F-35B Sea Trials on USS Wasp
Discussion
The following link is for video of some sea trials of the F-35B conducting take-off and landings on USS Wasp. USS Wasp is 257m in length compared with a CVS's 209m and QEC's 300+m.
They conducted 74 take offs and landings over a 3 week period.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Ki86x1WKPmE&a...
Some very cool footage.
As an aside, the UK's first F-35B, conducted it's first flight with a UK pilot yesterday. (I think it was from Eglin to Pax).
They conducted 74 take offs and landings over a 3 week period.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Ki86x1WKPmE&a...
Some very cool footage.
As an aside, the UK's first F-35B, conducted it's first flight with a UK pilot yesterday. (I think it was from Eglin to Pax).
Odie said:
AshVX220 said:
Cool, I thought she was bigger than that (and didn't have a GA to hand 
!) Interesting in the vid that they're managing it without a ramp.
The ramp is to aid take-off when at full combat weight.!) Interesting in the vid that they're managing it without a ramp.Odie said:
AshVX220 said:
I didn't think the US are planning to put a ramp on their small Carriers.
so B should be able to take-off at full combat weight from a flat deck?BTW Wasp isnt a carrier its a Amphibious Assualt Ship so is/was operating harrier without a ramp too.
Interesting
AshVX220 said:
Just had a brief chat with a colleague and the US will be operating their Ambhibs without ramps, makes me wonder if we should keep a flat deck on QEC, to enable an easier (one day) transition to Cats and Traps and give is the capability to operate more types, including the Hawkeye for the MASC role. We can then still operate the 'B' up until EMALS is ready.
I agree completely. Flat deck (with the option to fit cat and trap) would give us far more adaptabilityLeave the area at the front clear for catapult installation and fit a ski ramp that can be raised and lowered flush with the flight deck further back. They dont need the full length for a ramp assisted take off anyway. We are wasting money on the B so why not waste more on silly ideas.
Edited by FourWheelDrift on Friday 20th July 10:13
AshVX220 said:
I didn't think the US are planning to put a ramp on their small Carriers.
The US has always hated the idea of the ramp even though it enabled the harrier to take off with an extra half tonne of loading. They tested it and found the same gains we did with the eventual 12.5 deg ramp on ark royal but for some reasons or other (some political, some traditional and others) it never happened.http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/1990s/1...
Its an old paper but still a decent read.
Odie said:
I agree completely. Flat deck (with the option to fit cat and trap) would give us far more adaptability
Never going to happen, first a flat deck is considerably worse for operating the B's and if the CVF's are eventually converted to cat and traps it probably wont happen within the next 25 years. A small ramp on the end is a bit of a nothing piece on a 65,000t project and is best left on to allow greater take off weights and shorter launchings of a quarter of a centuries worth of use rather then waiting for emals which cant be afforded coming any time soon or may never happen at all.Godalmighty83 said:
Range on the B is 900 nmi on internal fuel, although fuel used on take off and still in the tanks on return and the range will be closer to 800 in real life use.
External drop tanks and conformable are currently being developed but none have seen use as of yet I believe.
thought it was nearer 550miles in real termsExternal drop tanks and conformable are currently being developed but none have seen use as of yet I believe.
doogz said:
"Winslow T Wheeler, at the US Center for Defense Information said it was a "gigantic performance disappointment". Not as stealthy as the F-22 for example.He added: "It's the counterintuitive problem of paying a huge amount of money thinking you're getting a Lamborghini or Ferrari: You're not, you're getting a Yugo"
He was referring to the cheap, mass-produced cars made in the former Yugoslavia."
A good point well made: they're both prone to terminal corrosion!
Odie said:
thought it was nearer 550miles in real terms
I haven't read anything that suggest anything close to that figure most presume the B will have harrier type usage where the landing reserve will only be 5/10% of capacity due to the faster landing rate and less time in holding of a VL (or SRVL as it will probably turn out). Whereas traditionally normal carrier craft come in to land with 25% left in the tanks due to more time in holding and reserve incase they miss the wire and have to go round again. Expected real life use is expected to see the C only have a ~10% range advantage over the B and all those numbers are academic once users have the choice of external fuel.Going back to ski-jumps this is a small simple graph showing the difference between a high angle jump and a flat deck on the harrier-
http://f-16.net/attachments/skijumpflatdecktropica...
robmlufc said:
Is SRVL the rolling landing they will have to carry out? Presumably there is still a chance of that going quite pear shaped and having to go around much like 'missing the wire'?
It doesn't have to be carried out but it looks to have some good gains, unlike a vertical landing the engines are under less load, one area of the deck isn't heated so high, air over the wing supports a greater landing weight and the landing is much softer on undercarriage, there is little risk of overshooting due to the much much slower approach, its pretty much a VL landing but combining the air over the deck from the ship with some forward motion of the B to produce some supportive lift. It still only uses a short length of deck at far lower speeds then a trap landing.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu0TJ9NMDgA
Godalmighty83 said:
I haven't read anything that suggest anything close to that figure most presume the B will have harrier type usage where the landing reserve will only be 5/10% of capacity due to the faster landing rate and less time in holding of a VL (or SRVL as it will probably turn out). Whereas traditionally normal carrier craft come in to land with 25% left in the tanks due to more time in holding and reserve incase they miss the wire and have to go round again. Expected real life use is expected to see the C only have a ~10% range advantage over the B and all those numbers are academic once users have the choice of external fuel.
That rather overlooks the much greater usable payload of the C, which can be used for fuel as well as munitions.Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff