Ski Jump Info CVF & Others Testing 28 May 2014 pp163
Ski Jump Info CVF & Others Testing 28 May 2014 pp163
Ski Jump Info CVF & Others Testing 28 May 2014 pp163
Firsts
Innovation
Ski-Jump
In the 1970s Lt Cdr Doug Taylor invented the Ski-Jump. This upwards
curving ramp at the forward end of the flight deck ensures that the aircraft
is launched on an upward trajectory giving considerable performance gains,
including much greater payload and range, than a corresponding flat
deck, short take-off. The early trials proved so successful that the
Ski-Jump was incorporated into the design of HMS Hermes
and the Invincible Class carriers.
SRVL
1909 - 2009
set at 7 degrees, but during Hermes's refit her ramp was set at what was considered to be the optimum, 12. The ramps were later revised to a 12-degrees fit on Ark
Royal, Invincible and Illustrious....
SHAR
BAe/McDonnell Douglas Harrier by Andy Evans
CROWOOD AVIATION SERIES
[Art Nalls would add: ...and a good WOD (Wind Over Deck)]
-
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/501297-china-lands-jet-first-aircraft-carrier.html#post7539618
25 Apr 2014
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/538128-f35-display-uk-year-3.html#post8450029
ENGINES: ....Ski jumps can be used by both conventional and powered lift (STOVL) aircraft.
In both cases, they launch the aircraft into the air below its normal takeoff speed, and the
aircraft then spends a period of time in a reducing rate of climb while it accelerates to full
wing borne flight, and then climbs away. It's been described to me as a 'runway in the sky'.
However, the two types get very different levels of advantage.
A conventional aircraft (e.g. Flanker, or Fulcrum as used by Chinese and Russia) cannot be launched
below normal takeoff speed at max gross TO weight (MGTOW), as the only way they can maintain a safe
minimum rate of climb is to adopt a high angle of attack and use engine thrust as best they can. That
creates more drag, which delays acceleration, which means lower rate of climb away from the sea. This
is why you don't see these aircraft launch with many external stores, and it helps explain an unusually
public complaint by a Chinese Navy Admiral over the poor performance of his aircraft.
Conventional ski jumps aren't new, but have usually been discarded due to the
inherent limitations I've summarised above.
A STOVL aircraft can launch at much higher relative weights, because it can vector
its thrust to the optimum angle to support the aircraft by a combination of wing lift and
powered lift so as to deliver the required acceleration and climb out. The angle will be
scheduled after launch to move aft as wing lift builds. (Of note, the UK sets a minimum
400 fpm rate of climb as the limiting performance measure for ski jump launches).
Ski jump launch is an extremely effective system for maritime STOVL aircraft, is low workload and
safe, as the pilot is guaranteed to be climbing away from the sea, and has more time to react in the event
of an engine failure. It also delivers a large improvement in launch weight compared with a flat deck STO.
Oh, and the ski jump was a Royal Navy invention. And the F-35B lift system integration & flight controls design was led by some amazingly talented Brits. And Brits are leading the STOVL flight testing...."
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/538128-f35-display-uk-year-3.html#post8450458
ENGINES: ...the powered lift system on the F-35B can't vector all the
thrust aft like the Harrier does. That's part of the trade off in getting your
main propulsion engine located at the rear of the aircraft, where it really belongs for a fighter/strike type aircraft.
The lift fan can vector aft to around 50 degrees: on the X-35 there was a
sort of 'pram hood' device that gave further aft vectoring - however, this was
replaced in development by a much lighter 'vane box' device (UK designed)
which still gave enough aft vector to meet the requirements. These were a
set distance for a flat deck STO, and another shorter distance for a ski jump
launch. The launch weight was driven by a defined operational scenario.
The roll posts deliver around 2,000 pounds thrust each in balanced
operation, but they are turned off during the STO run and switched back on
just before launch. This facility was suggested by a very talented RN FAA
air engineer, and gratefully adopted during the weight saving programme.
Another excellent Brit contribution.
The point overall is that the F-35B meets all its STO requirements, as well
as its short landing targets. And it's a much heftier bird than the Harrier
http://www.raafinrussia.com/commandernatgouldran.html
-
HMS
Argus
with
Barracudas
and
RAMP
aka
launch
-ing
hump
17 July
1944
http://
images.yuku.com.
s3.amazonaws.co
m/image/
jpeg/15d352f19efd
daad62249702588
bd551ab3e438.jpg
such an advantage due to the extra payload it permitted. The British very early on foresaw
of the rolling take-off and this is why they developed a simple, reliable and above all
Short take-off and vertical landing; a close advantages
very fast-acting (100[degrees]/s) vectoring system.
look at anhistorical technical breakthrough Where do We Stand Now, Thirty Years On?
