Powered by Invision Power Board


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

> Oz F-35bs On Oz Lhds Potential
Luig
Posted: Nov 9 2014, 12:35 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 1,882
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06



Dave Baddams gets a Guernsey on SLDinfo:

Australia and F-35Bs: Examining an Option for the Australian Defense Force 08 Nov 2014 SLDinfo
QUOTE
"...In an input to the Defence White Paper process, David Baddams has had his paper on F-35Bs published on the Australian Ministry of Defence website...."
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: Nov 17 2014, 12:58 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 1,882
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06



No time to read this PDF yet but will do soon. Meanwhile....

Jump jets for the ADF?
17 Nov 2014 Richard Brabin-Smith, Benjamin Schreer | Australian Strategic Policy Institute
QUOTE
"This report argues that the costs of Australia acquiring F-35B Joint Strike Fighter short take-off, vertical landing aircraft outweigh the potential benefits.

Overview
Is there a case for Australia to acquire F-35B Joint Strike Fighter short take-off, vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft to operate from the two new Canberra-class landing helicopter docks (LHDs)? The government has directed that this question be addressed in the development of the 2015 Defence White Paper.

This report is an independent assessment of the costs and potential benefits of such an acquisition. Reintroducing organic naval air power into the ADF would be a big strategic decision, and very complex and expensive, so it’s important to have a clear view of the circumstances in which it might be beneficial enough to be worth pursuing. And it’s important to be aware not only of the direct costs but also of the potential risks and opportunity costs. Overall, this report concludes that the benefits would be marginal at best, wouldn’t be commensurate with the costs and other consequences for the ADF, and would potentially divert funding and attention from more valuable force."
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Grumpy Cobra
Posted: Nov 17 2014, 09:56 PM
Quote Post


Douglas Skyhawk (N13)
*

Group: Members
Posts: 109
Member No.: 1,724
Joined: 30-October 08



These ASPI clowns wouldn't know anything about the benefits of STOVL - what a load of rubbish - they clearly have no idea - foregone opportunity cost of operating Ospreys what tripe - these clowns probably don't even know the LHD has only one flight spot for Ospreys; Low intensity Pacific island ops - says it all about the knowledge of the authors

This post has been edited by Grumpy Cobra on Nov 17 2014, 09:57 PM
PMEmail Poster
Top
Warhawk
  Posted: Nov 20 2014, 01:11 PM
Quote Post


ADF Serials Research Co-ord
*

Group: ADF Serials Admin
Posts: 1,927
Member No.: 82
Joined: 9-March 06



Gotta say,..in respectable Adult-ship talk, we really can't afford or resource them.

Threat levels current with FTA's (free trade agreements) signed or to be signed( Japan, Sth Korea, China, and India next year) is low,.....it seems that the US of A is the only heart ache who doesn't want to "get on" (Aside from North Korea, ISIL and Russia)

Maybe the money would be better spent on a fourth AWD(or at least a warehouse full of SM6's and Land Attack Missiles for the 3) and three more KC-30's.

Always worried about the basic bomb Truck issue of using a $105 million dollar aircraft to take out a $50 Thousand 23mm truck mounted weapon or a $2 million Patrol Boat verses the magic BB SAM Shot.

Keep the Supers for that, and resource both them and the F-35A till 2035.

Mind you we did resource the RANFAA during Indo Konfronski from Mid 1965 ordering A4s and S2s,...but they didn't arrive until after the events some three years later!!! Some thinking needed on that one.

Then again,..was it the SAM Bloodhounds based in Darwin that scared them off?

As a tax payer,.....I worry at nights about directions we sometimes go to ensure a viable industry based economy,..but aside from the Bushmaster and Frigate upgrade,...we ain't doing us proud( ie:AWD/Subs) So why not base purchases on Service use first,..then the carrot of Industry involvement.

But,......both Italy, UK, Japan, and even Israel manufacture "major" components quite out of proportion to the number being bought compared to our buy of 72 F-35As and our involvement. So why so????? It just gived me a headache as there is no direct answer on the where and why so,......

Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Gordy

Attached Image
Attached Image
PMEmail Poster
Top
Luig
Posted: Nov 20 2014, 02:17 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 1,882
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06



Yeah I guess revisionist history is easy. However the RAN was worried about Indonesian Badgers and Kennel missiles. Buying stuff during/after an event may indicate the worry of a repeat? And yet I like the way the RAAF rarely went anywhere with their fast jets over decades until only relatively recently (with Binny at the helm). Perhaps I'm being revisionist in a funny way?

Fleet Defence is important to the FLEET - if not to the RAAF. Plenty of accurate historical information in my PDFs here:

https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=cbcd63d6340707e6&sa=822839791
OR
https://drive.google.com/?authuser=0#folder...aDhIQ0szeVJFY0U

QUOTE
“In the summer of 1961, twenty TU-16KS [Badgers] were sold to Indonesia.”
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: Nov 23 2014, 02:58 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 1,882
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06



This info e-mailed to me today which may prove interesting for some? A mixture of F-35 topics in this audio interview however the F-35B and CVF are mentioned most so it'll go here.

Sea Control 28 (East Atlantic) – The F-35 March 2014 By LT Matthew Hipple speaking to STEVE GEORGE
QUOTE
"For the inaugural edition of Sea Control’s “East Atlantic” series, Alexander Clarke brings on Steve George, former engineer with the F-35 program and Royal Navy veteran to discuss the challenges and misconceptions of the F-35 program."
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Aardvark
Posted: Nov 23 2014, 06:16 PM
Quote Post


General Dynamics F-111 (A8)
*

Group: Members
Posts: 237
Member No.: 3,706
Joined: 1-October 10



Luig

Not exactly sure what you are trying to say here with your quote

"And yet I like the way the RAAF rarely went anywhere with their fast jets over decades until only relatively recently (with Binny at the helm)."

Could you elaborate please.
PMEmail Poster
Top
Luig
Posted: Nov 23 2014, 07:01 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 1,882
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06



Sure. You missed the last sentence which I had hoped explained it all:
QUOTE
"...Perhaps I'm being revisionist in a funny way?"
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: Nov 26 2014, 04:23 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 1,882
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06



Another weigh in on the Bs on LHDs from a knowledgeable source. It is good to see some claims other than 'it can't be done' for XYZ reasons. The White Paper may reveal more about the 'ease of fitting Bs on LHDs'. I can happily accept that any special RAN Fixed Wing is dead with some salt water DNA injection into the crabs via Willytown exchanges. :-) It is sad to know that STOVL experienced former A4G personnel are not employed to help out with the White Paper (I'm not one of those of course). Perhaps that can be remedied easily. Binny knows about A4Gs.

