Powered by Invision Power Board


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

> Oz F-35bs On Oz Lhds Potential
Luig
Posted: May 17 2014, 05:38 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

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



Jump jets on Defence radar 17 May 2014 Nick Butterly, Canberra, The West Australian

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/national/...-defence-radar/

"Australia could buy "jump-jet" Joint Strike Fighters to base aboard new landing ships, giving the nation its first aircraft carrier since the early 1980s.

Defence Minister David Johnston told The Weekend West the Government was considering buying the "B" model of the F-35 - a specialised variant of the stealth jet being built to operate from aircraft carriers.

Last month, Australia committed to buying 72 of the conventional model F-35s from US aircraft manufacturer Lockheed Martin at a cost of almost $20 billion.

But the Government has left the door open to buying more F-35s and the minister says the F-35B will be considered.

"Now that aircraft is more expensive, does not have the range but it's an option that has been considered from day one," Senator Johnston said.

The F-35B has a shortened take-off distance and can land vertically, just like the legendary Harrier jump jet.

The British Navy and the US Marines are buying the F-35B to station aboard aircraft carriers.

Australia is soon to bring into service two large ships called landing helicopter docks. Though they resemble small aircraft carriers, the Government has maintained until now they would be used only to deploy helicopters and troops.

Senator Johnston said stationing the F-35 aboard an LHD would be costly and technically challenging, but it could be done. [Not a bad idea given the LHD was designed by the Spanish to operate the F-35B!]

"The deck strength is there for such an aircraft," he said.

The Hawke government mothballed [frickin' sold it you dummy] Australia's last aircraft carrier, HMAS Melbourne, in 1982.

Commissioning an aircraft carrier is considered a significant strategic statement of military might by a country.

China recently launched its first aircraft carrier. The sea trials are being watched closely.

The F-35B has less range than the conventional F-35 owing to the complex systems of jets used to allow it to land vertically.

The B variant has been the most trouble-plagued of the three F-35 models. Testing was stalled this year after cracks were discovered in the aircrafts' bulkheads. [This is ground stress testing of airframe - flight ops fine.]

The F-35 will replace Australia's fleet of F/A-18A/B Classic Hornet aircraft, due to be withdrawn in 2022."

This post has been edited by Luig on May 17 2014, 07:01 AM
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
F/A-18 Super Bug
Posted: May 17 2014, 02:09 PM
Quote Post


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

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



QUOTE
Senator Johnston said stationing the F-35 aboard an LHD would be costly and technically challenging, but it could be done.


I really wonder how many auxiliary staff are needed to operate one F-35B? I mean you have to have:

Mechanics,

Electricians ,

Ordnance handling (attaching and storing),

Fire fighting, although that should already be there for the helos,

Refueling - the F-35B has a fuel capacity of 13,100 litres compared to say our MRH 90 helos which have a fuel capacity of 9,084 litres. I tried but I couldn't find out how much aviation fuel is stored aboard the new Canberra class LHDs.

"Shooters" (yellow shirts on US A/C carriers) that direct the aircraft into take off position and then give the take off signal.

White shirts = Air wing quality control personnel, Squadron plane inspectors, Landing
Signal Officer (LSO),Air Transfer Officers (ATO), Liquid Oxygen (LOX) crews, Safety Observers, Medical personnel.

Blue - Plane Handlers, Aircraft elevator Operators, Tractor Drivers, Messengers and Phone Talkers.

As the new LHDs don't have catapults or arresting wires we won't have to do what the majority of what the "green guys" in the US Navy do which is Catapult and arresting gear handling, Air wing maintenance personnel, Cargo-handling personnel, Ground Support Equipment (GSE) troubleshooter. Hook runners, Photographer's Mates, Helicopter landing signal enlisted personnel (LSE).

I would love to see us return to having a fixed wing aircraft navy however to train all these people in the position listed above from zero to Fully Operational is going to cost I would ASSUME $100s of million of $dollars and I don't think either Labour or the Liberals would sign off on it with our Budget deficit at the moment.

Also what would be the military doctrine of these new LHDs if we had F-35Bs? Would we just be playing mini carrier games in the north of Australia with other US Marine Corp LHDs (like Exercise Talisman Saber) or would they travel around and participate in exercises like RIMPAC or would we actually deploy them to hot zones around the world? These are all rhetorical questions I quasi-guess. See pic at bottom of our Blackhawks on the USS Boxer. However I would also love to see us possibly use other Marine Corp aircraft that they use on US Navy LHDs such as the MV-22 or buy a couple of Sikorsky CH-53E Super Stallions which have a better range, capacity and greater lift than our CH-47Fs.

PS I'm just grinding your gears Luig however weren't you over talking about the F-35B and the new LHDs? :lol:



This post has been edited by F/A-18 Super Bug on May 17 2014, 02:14 PM
PMEmail Poster
Top
Luig
Posted: May 17 2014, 03:03 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

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



I'm over going over the same ground again and again. It is tiresome and it has been a long time since ANY politician expressed ANY interest in having F-35Bs on LHDs. If you have not cottoned on to this 'fact'. The politicians make the final say on everything. As a matter of fact here is a link to a recent radio talk where much of this 'who decides' in Oz is explained. So go download and listen.

Australia's Defence and the Strike Fighter Purchase 09may2014.mp3
http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=18877 (.MP3 2.6Mb)
________________________

Meanwhile here is a factoid recently disputed by none other than Prof Hugh White. I'm not sure why he said what he said but anyway here is what the DMO says happens to monies for new F-35A purchases....

Defence Portfolio Budget Statements 2014-15 Defence Materiel Organisation page 158
http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/14-15/pbs..._PBS_04_DMO.pdf (0.7Mb)

QUOTE
“...Joint Strike Fighter | Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft - AIR 6000 Phase 2A/B
Prime Contractor: Lockheed Martin is contracted to the United States Government for the development and production of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Australia is procuring the aircraft through a government-to-government agreement.

      This project is approved to acquire 72 JSF aircraft and supporting elements to form three operational squadrons and one training squadron. This comprises 14 aircraft approved in 2009 and 58 approved in April 2014. The funding for the recently approved 58 aircraft and associated elements will be transferred to the DMO post the 2014-15 budget.

      During 2014-15 production of Australia’s first two JSF Aircraft will be completed at the Lockheed Martin facility in Fort Worth Texas. The aircraft will then be ferried to the International Pilot Training Centre at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona to support the commencement of Australian pilot training.

      Some of the major risks for the project include the establishment of an electronic warfare reprogramming capability [ACURL mentioned above] and the stand up of sustainment systems and facilities required to support Australian operations....”

___________

And here is a decade old report on this topic for the then Parliamentarians responsible for it in Fed Parliament.....

QUOTE
Australia’s Maritime Strategy Jun 2004

"...5.70 The Government is not required to commit to the purchase of the F-35 until 2006. The Government should give consideration to purchasing some short take-off and vertical landing aircraft (STOVL).
&
Conclusions
5.86 As part of the inquiry, the key maritime capabilities that were examined include amphibious lift, the protection and capability provided through the provision of air warfare destroyers, and the capability provided through an aircraft carrier. In addition, while the role of the Collins Class submarines was not discussed in detail, the committee fully supports the ongoing role provided through submarine capability.

5.87 The proposed acquisition of three air warfare destroyers is fully supported. These will provide a high level of protection against air attack and ensure Australian forces are adequately protected. The only concern is that the air warfare destroyers will not become available until about 2013.

The Government should explain what alternative type of area protection it will provide particularly for disembarking land forces.

5.88 In the previous conclusions, the committee suggested that if the Government, in 2006, confirms the decision to purchase the F-35, it should consider purchasing some short take-off and vertical landing aircraft (STOVL). This could provide the ADF with some organic air cover while it is engaged in regional operations. It is assumed that the F-35 STOVL version will be able to meet its design specifications. The committee is aware of reports that the STOVL version is subject to weight problems.

5.89 In relation to maritime surveillance, the impending use of uninhabited air vehicles (UAVs) such as Global Hawk is fully supported. This type of capability offers real advances in efficiency and surveillance time.

Recommendation 8
5.90 The Government’s decision to purchase three air warfare destroyers for delivery by about 2013 is supported.

The Department of Defence, however, should explain how adequate air protection will be provided to land and naval forces before the air warfare destroyers are delivered in 2013.

Recommendation 9
5.91 If in 2006 the Government confirms that it will purchase the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) then it should consider purchasing some short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) F-35 variants for the provision of organic air cover as part of regional operations...."

SOURCE: http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_busine...port/report.pdf (0.8Mb)

______________

Now back to the beginning one more time. The LHD for Oz is more or less the same as the original Spanish LHD - especially on the outside. The LHDs are quite capable of operating F-35Bs with suitable deck cover / paint material which is now readily available. However DO NOT IMAGINE any LHD as an ersatz Aircraft Carrier. IT IS NOT. Read the 2004 report. I'll post a link to some now slightly outdated but still relevant RAN LHD material in a PDF online:

Look in the 'Documents & Videos Various' folder on the 'SpazSinbad' OneDrive page here:

https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=CBCD63D63407...6340707E6%21116

For two PDFs with names beginning with 'LHD...' (both around 35Mb). Now that there is renewed interest I'll updates these PDFs but not sure when. Also GoogleDrive may have some material - I'll look...

Similarly on the SpazSinbad page on GoogleDrive in the ''folder will be an LHD pdf "LHD+F-35BinfoJan2013pp123.pdf" same as on OneDrive.

https://drive.google.com/?authuser=0#folder...aDhIQ0szeVJFY0U
__________________

Of course doctrine will change if we do buy some F-35Bs. Again I stress these will/should be used sparingly on LHDs as required and not as one may imagine an aircraft carrier with dedicated fixed wing assets. When not on LHDs in transit these marvellous F-35Bs will be hop skipping and jumping around northern Australia, being everywhere and nowhere, and certainly not an any fixed base for any length of time. No worries about missiles hitting hardened shelters because the F-35Bs will be elsewhere - not even on a bare base - but elsewhere. Perhaps on LHDs on the high seas. Go figure. :-)

This post has been edited by Luig on May 28 2014, 02:02 AM
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: May 17 2014, 03:27 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

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



One item in the superbug list earlier is not required. LOX is not an issue as like most modern miljets the F-35 family have OBOGGs OnBoard Oxgen Generating Capacity that does not emulate the problems discovered with the F-22 system over the last several years.

Training for the new LHDs has been ongoing for several years now at a dedicated facility in the eastern suburbs - a lot of virtual reality training there also - as well as a dummy deck at NAS Nowra for the new/old rate of "Aircraft Handlers" to become reaccustomed to their exacting craft.

Anyway again I'll stress - all is supposition so far. Changes can be made to our LHDs in a refit cycle - if required - to allow F-35Bs on our LHDs for a short time. [The Spanish LHD requires some internal changes that are designed to be made easily for the four roles they have outlined including acting as a mini aircraft carrier for F-35Bs (and at moment only Harriers)]. Ships are changed in refit all the time. HMAS Melbourne the aircraft carrier had many improvements over the 25 year life she had.

Imagine a transit to an island such as Fiji where Oz citizens need rescuing. Parking an LHD offshore with helos and an odd F-35B onboard would be intimidating? NO? HMAS Melbourne the aircraft carrier used to visit Fiji regularly back and forth between engagements up north and SEA and the odd side trip to the West Coast USofA.

Sheesh we could even intimidate the sheep in New Zealand with our LHDs outfitted with a few F-35Bs! :D
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Warhawk
  Posted: May 17 2014, 08:10 PM
Quote Post


ADF Serials Research Co-ord
*

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



Wonderful.

You know it could be a part of zee master plan to reduce the new SEA 1000 numbers to a more manageable "one for one" replacement,ala "Off the shelf in bipartisan production" (They build them, we paint them) with the Swedes ( Providing one for one Swedish temporary worker and a Blonde Bombshell Swedish Bird immigrant) or the Nipponese( now there's FTA, and new diet legislation).

Then the bucks saved, could be to re-introduce on-board Fighters to rebalance the NAVY FAA or ok, reality check here,.....for the Blue Boys,..Pelican Fleet Co-op No 9 Sqn RAAF re-born so that they can fly top cover for the Army's 4 on-board LPD based ARH Helios.

