Dodgy Buggahs only had a 360p camera, but good enough to see that it works. The Brits hopefully will finish both, not just one of those new QE class bird farms, and hopefully the F35B turns out to be capable enough to make it worth all the hullabalu. It's actually a British pilot in one of the USMC's planes, but whatever.
Title: Re: First Brit F35Bd take off from Ski Jump
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 23, 2015, 04:12:25 PM
Fake. A LM marketing stunt to divert attention from their chemtrail program. :aok
Title: Re: First Brit F35Bd take off from Ski Jump
Post by: Zimme83 on June 23, 2015, 04:19:08 PM
I claim that the F-35 would do a lot better if they had skiped the B version. I really dont see any reason for having it, if the MC so badly need CAS, use the Air Force, Navy or helicopters. Buliding a super duper stealth fighter just to put it were it can be picked down by a 23mm gun is not the best way to use it.
Title: Re: First Brit F35Bd take off from Ski Jump
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 23, 2015, 04:31:25 PM
Zimme, when you're over at the SwAF giving them my recommendations on training loadouts you could ask them to relay your recommendations to the USMC. I'm sure they'll welcome any input you have on the matter. :aok
Title: Re: First Brit F35Bd take off from Ski Jump
Post by: Zimme83 on June 23, 2015, 04:38:20 PM
I was more thinking about the guys in Washington, the MC of course tries to get all the toys thay can get. But right now im busy with fixing the Greece budget crisis so it have to wait.
Title: Re: First Brit F35Bd take off from Ski Jump
Post by: danny76 on June 23, 2015, 04:45:02 PM
Ditching the Harrier left a massive gap in close air support resources, I just hope the F35 isn't as much of a white elephant on the modern battlefield as the Typhoon is
Title: Re: First Brit F35Bd take off from Ski Jump
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 23, 2015, 04:54:05 PM
I was more thinking about the guys in Washington, the MC of course tries to get all the toys thay can get. But right now im busy with fixing the Greece budget crisis so it have to wait.
Yeah, you can't be expected to deal with everything.
Title: Re: First Brit F35Bd take off from Ski Jump
Post by: Scherf on June 23, 2015, 06:41:57 PM
"Camelot!"
"Camelot!"
"Camelot!"
"(It's only a model...)"
Title: Re: First Brit F35Bd take off from Ski Jump
Post by: artik on June 24, 2015, 02:19:40 AM
AFAIR Harrier ski-jump takeoff, the nozzles at the beginning pointed directly afterward such that most of the thrust goes for maximal possible acceleration and at some air-speed the nozzles jump to a predefined angled position giving both thrust and lift (it happens close to the point the aircraft lives the ski-jump) thus you have maximal acceleration.
In the video F-35B has nozzle pointed at almost 45 degrees and working at maximal dry thrust - it gives quite poor acceleration. (also it looks like they do the same on flattop Wasp (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAFnhIIK7s4))
Interesting if it is just for a first test or it would be an ordinary procedure as it would virtually nullify all ski-jump advantages.
Take a look on these beautiful takeoffs:
Title: Re: First Brit F35Bd take off from Ski Jump
Post by: FLOOB on June 24, 2015, 10:39:03 AM
Damn I thought it was going to involve an actual ski jump ramp.
Title: Re: First Brit F35Bd take off from Ski Jump
Post by: Wiley on June 24, 2015, 10:51:01 AM
At the risk of appearing dumb, the quick google I did pretty much confirmed what I expected I would find, that the ski jump launch has no advantage I can see to the catapult. Why do they do this?
Wiley.
Title: Re: First Brit F35Bd take off from Ski Jump
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 24, 2015, 11:08:21 AM
At the risk of appearing dumb, the quick google I did pretty much confirmed what I expected I would find, that the ski jump launch has no advantage I can see to the catapult. Why do they do this?
Wiley.
The primary advantage is that you don't need a catapult.
Title: Re: First Brit F35Bd take off from Ski Jump
Post by: Wiley on June 24, 2015, 11:22:20 AM
The primary advantage is that you don't need a catapult.
But you've gone to the effort to build a boat to launch airplanes. Why would you not put a catapult on it? I guess it's simpler, that makes some sense, but it just seems an odd thing to economize on to me. *shrug*
Wiley.
Title: Re: First Brit F35Bd take off from Ski Jump
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 24, 2015, 11:49:00 AM
On a small carrier a catapult would be very limiting on launch operations. With a ski jump the aircraft can take off in quick succession.
