• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Sportboat Jeff

F-35 Porn

47 posts in this topic

Those modern fighters are like bloody anti-gravity devices.

 

Incredible machines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Extremely coo!! Why can they not do a Vertical Take-Off, Jeff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can do a vertical take-off at landing weight, if you can hover you can go up.

The running start is the plan for launch with full load of ammo and fuel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VTO takes a huge amount of fuel - the running ramp the Brits put on their small carriers makes a big difference to flight time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Extremely coo!! Why can they not do a Vertical Take-Off, Jeff?

I am pretty sure the F-35 can, but VTOL operations are incredibly inefficient. Even a slow roll greatly increases the takeoff weight so whenever possible VTOL planes really act in STOVL mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's amazing what you can buy for ~$100,000,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a few things came to mind while watching that video...

and I know I'm not up to speed on what role these critters are intended to play, but the hatches and flaps that open up for the vectored thrust fans look a might delicate to me. wondering how much damage one of those could sustain and still function.. a couple small arms rounds looks like it take out the hinges and hydraulics that open and close them.

 

impressive as they are, they remind me of how many failures we've had with canting keel mechanisms and the like.

 

just too many things that can break or go tits up. think I'd still rather go into battle in an A-10 LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Remember reading that the power going from the engine / through a shaft / gearbox / fan is the same as a WW2 destroyer propulsion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VTO takes a huge amount of fuel - the running ramp the Brits put on their small carriers makes a big difference to flight time.

 

Why didn't they put ski jumps on the Wasp Class assault ships? It has to be more than the innate Anglophobic nature of the USN?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

VTO takes a huge amount of fuel - the running ramp the Brits put on their small carriers makes a big difference to flight time.

 

Why didn't they put ski jumps on the Wasp Class assault ships? It has to be more than the innate Anglophobic nature of the USN?

It was originally designed as a helo carrier, it wasnt originally intended to launch harriers. Even when I was deployed on it in the late 90's it didn't carry harriers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

VTO takes a huge amount of fuel - the running ramp the Brits put on their small carriers makes a big difference to flight time.

Why didn't they put ski jumps on the Wasp Class assault ships? It has to be more than the innate Anglophobic nature of the USN?

It was originally designed as a helo carrier, it wasnt originally intended to launch harriers. Even when I was deployed on it in the late 90's it didn't carry harriers.

 

 

Were you USN crew or USMC that was on it for an ex or deployment?

Seeing as how the Marines have been flying Harriers since the 70's and one of them was flying Harriers in Gulf I that just doesn't make sense. Deck space issues, how often do they need to carry helo's on the front end?

I have a cousin that flew Greyhounds and when I asked him about it, he just shrugged and said "Heh, probably because the British came up with the idea first..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

VTO takes a huge amount of fuel - the running ramp the Brits put on their small carriers makes a big difference to flight time.

 

Why didn't they put ski jumps on the Wasp Class assault ships? It has to be more than the innate Anglophobic nature of the USN?

It was originally designed as a helo carrier, it wasnt originally intended to launch harriers. Even when I was deployed on it in the late 90's it didn't carry harriers.

Were you USN crew or USMC that was on it for an ex or deployment?

Seeing as how the Marines have been flying Harriers since the 70's and one of them was flying Harriers in Gulf I that just doesn't make sense. Deck space issues, how often do they need to carry helo's on the front end?

I have a cousin that flew Greyhounds and when I asked him about it, he just shrugged and said "Heh, probably because the British came up with the idea first..."

I was USMC infantry. The whole time we were in the Med we had nearby (relatively) aircraft carrier support. A Pacific Pump may have used a different loadout. But we were principle headed to provide ground support to Kosovo and the the former Yugoslavia so we had a lot of civilian construction equipment and heavy lift helicopters onboard. Stuff like bobcats, front end loaders, a cement truck (no fucking idea why), a fire truck (crowd control)...

 

By the tie we loaded all the assault gear in the holds there wasn't much roof left for helo's so they pretty much lived on the flight deck. The well deck was all preloaded with assault equipment, mech infantry and the like, then progressively less combat oriented stuff like skid loaders, fork lifts, cargo trucks, etc, then non-munition supplies like pallets of MRE's and water. By the time she left dock for the pump, there wasn't any empty space on the entire ship. Maybe a bit on the flight deck, but not a whole lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

VTO takes a huge amount of fuel - the running ramp the Brits put on their small carriers makes a big difference to flight time.

