Gunboards Forums banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,021 Posts
Living example of the old adage that the more moving parts a thing has, the more likely something's gonna break.


One stuck door left slightly ajar, and half the point of that aircraft's existence has been compromised.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
34,398 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
A helicopter is a collection of thousands of parts all trying to go in different directions, and you know what they say about those things - if something hasn't broken on your helicopter, it's about to...
 

·
Silver Bullet Member
Joined
·
563 Posts
Great vid, thanks for sharing. I wonder if the implementation of this aircraft will change the way anphibious support/assault and "fleet presence" is carried out by the navy/corps. If the current Nimitz class boats can be anywhere in the world in 48-72 hrs, maybe the Wasp or Bonne Homme Richard with 12 of these can be there sooner but still be a force multiplier equal to a Nimitz/Ford Class carrier? Maybe the pocket carriers would cut costs too, less crew, less overall tonnage, faster, ect. Just my opinion - I think its a good thing.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
34,398 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Great vid, thanks for sharing. I wonder if the implementation of this aircraft will change the way anphibious support/assault and "fleet presence" is carried out by the navy/corps. If the current Nimitz class boats can be anywhere in the world in 48-72 hrs, maybe the Wasp or Bonne Homme Richard with 12 of these can be there sooner but still be a force multiplier equal to a Nimitz/Ford Class carrier? Maybe the pocket carriers would cut costs too, less crew, less overall tonnage, faster, ect. Just my opinion - I think its a good thing.
V/STOL combat aircraft invariably come with more than their share of problems, and the F-35B is no exception. It's pricey, and it's gonna require a lot of maintenance, much more than regular cat-launched aircraft. It's also gonna be more succeptible to some system failure or another, which as has been pointed out can translate into "splash" or worse. It will require more down time, more man-hours, higher materiel demands, etc. Be tough to keep an acceptable percentage of those combat-ready, especially in extended ops.

Here's a little info for ya... http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/03/top-10-list-of-f-35b-flaws-and.html
 

·
Platinum Bullet Member
Joined
·
7,633 Posts
Beaufort County is sweating bullets. We're supposed to 6 squadrons of F35s. But, if the fiscal cliff happens, Beaufort will be on it's way toward ghost town status.

The F35B is a beauty.

Thanks for the video.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
34,398 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Beaufort County is sweating bullets. We're supposed to 6 squadrons of F35s. But, if the fiscal cliff happens, Beaufort will be on it's way toward ghost town status.

The F35B is a beauty.

Thanks for the video.
I hope y'all get 'em, Beau. Lotsa bucks will flow into the local economy if you do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,707 Posts
Great vid, thanks for sharing. I wonder if the implementation of this aircraft will change the way anphibious support/assault and "fleet presence" is carried out by the navy/corps. If the current Nimitz class boats can be anywhere in the world in 48-72 hrs, maybe the Wasp or Bonne Homme Richard with 12 of these can be there sooner but still be a force multiplier equal to a Nimitz/Ford Class carrier? Maybe the pocket carriers would cut costs too, less crew, less overall tonnage, faster, ect. Just my opinion - I think its a good thing.
When you need a fleet carrier there's no substitute. The Medium carrier concept has been coming up for at least thirty years in the US and still no one's bit on it. As far as VSTOL, physics is still against you: The energy to launch it comes out of the plane's fuel tank vice the CVN's catapult and speed, giving the plane a shorter range. Not saying it doesn't have a place, just saying its place isn't where a fleet carrier should be.
 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
93,733 Posts
To get a decent range with a satisfactory combat load, a V/STOl pretty well has to launch with near-empty tanks and do an in-flight fueling once it is off the boat.

