F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kalasag said:
F-35Bs on a relatively fast and well-armed LCS would be a dream come true for the USMC.
Click to expand...

not really, everyone learned their lessons from ships like the Blake that anything less than a short flight (4 aircraft) on a ship is basically a waste of time.

they actually become a logistics burden when there are less than 4 assets on a ship.

tactically they're borderline useless for anything
 
Kalasag said:
Thanks for the info. I wonder if they plan on trying to land a F-35B on a Littoral Combat Ship next time. F-35Bs on a relatively fast and well-armed LCS would be a dream come true for the USMC.
Click to expand...

Highly doubt that, to the point that the notion is almost absurd.

Two years ago (Sept. 2009) LCS-1 USS Freedom was certified for helicopter ops with a MH-60 Sea Hawk. The loaded weight of a Sea Hawk helicopter is ~8,000 kg, while the empty weight of an F-35B is ~50% more, at ~14,500 kg, nevermind the MTOW of an F-35B which is over three times the weight of a Sea Hawk, being ~27,000 kg. An F-35B at MTOW is about 5,000 kg heavier than a CH-47 Chinook helicopter at MTOW.

While the F-35B is designed for VTOL ops, people need to stop automatically assuming that because it can do so, that the F-35B can take off and land in all the same places a helicopter can. That is not the case, because many helipads or helidecks are sufficiently reinforced to support a light or medium helicopter, but would be totally insufficient to support a heavylift helicopter like a CH-53E Super Stallion at MTOW, and the F-35B is really in that weight class.

-Cheers
 
Todjaeger said:
That is not the case, because many helipads or helidecks are sufficiently reinforced to support a light or medium helicopter, but would be totally insufficient to support a heavylift helicopter like a CH-53E Super Stallion at MTOW, and the F-35B is really in that weight class.
Click to expand...

AUSTAL designed LCS-2 Independence class are designed to operate the CH-53E from their flight deck. Operating F-35Bs is possible in a lily pad sense. Land onboard to be refuelled for emergency recovery or for some kind of James Bond SOF mission. But said F-35B will not be taking off with any kind of serious weapons payload or fuel for flying over 1,000 NM. Its very much a back of the play book, emergencies only type of capability.
 
Kalasag said:
Thanks for the info. I wonder if they plan on trying to land a F-35B on a Littoral Combat Ship next time. F-35Bs on a relatively fast and well-armed LCS would be a dream come true for the USMC.
Click to expand...

A F-35B is a short take off and vertical landing aircraft (STOVL). This means that for a STOVL aircraft to carry a meaningful war load (fuel and ordinance), the F-35B needs a short runway for a rolling takeoff. If I'm not wrong, the rolling takeoff distance required for the F-35B is ~167m (550ft) and ramp assisted takeoff distance is ~136m (450ft).

You really need to spend some time fact checking before you post and most of the time, you are posting borderline rubbish. This is another instance of that. There is a difference between honest mistakes and being consistently wrong. We are not a fantasy forum.

If you have a real interest in contributing, you should read more about Operational Maneuver from the Sea (OMFTS). This vision, seeks to exploit the sea as maneuver space, involves projecting naval expeditionary forces and power directly from the sea onto operational objectives well inland, obviating the traditional need to first seize and secure a beachhead and build up a support base ashore before pushing out to accomplish inland operational objectives. Learn more about OMFTS and read a little more before posting.

@Kalasag, no reply to this post is required.
 
Last edited:
If an F-35b landed on an LCS and the flight deck didn't buckle and collapse and perhaps even if it did, just about the only way the F-35b would be getting off that ship is via crane.

Just like the famous Harrier landing on a cargo ship in the Med some time ago...

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BD4oiBSXGDM&feature=youtube_gdata_player"]Emergency Landing on Cargo Ship by Sea Harrier - YouTube[/nomedia]

It's STOVL capable people. Short takeoff and vertical landing. It is not cleared to be VTOL - Vertical takeoff and landing capable and though it is theoretically capable of vertical takeoff's (X-35b demonstrated vertical takeoff's) even if it was cleared it would have bugger all payload and bugger all range and would not be a "dream come true" for the USMC.

Hence why ski-jumps were devised...
 
ADMk2 said:
If an F-35b landed on an LCS and the flight deck didn't buckle and collapse and perhaps even if it did, just about the only way the F-35b would be getting off that ship is via crane.

Just like the famous Harrier landing on a cargo ship in the Med some time ago.
Click to expand...

The LCS-2 flight deck should be able to handle an F-35B since it is designed for the CH-53E. And it could take off vertically just that it would be weight limited so unable to carry a full weapon and fuel load.