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Short+take-off+and+
vertical+landing%3b+a+close+look+at
+an+historical...-a08530123
Today, with the exception of a few British Harrier units, the NATO Tactical Air Forces still depend
on their 2 400 metres-long, paved runways. The number of such suitable airstrips available in
Western Europe is well below a hundred. The potential enemy knows their exact position and they
are not likely to move overnight. It should not be forgotten that during the past three decades,
anti-runway munitions have made tremendous strides. Not only are they now extremely accurate,
using submunition-dispensers carried in stand-off guided missiles, the pilots no longer have to
overfly the target. What is more, these munitions are now interspersed with a mix of antipersonnel mines intended to slow down or prevent the repair work.
To pretend that airbases can be defended 100% against air attacks at a reasonable cost is
another typical example of refusing to face unpalatable facts. Who can say how many runways will
still be usable at dusk on D-day? The most pessimistic optimists maintain that even on a cratered
Vertical take off was not really a new idea. At the beginning of the 1940s, the Germans developed runway an undamaged section 500 or 600 metres long can always be found to allow take-offs.
the Bachem 339 Natter, a rocket-engined fighter which took off from a tower just like the Space
Granted. However, the real problem is landing. A modern conventional fighter can take off on a
Shuttle with the help of four solid propellant boosters and was recovered by parachute. Not until
very short strip thanks to its 1 g acceleration at full throttle. But on landing its deceleration is about
the emergence of the jet engine was the concept revived.
0,25 g on a dry surface and never exceeds 0,5 g even when making full use of thrust reversers
(only fitted on Tornados and Viggens). While on take-off the pilot can use every foot of the
From the end of the 1950s onwards, there was a blossoming of several exotic designs whose
available lenght by releasing brakes at the very edge of the paved surface, the precision of the
main merit was to clarify the problem and to "darwinize" potential solutions. Almost every
touchdown point on landing is far from being so accurate, never being less than within about a
manufacturer had a go, with the exception of Bell, who tackled the problem the other way round
hundred metres even for a very experienced pilot. By and large, the minimum length required for
and launched research into the tilt-rotor. Thirty years later, Bell's V-22 Osprey is a remarkable
landing is at least twice that required for take-off.
example of rewarding tenacity.
To close this chapter, it is an odd fact that the only West European countries whose tactical air
forces can reasonably hope to survive an all-out war are two neutral powers, Sweden and
The various designs which were tested at the time can be divided into five main families: * The
"tail-sitters", which rested on the ground on their tail, taking-off vertically: in the USA the Ryan X- Switzerland. With a population of 8.3 million people, Sweden maintains 500 modern combat aircraft
(France has barely 200 more) sheltered in tunnels and operated from a score of narrow strips
13 (1956) and in France the SNECMA "Atar Volant" (1959). * The "flow-switchers", with twin 2D
thrust diverters and aerodynamic "gearing": e.g. the Lockheed XV-4A (1963), Ryan XV-5A (1964) scattered in the forests or from highway sections. The 300 Swiss fighters are safely protected in
caves dug in the mountains, together with all their logistics. Runways are generally sited in deep,
and Rockwell XFV-12A (1978). * Aircraft using pure dynamic lift. Several small, fixed jet engines
narrow valleys, surrounded by 3,000-metre mountains which provide the cheapest and most
located in the wing and fuselage provided vertical thrust while the cruise engine installation was
efficient protection against air attacks.
conventional: e.g. the Shorts SC-1 (1960), Dassault Balzac (1963), Dassault Mirage IIIV (1966)
and Lockheed XV-4B (1966). * Hybrids (lift engines plus a cruise engine supplying vectored
At Sea
thrust), e.g. the EWR VJ-101C (1963), Dornier DO31 (1967), VAC 191B (1972) and the Soviet
Yak-36 Freehand (1976). * Pure vectored thrust: e.g. the Bell X-14 (1958), the British P.1127
Even more than on land, gigantism at sea has now become a chronic affliction that leads
(1960) and the Soviet Yak-38 Forger (1967).
inexorably to a budgetary and operational dead-end. The well-proven deck-landing system aboard
The prototypes mentioned above are only a few of the numerous designs which were flight-tested. ships has not changed in more than half-a-century, consisting of arresting wires on the deck and
a tail hook on the aircraft.
