F35 - Money well spent.

Well,at the point in time we are talking about he stalled and crashed and quite a number of subsequent flights took place before fully controlled flight was achieved.
I think that we’re a tad more refined than that now!

As with all new techniques, by the time the first RVL is flown, it will have been conducted thousands of times in very realistic sims and on the dummy deck at Pax. When the live flying starts, they will commence with benign conditions and configurations before gradually working they way up to identify the realistic RVL envelope for an average sqn shag.

Regards,
MM
 
It certainly seems to be well in hand. Not quite the muddled mess some seem to thinking.
http://www.janes.com/images/assets/...pares_for_F-35B_trials_on_Queen_Elizabeth.pdf

Old news I know, but comforting all the same. There had been earlier speculation that the UK might have to have some work on our aircraft done outside the UK. A snippet here...“Currently, there is uncertainty over the competing role of the U.K. base at Marham, which has obtained, in order to ensure national sovereignty, maintenance and repair work for the U.K. fleet,” ,,,would seem to suggest that this has now been resolved, as well it should.
Italy's audit court gives F-35 cautious approval

Italy meanwhile still struggling financially. Who isn’t these days. It is all priorities after all and in the rather unstable and beligerent world at present, comforting to many of us that at least some UK defence is being attended to, rather than the free bus passes, student loans wiped out, and the various other wonderful schemes being wheeled out by Putin's puppet appologist.
 
Last edited:
And at that point Orville still had to learn if he was going to crash and burn or not.
Actually, no. They did a lot of flight trials with unpowered gliders - slowly increasing the duration of flight, and verifying their method of providing control through warping the flying surfaces (one of their primary concerns was gaining and holding the patent over this mechanism).

Their first powered flight was of a new aircraft design, using mechanisms and techniques that had been methodically trialled on different but similar types beforehand. You know, like SRVL. Albeit with a stall at the first attempt...

(this is what I get for turning over to PBS America on Freeview last month...)
 
It certainly seems to be well in hand. Not quite the muddled mess some seem to thinking.
http://www.janes.com/images/assets/...pares_for_F-35B_trials_on_Queen_Elizabeth.pdf
Not a muddled mess but the BAE Lead makes the same point as me:

"Even so, as Atkinson pointed out, there remains an element of the unknown when it comes to SRVL. “We have conducted a lot of work on the manoeuvre in the simulator, but we have never flown an SRVL with an F-35 to a real ship before,” he noted, warning that “in that case we must progress cautiously; SRVL is in a very different state of maturity than vertical landing "
 
Actually, no. They did a lot of flight trials with unpowered gliders - slowly increasing the duration of flight, and verifying their method of providing control through warping the flying surfaces (one of their primary concerns was gaining and holding the patent over this mechanism).

Their first powered flight was of a new aircraft design, using mechanisms and techniques that had been methodically trialled on different but similar types beforehand. You know, like SRVL. Albeit with a stall at the first attempt...

(this is what I get for turning over to PBS America on Freeview last month...)
But he still bloody crashed it ;)
 
I think that we’re a tad more refined than that now!

As with all new techniques, by the time the first RVL is flown, it will have been conducted thousands of times in very realistic sims and on the dummy deck at Pax. When the live flying starts, they will commence with benign conditions and configurations before gradually working they way up to identify the realistic RVL envelope for an average sqn shag.

Regards,
MM
I don't disagree with that, but that could still reveal it does not work, 50% of the point of testing.

That link Resasi posted is worth a read.
 
I don't disagree with that, but that could still reveal it does not work, 50% of the point of testing.

That link Resasi posted is worth a read.
Given the amount of work already completed, I doubt very much indeed that ‘it will not work’ otherwise we wouldn’t be wasting BAeS and AWC time on it.

Like most RtS for new types, they’ll establish under what conditions RVL can be achieved. I would imagine that’ll account for aircraft configuration, sea state and deck conditions.

Regards,
MM
 
Given the amount of work already completed, I doubt very much indeed that ‘it will not work’ otherwise we wouldn’t be wasting BAeS and AWC time on it.

Like most RtS for new types, they’ll establish under what conditions RVL can be achieved. I would imagine that’ll account for aircraft configuration, sea state and deck conditions.