F-35 strike fighters for the Canberra-class? 24 Nov 2014 David Baddams
QUOTE
"...Minor refits indeed. The never-ending claim that the Canberras are not F-35 capable is the bloviating of spectacularly ill-informed mugwumps. The Canberras are delivered with the same hardened fast-jet deck and underpinnings as the Spanish navy’s lead ship, and all essential internal aviation spaces for fast jets have been retained. All of them. This was intentional and a specific factor in the acquisition process. The much-maligned aviation fuel bunkers and weapons stowage spaces have near-identical capacity to the enormous ones in the Spanish ship. Senior personnel have been poorly briefed if they state otherwise.

The fast jet and helo aviation capabilities of the French Mistral and Italian Cavour class were closely examined at the time, and the Spanish design came up trumps in all respects. Right now, the known requirements at refit for F-35Bs are a precision landing light called a HIHAT – it looks like a long green crucifix and is attached the middle mast – some sensor enhancements and Thermion coating on the flight deck. Some existing kit might need to be moved from A to B for electro-magnetic reasons. The glide slope kit, known as GLIS, is already fitted to the Canberras. This is the stuff of minor refit, and no more.

Refit and F-35Bs would deliver a motza more capability. More choices. There is no “niche capability” about six or eight embarked F-35Bs, where sensor fusion and data networking go merrily berserk when four are in the same airspace. That picture of threat and strike solution available to both pilots, controllers and commanders will offer startlingly long reach that any enemy is highly unlikely to penetrate without huge loss. He who sees first and shoots first wins. The days of close-up dogfighting or chasing missiles are long over, and a bad guy sneaking through a “niche” 4-ship of ADF F-35Bs protecting an LHD force would face being seen and shot at before he knew he or his ammunition was a target.

It is no good for pontificating PhDs of think-tankery to praise and extol emerging threats and the peril they pose to the LHDs and then dismiss the essential counterpunch as a tiny and extravagant toy. Further, their doctoral eminences need to learn that of 100 ADF F-35s only 60 or so will ever be in line service. The rest will be in attrition reserve, maintenance, repair or required for development work. The mooted 28 F-35Bs would easily provide three for attrition reserve, three in deep maintenance, one hangar queen, two flights of six or eight for the Canberras and a flight for conversion, training and reinforcement.

There is nothing “niche” in the relative or actual of these numbers. They are the sorts of numbers that current and probable F-35B operators use. So long as the powers-that-be are committed to supporting this through the F-35B’s life-of-type then the ADF can do this in a doddle...."

http://navalinstitute.com.au/f-35-strike-f...canberra-class/

212Kb PDF attached is perhaps readable on a tablet? I have no idea - no tablet.

This post has been edited by Luig on Nov 26 2014, 04:57 AM

Attached File ( Number of downloads: 467 )
Attached File  F_35_strike_fighters_for_the_Canberra_class____Australian_Naval_Institute_PRNpp2.pdf
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: Nov 28 2014, 07:36 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 1,882
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06



ONLY some woids from this excellent 6 page PDF article from Dec 2014 edition of Air International are excerpted below.

Cats, Traps & a Rooster Tail December 2014 Mark Ayton Air International
QUOTE
"[F-35C Aircraft] “...CF-03/‘SD73’ and CF-05/‘SD75’...

...DEVELOPMENTAL TESTER TEST DIRECTOR
Cdr Shawn Kern is the Director of Test and Evaluation for F-35 Naval Variants and the senior military member within the F-35 Integrated Test Force (ITF) based at Patuxent River. He leads a diverse team comprising 920 members from the US Government, the military and contractors responsible for developmental test of the F-35B and F-35C aircraft during the System Development and Demonstration phase. During DT I, Cdr Kern led the F-35 ITF, provided government oversight of carrier suitability testing and co-ordinated with the USS Nimitz’s captain, executive officers and other F-35 stakeholders.

He told AIR International: “Launch testing included minimum catapult end speed determination as well as performance and handling during high and low energy catapult launches and crosswind conditions at representative aircraft gross weights. Approach and recovery testing focused on aircraft performance and handling qualities during off-nominal recoveries in low, medium, high and crosswind wind conditions. Data and analysis from DT I will support the development of initial aircraft launch and recovery bulletins for F-35C carrier operations and Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardisation (NATOPS) flight manual procedures. Test results from DT I will also influence follow-on developmental and operational testing required to achieve F-35C initial operational capability.”

Lt Cdr Ted Dyckman is a US Navy F-35 test pilot assigned to VX-23 based at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland: he made the second-ever arrested landing on a super carrier in aircraft CF-05 on November 3 and the first night-time landing on November 13 in CF-03. Speaking about the F-35C’s performance around the carrier, Lt Cdr Dyckman told AIR International: “Everything met expectations and there were no surprises. Going through the burble was a big unknown, but the airplane responded better than we thought it would.

“We saw that the aircraft could trap: the only true bolter was a power call by the Landing Signals Officer when the aircraft touched down long with the hook down but came around and made an arrested landing.

“When the weather started to deteriorate we had such confidence in how the aircraft was flying that we lowered the weather minimums to those used by the fleet. I knew that when I lowered the hook I was going to trap. That says a lot for the airplane.

“Because the autopilots and flying qualities are so good, the workload to fly the jet is reduced and we were confident enough to declare it ready for night-time traps. It flew very well behind the ship and I made two hook-down passes and two traps. It’s unheard of to conduct night ops on a type’s first period at sea.

“We accomplished everything we set out to do, which allows us to go to DT II and conduct maximum speed catapult shots and carry internal and external stores and asymmetric payloads.”...

...Flight testing was split into three phases: day carrier qualification (CQ) and flight deck crew familiarisation; the development of aircraft launch bulletins (ALB) and aircraft recovery bulletins (ARB). In addition DT I also included Logistical Test and Evaluation (LT&E). Subsets of each phase comprised:

Aircraft Launch Bulletins
• Military rated thrust catapult launches
• Minimum catapult launch end speeds
• Low, medium and high excess wind over deck (WOD) catapult launches
• Crosswind catapult launches
• Bow and waist catapult launches

Aircraft Recovery Bulletins
• Approach handling qualities (AHQ) of F-35C approach modes: delta flight path, approach power compensator (APC), and manual
• Low, medium and high excess WOD recoveries
• Crosswind recoveries

• Bolter performance Logistical Test and Evaluation
• Deck handling including taxiing, towing and tie-down
• Weapons loading
• Basic maintenance, including aircraft jacking and landing gear servicing
• Maintenance support

Preparations
Since the author’s previous visit to the F-35 ITF at Pax River in April the main test objectives completed over the summer were arrested landings, touch and goes (a training evolution also known as field carrier landing practice or FCLP) and a structural survey of CF-03. The latter was a methodical check of the aircraft to ensure it was structurally suitable to be flown aboard an aircraft carrier. The survey included testing engineering fixes made to the aircraft’s pitch pivot pin and nose wheel steering motor. Although precautionary, the survey was required because functionality problems had been discovered with each component during the F-35C’s developmental flight test programme. A subset of the structural testing performed on CF-03, known as a shake, was also completed on CF-05 to ensure it was also suitable for carrier trials. No issues were found.