Most of them, at least in the West, were fitted with British engines.
Of all the configurations tested during the past three decades, only two survived and were
developed to the production stage: the Soviet Yak-38 Forger and the British P.1127, which gave
birth to the Kestrel
Launching and recovering aircraft at sea still require a strong relative wind over deck, exactly foreand-aft. The carrier - and her escorts - must therefore constantly change course and speed
according to the tactical situation, even if a single aircraft has to be launched or recovered. All this
From 1971 onwards, the US Marine Corps ordered a total of 110 Harriers, including eleven twoseaters under the American designation AV-8A to be operated from LPHs and LPDs. For years,
the Marines had been trying to achieve the operational self-sufficiency which only the STO/VL
could provide. They had nasty memories of the abrupt departure of the Navy carriers at
Guadalcanal in 1942, leaving them in the lurch with no air support. Their initial experiences with
the AV-8A proved very satisfying and they are now in the process of acquiring a total of more than
300 AV-8Bs, the American version of the Harrier II developed jointly with the UK and now in
production in the USA by McDonnel Douglas. A first batch of 72 aircraft was authorized at the rate
of 24 yearly in FY 1989, 90, and 91.
The net result of these aberrations is that the "cost-effective" size of an aircraft carrier able to
operate modern conventional fighters is now close to 100 000 tonnes at a unit price of roughly $ 4
billion, which is an awful lot of eggs in one basket. At that rate, even the USA can hardly keep up. The Lessons of the Falklands Campaign
Former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman's "Maritime Strategy" called for maintaining 15 superThe Harrier is far from being an unproven newcomer. In service for almost twenty years, its
carriers in the fleet, but the actual projected number is already dwindling to 12.
various versions had logged more than half-a-million hours of flying time by the end of 1986.
During the Falklands conflict in 1982, the 28 Sea Harriers operating from HMS <<Hermes>> and
The British Answer
<<Invincible>> shot down 23 Argentinian aircraft, while on the British side not one was lost or
even hit in air combat. Ten Harrier GR3s from the RAF, whose pilots had no previous deck
Despite official scepticism and the abandonment of VTOL development by most manufacturers,
the British, alone, did not give up. Pragmatic, inventive, stubbornly sticking to their own views and training, were also engaged. Four Harriers/Sea Harriers were lost in accidents and five were shot
with supreme disregard for outside opinion they casually went their own way. They grasped very
down by the Argentinian ground-to-air defense. The operational attrition rate was never greater
than 0.5% per sortie. Aircraft serviceability never fell below an astonishing 85% throughout the
early on that thrust vectoring was the right approach.
campaign.
Incidentally, the basic configuration of the four vectoring nozzles was brought to England by a
French engineer, Michael Wibault, who in 1956 approached Bristol Aero Engine (now part of Rolls- Appalling weather conditions, which would almost certainly have precluded operating conventional
Royce) with his Gyroptere design, the ancestor of what was to become the Harrier.
aircraft from a large carrier, very seldom kept the Harriers/Sea Harriers idle on deck. Some were
recovered in almost zero visibility (less than the ship's deck-width) or in extreme sea-state
The experimental Hawker P.1127 built on the Gyroptere design first flew in 1960 equipped with a conditions with the flight deck moving vertically through as much as 10 metres.
Rolls-Royce Pegasus jet engine. Then came the Kestrel and eventually its production derivative
(more than 90%) the Harrier, which entered service in the Royal Air Force in 1969. The Royal
In people's minds, the Harrier is now the symbol of the Falklands campaign, much as the
Navy joined in much later and rather hesitatingly with the Sea Harrier (a "navalized" Harrier GR3) helicopter gunship is of the Vietnam war.
which only entered fleet service in 1979. But how could the Navy have guessed at the time that
The Harrier: a Few Facts
the ski-jump take-off technique would so enhance the payload performance of the aircraft?