 

Why didn't they put ski jumps on the Wasp Class assault ships? It has to be more than the innate Anglophobic nature of the USN?

 

 

Not Invented Here permeates the USA, not just the military.

 

Try and list 10 good ideas invented in other countries that were adopted in the USA. There was a huge kerfuffle over the Marines getting Harriers BITD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing as how the Marines have been flying Harriers since the 70's and one of them was flying Harriers in Gulf I that just doesn't make sense.

 

 

 

I think the Marines got them in the mid 80's... my cousin was one of the fist squadrons to transition into them and this was in 1984... I use to go visit him in Yuma, AZ where the did the transition and training.

 

What a dreadful place

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

VTO takes a huge amount of fuel - the running ramp the Brits put on their small carriers makes a big difference to flight time.

Why didn't they put ski jumps on the Wasp Class assault ships? It has to be more than the innate Anglophobic nature of the USN?

Not Invented Here permeates the USA, not just the military.

 

Try and list 10 good ideas invented in other countries that were adopted in the USA. There was a huge kerfuffle over the Marines getting Harriers BITD.

NIH syndrome is just one of our 10 exceptional qualities!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got a question and a comment.

 

First the question. I noticed that the two landing spots on the flight deck for the F-35s were a different color, did the Wasp's flight deck have to be retrofitted / upgraded similar to the America class?

 

The sad thing when I look at all these ridiculously cool modern fighter and bomber aircraft is that they won't live on past their military service, they're probably too complex to maintain and operate as an individual or foundation. While 50 years from now there will still be a bunch of WW2 aircraft flying, the odds that we'll get to see F-22s, F-35s, or any of their foreign counterparts seems remarkably slim, which is a shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Seeing as how the Marines have been flying Harriers since the 70's and one of them was flying Harriers in Gulf I that just doesn't make sense.

 

 

 

I think the Marines got them in the mid 80's... my cousin was one of the fist squadrons to transition into them and this was in 1984... I use to go visit him in Yuma, AZ where the did the transition and training.

 

What a dreadful place

 

 

AV-8A was a dreadful airplane. Largely a Hawker-Siddeley product, the US put some money into it and bought it for the Marines in the early 70's. We used to hold mock wakes for fellow flight school grads who received orders to Harriers and it was widely mocked for it's "Dead Bug" roll over and die tendency. The mission was described as delivery of a single bomb, aircraft and pilot to a target within a few miles for where it took off. US started the AV-8B development in the late 70's (love the capability. Hate the execution in AV-8A) without the Brits but later they joined in development of the AV-8B/Harrier GR7 which was a lot better airplane. Even then, it held the record for the highest cost per hour tactical aircraft in the US inventory for a lot of years. NOthing fundamentally wrong, jut lots of expensive and troublesome bits that tended to break.

 

Harriers uses "direct impingement" for vertical lift and max vertical takeoff is very limited. LM largely got the Marine vote for F-35 by using a lift fan (with the transmission, clutch, doors, and other "fiddly bits" that a FMECA (failure modes and effects analysis) leads to one result - if a part in that chain fails at a critical time, the aircraft will crash. To LM's credit, so far, the lift system looks very robust in operation. Advantage of the lift fan is lots of mass airflow that is a lift multiplier over direct exhaust impingement. Even so, the exhaust of the F125 engine can spall concrete, melt mild steel, etc. so there are challenges. To be fair, the F-414's in the F/A-18E/F/G required jet blast deflector mods to the carrier to cool them. All new aircraft come with associated changes to the platforms carrying them. It's why we have "air-ship integration" teams because major ship alterations happen on a very long cycle.

 

Ski jump has been looked at a lot and has some real advantages but some trades as well. US decided to not make those trades. UK makes them. A lot of Brit, Australian, French and even Russian tech (post Cold War and pre Putin) has made it into US aircraft.

 

Friend of mine has both a single seat and a 2 seat Harrier and takes them to airshows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Seeing as how the Marines have been flying Harriers since the 70's and one of them was flying Harriers in Gulf I that just doesn't make sense.

