we now have instead, 'Harriers at sea', have always used a standard VL because there was never any other option for recovery. It was also always a manual process.

The first automated landing by a STOVL aircraft at sea was only achieved in 2002, SRVLS must be automated I believe. Maybe the RN could have tried to develop it sooner, but would it have offered enough advantages to make it worthwhile?

I believe that the SRVL was always going to be required on the F-35, even without needing to generate wing lift to increase the 'bring back' load, exactly because of the concentrated jet blast you describe. It is not concievable to me to think that anyone ever thought this aircraft would do a standard VL onto a ship?

I also wonder how ill advised might have seemed catapults and arrestor wires when first proposed and this appears a much 'gentler' recovery opton than either of those?

Plus, I do agree that we might as well have a standard CV model anyway. It has superior range, payload and combat capability so I don't actually see where selection of this type over the STOVL model was 'marginal'?**



** oops, silly me. a higher proportion of the STOVL version is UK sourced of course.

I also have a feeling that we will manage to afford both, but it will mean the RAF having to replace Tornado with it too, another reason I would choose the F-35C as standard.

Agree on all points, even about the F-35C

 

[FLYBOYJ]

If you need an 800+ ft flight deck to safely carry out SRVLs, you might as well install catapults and arrestor cables so you can operate a/c that are not handicapped by the range, load, and aerodynamic limits that STOVL capability necessarily imposes.

This was from the original post ref. your in 2007 post of the JSF...

"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".

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".

The test last Friday showed the aircraft could approach at 60 knots (It actually did 45) so I guess this 800' stopping distance is based on your vast knowlege of the F-35 brake system that you feel is inferior?!?

 

[Glider]

Glider: The blast from the hot nozzles of a Harrier is not only much slower, cooler(reportedly approx 1200 F versus 15-1700F), and significantly less, it's also less concentrated (2 nozzles on either side) and I suspect higher above the deck than the F-35B's aft nozzle. But if you wanna ignore what the USN says, and believe Lockmart, that's up to you.

JL

1200F vs 15-1700F shouldn't make any difference to a flight deck. Also the temperature is spread out along the deck and not concentrated on one spot so the impact is minimal.
The hight of the jet I will go along with.

However you haven't replied to the question of the headwind. If you need a max of 60 kts (by the way where did this figure come from, as lift is generated at any spead although the faster the better) the ship is going 25 kts so in a flat calm you are looking at 35kts. Your the one claiming experience in fishing boats at sea how many days is the wind less than say 10kts.

 

[Matt308]

Let's see, the F-22 maneuverability is a simple indicator of a $335M aerobatic stunt and the F-35 is an underpowered deck crasher.

 

[Matt308]

 

[FLYBOYJ]

 

[beaupower32]