Incidentally, turning the Harrier into Sea Harrier was achieved at a "cost" of only 45 kg in empty
weight, as compared with several hundred kilograms for the navalization of a conventional fighter. The non-reheated Rolls-Royce Pegasus turbofan of the Harrier/Sea Harrier/AV-8B has of course
been upgraded since that of the original Kestrel. Its thrust is now in excess of 10 tonnes, almost
Interestingly, the costs of the initial development stage (the first three years on the P.1127 and the double what it was 25 years ago, but its general architecture remains unchanged. The four
nozzles, arranged in a rectangle, two either side under the wing and two further aft, can be
first four years on the Pegasus engine) were entirely borne by the manufacturers without any
rotated through 100 [degrees] from fully aft to about 10 [degrees] forward of the vertical. The
order, grant or subsidy from the government. This was very fortunate for had the government
control mechanism is simple (a "bicycle-type chain" driven by pneumatic actuators) and fast (100
funded the project, it would certainly have imposed its own solution, which at the time was the
hybrid concept (separate lift plus lift and cruise engines), and there would today be no Harrier. The [degrees]/s). The front nozzles exhaust more than 60% of the air flow (at 360 m/s and 110
[degrees] C), the aft nozzles 40% (at 550 m/s and 650 [degrees] C).
programme suffered from the usual inter-services rivalry. At the time, the RAF considered it
essential for a fighter to have a speed of Mach 2 and therefore showed very little interest (except
In dynamic flight, the aircraft is controlled in pitch/roll/yaw and trim through the Reaction Control
that it saw in the Harrier the spectre of the re-emergence of the Fleet Air Arm). When the Navy
finally came round to accept the STO/VL concept, it had to take care to conceal its true intentions. System (RCS ) consisting of small, variable-area shut-off valves located at the wing tips and at
HMS "Invincible", the lead ship of a batch of three new aircraft-carriers, was designated "through- both ends of the fuselage, fed from HP compressor bleed at about 10 kg/[cm.sup.2] and 400
deck cruiser" and at the time of her commissioning, the Navy selected a name which no previous [degrees]. These valves are controlled by stick and rudder the same way as ailerons, rudder and
carrier had ever borne.
elevators in aerodynamic flight. They start to operate automatically when the main nozzles are
vectored down to 20 [degrees] regardless of airspeed, the pilot having to take no specific action
and being in fact unaware of what type of control (aerodynamic or dynamic) he is operating when
he moves his stick or the rudder pedals. On the ground, the front wheel of the tandemtype main
undercarriage can be steered with the rudder pedals. In the cockpit, the thrust vectoring lever is
the only additional control that distinguishes the Harrier from a conventional fighter. Located within
the throttle box, the lever has an adjustable stop for short take-off. This allows the pilot to
preselect the vectoring angle at the selected lift-off speed or lift-off point, according to the landing
run available and other usual parameters (load, wind, temperature, elevation, etc.). The take-off
run is then initiated with the nozzles fully aft. When the pilot reaches the selected lift-off speed (or
the end of the ramp in a ski-jump takeoff), he slams the nozzle lever to its preselected stop and is
airborne, about two-thirds on engine power and one third on wings.
Specific Operating Procedures and Limitations
The Harrier is not a helicopter. In the hover, it is less sensitive to gusts and wind direction. It is
less manoeuvrable than a helicopter, particularly in the vertical axis. The aircraft is a bit "sluggish"
and hence slower to recover from over-control. Touch-down is not as accurate as in a helicopter
but typically within about one metre of the intended point.
quiet about it.) Subsequent trials gave this phenomenon the official seal of approval.
"Viffing" has several advantages whose cumulative effects greatly enhance the aircraft's air
combat capabilities. * It increases total lift, thus permitting tighter turns. * It generates (even with
as little as 20 [degrees] of vectoring) a powerful nose-up trim change, enabling the pilot to bring
into his sights an enemy at which he would otherwise have no hope of shooting. * The Reaction
Control System, which starts to operate automatically at 20 [degrees] of vectoring, greatly
enhances the manoeuvring capabilities in a dogfight. * It produces an extremely powerful
deceleration (-2g), enabling the pilot swiftly to shake off a pursuer or missile. * While "viffing", the
engine remains at full power, allowing the pilot instantly to reaccelerate when he brings back the
vectoring lever to the full back stop.
These various factors combine to give the Harrier a decisive advantage in a dog-fight. Because
his flight path is unpredictable, the Harrier pilot is liable to open fire at any moment. In a ground
attack, the increased rate of turn through "viffing" enhances survivability and increases the
chances of hitting the target on the first run. "Viffing" also provides for easier speed control in a
dive and shortens the reaction time in attacking a target of opportunity.