Perhaps, like the USN,..they can have their Unit nickname on the jets,.." the Shagbags",..sort of a port of call or final combat outcome catchcry?

Seriously,....though I joke above,....it may be more acceptable then frightening our greatest trade partner with 12 new NG Subs, at half the cost, yet opening up more options and less risk for the government at a fraction of the cost for only having to purchase say 16 jets max (8 IE/ 4 IT/ 4 IR) and their support,..with a few mods per weapon storage, painting of take-off strips and support per the LPH. Just have to get 1000lb Bombs rather then 2000lb Bombs to fit.Guess that's why the espanards retired their young carrier (1990's built)and use the LPH now for AV-8B Plus Harrier ops. (Aside from the lack of bucks)

Rumours in Defence already murmur a reduction of New Generation Sub hulls from 12 stated by the previous government, so it could be a hatching of a thought bubble.

Mind you,..even I can't see it "floated" for a decade or more due to the current economic outlook and public outcry of the last budget. Close of Production of the F-35 Family is set at 2039,..so patience,. Plenty of time. Not too sure of the Life of the LPHs,.......about 35 years old seems to be the limit. 2045-2050AD.

Just in time to sail past Manus Island for a "show of force" flight for the next riot ,.....perhaps :o

LOL
Gordy

Attached Image
Attached Image
PMEmail Poster
Top
Luig
Posted: May 18 2014, 12:15 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

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



Gordy, the flat deck ships in both the Spanish Navy and RAN are LHDs. Yes - still many rivers to cross before we see any Oz F-35Bs on our LHDs and they will be in our far future for sure if purchased. This rubbish about budgets is just that. Rubbish. If we need 'em - we will get 'em. As indicated these 'F-35Bs' will be most useful distributing themselves around the top end mostly on a daily basis - where they end up on a daily basis - no one will know. Quite a shell game compared to any fixed based F-35As up that way. Do we want to play however? That is the question.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Grumpy Cobra
Posted: May 18 2014, 12:36 AM
Quote Post


Douglas Skyhawk (N13)
*

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



Brightest news for 30 years ... put a smile on my face at last, hold on though I am not that young anymore - might kick the bucket before they enter service....

Better not have Airforce stickers on them though or I will kick the bucket
PMEmail Poster
Top
Luig
Posted: May 18 2014, 06:16 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

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



Heheh. I will have lost the will to live IF ONLY RAAF pilots get to fly them F-35Bs from our LHDs. B) I'll accept a setup such as the UK has with RN/RAF co-op.

BUT IF the only way we / Oz can get some F-35Bs WITH ONLY THE RAAF to fly them then so be it. I'll just go outside - I may be some time. :rolleyes:

Anyway as I have mentioned several times now - most use of the Bs is up North playing hide n seek with opposing missile batteries (whenever/where ever they may be) with only sometime use on an LHD then ashore to secure the airfield proper for the A model. Thankfully the RAAF can operate easily in STOVL mode ashore and afloat - no big deal with the B.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: May 26 2014, 05:57 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

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



This special edition of the NAVY pdf online is worth having a look at if at all interested in 'Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs'. Attached is one article excerpt as described with info below on the other articles....

QUOTE
THE NAVY - Special Edition Oct-Dec 2010 Vol 72 No4 www.navyleague.org.au
Amphibious Close Air Support

Close Air Support & Naval Aviation - The Natural Combination by Dr Norman Friedman

"...Both the historical record and the basic logic of the situation, then, suggest that it is the grossest folly to imagine that a limited number of long-range land-based fighter-bombers are an adequate substitute for a small number of fighter-bombers near the scene of an operation. Advocates of land-based air power reject any such suggestion, but they have neither historical experience nor analysis on their side. Matters are particularly bad for a country like Australia, whose force of fighter-bombers is very limited in numbers because each airplane is so expensive. In the past, Australian defence policy has emphasized the direct defence of the country. Given limited numbers, it is clearly impossible to station aircraft all around the periphery of the country, even all around the area which might be subject to attack. The solution was to build unoccupied airfields, moving the finite fighter force to whichever one was in range of the threat. That policy carries with it real problems, but it was certainly a way to compromise between aircraft numbers and geography....

...The STOVL version of the JSF offers many logistics and training synergies with the RAAF’s land based version and would enable future Australian CAS requirement from the LHDs to be met. Further, these synergies and added operational flexibility would save the ADF many millions of dollars in added operational costs to get the land based JSF to the battle. It should also be noted that the fused, integrated and linked sensor package in one JSF far outweighs the reconnaissance and surveillance capability of many of Army’s fleet of Tiger armed reconnaissance helicopters. Thus negating the need for them on the LHDs and freeing space for JSF employment.

OTHER ARTICLES IN SAME PDF ONLINE:

THE CANBERRA CLASS LHDs

CARRIER BORNE CLOSE AIR SUPPORT – HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES
By CDR David Hobbs MBE, RN (Rtd)

CLOSE AIR SUPPORT AND NAVAL AVIATION – THE NATURAL COMBINATION
By Dr Norman Friedman

THE CHALLENGES OF AN ORGANIC FIXED WING CAPABILITY FOR AUSTRALIA’S LHDs
By Mark Boast [ex-A4G RAN FAA pilot and then SHAR pilot Sqdn CO & Test Pilot]

SOURCE: http://navyleague.org.au/wp-content/upload..._4-Oct-2010.pdf (3.2Mb)


This post has been edited by Luig on May 26 2014, 05:59 AM

Attached File ( Number of downloads: 341 )
Attached File  CAS___NavAv_The_Navy_Vol_72_No_4_Oct_2010.pdf
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Warhawk
  Posted: May 26 2014, 11:04 AM
Quote Post


ADF Serials Research Co-ord
*

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



In all seriousness, after several laterals in humour, I suspect the only F-35Bs that will grace our LPDs on a regular/irregular basis will be Darwin Based USMC F-35Bs that will eventually be based "up there" when the future rotations expand in the coming years.

And that would be only to get "hands on" training for all.

Currently the first Marine Aviation deployments will happen this year with 4 CH-53E Super Stallions, to be based at RAAF Darwin. Add AH-1Z Super Cobras and UH-1Ys deployments soon, with F-35Bs in the 20's ...its gets pretty heavy.

Meanwhile,.....MRTTs, E-7s and AP-3Cs supporting F/A-18Fs and F-35As will do, and with a high level of confidence.

The Opforce rationale for operating any F-35Bs is just not there for us. "Who are they and what they have now or in tens years isn't going to cut it.

We have our Bases in NT and , I'm sure, we can operate on the opposite side of the Timor Gap in East Timor in a pinch, along with PNG Strips. At a pinch, Singapore if all of the RSAF don't come home, or strips in the Philippines .

Thus all Sea Lines of communications are covered.

Just one thing,...(yes humour input) for Gawd's sake, paint those Seaborne Army choppers with dull mid-grey paint!

Best

Gordy

PMEmail Poster
Top
Luig
Posted: May 26 2014, 01:49 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

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



You may have a point. Nevertheless that two senior politician have expressed what they have said in public - stating that the F-35B must be considered in the next White Paper - does mean something. Humour it ain't. I have no inside track to any information so I'll await more information with interest.

As the PDF above indicates - air power from land bases over the sea does not cut the mustard. I'm not talking about invading a far superior opponent but protecting what we have with a small contingent of F-35Bs on LHDs when that mission of convoy protection is warranted. This used to be done on the ASW centric early MELBOURNE with 4 A4Gs.

IF the US / USMC have flat decks, despite having airfields all over the place with agreements to use them, then that says something. The wide blue PACIFIC with many small islands scattered around our region puts a real strain on any land based airpower/convoy protection solution. So scoff away but please do not change maps or scales of maps to improve range etc.

Read the entire 3+Mb PDF as indicated. You may learn something that is not land/RAAF centric.

This post has been edited by Luig on May 28 2014, 02:06 AM
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Warhawk
  Posted: May 26 2014, 08:13 PM
Quote Post


ADF Serials Research Co-ord
*

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



You may be right, I may have to eat my starched green yet rotting giggle hat!

"Prime Minister Tony Abbott has instructed the authors of the new Defence White Paper currently in preparation to consider the acquisition of the STOVL F-35B variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to operate from the Navy’s forthcoming LHD amphibious ships.

“It is understood Mr ­Abbott has instructed planners working on his defence white paper to examine the possibility of putting a squadron of 12 of the short takeoff and vertical landing version of the JSFs — the F-35B — on to the ships,” a report in The Australian newspaper on Friday says.

A spokesperson for the Prime Minister contacted by the newspaper did not confirm or deny the suggestion the F-35B would be considered as part of the White Paper process, only noting that the White Paper’s Force Structure Review would: “examine a range of capabilities and will provide the government with options to ensure Australia maintains a sustainable, versatile and highly capable defence force in coming decades”.
AAV Mag



FIK,.. :blink:

2 Alpha Out
PMEmail Poster
Top
Luig
Posted: May 27 2014, 12:29 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

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



A lot of toing and froing IN PUBLIC will have to take place over some years for the idea of F-35Bs on LHDs to have any public traction/support. Videos of same with USMC F-35Bs reaching for the sky cross decking will help.

It is interesting to me that over a period of years one RAAF spokesperson I took an interest in (BINNY) was saying that the RAAF only required ALL F-35As and I thought 'fair enough'.

Then a politician (now referred to as smart but not at the time) bought 2 dozen Super Hornets for the RAAF. Then another smart politician bought a dozen Growlers for the 'ALL F-35A RAAF'.

Binny has usually countered any mention of 'F-35Bs on LHDs' with NO! end of.

Things change and change again. Whoda' thunk.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
F/A-18 Super Bug
Posted: May 27 2014, 01:36 PM
Quote Post


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

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



This may change the possibility of RAN F-35B operating off our new Canberra class LHDs:

Johnston raises possibility of acquiring F-35Bs

Defence Minister Senator David Johnston has again raised the possibility of Australia acquiring a number of Lockheed Martin F-35B short take off and vertical landing (STOVL) versions of the Joint Strike Fighter for operation from the RAN’s new Canberra class LHD vessels.

Speaking to The Weekend West on May 17, Senator Johnston said the acquisition of the F-35B was “an option which has been considered from day one.” His comments echo those he made to an ASPI dinner in October 2012 where he described the LHDs as “…STOVL capable.”

Defence officials have consistently tried to pour cold water on the possibility of Australia buying F-35Bs over the years, despite its commonality with the conventional takeoff F-35A version of which the RAAF is acquiring 72 examples.

The Canberra class LHDs are being built optimised for amphibious operations using water craft and helicopters, and do not have sufficient fuel and weapons bunkerage to operate F-35Bs without a considerable upgrade in the RAN’s support ship fleet. Further, and while the possibility of cross-decking with F-35Bs of the USMC, the UK and other partner nations exists and will likely be encouraged, the LHDs do not have the thermion heat-resistant deck coating required to accommodate the F-35B’s exhaust for extended operations.

The F-35A and B models share about 60 per cent of their structure and a much higher percentage of their key systems and have similar handling characteristics in conventional flight regimes, meaning the logistics and initial training requirements would be broadly similar. But the F-35B is projected to cost about 20 per cent more than the F-35A, will be operationally limited to 7.5g and has about 30 per cent less range due to the need to accommodate the large lift fan, and will require a specialist flight training regime for deck operations and specialist maintenance training for under-way sustainment and support.

You remember that list I made in another thread in which I listed all the support staff needed to launch and recover aircraft from a aircraft carrier or LHD. The new Canberra class LHDs are basically copies of the Spanish ship Juan Carlos I which operate AV-8B Harrier II STOVL so either the deck of our new LHDs is different than the Juan Carlos I or the F-35B has a hotter exhaust for Vertical Landing or Take Off? Hopefully it's not too hard to somehow make a thermion heat-resistant deck coating...

The Juan Carlos I holds 800 tonnes of JP-5 fuel and 2,150 t of diesel fuel. More knowledgeable people on here would now how long both those types of fuel would last if we had F-35Bs whilst also using including all our helicopters of course.