 

 

 

I think the Marines got them in the mid 80's... my cousin was one of the fist squadrons to transition into them and this was in 1984... I use to go visit him in Yuma, AZ where the did the transition and training.

 

What a dreadful place

 

 

[snip]

 

Friend of mine has both a single seat and a 2 seat Harrier and takes them to airshows.

 

 

wat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Seeing as how the Marines have been flying Harriers since the 70's and one of them was flying Harriers in Gulf I that just doesn't make sense.

 

 

I think the Marines got them in the mid 80's... my cousin was one of the fist squadrons to transition into them and this was in 1984... I use to go visit him in Yuma, AZ where the did the transition and training.

 

What a dreadful place

[snip]

 

Friend of mine has both a single seat and a 2 seat Harrier and takes them to airshows.

wat

. http://artnalls.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Seeing as how the Marines have been flying Harriers since the 70's and one of them was flying Harriers in Gulf I that just doesn't make sense.

 

I think the Marines got them in the mid 80's... my cousin was one of the fist squadrons to transition into them and this was in 1984... I use to go visit him in Yuma, AZ where the did the transition and training.

 

What a dreadful place

[snip]

 

Friend of mine has both a single seat and a 2 seat Harrier and takes them to airshows.

wat

. http://artnalls.com

 

 

Some pretty impressive resumes there....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catch him in the hangar on a Sunday afternoon and take a 12 pack with you. Really approachable guy. Good stories behind buying, importing, rebuilding and certifying the airplanes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got a question and a comment.

 

First the question. I noticed that the two landing spots on the flight deck for the F-35s were a different color, did the Wasp's flight deck have to be retrofitted / upgraded similar to the America class?

 

The sad thing when I look at all these ridiculously cool modern fighter and bomber aircraft is that they won't live on past their military service, they're probably too complex to maintain and operate as an individual or foundation. While 50 years from now there will still be a bunch of WW2 aircraft flying, the odds that we'll get to see F-22s, F-35s, or any of their foreign counterparts seems remarkably slim, which is a shame.

The different color is different deck surfacing material being tested. The F-35 is significantly hotter than the Harriers according to the pilot and swo folks who deal with them. Or so I'm told by my daughter (USNA grad) who has friends in that community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Seeing as how the Marines have been flying Harriers since the 70's and one of them was flying Harriers in Gulf I that just doesn't make sense.

 

 

 

I think the Marines got them in the mid 80's... my cousin was one of the fist squadrons to transition into them and this was in 1984... I use to go visit him in Yuma, AZ where the did the transition and training.

 

What a dreadful place

 

 

AV-8A was a dreadful airplane. Largely a Hawker-Siddeley product, the US put some money into it and bought it for the Marines in the early 70's. We used to hold mock wakes for fellow flight school grads who received orders to Harriers and it was widely mocked for it's "Dead Bug" roll over and die tendency. The mission was described as delivery of a single bomb, aircraft and pilot to a target within a few miles for where it took off. US started the AV-8B development in the late 70's (love the capability. Hate the execution in AV-8A) without the Brits but later they joined in development of the AV-8B/Harrier GR7 which was a lot better airplane. Even then, it held the record for the highest cost per hour tactical aircraft in the US inventory for a lot of years. NOthing fundamentally wrong, jut lots of expensive and troublesome bits that tended to break.

 

Harriers uses "direct impingement" for vertical lift and max vertical takeoff is very limited. LM largely got the Marine vote for F-35 by using a lift fan (with the transmission, clutch, doors, and other "fiddly bits" that a FMECA (failure modes and effects analysis) leads to one result - if a part in that chain fails at a critical time, the aircraft will crash. To LM's credit, so far, the lift system looks very robust in operation. Advantage of the lift fan is lots of mass airflow that is a lift multiplier over direct exhaust impingement. Even so, the exhaust of the F125 engine can spall concrete, melt mild steel, etc. so there are challenges. To be fair, the F-414's in the F/A-18E/F/G required jet blast deflector mods to the carrier to cool them. All new aircraft come with associated changes to the platforms carrying them. It's why we have "air-ship integration" teams because major ship alterations happen on a very long cycle.

 

Ski jump has been looked at a lot and has some real advantages but some trades as well. US decided to not make those trades. UK makes them. A lot of Brit, Australian, French and even Russian tech (post Cold War and pre Putin) has made it into US aircraft.