"Viffing" so enhances manoeuvrability in air combat that irrespective of the STO/VL performance,
On take-off, when applying full throttle, the pilots should be careful not to "drift" on the tyres since this capability would certainly spin off on conventional fighters if it could be afforded without
the engine takes several seconds to reach its maximum thrust (one aircraft just skidded overboard incurring too heavy a weight penalty. The vectoring mechanism weighs a mere 45 kg. Together
with the RCS, the total weight of the systems is in the order of 160 kg, less than 3% of the
during the Falklands campaign).
operational weight empty. Peacetime dummy engagements against various fighter types (F-14, FFor various reasons, notably due to the design of the tandem-type under-carriage, an aircraft at a 15, F-16, F-4, F-5E) showed that the Harrier/AV-8B outperformed them all in "visual initial
encounters" by 3:1. Aircraft on both sides were flown by experienced pilots of equivalent training
weight significantly greater than maximum hover weight cannot be recovered at airspeeds below
70 to 80 knots, thus precluding a carrier landing at this weight without an arresting system. In any levels. In the contest, the F-16 was the runner-up. * The second technique unforeseen when the
Harrier was developed is the ski-jump take-off. Lt. Cdr. Doug Taylor, RN, first proposed this
case, the gear is not designed for high vertical impact velocities.
technique in 1973. It seems that his initial concern had been to make a rolling take-off safer on
board ships, particularly on a pitching deck. In a large conventional carrier, pitching is quite
The Harrier is not a good glider. Its lift-to-drag ratio is of the order of 3:1. Ejection is the only
moderate even in heavy seas. Moreover, a catapult launch is so fast that the flight deck officer
emergency procedure. Contrary to a widely spread legend, wooden decks (as in the Spanish
can adjust his timing to the pitching of the ship and launch when the deck comes up so as to be
"Dedalo") do not catch fire due to the hot exhaust jet. On a steel deck, one can walk barefoot
from where a Harrier just took off. The Pegasus engine produces no smoke, being a turbofan. Its sure not to "shoot" on a downwards trajectory. However, the Sea Harrier is designed to operate
from relatively small ships, more sensitive to sea states and with shorter pitching periods, and
IR signature is low due to the low temperature exhaust, masked underwing.
when performing a rolling take-off from a downwards pitching deck it might come dangerously low
over water. A ski-jump guarantees that regardless of the pitching angle the initial flight path will be
"Viffing" and Ski-jump Take-off
upwards.
Surprisingly and significantly enough, two important operating procedures of the Harrier which are
The ski-jump take-off procedure is similar to that of a rolling take-off on a short field. Before
today its two main selling points were initially developed by those that flew them and not by the
applying full power, the pilot sets the thrust vectoring lever stop to about 50 [degrees]. The
designer or offical research bodies. It just goes to prove that computers are not about to replace
nozzles are vectored fully aft during the deck run but as the aircraft reaches the top of the curved
the human brain and that the craftsman's skill can still challenge the best designer. * The first of
ramp, the pilot slams the vectoring lever to the preselected stop. At this point, the lift is split about
these is "Viffing" (<<Vectoring In Forward Flight>>) i.e. using
one third between the wings and two-thirds the vertical component of the engine thrust. The
airspeed is still too low for the aircraft to "fly" but as it arches up and levels off, the forward thrust
the thrust vectoring control in flight. The development of this technique owes much to the
component builds up speed while the pilot progressively brings the nozzles aft. Typically, the
pioneering work done by the US Marine Corps, in particular by the then Major Harold W. Blot
transition takes about 10 seconds to reach 180 knots in normal flight.
(now Brigadier-General and V-22 programe manager) who, in flight at 500 knots on an AV-8A,
slammed the vectoring lever to the hover stop, discovering that the deceleration effect was more
Another advantage of the ski-jump is that, should anything go wrong, it gives the pilot more time
powerful than any airbrake. (Some RAF pilots are said to have "played" with it before, but kept
to eject.
The ski-jump can also greatly reduce the take-off run or, using the same available strip length
with a ramp at the end, greatly increase the maximum take-off weight, and hence the payload.
Alternatively, the same payload can be flown off from a much shorter field. The gains are roughly
of the order of 50% (of load or length). During trials at maximum weight, astonishing end-speeds
of 75 knots were recorded on a 12 [degrees] ramp (65 knots less than a "flat" short take-off) and
even as low as 42 knots on a 17,5 [degrees] ramp. Ramp settings in excess of 20 [degrees] were
not tested for at 20 [degrees] the aircraft sustained a 4 g vertical acceleration and the wheel's
oleos just bottomed.