Regards,
MM
But that's the point, we have to make it work because we do not have an alternative. If RVL can only be achieved on a flat sea in cool temperatures for example, then it becomes a very limited technique and we start jettisoning payload to land or reduce it altogether. BAE don't give a stuff about the time, they (over)charge by the second.
 
MM made an important point in the huge increases that have been made in the fidelity of simulation.

It may well be the first time for a ‘real landing on the QE', but it was a while back when I was able to walk out to a then modern 200 seat airliner (HD seating), with the rating to fly it with passengers, never having set foot in the real aircraft.
 
MM made an important point in the huge increases that have been made in the fidelity of simulation.

It may well be the first time for a ‘real landing on the QE', but it was a while back when I was able to walk out to a then modern 200 seat airliner with the rating to fly it with passengers never having set foot in the real aircraft.
I don't doubt but even BAE are stressing caution.
 
But that's the point, we have to make it work because we do not have an alternative. If RVL can only be achieved on a flat sea in cool temperatures for example, then it becomes a very limited technique and we start jettisoning payload to land or reduce it altogether. BAE don't give a stuff about the time, they (over)charge by the second.
My understanding is that in cool temperatures we won’t need RVL at all; it’s primarily being developed to cover some heavier recoveries in warmer temperatures (or in the unlikely even that QE or PoW find themselves navigating Lake Titicaca!). Because we have a larger deck (and, as has been stated here countless times earlier, steel is cheap and fresh air free), we have far greater safety margins for RVL than the USMC do on an America Class LHA. Indeed, under most deck configurations, I’d imagine they’ll be limited to VL.

That’s one of many reasons why the USMC are extremely envious of the QE design.

Let’s also remember that cat/trap does not negate the danger of performance limitations and having to dump ordinance.

Finally, I very much doubt BAeS will be doing many of the RVL trials on the ships.

Regards,
MM
 
Last edited:
Now, now - start tearing up the rules, and you'll have another Haddon-Cave...

...now, Ordnance, on the other hand... :cool:
Guilty M’Lud!

Regards,
MM
 

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
I think the gamble is, if it can't be done there is going to be some pretty eggy faces as 1st SL and SoS explain to Parliament why we then have two very large helicopter carriers or a very large bill to insulate the decks more effectively.
To be clear, whilst it optimises operations SVRL is not essential to FW carrier operations. Hence I see no gamble whatsoever.
 

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
The point I was attempting to make earlier was, by dint of some pretty poor political decisions we have been pushed down the road of having large Carriers capable of flying the C variant whereas for all intents and purposes we could have followed the USMC model with smaller and cheaper vessels and had the same result.
Smaller v Large platform isn't a straightforward equation, lots of factors to consider outside vfm and immediate requirement. Future needs tend to be really hard to define especially with the potential long life of something like CVF and maybe more importantly F35. A larger platform is probably not significantly or proportionally more expensive and affords future flex. You also need to consider what the size allows you to do in terms of sortie generation and safety of operations, plus allowing additional capability to be inserted (i.e. RPAS) at some future juncture.

The USMC operate icw the USN and other Allies, hence they don't need their own large deck. I'd suggest if they operated alone and the USN didn't have any, from first principles they'd look for a larger platform than the LHA/LHD.
 
But that's the point, we have to make it work because we do not have an alternative.
And we will. Considerable effort has gone and is going into making sure. Why are you doing this to death? It's already been covered.

We bought the -B version because it met the specs for what we wanted. It also allows greater flexibility of operations - important given that we don't have the luxury of great numbers. Again, that's already been covered.

We may take the piss out of those who wear blue, whether it be light or dark, but they just happen to be very good at what they do. So why the scepticism?

Read back through - the answers are already there.
 
And we will. Considerable effort has gone and is going into making sure. Why are you doing this to death? It's already been covered.

We bought the -B version because it met the specs for what we wanted. It also allows greater flexibility of operations - important given that we don't have the luxury of great numbers. Again, that's already been covered.

We may take the piss out of those who wear blue, whether it be light or dark, but they just happen to be very good at what they do. So why the scepticism?

Read back through - the answers are already there.
They may be but none really explain why we went from B to C and back again or why the carriers are fitted for catapult just not with catapult.

I am not 'doing this to death' merely distracting myself on the internet. Despite their dogmatic approaches A2 and MM have answered 90% without issue.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top