when was that released?
[SIZE=4]Why Does Britain Need Aircraft Carriers?[/SIZE]
[*******#000000][FONT=Times New Roman]This paper addresses that issue in the context of:-
[*******#000000][FONT=Times New Roman]a) The Government’s decision to procure two new aircraft carriers and of
b) Our Secretary of State, the Right Honourable Philip Hammond MP’s recent statement that “We are committed to purchasing the carrier-variant [of JSF/F-35] and the regeneration of our carrier strike force is at the heart of our defence strategy.”
c) Recent arguments in the Press on the merits of naval aircraft and the carriers themselves
This is an absolute must see, it's an RN training video from 1960, I have never seen so much detail into launching and recovering catobar aircraft.
Last edited by cockneyjock1974; 04-13-2012 at 06:53 PM.
As for the PTT articles. Great reading from a group of passionate and qualified individuals' who have an in-depth knowledge of Naval Aviation that others would not dare to enter into.
looks as the blocks done in Portsmouth are more completed then the ones done at Goven.
i.e painted more plus if you look at the corridors ,they look completed as well.
Last edited by cyrilranch; 04-14-2012 at 05:33 AM.
There is some naval bias on PTT, of course, but generally their technical observations are spot on right, and written by people of great experience.You might think of reading the following link in regards to PTT and the comments attached,slightly biased perhaps?
Naval Aviation; Blogs and Think Tanks | Think Defence
Personally, i consider Think Defence rather more biased than PTT, when it comes to the carriers at least: the hostility on that site against CVF is astonishing. Not to talk about the absolute hostility to CATOBAR, and a general view that the Royal Navy is just a crybaby and that CVF is the cause of the budget blackhole at the MOD.
With all respect for Think Defence's hard work, i tend to look away when they talk of naval matters as most of what is said is highly questionable a good bit of the time.
Also, a Think Defence stated policy is that the RAF should get all what flies. Including Merlin HM2 and other naval aviation stuff. For me that qualifies as "non sense".
By the way, the F35B trials at sea on USS Wasp were presented by the STOVL prophets as having proven that the B has "no issues" and that the jet blast hazard claims were "nonsense" and that everything actually works perfectly well.
The reality is a bit different. The F35B jet blast does not hole the deck as someone had (rather extremely) prophetized, but a jet blast issues exists and the trials at sea only confirmed it. A 75 feet danger radius is reported.
Again, the US Navy DOT&E report for 2011 reports that F35A is presented as being 11% behind schedule, with the B 9% behind schedule and the C 32% AHEAD of schedule, despite the hook issue.
Regarding the F35B:
In October 2011, the program successfully conducted initial
amphibious ship trials with STOVL aircraft in accordance with
the new, restructured plan for 2011; however, significant work
and flight tests remain to verify and incorporate modifications
to STOVL aircraft required to correct known STOVL
deficiencies and prepare the system for operational use.This bit appears in the LHA-6 America part of the report.Jet blast from the F-35Bs is expected to produce unsafe forces
on flight deck personnel up to 75 feet from the short take-off
Read the report here: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2011/The program halted F-35B durability testing at the end of
last year when a wing carry-through bulkhead cracked before
2,000 hours of airframe life. The required airframe lifetime
is 8,000 hours. Repair of the bulkhead on the test article was
completed in November 2011, and F-35B durability testing is
scheduled to restart in January 2012.
• Following the bulkhead crack in the F-35B test article,
analysis verified the existence of numerous other
life‑limited parts on all three variants. The program began
developing plans to correct these deficiencies in existing
aircraft by repair/modifications, and designing changes
to the production process. The most significant of these
in terms of complexity, aircraft downtime, and difficulty
of the modification required for existing aircraft is the
forward wing root rib on the F-35A and F-35B aircraft.
All production aircraft in the first five lots will need the
modification before these aircraft reach 1,000 hours.
• The program also halted F-35A durability testing after the
F-35B bulkhead crack and restarted it at the end of May 2011.
The test article restarted testing in November 2011, after
completing inspections subsequent to accomplishing
3,000 effective flight hours of testing. During the second
1,000‑hour block of testing, the wing root rib failed, as
predicted. The test team is able to continue airframe fatigue
testing in the near-term, while analysis determines when and
how to repair the test article.
• F-35C structural testing completed all structural test
objectives in August 2011, including planned “drop tests” in
preparation for simulated carrier trials. Durability testing is
scheduled to begin in Spring 2012.
Under DoD programs, F35 section.
The B is still plagued with countless issues, including doors of the propulsion system coming off in flight XD
Good posts Liger, nice to get a heads up about how the Wasp trials went. I hope that the bit about the "C" model being ahead of schedule is true as well.
I think there is no doubt on this: this is official DoD documents, by far the best source we can drink from.I hope that the bit about the "C" model being ahead of schedule is true as well.
You must, of course, look at the 32% ahead of schedule data with the awareness that the C is the variant who entered trials last. The other two variants are ahead of the F35C with their programs of development, testing and validation.
However, they are lagging considerably in terms of test points cleared, while the F35C has cleared 32% more test points than planned, which is very reassuring. Having started later also means that more corrections have been incorporated into the C at build, thanks to discoveries made on the other two variants.
The C variant has 1002 test flights left to go, and 12.442 test points to clear.
The A 827 flights and 10257 test points.
The B 1,437 flights and 15,045 points.
These values of course change rather frequently when a change proves necessary and needs to be flown and trialed, adding new flights and points to clear to the count, but they are indicative of the current plan.
The C's big issues come down to the hook (hopefully to be solved in the coming months by the new hook design) and to acceleration which is a bit below the expected value. We must hope that no problems emerge from durability tests: the F35A's wing root life is just 3000-some hours and the F35B main bulkhead survived 2000 hours against a requirement of 8000...
Here are a couple of photos that I took of LB04 yesterday
sorry about the quality as I took them on my phone
Well spotted CJ. I enjoyed watching the Launch and Recover training film which underlines the complexity of the machinery and controls to facilitate catapult launches and arrestor wire recoveries. Hopefully that fitted in the QE Class carriers (when we get the final go ahead) will be a good deal less manpower intensive with the catapult controlled from the launch control position and the arrester wires from Flyco or the LCO's position.
[*******#222222]"For the F-35 Lightning II JSF Fokker Landing Gear is system design responsible for the Arresting Hook of the F35 Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) and the Carrier Version (CV). For the reliability of this arresting hook system Fokker needs to do climate testing. One of the parts of the arresting hook system is the Upswing Damper. It is mounted right under the engine of the F-35. This Upswing Damper adsorbs the energy during the landing from the hook."[/COLOR]