These gains are such that studies are now being made to transfer the ski-jump technique ashore
in the form of grid matting strips equipped with a mobile ramp. At sea, the ski-jump is now
standard on all new STO/VL carriers.
Jump Take-off and "2D" Nozzles
The Harrier is often accused of being incapable of lifting its maximum payload in the VTO mode.
True. But the Harrier is basically a STO/VL aircraft and the diehards are invited to name a single
conventional fighter able to lift its maximum payload on its shortest take-off run. * As for its
performance endurance, * the Harrier only burns some 50 kg of fuel in a typical take-off sequence
versus 250 kg for a modern twin jet fighter; * the fuel cost of a typical landing sequence is only 70
kg, with no extra allowance necessary for a missed approach; * in a dogfight the Harrier forces his
opponent to go over to reheat, without increasing his own fuel consumption; * above all, an almost
total disregard of weather conditions at the time of returning to base or to ship allows pilots to
draw much deeper on their fuel reserves and thus perform their mission with much greater peace
of mind. The typical fuel reserve of a Harrier at the break is in the order of 100 to 300 kg versus
800 to 1200 kg for a conventional fighter. * Payload
In ISA + 15 [degrees], an AV-8B taking-off from a flat 300 metre strip carries 4 tons of bombs with
a radius of action of 350 km. It should also be borne in mind that the forward basing capability
further reduces the actual range and reaction time to reach the target zone.
Ski-jump take-off and "viffing" have now gained so much favor that some aviation circles are
anxious to extend their benefits to conventional fighters. Within the framework of the painful A-6
replacement programme for instance, McDonnell Douglas is studying a Super Hornet F/A-18
equipped with "2D" nozzles (i.e. vectorable through an are below the fuselage axis) with
reheat and thrust reversers. This would give the F/A-18 some STOL capability, enhance its
manoeuvrability and increase its payload and/or endurance. Of even greater interest on that same
aircraft, the three legs of the undercarriage would be fitted with powerful actuators which would
play a role similar to that of pre-loaded springs. On take-off, at a given speed, they would
suddenly expand (nosewheel first for rotation), literally thrusting the aircraft off the ground without
having to wait for airspeed to build up and the stick to come into play.
At sea, the so-called performance gap between the Harrier and conventional fighters dwindles to
such a point as to turn to the advantage of the former, except in interception beyond visual range.
Anyone with carrier experience can remember how suddenly the casual routine of launching and
recovering aircraft becomes an emergency whenever a pilot reports low on fuel or if the deck is
unexpectedly fouled, even in fair weather. In peacetime, captains usually operate within gliding
distance of an emergency airbase ashore, which of course breeds bad habits. When the ship is
actually way out at sea, safety requires that a ship-based tanker aircraft be kept overhead roundthe-clock to help any plane short of fuel.
Last May, a US Air Force/McDonnell Douglas team began test-flying an F-15 STOL Maneuver
Technical Demonstrator (S/MTD ) fitted with "2D" nozzles and thrust reversers, a modified "rough
field" landing gear and an integrated flight controls/propulsion system (involving some kind of
dynamic attitude control at slow speed). The study contract, awarded in 1984, specifies that the
demonstrator should be able to operate from a 450/15 metres strip. Both initiatives confirm that the
main purpose of the ski-jump take-off is to get the aircraft airborne sooner than it would otherwise,
and this is only possible if control on the three axes is achieved at speeds lower than normal takeoff speed.
Spotted for the first time on the "Kiev" in 1976, the Soviet VTOL Yak-38 Forger belongs to the
hybrid family. In the hover, the lift is roughly split evenly between its cruise, vectored thrust engine
(a pure jet) and two vertical thrust jets situated aft of the pilot, which leads to several inevitable
complications.
At sea, arrested landing at high speed has apparently been stretched to its ultimate technical limit,
and the ability of designers to invent new aerodynamic gimmicks intended to slow down the
approach speed is reaching the point of exhaustion. But the catapult is most likely to survive. It
may even gain more favor and see its use extended to land operation.