One other pre-deployment test evolution was electromagnetic environmental effects (E3). This required CF-03 to spend two weeks in the shielded hangar at Pax River, to ensure that electromagnetic interference from the ship’s emitters did not affect any of the aircraft’s vital systems and cause them to shut down. The official E3 test report was completed on October 16 which cleared the aircraft to embark onboard the carrier.

All requisite carrier suitability testing was concluded on October 17 and the final FCLPs were completed at Pax River four days later.

One interruption to the test programme over the summer was caused by the temporary grounding order resulting from an engine fire on F-35A AF-27, serial number 10-5015, at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida on June 23. Each engine underwent a rigorous inspection process and because of the priority given to DT I, CF-03 was the first to be inspected, analysed and cleared back to flight: CF-05 followed....

...No modifications were required to the flight deck, not even the Jet Blast Deflectors (JBDs): hydraulic-controlled panels designed to divert hot aircraft exhaust during launches. The panels are raised in preparation for takeoff, protecting the flight deck and aircraft behind from the hot aircraft exhaust. Modification of the JBDs will be required for subsequent DT evolutions, when afterburner will be required to launch aircraft with heavier all-up weights than those used during DT I. Any changes implemented will alter the cooling path of the F-35’s exhaust plume, which interacts with the carrier’s decking differently from that of the twin-engined members of the Hornet family....

...Support Onboard and from Ashore
DT I was supported by a pre-production, nonfleet representative version of the Autonomic Logistics Information System known as ALIS 1.03. According to the F-35 Joint Program Office: “Standard ALIS functions were in place and used to support F-35C operations and maintenance onboard USS Nimitz. The functions were accessible via approved Department of Defense network and cyber security policies and authorisations similar to ALIS support for F-35B STOVL deployments to the USS Wasp (LHD 1)....

...Increased robustness in the aircraft’s control laws refers to:
• Pro-rotation during a catapult and bolter.
• Integrated Direct Lift Control which integrates the control surfaces such that wing camber is altered to increase or decrease lift, thus allowing glide slope changes to be made without a large change in engine thrust.
• Delta Flight Path, which is an innovative leap in aircraft flight controls, that commands the aircraft to capture and maintain a glide slope. The system greatly reduces the pilot’s workload, increases the safety margins during carrier approaches and reduces touchdown dispersion.

Wind Effects
Aircraft carriers are unique in that they have different wind effects that the pilot and the aircraft’s flight control laws must take into account. The overall wind effect is called the burble,...

...“We are evaluating how the control law handles through the burble. Data collected during DT I will now be used by the control law engineers for analysis and to improve our simulator modelling. Because the burble is such a dynamic and integrated wind system there are challenges to modelling it accurately. Future F-35 pilot training will benefit from this work,” said Cdr Wilson....

...We started making intentional errors in our approaches [off-nominal]. This allowed us to see how the aircraft’s flight control laws react to corrections input by the pilot and the effect of the burble while trying to make the corrections. “The pilot intentionally lines up [on approach] on either side of the landing area…starting either high or low, or flying fast or slow to see if there is enough time to input the correction and get back on centreline, on glide slope and on speed [flying a proper approach speed] prior to touch down. “As we fly off nominal approaches, if the LSO [landing signals officer] doesn’t see a timely correction or doesn’t feel that the pilot is going to land safely, he or she will wave them off.

“The LSO [who is located on a platform positioned 120ft (36.6m) from the end of the ship and 40ft (12.2m) from the centreline on the port side] is a pilot trained to observe the aircraft as it flies down the approach watching for deviation in pitch attitude using a camera that shows whether the aircraft is on or off centreline. Listening to the aircraft, the LSO is trained to recognise changes in rates of vertical and horizontal movement to ensure the aircraft is going to clear the ramp at the aft of the ship and recover safely aboard. The LSO plays a vital role in the safe recovery of aircraft aboard the ship.

“Getting aircraft back to the boat is our first concern: our second is [preventing] what we call a long bolter. This occurs if the pilot fails to correct a big deviation and lands well beyond the four-wire [the last arrestment cable along the deck]. For safety purposes any time an aircraft touches down on the deck, the pilot needs sufficient deck to derotate, and get the throttle back to mil[itary] power to fly away. There’s not enough time for the plane to de-rotate with a long bolter, which means it could still have downward direction so when [the aircraft] rolls off the front end of the boat it’s going to sink....

...evaluated approaches with crosswinds behind the ship out to 7kts....

...“We also evaluated approach handling qualities in low and high wind conditions: low is 10 to 20kt, nominal is 20 to 30kt and high is in excess of 30kt. The team’s goal for DT I was to gain as much data with cross winds and various head winds to allow us to start writing our aircraft launch and recovery bulletins.”

What Next?
Testing around the carrier gets more complicated with aircraft weight and asymmetry. On subsequent DT events the F-35 ITF will increase aircraft weight and asymmetry by loading stores on one side to create as much asymmetry as possible, which is the complicating factor. Cdr Wilson told AIR International that testing on subsequent DT events is going to look very similar but will evaluate heavier weights and asymmetric lateral weight differences.

OUTCOMES FROM DT I
• Flight test conducted in the operational environment.
• The F-35C demonstrated exceptional handling qualities throughout all launch and recovery conditions tested.
• All four test pilots rated the F-35C to be very easy to operate from the carrier. Arrested landings were consistent: the aircraft caught the optimal three-wire in the majority of the 102 traps. Pilot comments included: “I noticed the burble, but the aircraft just takes care of it”, “It makes flying the ball comfortable” and “This thing is a three-wire machine”....