Facts about the Juan Carlos I

(IMG:http://australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/F-35B1.jpg)

(IMG:http://australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/20140313ran8566787_017-1.jpg)
PMEmail Poster
Top
Luig
Posted: May 27 2014, 03:22 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

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



For a start the F-35B is listed as being only 7G capable.

That is an excellent pdf (highlighted some time ago on several other forums by me but I do not own it). Probably it has been made clear that our LHDs were optimised internally for the operations described on the RAN LHD website. When I last looked there were two such missions which did not include the two others on the Spanish LHD website one of the missing being the 'aircraft carrier' mission.

As I understand the aircraft carrier mission for the Spanish Navy requires their LHD to undergo some quick alongside temporary mods but not being conversant with all the details of either LHD (which are probably not public) then other than bolting up the stern ramp I have no idea what the Spanish Aircraft Carrier mods are. Probably something to do with more aviation fuel but that is only a guess. Certainly there is a huge amount of space inside these LHDs that can be used for different missions.

http://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/ships-boats-craft/lhd
QUOTE
"...The [LHD] ship's roles are to:

• embark, transport and deploy an embarked force (Army in the case of the ADF but could equally be an allied Army or Marines), along with their equipment and aviation units, and

• carry out/support humanitarian missions....


I'll repeat this till I die probably. Our LHDs - as they are configured now and likely until they rust away - will not be configured as 'aircraft carriers' but they may be able to temporarily embark four F-35Bs for transit to the op area where they will disembark - to take / hold a proper airfield (with the troops onboard) to be then resupplied by the MASSIVE RAAF cargo aircraft and be joined by the F-35As and their and the F-35B then refueller KCs. Fairly simple really with not a lot of drama for anyone except perhaps bumping off some 'not required' for that mission ARMY helos.

The thing about such a large flat deck ship is that the aircraft mix can vary a lot - even if only temporarily. And then back to the mission....

This post has been edited by Luig on May 27 2014, 03:24 PM
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: May 27 2014, 03:37 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

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



Ride the Lightning: Testing the Marine Corps' latest fighter 27 Mar 2009 Dave Majumdar

http://www.examiner.com/article/ride-the-l...-latest-fighter
QUOTE
"...The F-35B also loses the ability to pull some Gs compared to the conventional USAF variant. The STOVL can only pull 7G compared to 9G for the F-35A and 7.5G for the F-35C. Tomlinson explained that this is not a result of any trade-off made for improved short field performance. “There’s no reason we can’t make a 9G STOVL airplane”, he said.

Tomlinson explained, “Because of the stealth and sensors, the Marine Corps and Navy weren’t interested in more than 7G and 7.5G for their F-35 versions. The Marines and Navy have never been enthusiastic about a 9G capability. It’s not required for their mission. To get more G, you need to beef up that structure and that adds weight. The USAF made the trade-off for the 9G capability.”

Other than the reduced G-limit, in conventional flight the F-35B handles almost exactly like the F-35A, Tomlinson explained. The F-35B retains the same outstanding low-speed, high angle of attack handling qualities as well as the same incredible acceleration as the F-35A. “You struggle to tell the difference between the CTOL and the STOVL in the cockpit,” Tomlinson said, adding that test pilots are trained to notice even minute differences in aircraft handling qualities. Tomlinson noted that while the F-35B’s lift-fan causes a visible bump in the aircraft’s outer mold line, the only cue in the cockpit is a slightly different wind noise. “STOVL only applies below 10 thousand feet and below 250 knots,” Tomlinson notes...."


This post has been edited by Luig on May 27 2014, 03:48 PM
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
F/A-18 Super Bug
Posted: May 28 2014, 02:15 PM
Quote Post


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

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



If the new Canberra class LHDs can't operate any type of VTOL aircraft because our decking" does not have the thermion heat-resistant deck coating required to accommodate the F-35B’s exhaust for extended operations." Same probably goes too with the AV-8B Harrier II. So who dropped the ball on this one, is it a high ranking RAN Officer or is the Defence or Defence Materials Minister? Basically who authorized a LHD that DOESN'T have a heat-resistant deck coating for possible VTOL?

@Luig I only got around to listen to half of how military hardware is procured and now it's unavailable. If you could fixed the link I would really appreciate it mate.

Australia's Defence and the Strike Fighter Purchase 09may2014.mp3
http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=18877 (.MP3 2.6Mb)


Also if we are doing cross decking with US Marine aircraft operating from the US Navy's Wasp-class amphibious assault ships when we are doing cross training exercises to get our new LHDs up to Full Operational Capability. The USMC F-35Bs won't be able to land on the HMAS Canberra let alone get refueled by us whilst on board because we do not have sufficient fuel and weapons bunkerage to operate F-35Bs without a considerable upgrade in the RAN’s support ship fleet

I am seriously surprised that in a new ship like the HMAS Canberra and Adelaide that if we were to operate F-35Bs we wouldn't have many and there HAS to be room in these massive ships to store the ordnance. I mean if this ship can carry a dozen 65 ton M1 Abrams tanks it must be able to store bombs, missiles and 25mm rounds for the F-35B.

Lockheed Martin states that the weapons load can be configured as all-air-to-ground or all-air-to-air, and has suggested that a Block 5 version will carry three weapons per bay instead of two, replacing the heavy bomb with two smaller weapons such as AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles

QUOTE
That is an excellent pdf (highlighted some time ago on several other forums by me but I do not own it)


Are you talking about the PDF about the specifications about the Juan Carlos I LHD? Even though you've already read it...

Lastly again I gave the list at the top of the thread of what all the cololured shirts in the US Navy mean and why they are required. So if we do get F-35Bs in say 5-10 years down the track we are going to require a specialist flight training regime for deck operations and specialist maintenance training for under-way sustainment and support.

So are we going do all our homegrown training or try do Officer and SNCO exchanges with crew on the Juan Carlos I with the Spanish? However we have in the last several years seen the landing of Australian Blackhawks and other helos on board Wasp class LHDs off Darwin and USMC billeting at Robertson Barracks. So that's good warm up :lol: From what I've read the the US is looking to possibly base its United States Pacific Command Marine Air-Ground-Task Force in Darwin and could possibly base a LHD up there one day.

From Wiki:
An Australian Army S70A-9 Black Hawk and a CH-47D Chinook assigned to Australian 5th Aviation Regiment, conduct flight operations from the flight deck of the amphibious assault ship USS Boxer (LHD 4) in support of Talisman Sabre 2005.

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/US_Navy_050612-N-8146B-001_An_Australian_Army_S70A-9_Black_Hawk_and_a_CH-47D_Chinook_assigned_to_Australian_5th_Aviation_Regiment%2C_conduct_flight_operations_from_the_flight_deck_of_the_amphibious_assault_ship_USS_Boxer_%28LHD_4%29.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
PMEmail Poster
Top
Luig
Posted: May 28 2014, 02:43 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

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



Puhleez about the RAN training appropriate deck crew. This has been ongoing for many years now with a specific virtual reality trainer in a warehouse in the eastern suburbs as I mentioned. If you do not bother to download and peruse my PDFs I'm not going to regurgitate them piecemeal here. Ask a question from the material and I'll know you have gone to the trouble. Just guessing about what you do not know is pathetic.

The F-16.net website has been down most of the day our time. The website will be back whenever then you can hear more I guess. When that is I do not know.

Resurfacing the LHD deck with THERMION or equivalent will be easy when appropriate. Does not need to be done this very minute because both the ship and any F-35Bs on it are years in the future.

Do not stress about F-35Bs landing on our LHDs for a ski jump or two. The LHD deck is stressed for the F-35B already as are the lifts - these are the Spanish design specs. As I mentioned provisioning for a long stay of any number of F-35Bs is NOT how our LHDs are set up. They have been modified slightly for the two missions (out of the Spanish four) as seen on the RAN website. This is not a secret.

Can you imagine two ships able to operate F-35Bs in the needed vicinity? If only our LHD then that ship will be near an appropriate BINGO landing place ashore for any demo of probably USMC F-35B capability ops. This is not a lengthy process. Planning for this event will have been considered years ago. So far the F-35B has been twice aboard USS Wasp for testing in Oct 2011 for about 72 VLs and STOs; then again in Aug 2013 for some 90 odd similar but under more difficult conditions, such as wind and a fuel internal load. No problems were to be seen.

USS Wasp is the oldest in that class and the one that has not been upgraded much over the recent years, for whatever reason. However it was modified for the first F-35B trials and again for the second. Now it has gone into a long refit where many non-related to F-35B parts of ship; and of course those parts related to operating F-35Bs, are being modified. So what? Happens all the time with ships (in refit) and unsurprisingly with aircraft.

The F-35 family are slated for modification on a regular basis for both software and hardware alternately and then both at a regular interval (several years) over their lifetime. Any objections?

This post has been edited by Luig on May 28 2014, 02:48 PM
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: May 28 2014, 02:45 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

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



As appropriate exchanges with relevant friendly foreign navies occur all the time in large or small groups over long or short times. Here is one example:'

http://news.navy.gov.au/en/Aug2013/Fleet/3...9;s-company.htm
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
F/A-18 Super Bug
Posted: May 29 2014, 03:11 PM
Quote Post


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

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



Sea-riding in the Spanish LHD – a glimpse of what’s to come for Canberra's company

RAN Personnel getting to know the new LHD

Seeing as though I'm not up to up to date I knew there had to be many RAN personnel getting to know how the Spanish Navy's Juan Carlos I is operated and SOPs so the HMAS Canberra could get off the ground running so there is a smaller gap between launch date and commissioning date. I'm a bit surprised that the Spanish are continuing with their AV-8B Harriers II although maybe they might just wait out to see how the F-35B aircraft operates with other countries around the globe with LHDs?

QUOTE
Read the entire 3+Mb PDF as indicated. You may learn something that is not land/RAAF centric.


I try read your links but some of them just don't come up for example the:
CAS___NavAv_The_Navy_Vol_72_No_4_Oct_2010.pdf just came up with nearly 100 pages of all random characters you could find on a keyboard. If you are talking about the: http://navyleague.org.au/wp-content/upload..._4-Oct-2010.pdf I'm about to read that now. Unfortunately the F-16.net site is still down. Also OneDrive you have to sign up then I have no idea how to use or which PDF to view.

QUOTE
If only our LHD then that ship will be near an appropriate BINGO landing place ashore for any demo of probably USMC F-35B capability ops. This is not a lengthy process. Planning for this event will have been considered years ago. So far the F-35B has been twice aboard USS Wasp for testing in Oct 2011 for about 72 VLs and STOs; then again in Aug 2013 for some 90 odd similar but under more difficult conditions, such as wind and a fuel internal load. No problems were to be seen.


I've seen on YouTube the successful Short Takeoffs and Vertical Landings of the F-35B off the USS Wasp and other testing ages ago. Seeing as though the Wasp class is a completely flat deck so will our 13 degree ski-jump make the MINIMUM take off length for our possible F-35Bs shorter? The minimum take off length for a maximum weight (fuel and weapons) is 167.64 metres while the flight deck length of the HMAS Canberra is 202.3m long. Doesn't seem like much room for error, unless it takes off without much fuel and hits the tanker soon after launch?

QUOTE
The F-35 family are slated for modification on a regular basis for both software and hardware alternately and then both at a regular interval (several years) over their lifetime.


Just like updating the software on your iPhone from time to time :lol: Lastly like I brought up do we have the ability to store enough jet fuel and diesel on aboard without a replenishment ship escorting it? Also once the new Hobart-class Air Warfare Destroyers are built I might guess they will escort the new LHDs like a mini US Carrier Battle Group? In the meantime I would ASSUME that they would have an Anzac-class or Adelaide-class frigates by their side for anti-air?

If I said or assumed anything erroneous it is not intentional.

Cheers! :D


(IMG:http://news.navy.gov.au/images/cache/746x497/crop_0_0_1000_666/images%7Ccms-image-000000627.jpg)
PMEmail Poster
Top
Luig
Posted: May 30 2014, 12:59 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

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



Despite what I read about Adobe Reader for Windows on the internet it is always best to use the latest version which is available for your platform here:

http://get.adobe.com/reader/otherversions/

Having once again downloaded the full version of the Navy League PDF and then the excerpt here OK (try right clicking on the URLs to download the PDFs rather than just left clicking on them) I suggest you try again. Yes F-16.net is down and I have no idea why.

IF you look at the instructions about the folders and PDFs for either OneDrive or GoogleDrive you should be able to fathom what is what. All the names of things have words joined, with separate words usually beginning with a capital letter. You will get used to it.

The first part of your question is correct whilst the second part is just a fabrication from ignorance.
QUOTE
"...will our 13 degree ski-jump make the MINIMUM take off length for our possible F-35Bs shorter? The minimum take off length for a maximum weight (fuel and weapons) is 167.64 metres while the flight deck length of the HMAS Canberra is 202.3m long. Doesn't seem like much room for error, unless it takes off without much fuel and hits the tanker soon after launch?..."

You seem to want to forget that the LHD was designed by Spain to be able to operate the F-35B. Why would they not have sufficient deck length with ski jump to NOT be able to STO JUMP with a full internal weapon/fuel load? This is a vital KPP [Key Performance Parameter - which are well documented in the F-35 PDFs for example] for both the USMC and UK F-35Bs. I operate in feet being an oldie so the Oz LHDs are quite capable of launching an F-35B as described.

No ship - any kind of ship including a replenishment ship - operates anywhere at sea for any length of time without having to be replenished. As simple as that and a completely every day manoeuvre for all concerned. The UK old CVSs used to operate their SHARs during RASs (Replenishment at Sea). Not even a CVN can carry all the requirements needed without RAS - other than the diesel for their nuke engines of course.

That the Oz LHDs will be escorted by our Air Warfare Destroyers I hope has been made clear and not just by me inadvertently. These LHDs will not go anywhere in other than peacetime unescorted. HMAS Melbourne the aircraft carrier had a destroyer escort all the time or the potential for one nearby. Why? Mostly so that MELBOURNE itself would provide fuel and sometimes other stores for the escort(s). Otherwise a replenishment ship was there also for the same task. Sometimes (there are photos) of various combinations of three ships alongside one another RASing at the same time.

This post has been edited by Luig on May 30 2014, 01:02 AM
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Warhawk
  Posted: May 30 2014, 12:29 PM
Quote Post


ADF Serials Research Co-ord
*

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



Sigh

So the first F-35 ski jump testing will be done by the RAF/RN circa 2015-16. The original concept of the SHAR Invincible Class 9 degree(Original), later the perfect 12 degree ramp along with her sisters and Hermes is well documented.

Spain is broke and is in the middle of their "Austere" Budget cuts and restructure, and is now only operating Radar AV-8B Plus type after withdrawing their surviving AV-8Bs.

Italy, a AV-8B Plus operator, who actually will assemble their own F-35A/Bs in country, has "cut" their program from 130 plus to down to near 96 in a mix, but may and most probably go down further to a 60 mix. One Airforce and one Armada Sqn worth each, plus Air Force F-35A Sqns.

No Mention that Thailand? will they replace their grounded ex Spanish AV-8As per their 12 Degree Ramped 90's Spanish built Aircraft Carrier either (Yeap they have the newer sister ship of the now retired Spanish Carrier)

UK is set to order 14 F-35Bs as we tap, on top of the 4 already, to equip 617 Sqn with an IOC in 2018,.........with RNFAA numbered Sqn forming second per the next incremental order. Looks like 48 will be the eventual number. Then there's the Scottish Independence Referendum in September 2014, will they demand a carrier?(Sorry tongue in cheek on that one!)

So its all look "if ,when or maybe" at present

Per software, I find that if you just follow the idiot queues, you can't go wrong! I'm a case in point.

So on that note, I shall retire from this string

"Go Navy"

Gordy

PMEmail Poster
Top
Luig
Posted: May 30 2014, 12:46 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

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



Not sure what you are getting at in your post above Gordy but never mind - my problem - I'll reread it a few times. Yes Spain will upgrade their AV-8Bs to soldier on without buy any F-35Bs - for the time being. Budgets improve we hope but who knows. Thailand is out of the picture I have no idea why you bring it up but anyway...

The USMC plan to retire their AV-8Bs by 2030 and have several upgrades in the works. It takes time to buy the required F-35B/C aircraft in bunches, year by year, to replace the USN/USMC fleets - as required. I can provide more detail on that. Meanwhile - back at the ranch....

The Cost of Defence ASPI Defence Budget Brief 2014–2015
QUOTE
“...No doubt the situation will become obvious in the development of the 2015 Defence White Paper. When it does, we should expect to see two things. First, the size of the force will grow. An extra battalion or two to crew the new LHD amphibious vessels would help bring things into balance, as would a squadron of jump jet variants of the F-35 to reinstate the fleet air arm aboard the LHD. Such possibilities aren’t to be discounted. Back in 2008 Andrew Davies and I modelled the sorts of defence forces we could have if we spent around 2% of GDP in the 2020s (see the ASPI paper Strategic Choices: Defending Australia in the 21st Century) and we were surprised by just how much capability could be afforded....” (page 141)


Source: https://www.aspi.org.au/publications/the-co...Defence2014.pdf (6.4Mb)

This post has been edited by Luig on May 30 2014, 12:47 PM
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
F/A-18 Super Bug
Posted: May 30 2014, 01:17 PM
Quote Post


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

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



Cheers Luig as always, I'll try get the latest Adobe PDF reader if I don't unknowingly have it already and I'll keep trying F-16.net as that at a quick glance is a wealth of information!

QUOTE
You seem to want to forget that the LHD was designed by Spain to be able to operate the F-35B. Why would they not have sufficient deck length with ski jump to NOT be able to STO JUMP with a full internal weapon/fuel load?


Oh so what's the difference between the Juan Carlos I and the new Canberra class? I mean the Spanish have no plans to buy the F-35B (see link below)? Or did the Spanish Defence Force when they designed their Juan Carlos I way back in the early 2000s leave the door open for F-35B (which would have just been drawings back then).

Adios F-35 Purchase: Spain Extends the Life of Its Harriers

Spain will extend the service life of its AV-8B Plus Harrier shipboard fighters until at least 2015 as it cannot afford to buy F-35B STOVL fighters to replace them, as it originally planned. (Armada photo at bottom)
One of the biggest concerns of the Spanish navy about its future -- the 'expiration' of the Harrier fighters and their complicated succession – has now been solved by a 70-million euro plan to extend their service life beyond 2025. Their intended replacement, the American F-35B, must wait "until it becomes financially accessible" for Spain.
Spain has secured the future of its naval air wing, after years of uncertainty about what vertical takeoff fighters it would operate after 2020.
After the loss of the aircraft carrier 'Principe de Asturias’ -- an ideal platform for STOVL fighters, but which has now been retired -- the Navy had begun a process of reducing its Harrier force. Four of them were 'retired' after having been modernized at a total cost of about 11 million euros (about 3 million euros each) as no economic resources were available to operate and support them.
With an outlay of 70 million euros-spread over ten years, Spain has gained access to the equipment and spare parts necessary to ensure that its fleet of AV-8B Harrier Plus fighters continue flying beyond 2025.

One of the options being considered for the future is that, once the US takes these STOVL aircraft into service, it could hand over a few of them to Spain until the Spanish economy improves enough to allows the purchase of an F-35B package of its own.


I wish the US would lend us a few F-35Bs until we have some spare change or a budget surplus! B)

The minimum takeoff length of a F-35B is just 400 feet however I can't find the minimum takeoff length of a AV-8B Harrier II. One thing I am second guessing is why didn't the architects of our LHDs didn't install thermion heat-resistant deck coating required to accommodate the F-35B’s exhaust? Even if we don't have our own F-35Bs we do want the ability for cross decking with Allied ships (USMC mainly) that do operate F-35Bs? I mean the Spanish Navy operate their STOVL Harriers so they must have thermion heat-resistant decking so maybe the RAN is waiting until we actually have F-35Bs in the pipeline so why spend the money now I ASSUME.

QUOTE
That the Oz LHDs will be escorted by our Air Warfare Destroyers I hope has been made clear and not just by me inadvertently. These LHDs will not go anywhere in other than peacetime unescorted.


Can I get your opinion on whether our new LHDs need more weapons systems (we only have 4 x 25mm and several .50 cals) especially when you compare it to the US Wasp class ships with an arsenal of anti-air, anti-ship missiles, guns and cannons?

Lastly can you see the RAN FAA or the RAAF ever buying a V-22 Osprey VTOL tiltrotor aircraft in the future to operate from the LHDs? If this has already been discussed on another military forum or a RAN/RAAF newspaper then I apologise for not being up to date with possible future aircraft of any kind. They do fold up nicely as to not take up so much real estate either up top or in the hanger.

Thanks as always!!

(IMG:http://www.shephardmedia.com/static/images/article/MV-22_Japan_Folded_USMC.jpg)


2 x Spanish AV-8B Plus Harriers
(IMG:http://www.defense-aerospace.com/base/util/154245_1F.jpg)
PMEmail Poster
Top
Luig
Posted: May 30 2014, 02:25 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

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



F-16.net for the audio is back online:
QUOTE
"29 May 2014 20:20
As you probably noticed, the site has been off-line since Tuesday 1800GMT, due to a catastrophic hardware failure. We now have a new server up and running. Some minor issues remain (e.g. non-standard characters do not display properly yet) but we're working to fix those. Apologies for the inconvenience - Stefaan"


This post has been edited by Luig on Jun 1 2014, 09:51 AM
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: May 30 2014, 02:40 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

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



Again try reading up on your questions - just ask a question without proffering some bollocks as your answer already. Just proffer the bollocks without the question if you follow my drift? Anyway it is well known and on several official Spanish websites (which have to be in English) and several old news reports (often in the PDFs online) that the Juan Carlos I was designed with the F-35B in mind. Go there if you do not download the PDFs and read this info for yourself. I could post a URL but you give me so much to do I just can't be bothered at moment.

The Spanish Government have also paid LM to provide information about operating F-35Bs from their LHD. This makes sense - no? The Spanish like a lot of EURO countries have budget troubles. What they have done is delayed considering buying F-35Bs by upgrading their Harriers and prolonging their support contract. The USMC do this also (in their way) by making sure their Harriers or what is left of them will be going until 2030. This end date has been put back by more than a decade over the last decade as the USMC realised the delays in the F-35 program. The Brits gave the USMC a gift by selling their Harrier hardware to them on the cheap.

I fail to see how the USMC lending anyone their F-35Bs will be helpful. Perhaps they will operate with the Spanish as they will anyway. No one is stupid here. In the same way the USMC will flop off our ski jump when they can.

Once again download the LHD and the F-35 and the 'how to deck land' PDFs when you can. There is a tonne of info about THERMION in these PDFs. THERMION is only recent. Only recently it was revealed that the CVFs will have a similar - if not the same - deck coating (the UK seem to NOT want to say what it is yet). Why does everything have to happen tomorrow? Our guvmnt has not even decided to have our F-35BS on our LHDs and you want the deck covered in THERMION? Sheesh. The first LHD has not been accepted by the RAN yet. Even.

The Spanish LHD will have appropriate deck coating for their Harrier fleet which have qualified for operations onboard. End of.

You seem to be a bit slow on the uptake. What self defence weapon is better than an F-35B on fleet defence duties?

I can see the ADF putting one foot in front of another on any question of new equipment especially for example the V-22. Wait until the USMC PROVE their new missions with the mission equipment for air refuelling (already under development) and other missions slated for their V-22s. Australia has apparently expressed some interest but nothing much more than that. I'm sure the Brits would find them useful but once again they have to have the funds and a reason that they discover for themselves. All this takes time. They have yet to even launch their first CVF etc.

Cartoon from: https://www.aspi.org.au/publications/the-co...Defence2014.pdf (6.4Mb)

This post has been edited by Luig on May 30 2014, 02:52 PM

Attached Image
Attached Image
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: Jun 1 2014, 09:48 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

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



F-35B JSF for the ADF—a viable option in the 2015 White Paper? (Part 2) 30 May 2014 Malcolm Davis
http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/f-35b-jsf...e-paper-part-2/
QUOTE
"...it’s becoming clear that China’s rapid military modernisation, its assertive behavior in the East and South China Sea, and the growing regional security dilemmas emerging in the form of regional military modernisation, will increase the risk of conflict in the future. In that future, the risk must be that Australia will be drawn into a regional conflict involving the United States and China.

In that scenario it’s likely that US military forces would have access to Australian military facilities in the north and west. It also seems plausible that the ADF, working alongside US air and naval forces, would be required to respond to Chinese attempts to deny US forces a sanctuary in Australia from which to conduct operations against China. That could involve Chinese forces seeking to contest Australian air and sea approaches, and launch attacks on US forces operating from Australian facilities. Based on language in the 2013 White Paper, the ADF’s response to such a challenge would be to ‘...deter attacks or coercion against Australia by demonstrating our capability to impose prohibitive costs on potential aggressors and deny them the ability to control our maritime approaches'. Furthermore, the ADF might also ‘...undertake operations against adversary’s bases and forces in transit, as far from Australia as possible. ...using strike capabilities and the sustained projection of power by joint task forces, including amphibious operations in some circumstances'....

...It’s in countering the advantages bestowed by strategic geography on an adversary practising anti-access operations where a small force of F-35Bs deployed on LHDs might play a significant role. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s key advantages are purported to be stealth, integrated avionics and an ability to network with off-board sensors—all of which contribute to the pilot in the F-35 having an information advantage over an opponent, whether that opponent is in the air, on land or on the sea. If the F-35B is seen as a key node in an intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) network that contributes towards an expeditionary force gaining a knowledge advantage at the tactical level, then a force of F-35Bs on board LHDs will add to the joint task force survivability. Information gathered by the sensor systems can be exploited by the F-35B to attack detected targets, or the F-35B can act as a sensor in a ‘sensor to shooter’ link, with the ‘shooter’ being a naval vessel or a submarine. Furthermore, the F-35B can exploit austere bases on land—known as forward arming and refuelling points (FARPs)—to operate in support of naval task forces in archipelagic waters, thus easing operational challenges and risks for the LHDs....

...Only a small number could be carried onboard the LHDs, and at the expense of other important capabilities. But an F-35B acquisition could offer the ADF a more flexible way to undertake the Principal Tasks, even in the face of growing threats from an adversary’s anti-access ability."


MAP: https://www.aspi.org.au/publications/taking...35_decision.pdf (2Mb)

This post has been edited by Luig on Jun 1 2014, 11:33 AM

Attached Image
Attached Image
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
F/A-18 Super Bug
Posted: Jun 1 2014, 03:29 PM
Quote Post


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

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



I am loving this F-16.net mate! I had never even heard of an Advanced Super Hornet until today. There's a lot for me to to catch up on.

F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Advanced Super Hornet features

So does the RAAF have any plans to upgrade our current Super Hornets into "Advanced"?

QUOTE
Once again download the LHD and the F-35 and the 'how to deck land' PDFs when you can. There is a tonne of info about THERMION in these PDFs. THERMION is only recent. Only recently it was revealed that the CVFs will have a similar - if not the same - deck coating (the UK seem to NOT want to say what it is yet). Why does everything have to happen tomorrow? Our guvmnt has not even decided to have our F-35BS on our LHDs and you want the deck covered in THERMION? Sheesh. The first LHD has not been accepted by the RAN yet. Even.



New £500million Joint Strike Fighters set to cost taxpayers even more... because jump jets may MELT ships' decks


The controversial replacements for the Harrier jump jets may cost taxpayers even more than their £500million asking price - because the heat from take off could melt aircraft carriers' decks. The fumes from the U.S. Joint Strike Fighters are so hot that special heat-resistant paint will be required to protect the take-off strip. But American military experts are still developing the coating, which the Britain will now have to beg for as well as the new planes.

The flaw is the latest problem to hit the ministry of defence's 6.2billion plan for two new aircraft carriers after scrapping the Ark Royal and selling off the Harriers. It comes just two weeks after Defence Secretary Philip Hammond was forced into an embarrassing U-turn over the purchase of the new jets. He scrapped plans to replace the Harriers with conventional F-35C planes, which take off from an runway, when the £2billion cost of fitting the new warships with catapult take-off systems was discovered. The Government then had to revert to the previous Labour government's plan to purchase 12 F-35B 'jump jets', at a cost of up to £500million each. The turnaround cost taxpayers an estimated £250million. The new heat-resistant 'Thermion' coating has been developed in America after U.S. tests showed that exhausts from the jets could melt ships' decks.

An MoD spokesman said the cost of the new paint would be 'negligible' and were 'greatly offset' by the savings from not fitting the £2billion 'cats and traps' to the aircraft carriers. Work to identify a suitable deck coat is ongoing so exact costs are not yet available,' the spokesman said. The new aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, are set to be completed in 2020. The project has been branded an 'omnishambles' by Labour defence spokesman Jim Murphy. A spokesman for the MOD said: 'The MoD will save £2BN by not fitting "cats and traps" and this will greatly offset the relatively small cost of specialist deck coating which has always been factored into our plans. 'Deck coating was always part of the STOVL variant ship specification. Work to identify a suitable deck coating paint is ongoing with our American partners in this project.'


So although the size of the Queen Elizabeth class would enable it to accommodate most current and projected carrier-based fixed-wing aircraft the lack of arresting gear and angled flight deck means that, as initially completed, it is only capable of operating STOVL aircraft.

Therefore I ASSUME that the UK's MoD has crunched the numbers and worked out it's cheaper and easier to operate STOVL aircraft F-35Bs, Harriers and possibly V-22s rather than a conventional A/C carrier aircraft with the catapult and arresting gear for say the F-35Cs or Super Hornets in the future. These V-22s have landed on the HMS Illustrious in the past and ironically they also have the same problem with their exhausts causing deck heating problems.

QUOTE
THERMION is only recent. Only recently it was revealed that the CVFs will have a similar - if not the same - deck coating


DISCLAIMER (if this has already been discussed on said website I'm sorry) So if the UK have been operating their Jump Jet Harriers from their Invincible class aircraft carriers for decades then what deck coating did these ships have that allowed the Harriers the Vertically take off (if they needed to) and land vertically without melting their carrier's deck?

Or is the heat from the F-35B exhaust way more hotter than the Harriers? I'm getting mixed messages from my research of the exhaust temperature of a F-35B vs an AV-8B Harrier.

Below taken from:

Why Can’t America’s Newest Stealth Jet Land Like It’s Supposed To?

The F-35B—the version of the Joint Strike Fighter that the Marines and the British are buying—is designed to take off in a few hundred feet and land vertically, like a helicopter. Its advocates say that will allow the Marines to use short runways worldwide as improvised fighter bases, providing air cover for expeditionary forces. But to do VL, the engine thrust must be pointed straight downward, and the jet is twice the size of a Harrier. Result: a supersonic, pulsating jackhammer of 1,700-degree F exhaust gas.

In December 2009, the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (Navfac) issued specifications for contractors bidding on JSF construction work. The main engine exhaust, the engineers said, was hot and energetic enough to have a 50% chance of spalling concrete on the first VL. (“Spalling” occurs when water in the concrete boils faster than it can escape, and steam blows flakes away from the surface.)

Lockheed Martin, the lead contractor on the F-35B, was dismissive. The specifications were out of date and based on worst-case assessments, the company said, and tests in January 2010 showed that “the difference between F-35B exhaust temperature and that of the AV-8B [Harrier] is very small, and is not anticipated to require any significant… changes” to how the new plane was operated.



Hmmmm who to believe? B)
PMEmail Poster
Top
Luig
Posted: Jun 1 2014, 04:08 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

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



I'll just post this effort to help NON STOVL operators (including me) understand how the F-35B flies. The F-35 PDFs online or the "HOW TO DECK LAND" PDFs especially have plenty of info on this aspect and how it was achieved (VACC Harrier).

‘GREEN KNIGHTS’ The F-35B in service with VMFA-121 May 2014 Gary Wetzel www.combataircraft.net
Combat Aircraft Monthly May 2014 Vol 15, No 5
QUOTE
"Since the first F-35B arrived at MCAS Yuma, Arizona on November 16, 2012, VMFA-121 has made tremendous gains as it proceeds toward an initial operating capability (IOC) target of July 2015. Every step forward, no matter how minute, is part of a carefully-crafted plan designed to move the Marine Corps firmly into the leading edge of F-35 operations....

...One of the biggest reasons for the delay in proceeding at full rate with STOVL qualifications was completion of the new auxiliary landing field (ALF). This is replacing Aux 2, which had been the Harrier fleet’s lone facility for conducting vertical landing and take-offs and short-take offs for decades. The new ALF will more realistically replicate landings on the LHA/LHD assault ships that will deploy with F-35s as the central part of their strike force. It will have two different ‘decks’ to choose from, one each basically pointing north and south to take advantage of the prevailing winds around MCAS Yuma. Better training for F-35 operations, as well as the Harrier and rotary-wing platforms, will thus be provided.

STOVL operations
Lt Col Gillette also spoke about the ease of STOVL flight in the F-35 and what that means to his squadron and future USMC F-35 units. ‘I was an F/A-18 guy, so landing a jet vertically was something completely new to me. What I will tell you, from the experience of going through STOVL training and then going out and executing the shortened take-off, or slow landing, and then the vertical landing, is that this is something the engineers at Lockheed Martin got 100 per cent correct. It is amazingly easy to be extremely precise in the Mode 4, which is what we call VL. The beauty of the flight control logic is that it never changes regardless of the flight control mode you are in. So, imagine I am flying conventionally: if I want to go up, I pull back on the stick, and if I want to go down I push forward. Same for left or right. If I want to go forward I push ahead on the throttle and if I want to slow down I pull the throttle aft. That is also the basic control law the F-35 flies in what we call ‘up and away’, which is just normal conventional flight. When you transition to Mode 4, or STOVL, the flight control logic does not change as I decelerate and come to a hover.

‘Additionally, just through the advances in technology, when I tell the jet to hover over this point on earth it can do it hands-free. The F-35 will wind-correct, lean its wing into the wind and sit right over that point. When you think about that from a training continuum, and compare that to the Harrier fleet and their STOVL efforts, they [have to] spend so much time getting a pilot proficient at landing and maintaining that proficiency. Whether through simulators, practice flights here at Yuma or going out to the ship for periods at sea, the time spent in STOVL is extensive. I think with the F-35, in terms of time, money, flights, simulators, and so on, there will be a reduced amount of resources required to retain the same level of proficiency the Harrier units do now. Now, like anything it is cosmic until you go out and do it. But once you do and see it, you are like, ‘This wasn’t hard!’ And that was my big take-away from my first STOVL landing, which was on November 13, 2013. I don’t want to say it was mindlessly easy, but pretty close to that.’...

...Marines on the move
Marine air power is expeditionary in its very nature, able to pack up and move with little support, and the USMC F-35 squadrons will be no different. So far the F-35 community, and especially VMFA-121, has enjoyed the comfort of operating from state-of-the-art hangars and new buildings. However, an important lesson the squadron must learn is how to re-locate to somewhere where the established architecture is absent. During 2014, VMFA-121 will move twice. First, during late spring or early summer, it will simply move hangars, taking the first step necessary before going off-site to another location in the fall.

Prior to the delivery of the 2B software, the 16 F-35Bs the ‘Green Knights’ own will be shuffled off for airframe modifications. Throughout 2014, the squadron will have to manage the flow of airframes combined with the goal of meeting operational objectives...."


This post has been edited by Luig on Jun 1 2014, 04:08 PM
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: Jun 1 2014, 05:06 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

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



Until you provide evidence that you have at least downloaded the F-35 specific PDFs from my webpage as mentioned I'm not going to put a lot of effort into answering your questions (that seem to stem from ignorance and reading the 'Daily Fail'). How credible is any news report that says the F-35B will melt the decks of ships. The reporter is either blind, has no access to the internet and must have come to earth in the last shitshower. For Fsake.

IF you look at the PDFs as mentioned you will see a HEAP of info about THERMION. endof.

Yes you have a lot of catching up to do to inform yourself generally and specifically about the F-35s and CVFs and all the other things. Get to it.

Then there is Bill Sweetman the self nominated arch enemy of the F-35s specifically the F-35B and the USMC in particular. No one in the US answers his e-mailed questions these days. Go figure why. See the first sentence of this paragraph.