The reason that SHAR had to be craned off the merchant ship was it did not have safe refuel capability or some deck clearance for safe takeoff. Flight deck at the back of an LCS-2 has all this.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
The LCS-2 flight deck should be able to handle an F-35B since it is designed for the CH-53E. And it could take off vertically just that it would be weight limited so unable to carry a full weapon and fuel load.
Click to expand...

The weight might not be a problem. 40,000lbs of downwards thrust on a flight deck not built for STOVL jet operations might be...

It might be possible to do this as a one off in some sort of emergency. Operating off them regularly is something that's completely different from the design intent of that flight deck. F-35b's operating in a particular area are going to have LHD's, CVN's or land bases to divert to anyway.

The reason that SHAR had to be craned off the merchant ship was it did not have safe refuel capability or some deck clearance for safe takeoff. Flight deck at the back of an LCS-2 has all this.
Click to expand...

That and it was likely damaged when it rolled backwards onto the little bongo van!
 
Abraham Gubler said:
The LCS-2 flight deck should be able to handle an F-35B since it is designed for the CH-53E. And it could take off vertically just that it would be weight limited so unable to carry a full weapon and fuel load.

.
Click to expand...

I don't have the information to take a definate view but the down force area may be an issue. the downforce from the Ch-53E will be spread over rotor area while the static point load is that under the under carriage.

Down force for the F-35 is that below the jet pipe and lift fan and for take off this should be greater than the static load.

The other issue is heat as the down force from the helicopter is much cooler than the jet pipe emmissions. At 660 degrees C aluminium melts but it becomes pliaable before with a reduction in yield strength at about 200 to 350 degrees C depending on the alloy used (see section 3 of the first attachment and figure 108.1 of the second). On a flight deck you cannot rely on insulation to deal with such heat loads and the surface is exposed

http://heron.tudelft.nl/55-2/1.pdf
http://software-web.com/download/pub40.pdf

Depending on the temperatures repeated heat cycles would not be good for the structure either.

As I said.... just some observations.
 
ADMk2 said:
The weight might not be a problem. 40,000lbs of downwards thrust on a flight deck not built for STOVL jet operations might be...
Click to expand...

alexsa said:
I don't have the information to take a definate view but the down force area may be an issue. the downforce from the Ch-53E will be spread over rotor area while the static point load is that under the under carriage.

Down force for the F-35 is that below the jet pipe and lift fan and for take off this should be greater than the static load.
Click to expand...

The whole flight deck has to be stressed for static load of the CH-53E. Which is 33 tonnes on six wheels. That isn’t including the strength to resit a CH-53E and maximum downwards velocity before impact. This is a considerable extra load in the landing area. 18 tonnes spread other two much larger down blast patterns (compared to the wheels) is not going to be a serious challenge to a deck with strength to land on CH-53Es.

alexsa said:
The other issue is heat as the down force from the helicopter is much cooler than the jet pipe emmissions. At 660 degrees C aluminium melts but it becomes pliaable before with a reduction in yield strength at about 200 to 350 degrees C depending on the alloy used (see section 3 of the first attachment and figure 108.1 of the second). On a flight deck you cannot rely on insulation to deal with such heat loads and the surface is exposed
Click to expand...

And aluminium has much higher reflectivity than steel so it is harder to heat up.

No one is talking about flying in and out F-35Bs on a regular basis (well I’m not) but the heat loads from lily pad type operations are not going to be excessive. Said lily padding is not going to be a part of any typical operational mission but it also won’t be an end of flying emergency type recovery. It will be much like that one SHAR that had to come down on an LPD deck during the Falklands. It flew home the next day when otherwise it would have ended up in the drink. It just provides an extra level of safety in the argy bargy of expeditionary operations.
 
This dicussion has got me interested...

To gain flight deck acceptance to operate F-35b for testing, USS Wasp had to go through the AVCERT (Aviation Certification) and PALSCERT (Precision Approach Landing System Certification) process.

The deck had to be modified with new markings (important due to the larger wingspan of F-35b over the Harrier) and new thermal coatings (Thermion - Aluminium Ceramic Thermal Spray) applied to the surface. A new surface had to be discovered as the current surface was found to have a high likelyhood of generating FOD with the increased heat and blast effect coming from the F-35b.

A significant risk to successful operation of the F-35b from Wasp (and presumably other similar LHD's) is the engineering log room, located directly underneath the landing area designated for F-35b's. That had to be modified and sensors and test equipment installed to measure heat and noise that will flow through into that room, to assess whether it can still be used for it's intended purpose.