 

Friend of mine has both a single seat and a 2 seat Harrier and takes them to airshows.

 

To jump on IB's bandwagon here. On the ramp thing, its really about mission capability trades, and not about "Not Invented Here" syndrome. The Brits and others use the ski-jump approach as a way to launch fixed wing aircraft from smaller aircraft carriers and/or not deal with the weight and complexity of catapults. Our aircraft carriers are large enough to have dedicated catapults. The LH class ships are primarily helo/CV-22 carriers for landing Marines ashore. The ramp would take away a landing spot, which would reduce the numbers of Marines you can move on and off the ship. For us, that's not a trade we want to make. If we need to generate more fixed wing sorties, or fly longer ranged missions, we either bring a carrier or get a tanker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ramp was created for launching Harriers without relying totally on VTO capability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon, So yes, the ramp was created to launch Sea Harriers... because Great Britain had decommissioned all it's traditional aircraft carriers by the late 70's, and had commissioned the Invincible Class Carriers as aviation-capable anti-submarine warfare (ASW) platforms to counter the Cold War North Atlantic Soviet submarine threat.

 

To quote Wiki (dangerous sometimes, but accurate here):

"The government decided that the carrier needed fixed-wing aircraft to defend against Soviet reconnaissance aircraft.[12] In May 1975, it authorised the maritime version of the Hawker Siddeley Harrier,[10][14] which was successfully developed into the Sea Harrier. This meant that the design was reworked again to include a small complement of these VTOL aircraft. In order to launch a heavily laden Harrier more efficiently by STOVL (short take-off vertical landing) from the comparatively short - 170-metre (560 ft) - flight deck, a 'ski-jump' was developed. The slope was initially 7° when incorporated into Invincible and Illustrious and 12° for Ark Royal."

 

The loss of their "conventional" carrier capability which cost them both fighters with longer range and endurance, and Airborne Early Warning (like the E-2 Hawkeye) and had serious negative impacts to the British Fleet during the Falklands War.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get it now, vertical landing is easy peasy, once you've dumped your bomb-load and burned up your fuel, but VTO would seriously limit those payloads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon, So yes, the ramp was created to launch Sea Harriers... because Great Britain had decommissioned all it's traditional aircraft carriers by the late 70's, and had commissioned the Invincible Class Carriers as aviation-capable anti-submarine warfare (ASW) platforms to counter the Cold War North Atlantic Soviet submarine threat.

 

To quote Wiki (dangerous sometimes, but accurate here):

"The government decided that the carrier needed fixed-wing aircraft to defend against Soviet reconnaissance aircraft.[12] In May 1975, it authorised the maritime version of the Hawker Siddeley Harrier,[10][14] which was successfully developed into the Sea Harrier. This meant that the design was reworked again to include a small complement of these VTOL aircraft. In order to launch a heavily laden Harrier more efficiently by STOVL (short take-off vertical landing) from the comparatively short - 170-metre (560 ft) - flight deck, a 'ski-jump' was developed. The slope was initially 7° when incorporated into Invincible and Illustrious and 12° for Ark Royal."

 

The loss of their "conventional" carrier capability which cost them both fighters with longer range and endurance, and Airborne Early Warning (like the E-2 Hawkeye) and had serious negative impacts to the British Fleet during the Falklands War.

 

I think that answers my question, the usuable flight deck on the USN LHA & LHD's were almost 200' longer, making a ski jump slightly less critical, but even the new RN Queen Elizabeth has a ski jump. I was just idly wondering how useful that last helo landing spot would be at the bow of a pitching carrier. Then again they aren't exactly WWII converted escort carriers.

I wonder what system the Marines use to launch Harriers in a "boisterous" sea state without catapults? Getting the timing wrong on the downroll seems like it would really ruin someone's day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Burlington, VT is getting F-35s to replace F-16s. I'm looking forward to seeing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Jon, So yes, the ramp was created to launch Sea Harriers... because Great Britain had decommissioned all it's traditional aircraft carriers by the late 70's, and had commissioned the Invincible Class Carriers as aviation-capable anti-submarine warfare (ASW) platforms to counter the Cold War North Atlantic Soviet submarine threat.