Title: Re: First Brit F35Bd take off from Ski Jump
Post by: Wmaker on June 24, 2015, 04:22:10 PM
Dodgy Buggahs only had a 360p camera, but good enough to see that it works.
HD film in Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/lmaeronautics/review/131439135/07c088ad82 (https://vimeo.com/lmaeronautics/review/131439135/07c088ad82)
Title: Re: First Brit F35Bd take off from Ski Jump
Post by: Gman on June 24, 2015, 04:31:47 PM
Ah..pretty...thanks Wmaker.
Anyone else notice that the nozzle was at around 60 degrees or so on roll up to the ramp, and then after lifting off, rotated down to around 80 degrees or so, giving more "up" thrust and a bit less "forward". I'm sure they have the wizzy F35 computers controlling this, I just wonder why it does it in this fashion.
We had a thread last year in the aircraft/vehicles forum about the various pluses and minuses between CATOBAR and Ski jump decks Zoney, it was a long one with a ton of info and opinions, I'll find the link and post it later. It started over the newer Mig29s and arguments about useful load on the commie ski jump decks, but evolved into a lot of links and info about gator Navy assault ships and British ski jumps and the QE decks. Boo to ski jump!
Title: Re: First Brit F35Bd take off from Ski Jump
Post by: artik on June 25, 2015, 03:48:24 AM
In general there are 3 types of modern carriers operating fixed wing aircraft:
CATOBAR - classic - takeoff with catapult and land with arresting wires
Currently 3 classes in active service
10 Nimitz class (100,000 mt) 1 Charles de Gaulle (42,000 mt) 1 São Paulo (32,800 mt, ex Foch) capable of operating A-4s
Ford 100,000mt class is under construction as well.
STOVL - many classes - all operating Harriers of different version
Takeoff using short run - all carriers with noticeable exception of USMC use ski-jump to improve takeoff performance Landing - vertical
Largest are around 41,000mt - Wasp class - no ski-jump Others using ski-jump are from 30,000 mt Italian Cavour to the smallest 13,850 mt Italian carrier Giuseppe Garibaldi
STOBAR - takeoff with ski-jump and landing with arresting wires
- Russian Admiral Kuznetsov and Chinese Liaoning of Kuznetsov class (55,000-59,000 mt) - Indian Vikramaditya (44,000mt)
And one under construction INS Vikrant - 40,000mt
Now as you can see, if you can operate STOVL capable aircraft like Harrier or F-35B - you can have much smaller (=affordable) carrier as you don't need complex facilities like catapult or arresting wire and huge flight deck.
For example latest EMALS catapult weights 225 mt, i.e. 4 catapults weight around 1% of Ford's tonnage. Steam catapults are around twice heavier (not including the requirement to have stream generation capabilities) so for a small carrier of 30,000 mt it is significant weight. You also need large deck for both takeoffs and landing and parking and more.
With Harriers you can have capable carrier with displacement of around 14,000mt - 1/7 of Nimitz - think of price.
Now ski-jump on its own is very simple device that significantly improves safety of operations and reduces takeoff run - because it gives initial climb to the aircraft even when its wings and engines can't sustain level flight yet - so it continues accelerating forward after the aircraft left a ski-jump and thus improving both maximal takeoff weight, reducing takeoff run and improving safety.
So operating F-35B from a small carriers with a ski-jump is actually great money saver for carrier operators yet providing a capable aircraft.
However the biggest problem of STOVL is actually having these aircraft. In the aviation history only 2 aircraft types were in service (Harrier and Yak-38) and now 1 is entering the service (F-35B) - and only one was actually successful - Harrier. Yak-38 was very raw aircraft and was removed from service due to many problems and availability of STOBAR option.
Another interesting option is STOBAR - the one India goes with today - use ski-jump instead of catapults - of course reducing price and simplifying aircraft handling with a limitation of requirement of a large deck space for takeoff and limiting simultaneous takeoff and landings.
Quote
Boo to ski jump!
Actually Boo to USMC for not using one and handicapping its carriers.
Title: Re: First Brit F35Bd take off from Ski Jump
Post by: Greebo on June 25, 2015, 05:25:53 AM
The thing is the QE class aren't small carriers at around 70K tons and 920 ft long. There was a lot of debate about whether to go with catapults and arrestor wires while they are being designed. IIRC the carriers were designed to be able to convert to these if the F-35B got cancelled or the navy went that way for a future refit.
The main drawbacks of the STOVL setup on the QE class is the lower payload performance of the F-35B over the C and the lack of fixed wing AWACS. The advantages are cost, reliability and sortie rate.