...STATISTICS FROM DT I
Start date: November 3
Completion date: November 14
Flights: 33
Flight hours: 39.2
Catapult launches: 124
Touch-and-goes: 222
Arrested landings: 124
Bolters: 2 intentional with the hook down
Threshold test points completed: 100%”
pp 42-47 Air International December 2014

This post has been edited by Luig on Nov 28 2014, 08:02 AM
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Aardvark
Posted: Dec 4 2014, 10:05 PM
Quote Post


General Dynamics F-111 (A8)
*

Group: Members
Posts: 237
Member No.: 3,706
Joined: 1-October 10



RAAF personnel are already part of HMAS Canberra's crew.

http://airforcenews.realviewdigital.com/#folio=6
PMEmail Poster
Top
Luig
Posted: Dec 5 2014, 07:25 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 1,882
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06



Thanks. I absolutely detest these online ADF news websites - YMMV - I go look for the PDF editions which are so much more readable and of course usable for my purposes. So go here:
[or download the page attached here] YOU MUST RIGHT MOUSE CLICK on the PDF ATTACHMENT link below to 'SAVE AS' to your computer otherwise tears before tea time methinks?

http://www.defence.gov.au/news/raafnews/ed...s/5623/5623.pdf (9Mb)

This post has been edited by Luig on Dec 5 2014, 07:28 AM

Attached File ( Number of downloads: 229 )
Attached File  RAAF_on_LHDs_04dec2014_5623_prn_PDF_forum.pdf
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Aardvark
Posted: Dec 5 2014, 10:12 AM
Quote Post


General Dynamics F-111 (A8)
*

Group: Members
Posts: 237
Member No.: 3,706
Joined: 1-October 10



Given that one of them is wearing a RAN camo suit these three may be the only people in the ADF entitled to issue of all three camo suits.

We may be moving to a Canadian type system without even realising it.
PMEmail Poster
Top
Luig
Posted: Dec 17 2014, 07:37 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 1,882
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06



Some ideas about how the USMC will go about their Bee Basing Business....

Marines Propose Rapidly Mobile F-35 Operations Marines push shell-game plan for JSF survival
16 Dec 2014 Bill Sweetman | Aviation Week & Space Technology
QUOTE
"Fast Movers
An ambitious plan to move short-takeoff, vertical-landing (STOVL) Lockheed Martin F-35B Joint Strike Fighter units rapidly between multiple temporary bases—to protect both the aircraft and U.S. Navy amphibious-warfare ships from theater-range guided ballistic and cruise missiles—is being explored by the U.S. Marine Corps and was the focus of an October wargame....

...The new Conops is known as distributed Stovl operations (DSO), according to Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, Marine deputy commandant for aviation. The objective is to sustain air operations from bases in allied territory that are within the range of hostile missiles. By using mobile forward arming and refueling points (M-Farps), the F-35Bs—which have the shortest range of any F-35 variant—can respond more quickly to operational needs, generate more sorties and reach deeper into enemy territory than they could if they were based outside missile range. The DSO plan envisages the use of Bell/Boeing MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft to provide air refueling support to the F-35B.

Mobility is the key to the DSO concept, according to Davis and the most recent Marine aviation plan, which was produced under his leadership. The M-Farps are intended to be moved around the theater inside the adversary’s targeting cycle—assumed to be 24-48 hr.—so that they can survive without active defense against missile attacks. Decoy M-Farps would be established to complicate the targeting problem.

The DSO concept is scalable, from units operating a handful of aircraft to multi-squadron forces, the Marine planning document says. The smaller units could be supported by helicopters, although Davis says that in most cases the M-Farp will be able to accommodate Lockheed Martin KC-130J tankers to deliver fuel, and could also be located in littoral areas and supplied by sea links from ships, via mobile distribution sites on land. The M-Farps could be based on small airfields, multi-lane roads or damaged main bases, the aviation plan suggests F-35Bs would return to U.S. Navy ships, rear-area U.S. Air Force bases or coalition carriers for scheduled maintenance.

Metal planking would be needed to protect unprepared roads from the F-35B’s exhaust, Davis says, and the Marines are studying lighter and more heat-resistant products. The planking would be moved between M-Farp sites by helicopter...."
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: Feb 5 2015, 10:55 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 1,882
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06



This Magazine Cover was sent to me so I have not read the contents - looks interestin' - no?

THE NAVY Jan-Mar 2015 Vol. 77 No.1

Attached Image
Attached Image
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: Feb 25 2015, 12:57 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 1,882
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06



Lockheed F-35 heads for the ski jump in next key round of tests 24 Feb 2015 Andrea Shalal (Editing by Matthew Lewis)
QUOTE
“Feb 24 (Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will start "ski-jump testing" at a Maryland air base this week, while another B-model jet wraps up six months of tests at temperatures as low as minus 40 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 40 Celsius) to as high as 120 F (49 C).

Two UK pilots will test the ability of the new warplane to take off from upward-sloping ski-jump ramps used on aircraft carriers like those operated by Britain and Italy. The ramps launch the jets forward and upward, reducing the thrust need-ed. [Not true - the take off distance is reduced - as per F-35B KPPs]

Sylvia Pierson, spokeswoman for the Pentagon's F-35 pro-gram office, said two British pilots, one from BAE Systems Plc and the other from the British Royal Navy, would use the first UK F-35B jet to complete the testing through late May....”
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: Feb 25 2015, 05:55 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 1,882
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06



Avalon 2015: Bell touts AH-1Z as maritime attack platform for Australia
Gareth Jennings, Melbourne 24 Feb 2015
QUOTE
"Bell Helicopter is pitching its AH-1Z Viper helicopter to the Australian Defence Force (ADF) to be utilised as a maritime attack platform aboard its two landing helicopter dock (LHD) amphibious assault ships, a company representative told IHS Jane's at the Avalon Airshow yesterday (24 February).

Bob Carrese, regional vice-president for Asia-Pacific, said while there is no formal Australian requirement, Bell Helicopter is briefing the ADF on the Viper's capabilities ahead of an expected decision on whether to upgrade its Airbus Helicopters Tigers to a maritime configuration.

"The AH-1Z is already doing all of the missions that the ADF is doing [with the Tiger], and more."..."
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: Mar 14 2015, 11:49 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 1,882
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06



L 61 Juan Carlos I Apontaje de un harrier - Spanish aircraft carrier operations Published on Dec 24, 2014

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KIagzoiytI
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: Jun 23 2015, 08:47 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 1,882
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06



First F-35B ski-jump launch, June 2015

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIO5K-fUMzQ
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: Jul 8 2015, 03:44 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 1,882
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06



PM's floating fighter jet plan quietly sunk by Defence 07 Jul 2015 John Kerin
QUOTE
"Prime Minister Tony Abbott's proposal to put F-35 fighter jets on the Navy's two 27,000-tonne troop transport assault ships has been quietly dropped ahead of the government's defence white paper after it was found the ships would require extensive reworking and the project was too costly.

Mr Abbott asked defence planners in May last year to examine the possibility of putting up to 12 of the short-take-off and vertical-landing F-35Bs on to the two ships – the largest in the Navy – which carry helicopters and are likely to be primarily used to transport troops and equipment to war or disaster zones....

...Defence sources have told The Australian Financial Review that the proposal was "still in the white paper mix" up until some weeks ago.

But one source close to the white paper was emphatic on Tuesday that "it will now not make the cut".

"There were just too many technical difficulties involved in modifying a ship which takes helicopters to take fighter jets and it is also very expensive," the source said. "You can safely say it has been dropped."

The white paper, which lays down the Abbott government's 20-year vision for defence – including a $275 billion-plus weapons wishlist – is expected to be released next month...."
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: Sep 28 2015, 02:48 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 1,882
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06



Salty Dogs & Funky Jets October 2015 Mark Ayton

"...Ski Jump Trials
Her Majesty’s Ship Queen Elizabeth (R 08) is fitted with a ski jump like no other: a new design tailored to be used by very expensive new aircraft. Launching a 60,000lb F-35B off a ski jump requires some serious maths, engineering and testing.

The F-35B ski jump test campaign should have started in March of this year, but was delayed due to brutal sub-zero temperatures and snow that blighted Patuxent River at the time. Aircraft BF-01 was originally assigned to conduct the ski jump events but was unable to remain at Pax while the weather improved. It was already scheduled to deploy to Edwards Air Force Base, California to conduct wet runway and crosswind testing.

The test programme comprises two phases, the first of which eventually began on June 19 when BAE Systems test pilot Peter Wilson conducted the first take-off using the ski jump at Pax with F-35B BF-04. Sqn Ldr Edgell told AIR International: “Phase 1 is a risk-reduction phase designed to highlight any significant hardware or software updates that may be required prior to commencing the bulk of testing. It comprises 29 ski-jump launches.

“Phase 1 will ensure our models and predictions are correct. If anything needs addressing we can do so in a timely fashion and then go into the 140-sortie Phase 2.”

The ski jump used on HMS Queen Elizabeth has a curved leading edge designed to simultaneously launch an F-35B upward and forward with a greater take-off weight and less end-speed than required for an unassisted horizontal launch aboard an LHD-class amphibious assault ship, such as USS Wasp (LHD 1).

The reader may be surprised to learn that the ski ramp built at Pax River is based on the type used on the Invincible-class aircraft carriers which is a little bit shorter (50ft) and slightly shallower (0.5º) than the ramp on Queen Elizabeth-class carriers. Sqn Ldr Edgell explained: “The Pax River ramp design process dates back to 2005 but, at the time, the Queen Elizabeth ramp profile was not known. Analysis conducted in 2005 showed we simply needed to use a ramp with a profile that allows us to stay just under the predicted F-35B ultimate loads and the Invincible-class ramp achieved this.”

Pax River’s ramp allows the test team to make adjustments for different profiles and encompass everything below the ultimate loads of the aircraft. “Though the verification of our models during phases 1 and 2 we can tweak the control laws to work off other types of ramp, none of which are the same,” said Sqn Ldr Edgell. When the aircraft comes off the end it is ballistic and accelerates to the fly away air speed, typically 10-20kts higher than launch speed, and therefore reduces ground roll.

“There’s a fine line between ensuring we have suitable gear loads and fly away speed,” explained Sqn Ldr Edgell.

“We want lots of margin on both of those. To achieve margin for gear loads we need to be slow, i.e. start right at the bottom of the ramp. To achieve margin on minimum fly away speed we need to start towards the back of the run-up. We blend the two aspects together and meet in the middle to gain the safest launch spot. For the very first sortie, our spotting distance will be conservative and will launch the jet off the end of the ramp straight into a previously flown flight condition.”

Such regimes have been flown several times during short take-offs at the field and STOVL departures.

Sqn Ldr Edgell explained an interesting fact about the take-off : “You can be lined up three, four, five hundred feet back from the start of the ramp and as you slam the throttle forwards, the jet doesn’t know it’s about to go up the ski jump. It waits for certain triggers to alert it to the fact it’s going off the ski jump, at which point its flight control system moves the horizontal tails and the nozzles into the optimum position. It needs to hit 45 knots going up the ramp.

“The throttle needs to be above 65% ETR, with 6 degrees of attitude and a pitch rate of 6 degrees per second. At that point it moves all of the effectors into the right place. Bear in mind the ski jump at Pax is only 150 feet long, so the aircraft hits all of those parameters with less than 100 feet remaining. By the time it goes off the edge of the ramp all the surfaces and the nozzles are at the optimum position, the aircraft rotates up to the optimum pitch attitude to fly away. It’s pretty clever stuff.”

Sqn Ldr Edgell described the launch process: “You slam the throttle and guard the stick. There is no input on the stick required. As the aircraft moves down the tramline of the deck you track the centre line with your feet, just like any other carrier deck take-off, but there’s no pitch input required. The jet flies away. It’s effortless.” In the event of any kind of malfunction, the pilot takes control and manually flies off the edge of the ramp, which is why he must guard the stick during the roll.

There is no significant part for the pilot to play in the take-off – the result of a design philosophy to minimise the pilot’s workload. A good example is tracking the centreline on a rolling pitching deck at night. That’s a challenge in a Harrier but in the F-35B it’s his only task so he should do a much better job. The administrative burden on the pilot has been significantly reduced: in this situation to an effortless level.

Phase 2 will introduce crosswinds, external stores, asymmetry, minimum performance (minimum deck) launches from the bottom of the ramp, and simulated performance degradation all to increase the aircraft’s flight envelope in Block 3F configuration. That’s imperative work for the UK which will undertake first-in-class flight trials on HMS Queen Elizabeth in the final quarter of 2018...."
Air International Magazine OCTOBER 2015 Vol.89 No.4

This post has been edited by Luig on Sep 28 2015, 03:09 AM
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: Dec 5 2015, 07:42 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 1,882
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06



HMAS Adelaide online 04 Dec 2015 Four page (two side be side) into a two page PDF made from URL attached.

http://news.navy.gov.au/en/Dec2015/Fleet/2...ers-service.htm

EARLIER STORY HERE: http://news.navy.gov.au/en/Dec2015/Fleet/2541

This post has been edited by Luig on Dec 5 2015, 07:46 PM

Attached File ( Number of downloads: 169 )
Attached File  HMAS_Adelaide_enters_service_Navy_DailyPRNpp2.pdf
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
FlyCookie
Posted: Feb 14 2016, 03:33 AM
Quote Post


Douglas Skyhawk (N13)
*

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



Nice report from, Channel 7: the journo obviously did some homework before his sea ride. Good for him. Nice use of a camera-drone, too.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFV3EfR4n2g




This post has been edited by FlyCookie on Feb 14 2016, 07:16 AM
PMEmail Poster
Top
Grumpy Cobra
Posted: May 3 2016, 11:33 AM
Quote Post


Douglas Skyhawk (N13)
*

Group: Members
Posts: 109
Member No.: 1,724
Joined: 30-October 08



If below report is accurate Turkey will be first operator of F-35B/LHD Kebab Combo!

Why has that not made Western mainstream media yet? Perhaps because the President's speech was in Turkish? or it was an Abbott style Captain's call or it has been lost in translation...? Now will the ADF take the "No F-35B on LHD Horse Blinkers" off?

Construction of TCG Anadolu (Turkey's LHD) started on 30th April

https://turkishnavy.net/2016/05/02/the-cons...lu-has-started/

(IMG:https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ChYmnhrXEAEDR6T.jpg)

QUOTE
The Construction Of The Multipurpose Amphibious Assault Ship TCG Anadolu Has Started

The construction of the multipurpose amphibious assault ship L-408 TCG Anadolu has started on 30th April 2016.
The ship is based on Navatia’s Juan Carlos 1 design. TCG Anadolu will be similar to SPS Juan Carlos 1 in Spanish Navy and HMAS Adelaide and HMAS Canberra in Royal Australian Navy.

During the ceremony President of Turkish Republic Recep Tayyip Erdoğan made a speech.  During his speech he stated that TCG Anadolu will be the first ship in Turkish Navy from which F-35B SVTOL planes will operate. This is the first time official declaration of the long known desire of Turkey to operate fixed wing planes from her ships. This statement also made it clear that Turkey will procure F-35B planes along with her order of F-35A planes.

In his speech Mr. Erdoğan also asked the announced delivery time of 5,5 years to be shortened to 4 years and stated that if TCG Anadolu can be delivered in 4 years, more ships –though not clearly stating which class- will be ordered.
Unlike her nears sisters in Spanish and Australian navies the Turkish ship will only have diesel engines. There will be five MAN 16V32/40 engines each creating 7.680kW and propelling the ship up to 21 knots. The range is estimated to be 9.000 nautical miles.

The ship will have one Mk-49 launcher for Rolling Airframe Missile, 2 Mk-15 Phalanx Block 1B CIWS, 5 Stabilized Gun platforms probably armed with 25mm gun for self-defence.

The ship will carry 6 F-35B Lightning II planes 4 T-129 ATAK attack helicopters 8 cargo helicopters 2 S-70B Seahawk helicopters and 2 UAVs.

The contract for this project was signed on 7 May 2015 during the IDEF 2015. The delivery scheduled for 2021 but this may be shortened.

When completed she will be the largest warship of Turkish Navy. Being the capital ship she will be the apple of the Turkish Navy. At the same the she will be the most wanted target for other navies. It is about time that other ship building projects especially about ships that will escort and protect TCG Anadolu must start. As an example, the two other navies operating similar ships have initiated AEGIS based air defence destroyers -not to anyones surprise designed in Spain- to escort their amphibious assault ships.


This post has been edited by Grumpy Cobra on May 3 2016, 11:49 AM
PMEmail Poster
Top
Demon50
Posted: May 3 2016, 12:17 PM
Quote Post


Lockheed Hercules (A97)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 388
Member No.: 47
Joined: 14-September 05



Interesting development Grumpy. I wonder if people are taking note in Canberra ?

I for one certainly hope that the Turkish plan to operate F35Bs from their LHDs is a success and shows a "can do" to other Navies.
PM
Top
FlyCookie
Posted: May 4 2016, 05:35 AM
Quote Post


Douglas Skyhawk (N13)
*

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



QUOTE (Grumpy Cobra @ May 3 2016, 11:33 AM)
If below report is accurate Turkey will be first operator of F-35B/LHD Kebab Combo!

It is.

Confirmed in multiple mainstream Turkish media, and on the president's site.

Pic shows the man himself giving the speech, with suitably accoutred LHD model.

BTW Grumpy, kebabs in Turkey are surprisingly crap. Strange but true.......
:unsure:

This post has been edited by FlyCookie on May 4 2016, 05:37 AM

Attached Image
Attached Image
PMEmail Poster
Top
Grumpy Cobra
Posted: May 4 2016, 09:33 AM
Quote Post


Douglas Skyhawk (N13)
*

Group: Members
Posts: 109
Member No.: 1,724
Joined: 30-October 08



Good picture that, Navantia must be licking their chops with a very successful design with one unit for the Armada and 3 exported (for a total of 4 so far)

Demon50 & Flycookie I can imagine the day when a Spannish, Turkish and Australian boat conduct a PASSEX in the Med, Navantia marketing Gold (I am sure our lot will have an excuse to attend some Jubilee or the like in those nether parts - if not I will settle for Juan Carlos Primero and Anadolu PASSEX for Silver)

The Turkish Navy already operate fixed wing maritime patrol aircraft so it would not be a unsurmountable stretch for their Navy to operate the Lightnings - especially as they are not politically correct like us!

Flycookie I do not know which unreputable establishment served you a crap Kebab, but I wish them a thousand Camel Flies!

PS me thinks the armament on Anadolu is superior to our 4 x 25mm TyHoons for starters
PMEmail Poster
Top
Luig
Posted: May 4 2016, 10:13 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 1,882
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06



PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Grumpy Cobra
Posted: May 5 2016, 06:39 PM
Quote Post


Douglas Skyhawk (N13)
*

Group: Members
Posts: 109
Member No.: 1,724
Joined: 30-October 08



That CIWS on the bow seems to be mounted on a specially built platform to provide extra elevation (the CIWS is effectively nearly as high as the island) and appears to have a firing arc on both sides of the ship as such, although they have traded flight deck space for it. I think the second CIWS is mounted on the aft of the island. But where have they mounted the RAM?

An interesting photo from Navy daily showing one of the RAAF Air Traffic controllers aboard L01 - RAAF type in NAVY fatigue uniform complete with RAAF flag and RAAF rank insignia!

(IMG:http://news.navy.gov.au/images/cache/746x497/crop/images%7Ccms-image-000007702.jpg)
PMEmail Poster
Top
Grumpy Cobra
Posted: May 16 2016, 04:55 PM
Quote Post


Douglas Skyhawk (N13)
*

Group: Members
Posts: 109
Member No.: 1,724
Joined: 30-October 08



Latest RAAF news says our CRABS to post on exchange to fly USMC F-35B's...