 

To quote Wiki (dangerous sometimes, but accurate here):

"The government decided that the carrier needed fixed-wing aircraft to defend against Soviet reconnaissance aircraft.[12] In May 1975, it authorised the maritime version of the Hawker Siddeley Harrier,[10][14] which was successfully developed into the Sea Harrier. This meant that the design was reworked again to include a small complement of these VTOL aircraft. In order to launch a heavily laden Harrier more efficiently by STOVL (short take-off vertical landing) from the comparatively short - 170-metre (560 ft) - flight deck, a 'ski-jump' was developed. The slope was initially 7° when incorporated into Invincible and Illustrious and 12° for Ark Royal."

 

The loss of their "conventional" carrier capability which cost them both fighters with longer range and endurance, and Airborne Early Warning (like the E-2 Hawkeye) and had serious negative impacts to the British Fleet during the Falklands War.

 

I think that answers my question, the usuable flight deck on the USN LHA & LHD's were almost 200' longer, making a ski jump slightly less critical, but even the new RN Queen Elizabeth has a ski jump. I was just idly wondering how useful that last helo landing spot would be at the bow of a pitching carrier. Then again they aren't exactly WWII converted escort carriers.

I wonder what system the Marines use to launch Harriers in a "boisterous" sea state without catapults? Getting the timing wrong on the downroll seems like it would really ruin someone's day.

 

Dilli,

Get the timing wrong on a catapult launch in big seas can be eye opening too! Because the USN has conventional large deck carriers to do its power projection missions with aircraft, it can, from a roles and missions standpoint, allow the big deck Helo ships to be optimized for Helo / Tiltrotor ops. They can carry F-35s, but they are not intended to be the "kick down the door" force against a adversary with decent air force. The F-35s on the LHD/LHA class ships are there for lower intensity ops and to provide limited air support to troops. Again, if you need lots of firepower from the air, that's the mission of the CVN. The real misson of the LHD/LHAs is to land the Marines so the extra helo spot or two can make a big difference in the number of troops you can offload

 

A ski jump is a great way to enable heavier mission load outs on STOVL aircraft. As can be seen by the proliferation of ski jumps on smaller carriers. But even the new Queen Elizabeth - which is a pretty big ship at 65000-75000 tons can't match the sortie generation rate of a Nimitz or Ford class carrier with 4 catapults and arrested landing gear.

Crash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Jon, So yes, the ramp was created to launch Sea Harriers... because Great Britain had decommissioned all it's traditional aircraft carriers by the late 70's, and had commissioned the Invincible Class Carriers as aviation-capable anti-submarine warfare (ASW) platforms to counter the Cold War North Atlantic Soviet submarine threat.

 

To quote Wiki (dangerous sometimes, but accurate here):

"The government decided that the carrier needed fixed-wing aircraft to defend against Soviet reconnaissance aircraft.[12] In May 1975, it authorised the maritime version of the Hawker Siddeley Harrier,[10][14] which was successfully developed into the Sea Harrier. This meant that the design was reworked again to include a small complement of these VTOL aircraft. In order to launch a heavily laden Harrier more efficiently by STOVL (short take-off vertical landing) from the comparatively short - 170-metre (560 ft) - flight deck, a 'ski-jump' was developed. The slope was initially 7° when incorporated into Invincible and Illustrious and 12° for Ark Royal."

 

The loss of their "conventional" carrier capability which cost them both fighters with longer range and endurance, and Airborne Early Warning (like the E-2 Hawkeye) and had serious negative impacts to the British Fleet during the Falklands War.

I think that answers my question, the usuable flight deck on the USN LHA & LHD's were almost 200' longer, making a ski jump slightly less critical, but even the new RN Queen Elizabeth has a ski jump. I was just idly wondering how useful that last helo landing spot would be at the bow of a pitching carrier. Then again they aren't exactly WWII converted escort carriers.

I wonder what system the Marines use to launch Harriers in a "boisterous" sea state without catapults? Getting the timing wrong on the downroll seems like it would really ruin someone's day.