There must be credible information out there? No? IF NOT why has the F-35B conducted two successful at sea deck landing and take off trials by day and night with heavy and light loads under all kinds of wind conditions. HOW is that correct? Someone has their head up their arse and it ain't me and it should not be you if you what? Download and read the PDFs online.

Specifically what Sweetman has a bee in his bonnet about the concrete is that for long term vertical landing use (with an occasional but not operationally required vertical takeoff) the permanent concrete pads at the various F-35B or potential F-35B training / landing places must have very specific strong concrete made pads. Again all this info is in the PDF.

Ashore there are many places suitable for seldom VL use and if any length of suitable material available (such as a runway - even an old macadam runway) then the F-35B can accomplish a dazzling array of variations of VLs from Creeping, to Slow and aboard a flat deck ship SRVL Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing. The SRVL requires more airspeed for some wing lift at around 60-70 KIAS depending on landing weight. With the ship making WOD Wind Over the Deck at perhaps 20 knots plus natural wind speed of 10 knots for example then the WOD is 30 knots. That means the ground speed of the touch down F-35B during and SRVL on CVF (no other place) will be 30-40 knots. The F-35B has computer controlled brakes. It will be able to stop in the required distance after clearing the stern of the ship with a higher than a conventional carrier landing aircraft glideslope. IF there is a problem it is thought that the F-35B can then accelerate down the deck and get airborne again off the ski jump (this would be called a bolter in conventional carrier ops). Where is a huge amount of info on how to deck land and how to specifically do this F-35 stuff?

Any other VL places one would consider NOT PERMANENT including the decks of suitable ships. So for example to ameliorate the effect of the heat on the current USN LHAs it is said that the VL spots will be varied slightly for each sortie so that any wear/tear is spread over the entire deck more or less and NOT just in the same spot over and over. This repeated heat stress on one spot will cause a problem over time.

Thermion is a new hard wearing non slip deck coating that should last for a decade, rather than the half year life of the current 'Harrier capable' deck coating. Think about the money saved by not having to repaint the deck twice a year.

As for sources for good info this will probably seem strange to you but a regular Military/Aviation website with some history of publishing would be a start. New websites publishing crap, including the DAILY FAIL, don't cut it of course ;but - whatever.

Ask a question from the PDFs and I can be more wordy perhaps. However saying the same things over and over is beyond tedious.

This post has been edited by Luig on Jun 1 2014, 05:15 PM
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
F/A-18 Super Bug
Posted: Jun 2 2014, 10:08 AM
Quote Post


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

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



Before I get to the rest of your post I'll answer your question for you:

QUOTE
There must be credible information out there? No? IF NOT why has the F-35B conducted two successful at sea deck landing and take off trials by day and night with heavy and light loads under all kinds of wind conditions. HOW is that correct? Someone has their head up their arse and it ain't me and it should not be you if you what? Download and read the PDFs online.


The Wasp’s New Heat-Resistant Deck Coating

Remember a few weeks ago when we ran the picture above showing an F-35B Joint Strike Fighter hovering over what appears to be a new deck coating aboard the USS Wasp?

We wondered is the coating was designed to absorb the F-35B’s hot exhaust that many had worried would melt the ship’s deck. Well, the Navy has just put out a little more detail on the coating in a press release announcing the end of F-35B sea trials.

It turns out, this is indeed a new, heat-resistant deck coating called Thermion. It’s made of bonded ceramic and aluminum and was applied to landing spot nine on the Wasp’s flight deck — “a small area used for vertical landings,” according to the Navy.

The press release quotes a Navy technician who worked on the deck coating as saying, “the Thermion shows no signs of heat stress, which is good for the F-35, and eventually good for all surface ships.”

Interesting. I wonder if Thermion will be applied to the entire flight deck on amphibious assault ships slated to carry F-35Bs or is it too heavy and expensive to apply to the entire flight deck?

The Bravo isn’t slated to return for more sea trials aboard the Wasp until 2013, “after Wasp receives additional modifications for F-35B operations,” states the release.

Speaking of modifications, we also noticed that a large radome has been removed from the ship’s port side, just off the flight deck area where the F-35s were landing. Relocating this radome could be one of the modifications the release is talking about.

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2011/10/25/the-wasp.../#ixzz33R4JxSzP
Defense.org
PMEmail Poster
Top
F/A-18 Super Bug
Posted: Jun 2 2014, 10:13 AM
Quote Post


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

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



This is the opinion of a friend of mine who is coming up to 20 years in the US Navy and is currently with SWCC but has served on Carriers and a Destroyer, below is his comment:

I have a friend at NAVAIR, now an LDO Officer. AFAIK Thermion was needed on Wasp due to the extremities of the testing. Operational Conditions won't near the levels they do in the trials. The Navy isn't going with Thermion on every LHD/LHA, its simply too expensive. So I doubt any other country will. Ive seen Thermion in action in the past. It used to be part of the Passive Countermeasures System (PCMS) used on Aegis Ships and Amphibs to make them a little more stealthy. The RCS benefits on the Burke Class was actually substantial. But in the long run it just wasn't worth it for the benefits. Ive actually seen it applied. First you have to flame-spray aluminum, which is expensive in itself. Then you roll on a special sealant. Then you basically have to melt on these special epoxy plates, which in turn gets covered with a thin ceramic. The wire-spray aluminum on top of that. Then a special paint which costs about 5k for a 5 gallon bucket. On top of that another sealer. On top of that goes a special flight deck non-skid with some kind of special silica in place of the sand.

Overall the situation is overblown. It simply means there is a bit more frequent re-application of the flight deck material. This is not just an F-35 issue. Many jump on it, just to get on the F-35 bandwagon. Its actually always been a problem on many ships with many aircraft. The V-22 is actually the worst of all on the decks. Tomcats, when they started carrying bombs, were notorious for deck wear. The heavy F-18Fs do damage too.


This post has been edited by F/A-18 Super Bug on Jun 2 2014, 10:14 AM
PMEmail Poster
Top
Luig
Posted: Jun 2 2014, 11:26 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

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



Well one can fixate on THERMION till the cows come home. Something is expensive if it is not needed. If it only needs to be applied where it is needed every decade then sure sounds like good value to me. Stories from your mates are just that. I have photos of CVN decks that make it look very ragtag indeed but that is only the spot where most aircraft have landed catching the target No.3 wire after a long cruise. So - whatever.

THERMION will actually be a better heat conductor to heat the steel deck plates underneath. That is a minor issue. What THERMION does is provide the non-skid surface (especially when wet / icy conditions) so that aircraft and machines and people can move around more safely. THERMION is hard wearing so that - wait for it - it does not need to be applied every 6 months. Go read the PDFs online (download them first).

THERMION or equivalent will be especially important for CVF for SRVL (if SRVL is deemed safe for operational use. SRVL may not be required. Still early days after a decade of development interrupted by the Brits nonsensical switcheroo from F-35B to F-35C and back to F-35B again. Oh those Brits are a barrel of laughs. :rolleyes:
__________________________

Pushing forward on the stick to go down vertically from a hover still makes my skin crawl. :-)

AUTO STO 450 feet & VL in Simulator - 60 Mins TV

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/f-35-60-minutes-david-martin/
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: Jun 3 2014, 08:19 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

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



Because the success of the F-35B - firstly with USMC - is important to the notion of having F-35Bs on our LHDs then here is some news.... MORE detail at the jump if interested. I just ONLY bring you the good bits. :D

Marine Joint Strike Fighter on Track to Meet 2015 Goal 02 June 2014 Dave Majumdar

http://news.usni.org/2014/06/02/marine-joi...-meet-2015-goal

QUOTE
"The U.S. Marine Corps’ F-35B short take-off vertical landing (STOVL) version of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is making good progress toward meeting its July 2015 initial operational capability (IOC) date according to company officials....

...“They anticipate that testing will be complete late this year in November or December.”

The Marine Corps intends to declare the F-35B operational with interim Block 2B capabilities in July 2015. The Block 2B configuration includes basic data-fusion capabilities including data-links and a limited suite of weapons including the Raytheon AIM-120 advanced medium range air-to-air missiles (AMRAAM), 500lbs GBU-12 laser-guided bombs, and 1000lbs GBU-32 Joint Direct Attack Munitions....

...In addition to weapons capability, the Block 2B configuration will also afford operational pilots the ability to use more of the F-35B’s flight envelope....

...However, with the delivery of Block 2B, the aircraft will be cleared to operate at 550 knot KCAS, Mach 1.2, 50 degrees angle of attack and 5.5G, Van Camp said.... Further, with Block 2B, the aircraft’s maximum ceiling will be limited to 40,000ft rather than the full 50,000ft ceiling required for the full Block 3F operational capability....

...Both JSF program manager Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan and Marine Corps’ deputy commandant for aviation Lt. Gen. Robert Schmidle testified before Congress in March that modifying the existing F-35B fleet to operational standards in time for IOC would be the greater challenge.

Those hardware upgrades are collectively called “Group 1 modifications”, Van Camp said. There are about 57 individual modifications included in that package.
“Those inductions and work continues to improve on a daily basis,” he said.
However Group 1 modifications do not include a more comprehensive structural upgrade needed to rectify an airframe durability problem that has cropped up in recent months.

Those modifications will be added later in the depot or on the production line—either that, or an aircraft might receive an entirely redesigned bulkhead when it is being built. “All of those [fielded] airplanes at some point in time will have to be modified before they get to a certain number of flight hours,” Van Camp said. “Right now, some of those modifications are not required for several years.”...

...[USMC IOC] means a minimum of 10 deployable aircraft along with trained pilots and maintenance crews, there are still unanswered questions about operationally testing the JSF prior to that IOC date. “The government is going through discussions right now about what kind of operational tests will occur with the release of Block 2B,” Van Camp said.

The Marine Corps, which is the final authority on declaring the F-35B operational or not, referred questions about operational testing to the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO). JPO officials did not respond to attempts to contact them.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: Jun 3 2014, 10:06 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

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



I have been told ad nauseam that our Oz LHDs have been internally modified to disallow some of the things the Spanith Navy can do with their LHD as described below (with an interesting insight into the 'sky jump' [referred to as this in illustrations therein] additional usefulness).
QUOTE
Navantia | Strategic Projection Ship | LHD “Juan Carlos I” Spanish Navy
"...The “JUAN CARLOS I” is a single hull ship made of steel with the superstructure on the starboard side. Her design is based on a combination of military and commercial standards and specifications; the structure, equipment and materials follow Lloyd’s Register of Shipping’s civil standards, whilst her combat system, ordnance handling and stowage systems, systems of supply at sea, flight deck and the damage control system follow military standards.

The ship as being designed with four mission profiles:

AMPHIBIOUS SHIP: Capable of transporting a Marine Infantry Force to carry out landing , supporting operations on land.

FORCE PROJECTION SHIP: Transporting forces of any army to a theatre of operations.

AIRCRAFT CARRIER: A temporary platform for carrier-based naval aircraft, acting as a flight deck for strategic projection airborne vectors (Navy’s Air Wing), capable of becoming a temporary platform to substitute the aircraft-carrier, “PRINCIPE DE ASTURIAS”, when she is not available due to downtime (repairs, modifications, etc.).

HUMANITARIAN AID OPERATIONS SHIP: NON-WAR operations, humanitarian assistance, evacuation of crisis areas, hospital ship in areas affected by natural disaster, etc.

...For its part, the runway has a 12° gradient or ski-jump afore to facilitate the takeoff of STOVL and to improve the loading capacity of fuel and weaponry....

...The flight deck has been designed to operate, launch, receive and provide support, both day and night, to planes and helicopters such as the third Squadron’s AB-212, the fifth Squadron’s SH-3D, and the ninth Squadron’s AV-8B Harrier II Plus. As well as the aircraft in service with the Navy, the ship is able to receive the Army’s CH-47 Chinook, Eurocopter Cougar and Tiger as well as the NH-90 when it enters into service with the Navy and with the Spanish Army.

In a significant qualitative leap, this ship is also designed to operate with the STOVL version of the JSF, the F-35B Lightning II, if the Spanish Navy decides to acquire this exceptional plane. A touchdown point has also been reserved astern of the flight deck that is specially adapted (in dimensions and resistance) for the special needs of the new V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft.