Having some (or AV-8s) on an amphibious warfare ship, whether an LHA or LHD, to offer some strike and CAP capability is a useful additional capability for them, but comes at a considerable price and may be an un-affordable luxury. Sort of like BBs or CAs for fire support.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,359 Posts
You would not want the turbine to cut out (or anything else to somehow fail)....when you are hovering 30 meters above the deck.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
34,398 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
You would not want the turbine to cut out (or anything else to somehow fail)....when you are hovering 30 meters above the deck.
Three things a pilot never wants to run out of - altitude, airspeed and brains. In a hover, you've already lost all of one and most of a second. In that situation, "brains" will only avail you if you can think to yank the "un-ass" handle in time.
 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
93,733 Posts
You would not want the turbine to cut out (or anything else to somehow fail)....when you are hovering 30 meters above the deck.
And that lift fan and all the drive thingys to make it spin, that looks like a high risk for failure to me. Bet the accident rate on those things will rival the AV-8, which is much higher than anything else (except maybe the Osprey) our military flies. And bet it also will rival anything else we have for maintenance hours per flight hour.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
34,398 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
And that lift fan and all the drive thingys to make it spin, that looks like a high risk for failure to me. Bet the accident rate on those things will rival the AV-8, which is much higher than anything else (except maybe the Osprey) our military flies. And bet it also will rival anything else we have for maintenance hours per flight hour.
Clyde, I'm sure you remember the catastrophic introduction of the original Harrier/AV-8 to the Marine Corps. Lots of "nuggets" got killed trying to learn to hover that thing.

Granted, the F-35B will make use of lessons learned, but it's still much more complex than anything else the Navy has flown to date. To reiterate - the more you complicate the plumbing, the more likely it is that the drain will get stopped up.
 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
93,733 Posts
Clyde, I'm sure you remember the catastrophic introduction of the original Harrier/AV-8 to the Marine Corps. Lots of "nuggets" got killed trying to learn to hover that thing.

Granted, the F-35B will make use of lessons learned, but it's still much more complex than anything else the Navy has flown to date. To reiterate - the more you complicate the plumbing, the more likely it is that the drain will get stopped up.
Yep, I surely do recall the origianl HArriers. And they STILL have a high accident rate.

i understand why the Misguided Children think they needed the AV-8 and a replacement for it, but those things are going to cost. A lot and more than just money. Depend on it.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
34,398 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Yep, I surely do recall the origianl HArriers. And they STILL have a high accident rate.
Three times that of the F/A18.
 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
93,733 Posts
Makes you wonder why the Brits were using them as they have a lot less pilots to lose than us.

Because they don't have any carriers that can handle real airplanes. Virtue of necessity. And they don't have any at the present time.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
34,398 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
All the Brit carriers have the "jump ramp" up front - they're pretty much costrained to V/STOL.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,346 Posts
Great vid, thanks for sharing. I wonder if the implementation of this aircraft will change the way anphibious support/assault and "fleet presence" is carried out by the navy/corps. If the current Nimitz class boats can be anywhere in the world in 48-72 hrs, maybe the Wasp or Bonne Homme Richard with 12 of these can be there sooner but still be a force multiplier equal to a Nimitz/Ford Class carrier? Maybe the pocket carriers would cut costs too, less crew, less overall tonnage, faster, ect. Just my opinion - I think its a good thing.
Small carriers increase costs and increase vulnerability.

We studied the problem extensively and found that it took two 60,000 tons displacement carriers to equal one 100,000 ton Nimitz class, and cost started to go asymptotic as you got smaller. Below that size the ships couldn't carry a full suite of maintenance facilities plush the munitions, protection, defensive systems or anywhere close to an effective number of aircraft. At about 20,000 tons you'd be limited to about 6 F-35B sized aircraft, plus would need attending dedicated maintenance ships, and the ships themselves would be extremely vulnerable, unable to carry the armor, protective, and redundent systems needed to survive.

The end result would be the problems the British had in the Falklands, against a very weak air opposition. Coming up against a major power like Russia or China and you're toast, so all the huge expense would be wasted.

This is why the smaller air capable ships are mostly ASW oriented, really large ASW cruisers, with some swing capability for V/STOL fighter attack aircraft for low threat environments, or just to satisfy the naval air lobby. That 45,000 ton USS Wasp, LHD-1, is optimized for USMC beach assault and supply missions and can only carry 6 AV-8Bs.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top