Dilli,

Get the timing wrong on a catapult launch in big seas can be eye opening too! Because the USN has conventional large deck carriers to do its power projection missions with aircraft, it can, from a roles and missions standpoint, allow the big deck Helo ships to be optimized for Helo / Tiltrotor ops. They can carry F-35s, but they are not intended to be the "kick down the door" force against a adversary with decent air force. The F-35s on the LHD/LHA class ships are there for lower intensity ops and to provide limited air support to troops. Again, if you need lots of firepower from the air, that's the mission of the CVN. The real misson of the LHD/LHAs is to land the Marines so the extra helo spot or two can make a big difference in the number of troops you can offload

 

A ski jump is a great way to enable heavier mission load outs on STOVL aircraft. As can be seen by the proliferation of ski jumps on smaller carriers. But even the new Queen Elizabeth - which is a pretty big ship at 65000-75000 tons can't match the sortie generation rate of a Nimitz or Ford class carrier with 4 catapults and arrested landing gear.

Crash

I'm just speculating that in the last 20yrs and most likely in the next 20yrs there's been a larger demand for heavier loadouts on STOVL aircraft off LHA/LHD's than one or two helo spots to offload a Marine battalion in 2hrs or evacuate an embassy. You have to admit there have been too many times in the past, and there will be in the future, when there have been Marines on the ground and fleet CV(N)'s have been noticeable in their absence. Hell that's why the Marine's fought so hard against Navy for the Harriers in the first place.

 

Signed, a NAFTA ferringer with carrier envy whose only service in the last 20yrs has been Robbie Burns night at the mess.

 

P.S. It was a Canadian that came up with the idea of the "meatball" landing lights, it was the RN that built the first offset flight deck CV...so yeah, the USN does adopt "foreign" ideas. From time to time. Grudgingly. :D

P.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Burlington, VT is getting F-35s to replace F-16s. I'm looking forward to seeing them.

 

Trust me, you won't be looking forward to hearing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Burlington, VT is getting F-35s to replace F-16s. I'm looking forward to seeing them.

Trust me, you won't be looking forward to hearing them.

 

Which is why the Geared Turbo Fans in commercial air travel are going to YYYYUUUUUUGGGEE! 70% reduction in noise signature, 20% better fuel economy, and 15% less emissions. That's from memory, so don't sue me if I'm off a few percentiles on any of these...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Burlington, VT is getting F-35s to replace F-16s. I'm looking forward to seeing them.

 

Trust me, you won't be looking forward to hearing them.

 

Louder than the F22?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Burlington, VT is getting F-35s to replace F-16s. I'm looking forward to seeing them.

Trust me, you won't be looking forward to hearing them.

 

Which is why the Geared Turbo Fans in commercial air travel are going to YYYYUUUUUUGGGEE! 70% reduction in noise signature, 20% better fuel economy, and 15% less emissions. That's from memory, so don't sue me if I'm off a few percentiles on any of these...

 

Ok, not to quibble about a few % ,,

, but you are comparing Greyhound busses to F1 cars in performance parameters.

 

 

? Loud ?

 

Bone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Burlington, VT is getting F-35s to replace F-16s. I'm looking forward to seeing them.

Trust me, you won't be looking forward to hearing them.

 

Which is why the Geared Turbo Fans in commercial air travel are going to YYYYUUUUUUGGGEE! 70% reduction in noise signature, 20% better fuel economy, and 15% less emissions. That's from memory, so don't sue me if I'm off a few percentiles on any of these...

 

Ok, not to quibble about a few % ,,

, but you are comparing Greyhound busses to F1 cars in performance parameters.

 

 

? Loud ?

 

Bone

 

Yes, I know that's what I am comparing, but I was reflecting on noise signatures. Once you hear a A320neo or Bombardier CS100 or 300, you will be blown away by how quiet they are. Operating regularly now in Europe. A 320 neo flew over our plant last summer, it was amazingly quiet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Burlington, VT is getting F-35s to replace F-16s. I'm looking forward to seeing them.

 

Trust me, you won't be looking forward to hearing them.

 

 

 

They did a noise study, and there were some disagreements about the results. I think they might have said they wouldn't be louder than the F-16s by much, but differently loud. I think the airport or the ANG did offer more buyouts for certain nearby homes.

 

It was one of our Green Mountain Boys in that iconic F-16 over Manhattan photo from after 9/11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was a little kid the hottest fighters (Century Series) were just starting to break the sound barrier. Sonic booms were not at all uncommon back then.