Interesting stuff. Plenty to consider before any realistic assessment of whether an LCS-2 could carry a STOVL fighter or not...

http://www.nstcenter.com/docs/PDFs/MR2010/Tuesday-1-Presentations/11-Lemieux.pdf
 
Okay I've got some questions:

*The F35b video shows the rear exaust nozzle point down and getting suprisingly close to the ground. Will it be able to maintain that angle going up a ramp, will ramps help the F-35B as much as they helped harrier?
*What sort of loads can the F-35B take off on a wasp size ship? I would assume those video's were done only with a fuel load. Is full load possible? or just SDB/A2A?
*The F-35B seems to land fairly hard (although shocks seem to travel further) I would imagine this would be harder than a normal helo landing. Can it land with bombs/a2a/ etc?
*That new coating seems to have been applied only at the rear of the ship? Will it need to be applied all over?

I wonder how compatable Italy and Spains newish carriers are for the F-35B.
 
ADMk2 said:
Interesting stuff. Plenty to consider before any realistic assessment of whether an LCS-2 could carry a STOVL fighter or not...
Click to expand...

The LHD/LHA will be required to support up to 80 F-35B recoveries every day. That's why it needs extra surface treatment. It operates a unit of F-35Bs. The LCS-2 is a potential lily pad for emergency recovery. The question is not does the LCS-2 have to be certified to operate a unit of F-35Bs but if in an emergency can an F-35B land on it, refuel and then takeoff without breaking the back end of the boat? The answer is yes to one but no to the other.
 
SpudmanWP said:
There was nothing special about the USS WASP's flight deck. It was just repainted a few months back.

For Anyone Wondering About That Wasp Deck
Click to expand...

Yep, but that comment was referring to the black "patch" that caused a bit of a titter amongst the ABJ crowd until it was shown to be there BEFORE the first landing...

The deck was repainted in anticipation of F-35B's trials I agree, however it WAS repainted with a new thermal surface coating based on a new aluminium/ceramic thermal mix as shown in that link below, to cater for MV-22 and F-35B landings.

Repeated often, as Abe said.
 
Don't misunderstand, I am not calling you a liar. I just want to see a source that says that the USS WASP was actually coated with Thermion prior to the F-35's arrival. That PDF only says that 8 (or so) coatings were tested. It never says that any particular coating was chosen and applied to the whole deck of hte USS WASP (or any large area, ie the large new dark area).

This press release from May does not mention it as part of the USS WASP's perpetration for the F-35.
"AVCERT checks out all of our systems, including AFFF (aqueous film-forming foam) flight deck paint and Primary Flight Control operations," said Lt. Bryce King, WASP Mini Boss.
Click to expand...

www.public.navy.mil/surflant/lhd1/Documents/Press Release (PR026-11) WASP AVCERT.doc
 
you could well be right AD, the only specific thing that I have seen is that it's been upgraded and it took several weeks

Sailors No. 1 Mission: Return USS Wasp to Sea
For the past several weeks, Wasp upgraded part of its flight deck to land fixed-winged aircraft during this underway period for the AVCERT facilitated by Afloat Training Group (ATG).
 
SpudmanWP said:
(or any large area, ie the large new dark area).
Click to expand...

The black coating on a flight deck is more than just paint. It is a non-slip surface with lots of heavy grains in it to create adhesion. These surfaces are constantly worn down and need to be replaced. Wasp looks like it has only had the non-slip treatment to part of the flight deck. The balance of it just having been painted after the old layer was stripped off. This is actually pretty likely as she is just at sea to run the F-35 testing. After this when she is next prepared to carry a full MEU air component she will probably receive a full deck surfacing.
 
SpudmanWP said:
Don't misunderstand, I am not calling you a liar. I just want to see a source that says that the USS WASP was actually coated with Thermion prior to the F-35's arrival. That PDF only says that 8 (or so) coatings were tested. It never says that any particular coating was chosen and applied to the whole deck of hte USS WASP (or any large area, ie the large new dark area).

This press release from May does not mention it as part of the USS WASP's perpetration for the F-35.

www.public.navy.mil/surflant/lhd1/Documents/Press Release (PR026-11) WASP AVCERT.doc
Click to expand...

That link I gave earlier was from 2010. On pages 16 and 17 mentions it the coating was to be tested in the laboratory ahead of USS Wasp JSF DT #1 (JSF Demonstration Testing #1) clearly implying that Thermion surface spray was to be used on USS Wasp ahead of JSF testing.

I admit it doesn't say the entire deck surface was coated, merely that it was to be tested aboard USS Wasp during JSF trials. I suspect it is probably only the landing pad area that's been coated, if anywhere.

If the video we saw the other day actually was the 1st JSF testing on USS Wasp...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top