When the Russians decided to develop fixed-wing shipborne aviation starting from scratch, they
deliberately preferred to deploy a rather poor VTO to start with, rather than try to copy the Western
saga of catapults and arresting wires. The price paid for this conservative approach is that their
four "Kievs" are hybrids, more helicopter-carriers than full-fledged aircraft carriers. It should be
noted, however, that the latest Soviet aircraft carrier the 65 000t "Tbilisi" (ex-"Leonid Brezhnev")
has a 12 [degrees] ski-jump at the bow and an 8 [degrees] angled deck. "Belt and braces", some
will mutter. Though the ship has no catapult, her configuration seems to confirm that the Russians
are developing a conventional naval fighter (a derivative of the Su-27 Flanker?) and an improved
derivative of the Forger, the STO/VL Yak-41.
Performance
The Supersonic Harrier
The raw performance of the Harrier in terms of speed, payload and endurance does not of course
match the F-14, F-15, F-16 and F/A-18. A fair comparison must however take into account their
respective capabilities.
The Harrier design team very early on undertook the development of a supersonic derivative of the
basic aircraft. In 1965, only five years after the subsonic prototype (P.1127) first flew, a supersonic
prototype (P.1154) was about one-third completed at Kingston when the British government of the
day cancelled the programme.
The main challenge of course was to increase the engine thrust while keeping the original welltried configuration of four vectoring nozzles. Merely adding an afterburner to the existing engine
was out of the question as it would have unbalanced the longitudinal thrust split of the four
nozzles in the hover. The original solution for the P.1154 was Plenum Chamber Burning (PCB) i.
e. heating the relatively cool fan flow directed through the front nozzles. While the PCB principle
was extensively tested on the ground, it never flew. Several other concepts were also investigated
including those of a "tandem fan" and RALS (Remote Augmented Lift System), which diverts part
of the compressed air flow to the front nozzles.
Whatever configuration may eventually emerge on some future supersonic Harrier, one thing is
certain: because the speed of the ejected flow in the hover will be significantly higher, two factors
will be of a major concern that are not critical on the existing Harrier: the recirculation of burned
hot gases (reducing engine efficiency) and the ingestion of ground debris in the air intakes.
While the development of a supersonic Harrier has officially been shelved for about twenty years,
the British have never actually closed the file. In line with their practice, they have quietly,
inventively and tenaciously kept on working, particularly on the engine side. The signature in
January 1986 of a MoU with the USA for the joint development of an Advanced [i.e. supersonic]
STOL aircraft is an indication that they did not come to the negotiation table empty-handed.
Nothing has leaked of what is being done (the programme is classified) but the ultimate outcome
is fairly certain: the future supersonic Harrier will be Anglo-American.
http://www.flightglobal.com/
pdfarchive/view/1980/1980%
20-%200091.html
HMS Invincible
c.1980
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/2944/dsc01461.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/
wikipedia/commons/c/c7/
Harrier_GR7_taking_off_HMS
_Illustrious_(R06)_1998.JPEG
I was TAD from VS-32 to FOF-3 as the S-3 (Viking) Liaison Officer. We didnt get into
Vestfjord, but Airops just outside were quite colorful. Watching a SHAR mis-time his roll and
fly through a wave (totally, and I mean totally, submerged) after he jumped off that pointy-end
ramp thing-a-majingy was quite an experience. Especially when Wings (their Airboss/CAG
equivalent) turned and looked up at me, stogie belching, and remarked:
Well Yak, thats gonna f!k up the bloody corrosion effort! Old Phantom driver he was.
http://www.neptunuslex.com/2010/12/15/final-flight/comment-page-1/#comment-663784
http://i842.photobucket.com/albums/zz349/ontheroger/jump2.jpg
http://www.fleetairarm
oa.org/Content/sites/
FAAOA/pages/164/
royal_navy_
matters20110.PDF
Flying the Sea Harrier: a test pilots perspective By Peter Collins, Flight International 20/04/09
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/04/20/325254/flying-the-sea-harrier-a-test-pilots-perspective.html
-
Royal Navy Cdr Nigel "Sharkey" Ward and the Royal Air Force's David Morgan gained their place in British
military folklore by flying the navy's British Aerospace Sea Harrier FRS1 fighter with distinction during the 1982
Falklands War. Flight International's UK test pilot Peter Collins offers a rare insight on flying the "SHAR", having
sailed south aboard the rapidly completed aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious as the combat action drew to a close.