(No spelling mistake either) :ph34r:
PMEmail Poster
Top
Luig
Posted: May 16 2016, 07:05 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 1,882
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06



That's a turnip (spelling mistake for 'turn up') for the books. Where do ya geddit?! RAAF News 19 May 2016

http://www.airforce.gov.au/News/Air-Force-Newspaper [PDF Page attached]

QUOTE
"...So we'll have Australians flying F-35Bs with the USMC in the near term"...." LTGEN Jon Davis USMC


This post has been edited by Luig on May 16 2016, 07:24 PM

Attached File ( Number of downloads: 130 )
Attached File  RAAF_News_19may2016_F_35B_Exchange_Pilot_CRop_PRNgry.pdf
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Martin Edwards
Posted: May 17 2016, 11:44 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Admin
Posts: 1,927
Member No.: 27
Joined: 25-June 05



There is a long history of ADF pilots flying foreign types on exchange.
It doesn't necessarily mean Australia will acquire that type.
PM
Top
Luig
Posted: May 17 2016, 03:19 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 1,882
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06



Did anyone say otherwise? I know we have and have had RAAF pilots flying F-22s and we are not getting those OR any other types etc. What may be interesting in future is a RAAF pilot flying off a USMC LHA or even a CVF (USMC F-35Bs are guaranteed to use the CVFs in their early years of CVF service) with some potential to also work on one of our 'modified for the task' (THERMION) LHDs - however unlikely that may be. I would imagine the USMC/ADF would want to know if the LHD could be a 'spare deck' for an emergency. Now that is not difficult at all.

This post has been edited by Luig on May 17 2016, 03:21 PM
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Warhawk
Posted: May 29 2016, 08:51 PM
Quote Post


ADF Serials Research Co-ord
*

Group: ADF Serials Admin
Posts: 1,927
Member No.: 82
Joined: 9-March 06



Yes,..multi exchange postings and reciprocal Foreign postings do help the head shed planners and paper writers get a operational doctrine paper and knowledge at best on return, and a insight of the type's capabilities at the least.

Latest is the UAV Predator exchanges

This can only serve us well , perhaps as a guest speaker to ambush a Senate Committee with facts!

If there's a change of Government soon,..god help us
PMEmail Poster
Top
Luig
Posted: May 29 2016, 08:58 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 1,882
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06



A LOT off topic however perhaps our Navvy may invest in this tech for fifty year?

British companies have developed a new thermal metal coating for use on the flight deck of the UK Royal Navy's Queen Elizabeth Class (QEC) aircraft carriers 25 May 2016

http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newsb...arriers-4901601
&
VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3GVSir5OSI

"The coating will protect the carriers' flight deck from the heat generated by the thrusters of the new F-35B Lightning II fighter jets. Developed in partnership with Tyne and Wear-based Monitor Coatings, the protective coating is a combination of aluminium & titanium that can endure heat levels of up to 1,500°C (2,700°F).

The coating is expected to provide a long-term protection through the life of the aircraft carriers and is considered a key part in the preparation of the first carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth for sea trial next year, followed by flight trials in 2018.

Of the total 19,000m² flight deck area of QEC carriers, the coating is applied on the sections measuring 2,000m² by a specially developed robotic spray that fires powdered metal through a plasma jet at a temperature of approximately 10,000°C (18,000°F).

The molten drops quickly condense and flatten to create a 2mm-2.5mm thick, rough and tough coating with the steel structure. The thermal coating work is expected to be completed prior to the sea trials....

..."Working with experts in the UK, we have developed a unique coating to provide the necessary protection to the flight deck of the aircraft carriers and this will ensure they can deliver the UK's carrier strike capability for the next fifty years."...”

This post has been edited by Luig on May 29 2016, 08:58 PM
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Grumpy Cobra
Posted: Jun 14 2016, 11:03 PM
Quote Post


Douglas Skyhawk (N13)
*

Group: Members
Posts: 109
Member No.: 1,724
Joined: 30-October 08



Looks like HMAS Canberra has had her first foreign visitor, (Note: Have not seen anything to suggest a KIWI NH-90 trapped aboard Canberra during Fiji Assist)

Te Kaha's Sea Sprite (one of the ex RAN air frames) cross decked to Canberra on 8th June 2016 while off Sydney

http://images.defence.gov.au/fotoweb/cache...8.xe89e20ba.jpg

Jolly Good

Edit: OK disregard FlyCook has already posted this in the Kiwi thread...

This post has been edited by Grumpy Cobra on Jun 14 2016, 11:06 PM
PMEmail Poster
Top
Grumpy Cobra
Posted: Dec 28 2017, 06:46 PM
Quote Post


Douglas Skyhawk (N13)
*

Group: Members
Posts: 109
Member No.: 1,724
Joined: 30-October 08



Crikey which planet is this journalist on, just saying like because Japan and or South Korea might modify their flat tops to operate F-35B that we will as well - practically zero chance we will !!!!!! :P Our Navy and Airforce has no appetite for fixed wing/LHD ops... full stop!

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17199...copter-carriers

QUOTE
If Japan and/or South Korea move ahead with fielding the F-35B, Australia would likely follow suit as they have a pair of ships that are even better prepared to operate the stealthy strike-fighters—the Canberra class landing helicopter docks. These vessels are license-built iterations of Spain's proven Juan Carlos class design and were constructed with ski-jumps for operating STOVL jets even though the Royal Australian Navy said they had no intention of procuring them at the time.Now that Australia is set to receive a large fleet of F-35As (72 aircraft planned and that number could grow), introducing the F-35B to their already owned and operated carriers seems almost inevitable. Once again, the Harrier could also be an option here as well, but seeing as the country is a major F-35 customer already, and is set to remodel their entire air combat capability, going for the latest and greatest option seems more likely.
PMEmail Poster
Top
Grumpy Cobra
Posted: Feb 9 2018, 06:34 PM
Quote Post


Douglas Skyhawk (N13)
*

Group: Members
Posts: 109
Member No.: 1,724
Joined: 30-October 08



And another critic bags the F-35B/LHD combo...

Its as if the critics are afraid we might actually purchase the F-35B and then operate them off the LHDs - all the negative waves they keep generating...

QUOTE
Should Australia buy the F-35B for LHD
Published on January 4, 2018 Andrew Serchen

There has been a significant amount of recent media attention on the possibility of Japan acquiring the F-35B Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant to operate from their helicopter carriers. As a result, I have seen renewed speculation as to whether Australia will also expand its current purchase order for F-35A (conventional) to include some of the F-35B models.

A few years back, I was fortunate enough to undertake the Royal Canadian Air Force's (RCAF) Aerospace Systems Course (ASC). As part of the course, I wrote a research paper on this exact topic and feel that it may be poignant to once again address the major points within that.

The first thing that needs to be understood with any government procurement decision is 'what is the requirement'. As my paper examined, the loss of the F-111 from the Australian Defence Force (ADF) inventory did reduce the effective reach of the Commonwealth of Australia (CoA). It could easily be argued that the loss of this reach has left a capability gap, which requires addressing. However, simply buying F-35B would not guarantee an extension of the CoA reach. In order to determine if any such advantage could be gained, sea-based operations of the F-35B from the ADF Landing Helicopter Dockship (LHD) would need to be quantified.

To state the obvious upfront, the F-35B is a member of a family of aircraft with a common design base. This means that there were compromises in its design that were necessary to achieve the STOVL functionality. Furthermore, these compromises negatively influence the specific capabilities that it can deliver when compared to the F‑35A. Additionally, the embarkation of the F‑35B in the LHDs would displace some of the helicopters and vehicles required for amphibious operations. These facets lead to the investigation of the specific capability deltas between the models, as well as a quantitative analysis of the displacement of the amphibious element's equipment.

When considering the F-35B in a direct comparison to F-35A in the CoA context, it became clear that the design compromises lead to an aircraft that is limited in all performance characteristics. Furthermore, the F-35B would be less able to evade threats and/or engage ground targets. When operating from Australia’s military airfields, the F‑35B is less capable of reaching areas of strategic importance and has less endurance overhead to those that it can reach. However, the F‑35B’s potential reach is orders of magnitude greater than the F‑35A when launched from a LHD.

My research determined that due to the decreased endurance of the F‑35B, and the limited stowage areas aboard the LHDs, a single LHD loaded with the maximum complement of F‑35Bs would be incapable of maintaining a 24‑hour Combat Air Patrol (CAP). Noting this limitation, the F‑35B is incapable of achieving the strategic requirements of the CoA. Noting that the CoA does not currently have any Carrier-based aircraft, it was impossible to use any Australian metrics for what would be a reasonably level of CAP coverage. As such, an assessment was made against the United States Navy (USN) Wasp class LHD employing their (at the time) current AV-8B Harrier Jump Jets. It was determined that a detachment of seven F‑35Bs could provide a Canberra class LHD with the equivalent level of coverage as the six AV‑8B Harriers embarked in a Wasp class. As an added benefit, the paper highlighted that the embarkation of F‑35Bs would reduce, or totally remove, the requirement for the CoA to deploy fighters from foreign nations’ sovereign territories and the conditions/costs of the associated bilateral agreements.

Noting the determination of the USN Wasp class Harrier comparison, this was used as a baseline to determine the affect on Amphibious Element equipment. The embarkation of the seven aircraft detachment of F‑35Bs would displace a combination of helicopters and light vehicles from the LHDs amphibious complement. This would limit the ability of the LHD to meet the strategic requirement of “maintaining an enduring joint amphibious presence in the South Pacific”. Furthermore, this strategic requirement negates some of the potential benefits of the embarked F‑35B, most notably the ability to deploy the F‑35B anywhere outside the South Pacific region.

Ultimately, I determined that given the F‑35B’s inability to meet all strategic requirements, it would not be a justifiable procurement option to replace the Super Hornet. Additionally, the embarked F‑35B would not add significant global reach over that offered by the F‑35A when considering the strategic requirement to maintain an amphibious presence in the South Pacific. These determinations in combination with the F‑35B’s associated costs (16% more per aircraft, 139% more per engine and an estimated $500M per LHD for design changes) necessitate the recommendation that the ADF not procure the F-35B.
PMEmail Poster
Top
Invader26
Posted: Feb 12 2018, 06:57 PM
Quote Post


DH Tigermpth (A17)
*

Group: Members
Posts: 14
Member No.: 4,189
Joined: 30-January 11



Well written - Not!

These pseudo academics only look at one aspect of things. For a start the Spanish Armada have successfully operated their AV-8's from their LHD like ship. Australia has two LHD's. Its conceivable that one could be configured for the F-35B like the Spanish and USMC [soon Japan] and the other as an assault helicopter carrier. As one who has served on Melbourne in her A-4/S-2/Sea King days the ship has a presence that our learned friend does not and will probably never understand.

Parking a jet equipped LHD off Timor could have been useful as a deterrent or CAS if it had been required.

There is more but sadly the naysayers hold the floor,,,,
PMEmail Poster
Top
Luig
Posted: Feb 12 2018, 07:17 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 1,882
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06



I'm not a joiner to 'linkedin' however Serchen BIO here: https://au.linkedin.com/in/andrew-serchen-099085147

As indicated at end of the article above: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/should-austr...-andrew-serchen
QUOTE
"Naval Aero-Systems Specialist"

I've been told Andrew Serchen was a Senior Surface Warfare/Aero birdie type in the RAN.

This post has been edited by Luig on Feb 12 2018, 07:18 PM
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Invader26
Posted: Feb 12 2018, 08:03 PM
Quote Post


DH Tigermpth (A17)
*

Group: Members
Posts: 14
Member No.: 4,189
Joined: 30-January 11



When I see stuff like the shipborne F-35B doesn't add anything to the longer ranging F-35A methinks he's spent too much time comparing apples with oranges [not lemons!]...
PMEmail Poster
Top
Grumpy Cobra
Posted: Feb 15 2018, 08:06 AM
Quote Post


Douglas Skyhawk (N13)
*

Group: Members
Posts: 109
Member No.: 1,724
Joined: 30-October 08



Serchen obviously thinks that the RAAF can provide 24 hour CAP with only 5 KC-30s at present a couple thousand miles off shore... lets see how long that lasts...

Have not read all his critique - but does he believe a maximum compliment on the LHD is only 8 F-35B's ?

Why does he not also consider MV-22 Osprey Tanker in the mix...?

The Brits operated both Hermes and Invincible during the Falklands adventure why does he not consider the 2 LHD mix...?

Would have thought the F-35B on LHD would be worth it for our fleet just for the stealth sensor suite alone to network with our DGG and Frigates in taking out threats over the horizon - distributed lethality... not to mention all the other benefits...

I don't see any consideration by Serchen of the F-35B being employed from land locations either and all the benefits The B brings to bombed out runways that a KC-30 and F-35A cannot...

Thank our stars Singapore and Japan don't have his centric limited mentality...
PMEmail Poster
Top
Luig
Posted: Feb 15 2018, 03:11 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

Group: ADF Serials Team
Posts: 1,882
Member No.: 80
Joined: 8-March 06



"...Would have thought the F-35B on LHD would be worth it for our fleet just for the stealth sensor suite alone to network with our DGG and Frigates in taking out threats over the horizon - distributed lethality... not to mention all the other benefits..." YEP. All the talk about working together RAN/ARMY/RAAF seems to get lost in PELORUS/whatever/JERICHO plans. Seems the people at the top are as DOZY as they appear. :-) As I have mentioned (probably elsewhere a zillion tymes) let the RAAF operate F-35Bs ashore and when required (which may be NEVER) have some of them onboard an LHD and get them OFF ASAP so that they are again supported ASHORE. Ffsake. :-) But hey the RAAF has to develop usefulness WITH THE ARMY with F-35Bs ashore. GET TO IT - MAKE IT SO.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

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

 



[ Script Execution time: 0.0618 ]   [ 11 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]