For the transfer of aircraft between the hanger and the flight deck, the Juan Carlos I has two elevators, each with a capacity of 25 tonnes and sufficient size to be able to carry up to the new F-35B Lightning II, or a helicopter the size of a Chinook. The capacity of the hangar is variable depending on the mission profile. This means an area of 1,000 m2 would be available for an amphibious type profile. This surface area could be increased by a further 2,046 m2, using the upper garage to have greater capacity for the aircraft. This means the hangar would reach 3,000 m2 for an aircraft carrier type profile. The hanger itself, situated further astern, can house up to 12 medium-sized helicopters. In the case of the LHD operating as a temporary aircraft carrier, the vehicles and material would be substituted by between 10 and 12 STOVL planes, as well as the dozen helicopters previously mentioned. In order to provide support for airborne operations, it is estimated that the ship has sufficient fuel, spare parts and arms so that the embarked aircraft could carry out their operations without the ship needing replenishment for up to a maximum of 50 days.

The planned airborne capacity is for her to transport and operate up to 30 aircraft including medium-sized and heavy helicopters in amphibious operation profiles, or between 10 and 12 F-35B planes or AV-8B+, plus a similar number of medium-sized helicopters when acting with an aircraft carrier mission profile at times when the Príncipe de Asturias R-11 is not operational...."

http://www.navantia.es/ckfinder/userfiles/...ntia_ingles.pdf (2.3Mb)

This post has been edited by Luig on Jun 3 2014, 03:52 PM

Attached Image
Attached Image
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
F/A-18 Super Bug
Posted: Jun 3 2014, 02:14 PM
Quote Post


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

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



QUOTE
Because the success of the F-35B - firstly with USMC - is important to the notion of having F-35Bs on our LHDs then here is some news.... MORE detail at the jump if interested. I just ONLY bring you the good bits. :D

The ship as being designed with four mission profiles:

AMPHIBIOUS SHIP: Capable of transporting a Marine Infantry Force to carry out landing , supporting operations on land.
FORCE PROJECTION SHIP: Transporting forces of any army to a theatre of operations.
AIRCRAFT CARRIER: A temporary platform for carrier-based naval aircraft, acting as a flight deck for strategic projection airborne vectors (Navy’s Air Wing), capable of becoming a temporary platform to substitute the aircraft-carrier, “PRINCIPE DE ASTURIAS”, when she is not available due to downtime (repairs, modifications, etc.).
HUMANITARIAN AID OPERATIONS SHIP: NON-WAR operations, humanitarian assistance, evacuation of crisis areas, hospital ship in areas affected by natural disaster, etc.


Thanks for the info on whether the ski jump makes a difference to maximum take off weight or possibly a shorter take off length. How the hell did you get all that in English when the link is all in Spanish!

So anyways you were saying that the Spanish Defence Force have designed the Juan Carlos I with four mission profiles. Obviously you know the specifications well so I'm confused which of those four mission profiles we can't achieve with our LHDs. The ship will be able to land our new Marines (2RAR) and possibly USMC in amphibious mechanized landing craft e.g. Ex Talisman Sabre, transport troops from 1000 standard and 1600 overload to war zones and what it will be mainly used for is Humanitarian relief missions after natural disasters. It can operate F-35Bs and MV-22s after it has had a deck coating in just a couple of "parking spots" not the whole deck surface.

QUOTE
Well one can fixate on THERMION till the cows come home. Something is expensive if it is not needed. If it only needs to be applied where it is needed every decade then sure sounds like good value to me. Stories from your mates are just that. I have photos of CVN decks that make it look very ragtag indeed but that is only the spot where most aircraft have landed catching the target No.3 wire after a long cruise. So - whatever.

THERMION will actually be a better heat conductor to heat the steel deck plates underneath. That is a minor issue. What THERMION does is provide the non-skid surface (especially when wet / icy conditions) so that aircraft and machines and people can move around more safely. THERMION is hard wearing so that - wait for it - it does not need to be applied every 6 months. Go read the PDFs online (download them first).

THERMION or equivalent will be especially important for CVF for SRVL (if SRVL is deemed safe for operational use. SRVL may not be required. Still early days after a decade of development interrupted by the Brits nonsensical switcheroo from F-35B to F-35C and back to F-35B again. Oh those Brits are a barrel of laughs. rolleyes.gif
__________________________

Pushing forward on the stick to go down vertically from a hover still makes my skin crawl. :-)

AUTO STO 450 feet & VL in Simulator - 60 Mins TV

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/f-35-60-minutes-david-martin/


Just a reply about Flight Deck Shipboard preservation. There is no coating on any ship in history that lasts 10 years. Flight Deck Life Cycles are typically short of a year when the ship has been in a deployment rotation. The carriers/LHDs/LSDs/LPDs/DDGs/FFGs/CGs almost always go through flight deck resurfacing during every Yard 'Availability'. This process is expensive enough and the certification is as time consuming as the application. I participated in 2 DDG Flight Deck Resurfacing projects. And I was at one point a crew member on Wasp before I was close looped into my NEC. Ive seen what the Harrier's do to the deck. Ive done quite a bit of deck resurfacing and preservation as I was originally a Boatswain's Mate. A typical non Flight Deck Surface 12 x 12 costs 1200 dollars to resurface in non skid. No labor costs of course. I say 12 x 12 because that is what 1 5 gal can covers. A small deck Flight Deck CG/DDG/LPD/LSD costs 2 times that because of the need to flame/wire spray prep. Now this one does need labor costs added because it can only be done by Civillians. It costs 3000 a can for CVN/LHD ramp area non skid. All in all 5 different grades of non-skid for the whole deck. 12 x 12? for the whole deck you do the math. Carrier don't reapply the whole surface every time but the ramp, yeah all the time.

Yes Thermion is too expensive to re-apply nearly every 12 months. If the US Navy is any evidence, they are not going to apply it to the new LHA's. If the SecNav and NavAir aren't going to flip for it, who would?
PMEmail Poster
Top
Luig
Posted: Jun 3 2014, 03:56 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

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



It seems some one here lacks serious memory and or reading skills. Look at the post above dated 27 May this year from moi. This is the relevant part replicated from above post but I guess you will complain that you cannot find what I'm referencing:

http://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/ships-boats-craft/lhd]
QUOTE
"...The [LHD] ship's roles are to:

• embark, transport and deploy an embarked force (Army in the case of the ADF but could equally be an allied Army or Marines), along with their equipment and aviation units, and

• carry out/support humanitarian missions....


NOW I am fed up with your friend B/Sing about THERMION. IF ONLY to get this question settled (but I guess not as you seem to be a troll anyway) I will attempt to make a PDF smaller than the file size allowed here to post here. Otherwise it will go to OneDrive and GoogleDrive. Probably there are named PDFs there but I have not looked specifically for them there lately. The content of these webpages and their folders changes over time. You do not seem willing to download any information. This is the last time I do this specifically.

'F/A-18 Super Bug':
Just answering bollocks questions from 'DailyFail' info and your mythical mates is beyond me. I have gone to a lot of trouble to provide information on the drives online as specified. A lot of your questions would be answered if you cared to download and riffle through them. BTW all can be 'text searched' for a specific word or phrase even. There are usually bookmarks to make jumping around to specific topics easy. But go ahead and disregard all this quality information. What that means however is that I will cease answering your specific questions here.

GO HERE: http://www.thermioninc.com/nonskid.php

This post has been edited by Luig on Jun 3 2014, 04:10 PM
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: Jun 3 2014, 05:27 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

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



Some SOBRE advice from the Gents re F-35Bs on LHDs....

Jump jets on navy's agenda as Tony Abbott orders air strike rethink 03 Jun 2014 David Wroe

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/pol...0603-39gl0.html

QUOTE
"Prime Minister Tony Abbott's order to examine turning the navy's amphibious assault ships into aircraft carriers for jump jets will require a major rethink by Defence, top military brass have indicated.

Facing a Senate hearing on Monday, Defence chiefs said little work had so far been done on the possibility of buying a short take-off and vertical landing variant of the Joint Strike Fighter - an idea that has seized the interest of the Prime Minister.

Under questioning by Labor defence spokesman Stephen Conroy, defence chiefs confirmed for the first time that Mr Abbott had asked them to look at the merit of buying the F-35B jump jets under the forthcoming Defence White Paper and accompanying Force Structure Review.

Under the proposal, they would be flown from the navy's two Landing Helicopter Dock amphibious assault ships, which are due to come into service over the next 12 to 18 months.

Chief of Air Force Air Marshal Geoff Brown said the force had not asked for the F-35B but added the idea should be examined along with all other credible options.

"Like all things when you have a new White Paper, you should always examine all sorts of options ... It wasn't something the air force has particularly pushed," he said.

He said significant changes would be needed for the LHD ships to accommodate up to 12 of the fighters

"One of the big issues with having fixed-wing aeroplanes come back onto a ship is you've actually got to get them back in poor weather, so there would be new radars required on the ship as well as instrument landing systems, so there'd be some extensive modifications around that."

Chief of Navy, Vice-Admiral Ray Griggs, said further modifications to the ship would include making the deck heat resistant, and changes to fuel storage and fuel lines, weapons magazines and classified compartments for storage.

"This has been a fairly superficial examination up until now because there hasn't been a serious consideration of this capability going into the ship."

Chief of the Defence Force, General David Hurley, said it was too early even to say how the F-35B would fit into the Australian Defence Force.

Much work was needed to decide even how useful they would be, how much they would cost and what sacrifices would be needed to buy them.

"I think we're in a situation where a new government has come in, there's a White Paper been evolving for a while ... The Prime Minister has ... a view about a capability he ... thinks might be relevant to the ADF. He's asked us to look at that.

"We have a process in place at the moment that will allow us to have a look at that and depending on where we come out on that process, we would then go into all those technical decisions about nature of ship and force structure implications for the ADF."


This post has been edited by Luig on Jun 3 2014, 05:29 PM
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Martin Edwards
Posted: Jun 3 2014, 10:09 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

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



I am not taking sides but it is worrying when Tony Abbot's opinion determines Defence Policy and procurement options.
PM
Top
Luig
Posted: Jun 4 2014, 02:57 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

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



Not at all. What the pollies interest implies is that:

1. They know something - someone has briefed them either by getting their attention or by their own longstanding interest. If the possibility of F-35Bs on LHDs has been there since day one (current DefMin) then of course there are back of the napkin plans at least.

2. The first LHD comes on line this year. Seems to have gone relatively smoothly. Now there is capability why not investigate that with the asset almost ready to use. No big deal.

I will not reiterate why having occasional use of any Oz F-35Bs on our LHDs is a good idea. As mentioned the bigwigs in ADF have to figure out:

All the things mentioned above and more. Perhaps this idea will bear fruit a decade from now. At least it is worthwhile investigating now that the F-35B is on track along with the LHDs.

Ultimately politicians make the final decision influenced by many factors including their briefings. I'll say again. First we had an all F-35 Airforce. Then we had 2 doz Supers then an extra doz Growlers. What happened to that plan?

Do not be surprised by anything especially if CHIN up north wants to stick their head out.

Perhaps I have not repeated this enough. In early 1960s the RAN had decided to have only an ASW helo force aboard HMAS Melbourne by about 1965. Then the 'konfrontasi' happened. Lo and Behold the RAN changed course to re-instate a fixed wing force which came about onboard by 1969. Youse know the rest. What a turn about due to the changing situation up north. Expect same if the north goes feral.

This post has been edited by Luig on Jun 4 2014, 03:00 AM
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: Jun 5 2014, 04:11 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

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



Anyone a subscriber?

Air Force looking at F-35B/LHD combination 04 Jun 2014 Nigel Pittaway | Canberra
QUOTE
"The RAAF is looking at the feasibility of operating the STOVL F-35B variant of the JSF off the decks of Navy's two LHD amphibious warfare ships, according to Chief of Air Force, Air Marshal Geoff Brown...."
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: Jun 6 2014, 04:05 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

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



At last we get to see some official info about what may be required to modify our LHDs for use by our potential F-35Bs. A 0.5Mb PDF made from the transcript here is available for download from here:

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=18996 (PDF 0.5Mb) OOps did not realise the link was broken....