 

Even so, the loudest plane I ever heard was the SR71 when it did a low speed, low altitude pass over Vancouver and out over English Bay. Christ that thing was loud! It had a unique sound as well - a crackling, sizzling noise, not the whine or boom of the usual jet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Burlington, VT is getting F-35s to replace F-16s. I'm looking forward to seeing them.

 

Trust me, you won't be looking forward to hearing them.

 

They did a noise study, and there were some disagreements about the results. I think they might have said they wouldn't be louder than the F-16s by much, but differently loud. I think the airport or the ANG did offer more buyouts for certain nearby homes.

 

It was one of our Green Mountain Boys in that iconic F-16 over Manhattan photo from after 9/11.

They are significantly louder than F-16's, 15's or 18's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was a little kid the hottest fighters (Century Series) were just starting to break the sound barrier. Sonic booms were not at all uncommon back then.

 

Even so, the loudest plane I ever heard was the SR71 when it did a low speed, low altitude pass over Vancouver and out over English Bay. Christ that thing was loud! It had a unique sound as well - a crackling, sizzling noise, not the whine or boom of the usual jet.

B1b for me... But I never saw a 71, unfortunately .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Jon, So yes, the ramp was created to launch Sea Harriers... because Great Britain had decommissioned all it's traditional aircraft carriers by the late 70's, and had commissioned the Invincible Class Carriers as aviation-capable anti-submarine warfare (ASW) platforms to counter the Cold War North Atlantic Soviet submarine threat.

 

To quote Wiki (dangerous sometimes, but accurate here):

"The government decided that the carrier needed fixed-wing aircraft to defend against Soviet reconnaissance aircraft.[12] In May 1975, it authorised the maritime version of the Hawker Siddeley Harrier,[10][14] which was successfully developed into the Sea Harrier. This meant that the design was reworked again to include a small complement of these VTOL aircraft. In order to launch a heavily laden Harrier more efficiently by STOVL (short take-off vertical landing) from the comparatively short - 170-metre (560 ft) - flight deck, a 'ski-jump' was developed. The slope was initially 7° when incorporated into Invincible and Illustrious and 12° for Ark Royal."

 

The loss of their "conventional" carrier capability which cost them both fighters with longer range and endurance, and Airborne Early Warning (like the E-2 Hawkeye) and had serious negative impacts to the British Fleet during the Falklands War.

I think that answers my question, the usuable flight deck on the USN LHA & LHD's were almost 200' longer, making a ski jump slightly less critical, but even the new RN Queen Elizabeth has a ski jump. I was just idly wondering how useful that last helo landing spot would be at the bow of a pitching carrier. Then again they aren't exactly WWII converted escort carriers.

I wonder what system the Marines use to launch Harriers in a "boisterous" sea state without catapults? Getting the timing wrong on the downroll seems like it would really ruin someone's day.

I read somewhere thay they kept the ski jump on the QE2 class because of the clearance between the harriers and the sea on the 'murican ships, which the UK didn't like, so they kept the ski jump :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Burlington, VT is getting F-35s to replace F-16s. I'm looking forward to seeing them.

 

Trust me, you won't be looking forward to hearing them.

 

They did a noise study, and there were some disagreements about the results. I think they might have said they wouldn't be louder than the F-16s by much, but differently loud. I think the airport or the ANG did offer more buyouts for certain nearby homes.

 

It was one of our Green Mountain Boys in that iconic F-16 over Manhattan photo from after 9/11.

They are significantly louder than F-16's, 15's or 18's.

Yes...yes they are...and they quickly put an end to cocktail hour conversation when you're swinging on the pick in Boggy Bayou...NTTAWWT...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Burlington, VT is getting F-35s to replace F-16s. I'm looking forward to seeing them.

Trust me, you won't be looking forward to hearing them.

 

They did a noise study, and there were some disagreements about the results. I think they might have said they wouldn't be louder than the F-16s by much, but differently loud. I think the airport or the ANG did offer more buyouts for certain nearby homes.

 

It was one of our Green Mountain Boys in that iconic F-16 over Manhattan photo from after 9/11.

They are significantly louder than F-16's, 15's or 18's.

 

 

That's loud, then. The 15's that fly over me here in Portland are quite loud. 18's, not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0