Otherwise the entire transcript is online here:

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee - 02/06/2014 - Estimates - DEFENCE PORTFOLIO

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search...48ab3%2F0000%22

Use the EDIT > Search on this page IE function to search for "F-35B" without the quote marks to find the start of the argybargy.

This post has been edited by Luig on Jun 6 2014, 01:21 PM
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
F/A-18 Super Bug
Posted: Jun 6 2014, 04:50 PM
Quote Post


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

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



QUOTE
http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=18996 (PDF 0.5Mb) OOps did not realise the link was broken....


Thanks for this PDF link it answered quite a few questions but unfortunately none of the Brass were willing to "speculate" on anything, maybe they just prefer to live on official estimate or facts.

Lt Gen. Morrison: I think that all of the answers that you have been given from
this side of the estimates table about joint strike fighters do not need any additions
from me.

Senator CONROY: It sounds like it might get in the way of your group. It is not like you have asked for it. Air Marshal indicated they did not ask for it; Admiral Griggs has indicated that he has not asked for it and from the sound of it you have not
asked for it. ‘Abbott aims for aircraft carriers’ is the headline. I am just trying to get an understanding of what is involved in that. Thank you for that. I am happy to
pass over to someone else, Chair, if there is anyone else. I have more questions in
this area but if someone else wanted to jump in; Senator MacDonald is always
keen….

So Admiral Griggs, Lt Gen. Morrison, Air Marshall Brown, and ADF Chief Hurley haven't asked for the F-35Bs so it seems like it is coming from Politicians.

QUOTE
"The RAAF is looking at the feasibility of operating the STOVL F-35B variant of the JSF off the decks of Navy's two LHD amphibious warfare ships, according to Chief of Air Force, Air Marshal Geoff Brown...."


Having the RAAF running our hypothetical F-35Bs would just be double handling and cost more. It would mean embarking RAAF personnel aboard the LHDs such as mechanics, electricians, ordnance handlers, aviation fuel handlers, plane directors, squadron plane inspectors etc.

The rest such as Helicopter landing signal enlisted personnel, Safety observers, Firefighters, Aircraft elevator operators, Tractor drivers and Cargo-handling personnel can all be looked after by RAN personnel.

QUOTE
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee - 02/06/2014 - Estimates - DEFENCE PORTFOLIO

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search...48ab3%2F0000%22

Use the EDIT > Search on this page IE function to search for "F-35B" without the quote marks to find the start of the argybargy.


Took at lot of reading but it just seems that the politicians are asking a lot of questions about whether the billions of dollars being spent on 90-100 JSFs will keep us still powerful in the region and are still worth the investment...
PMEmail Poster
Top
Luig
Posted: Jun 6 2014, 06:16 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

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



Here is some info about the CVF:

Start of a momentous year for Carrier project 3 Feb 2014 David Downs
QUOTE
“...On the upper deck, the catwalks around the edge of the flight deck are being prepared and will shortly be painted with a heat resistant paint scheme. This will survive the thermal effects of the exhaust of an F35 jet while hovering on the approach to a vertical landing. This work also entails application of the thermal metal spray coating to the edges of the flight deck. This coating system will later be applied across the whole flight deck...."

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/home/blog/gue...e#ixzz2sGrXdsvd

You still do not seem to understand what was being said. The PM/DefMin have asked that the White Paper due in 2015 process should look at having F-35Bs on LHDs. This was not looked at earlier apparently because it was not a specification of previous White Papers specifically. The ADF Chiefs work out how to implement the White Paper whilst the politicians will eventually OK and be responsible for what happens after that.

In effect the PM/DefMin have asked these chaps to look at the question. They will comply they say and until they have more information on that specific question they will not speculate. Sadly that does not stop you reeling out a list of irrelevant stuff though.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: Jun 7 2014, 07:42 PM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

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



Only pages about F-35Bs on LHDs repeat PLUS the chat about buying F-35As from the 02 June 2014 Senate Hearing in Australia PDF attached from:

Original PDF: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/downlo...f848ab3/0000%22 (280Kb PDF)

Edited PDF: http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=19016 (PDF 200Kb)
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
F/A-18 Super Bug
Posted: Jun 8 2014, 03:16 PM
Quote Post


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

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



QUOTE
  Here is some info about the CVF:

Start of a momentous year for Carrier project 3 Feb 2014 David Downs
QUOTE
“...On the upper deck, the catwalks around the edge of the flight deck are being prepared and will shortly be painted with a heat resistant paint scheme. This will survive the thermal effects of the exhaust of an F35 jet while hovering on the approach to a vertical landing. This work also entails application of the thermal metal spray coating to the edges of the flight deck. This coating system will later be applied across the whole flight deck...."

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/home/blog/gue...e#ixzz2sGrXdsvd

You still do not seem to understand what was being said. The PM/DefMin have asked that the White Paper due in 2015 process should look at having F-35Bs on LHDs. This was not looked at earlier apparently because it was not a specification of previous White Papers specifically. The ADF Chiefs work out how to implement the White Paper whilst the politicians will eventually OK and be responsible for what happens after that.

In effect the PM/DefMin have asked these chaps to look at the question. They will comply they say and until they have more information on that specific question they will not speculate. Sadly that does not stop you reeling out a list of irrelevant stuff though.


Quote from my US Navy friend regarding the CVF and it's supposed "heat resistant paint scheme...coating system will later be applied across the whole flight deck...":

Never witnessed a F-35 in person. If I stay at my current command long enough, I likely will see the F-35C in action though. I have seen V-22s in action and landing on the carrier.

Anything about the RN is mere speculation though. Everything I have read in your link and elsewhere is either dreamy speculation or best guess. They don't have the ships complete, not even close to doing trials with the F-35 or knowing what will work and won't work. Right now the only precedence they have is by what the USN is having issue with. If they think on that one forum that there will be a lifetime coating they are sadly mistaken.

I think there is some confusion in and around about deck coatings. Thermion and other heat resistant/corrosion resistant deck coatings are not new. They have been around a long time. Thermion and the application on Wasp is a short term solution for a time critical mission. That mission is to torture test the F-35B at sea, integrate the pilots to its operation at sea, train flight deck personell and work platform issues. What the F-35B is doing on Wasp is repetitionally far in excess of what the F-35B will do operationally on LHD's or LHA's. Comments from PAO's are merely defensive in the fact they never say anything in the affirmative for fear that something else will develop.

There are big differences between the LHD/LHA landing areas and the CVN decks of course. What is being described about the deck edge stuff on QE seems to be taken out of context really. There is no reason to protect the entire deck from F-35B jet blast. USN LHD/LHA AV-8 ops and soon to be F-35B ops occur unconventionally. VSTOL approaches do not approach the ramp like traditional fixed wind a/c do on traditional carriers. They will almost always come in at an angle from port abaft the beam, breaks on, to land vertically on a 'Spot'. Which is almost always Spot 5 for VSTOL. In emergency conditions like bingo fuel or hung ordnance, there is a chance they will come in on the centerline. But Ive never seen it, not once. AFAIK QE will employ the F-35B landing over the ramp on centerline and rolling, just because this is the RN methodology for the Sea Harrier. So the whole deck and deck edge coating is merely a normal corrosion control method. There are also other concerns in regards to the QE class. It was designed to be cheaper to build by building to commercial standards and not military standards. Meaning the structures are not as robust and therefore more short lived.

The biggest problem on Wasp has not necessarily been the flight deck. When the F-35B comes in slowly at an angle is has to go over things before it gets to the Spot. Breezeways, Catwalks and platforms. Breezeways and Catwalks contain lesser decking, life rafts and antennae. Platforms contain weapons systems, radomes, etc. These were things unaffected by AV-8's but, now they have to be either moved or reinforced. Since there really is only 1 VSTOL landing spot, the whole deck is not at risk of the heat problems. VSTOL on LHDs and LHAs is roll off centerline and AFAIK there is no heat problem in that regard. The issue is a little overblown.
:D

This post has been edited by F/A-18 Super Bug on Jun 8 2014, 03:19 PM
PMEmail Poster
Top
F/A-18 Super Bug
Posted: Jun 8 2014, 03:26 PM
Quote Post


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

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



Thank you for the links to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee - 02/06/2014 - Estimates - DEFENCE PORTFOLIO even if you have given some different links to the same Estimates hearing.

This post has been edited by F/A-18 Super Bug on Jun 8 2014, 03:27 PM
PMEmail Poster
Top
Luig
Posted: Jun 9 2014, 02:25 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

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



Hmmm, the original PDF link is broken - maybe I can fix it - I think because it was a draft it has now been overtaken by a final copy. Anyway the other PDF link was to an EDITED version of the original. Which is not the same thing.

Your mythical friends are amazing. Here is one quote that is just wrong:
QUOTE
''...AFAIK QE will employ the F-35B landing over the ramp on centerline and rolling, just because this is the RN methodology for the Sea Harrier...."


Incorrect. Perhaps the RN/RAF will use sometimes the SRVL Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing for their F-35Bs to increase bringback payload above what is the maximum allowed/available for a vertical landing. At moment this is a 'maybe'.

The RN/RAF Harriers have only ONCE made a rolling vertical landing onboard and that was due to an emergency caused by ground fire during the Falklands War. Otherwise the rolling landing was NEVER done on any RN ships [because it was considered TOO DANGEROUS on their much smaller decks (compared to CVF)].

Otherwise RN/RAF Harriers have in the past transitioned to be over the deck either horizontally or diagonally depending. They certainly have a different way of doing a circuit compared to the USMC flat deck LHA way.

As for the hearsay about THERMION. I only claim what I claim from knowledge gained from news reports at around the time of WASP F-35B testing for example or from the manufacturer website as indicated earlier. I can spin yarns all day long about this and that but how worthwhile these yarns are to anyone is probably not worth bothering with.

As I say the PDFs online have a lot of information about THERMION and how it will be used. IF you and your mythical friends want to have a chat to say something different then please have at it.

AND remember this. The CVF has been designed from the start to be compatible with the F-35B. The WASP was not. Old LHAs not. The latest USS America needs some work whilst it has been said that the next LHA in line afterwards will be compatible with the F-35B totally. What really interests me is the impact of an F-35B on our LHDs (not yet in service). Got any yarns about that?

This post has been edited by Luig on Jun 9 2014, 02:31 AM
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: Jun 9 2014, 06:49 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

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



Some BiGbOys need THERMION baby.... B)

In era of tight budgets, how many aircraft carriers are enough? 08 Jun 2014 Jon Harper
QUOTE
"...Daly said carrier deployments typically last seven or eight months nowadays, which is sustainable (although six-month deployment would be ideal), but extending that time line would result in excessive wear and tear on the flight decks, making the surface more dangerous for aviators and crew members...."

http://www.stripes.com/news/in-era-of-tigh...enough-1.287563

Photo of a worn USN (probably old) carrier deck will follow:

Development of Multiple-Deployment Nonskid Coatings
Charles Tricou Applied Research Laboratory Penn State University 27 March 2007
QUOTE
"...Durability: Summary ...Durability Issues
• Approximately 80% of CVN flight deck nonskid coatings are replaced following each deployment. Extending the durability and functionality of nonskid coatings to last through 2 full deployments will save the Navy ~ $5M per year.

• Nonskid coatings in arrested landing areas are removed and replaced 2 or 3 times per deployment cycle."...

http://www.ncms.org/wp-content/NCMS_files/...icou%20DNSC.pdf (PDF 2.2Mb)

This post has been edited by Luig on Jun 9 2014, 11:26 AM

Attached Image
Attached Image
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Luig
Posted: Jun 10 2014, 11:20 AM
Quote Post


FA-18F Super Hornet (A44)
*

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



There is a lot of info at SLDinfo.com as well as elsewhere about the synergy of the F-35 with other networked weapon carrying assets. Here is a recent one:

http://thediplomat.com/2014/06/would-you-l...ith-your-aegis/

How valuable are a few F-35Bs able to network with our RAN assets to fire weapons and vice versa? The USN has NICF-FA and I guess we will have some of that also - eventually.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

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

 



[ Script Execution time: 0.0516 ]   [ 11 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]