Freshly posted to Germany as an RAF Harrier GR3 ground-attack pilot, Collins was recalled to the UK after the
war broke out and diverted to the Fleet Air Arm for a short tour flying the Sea Harrier. Type conversion was conducted with 899 NAS at RNAS Yeovilton in Somerset between June and July 1982. "My first memory is of my first
FRS1 familiarisation flight, including 'Ski Jump' launch," says Collins. "The FRS1 cockpit wasn't like the GR3's at
all, with the engine and critical aircraft systems instrumentation on the left [rather than the right], to allow space for
the Blue Fox radar display. There was no Sea Harrier T-Bird [two-seat trainer] and no simulator training; just a
quick cockpit self-assessment in the last FRS1 left in the UK. And then go: taxi up to the very bottom of
the ramp, gaze upwards at what looked like Mount Snowdon (the ramp was set at the
maximum angle of around 18), remember some words of wisdom from somewhere,
pause, slam the throttle, depart the lip, take nozzles and fly away. Piece of cake!"
Collins then moved aboard HMS Illustrious aka "Lusty" with 809 NAS for the voyage to the South Atlantic.
The vessel arrived in the Falkland Islands Protection Zone in late August, with its SHARs flying combat air patrol
sorties to plug a gap until a new landing strip could be completed for the RAF. Recalling one experience, Collins
says: "It was a perfect day, but Lusty was heaving in a massive swell and the flight deck was pitching through
6. I manoeuvred into my launch position while Flyco [Flying Co-ordination] had a think about it. Through my
forward canopy the entire world alternated from completely bright blue to completely bright green (the sea was
alive with plankton) as the ship pitched through more angles than I had ever seen before. Refusing the launch is
mutiny: it has to be done by the pilot slamming the throttle as the deck starts to pitch
down. Thankfully Flyco scrubbed the launch!" Illustrious returned home after two months of duty, with Collins
having logged a total of 66 deck landings. "I am immensely proud of my short time with the Fleet Air Arm," says
Collins. "I wish them every continued success as a uniquely professional element of our fighting services.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/
commons/d/de/
YAV-8B_Harrier_testing_a_ski_jump.jpg
Operation Ski Jump was the test taking off of a Marine Corps YAV-8B Harrier aircraft, from a specially
built ramp was constructed by the Bridge Co., 8th Engineer Support Bn., 2nd Mar. Div., Fleet Marine
Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C. Location: NAVAL AIR STATION PATUXENT RIVER, MARYLAND (MD)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (USA)
Date Shot: 1 Jul 1979
http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/1990s/1990/mj90.pdf
http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1979/1979%20-%202348.PDF
Harrier Operations
on a Ski Jump
The most significant contribution that the Navy could make to STOVL air and helicopter-borne
power projection is adding a ramp (ski jump) to all Tarawa- and Wasp-class amphibious assault
ships. The technology is proven and for return on investment relatively inexpensive. A ramp not
only improves dramatically a STOVL aircraft's takeoff performance, it facilitates concurrent
fixed- and rotary-wing operations afloat. Of all countries that operate STOVL aircraft (the United
States has more STOVL aircraft and ships to employ them than anyone) the United States is the
only country without a ramp-equipped STOVL assault ship. Now is the time for ramps....
& on page 9: ...The skeptics insist that ramps will displace landing spots. Tests
prove otherwise. On a 12 degree ski jump approximately 150 feet long, the slope gradually increases from zero up to 12 degrees at the bow. The first half of the ski jump has a
slope no greater than that of an LHA during wet-well operations with the well-deck
flooded both Harriers and helicopters can land on it...." [Major Art Nalls, USMC, "Why
Don't We Have Any Ski Jumps," U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, November 1990, 81.]
The ramp not only bolsters a STOVL aircrafts combat payload to its maximum and enhances
fixed- and rotary-wing interoperability, it provides a margin of safety to the pilot in emergency
situations. The upward vector off the bow offers the pilot extra precious seconds to handle
takeoff emergencies and an expanded ejection envelope if required. The price of one saved
STOVL aircraft, and potentially the pilots life, would probably fund several ramps on amphibious ships. The Navy and Marine Corps need ski jumps on the big-deck amphibious ships....
...[Art Nalls] was the project officer for the ski-jump testing aboard ship. The first ship
was the Italian Navy Garibaldi, with a 6 deg ramp, designed specifically for Harriers. The
ship must have been designed by someone who had never actually been aboard a fighting ship - centre deck elevators, centre hangar bay with passages round the outside, fuel
lines running round the ship perimeter, no deck-edge scuppers and no lights but it
does look good! Anyway, we did the tests and provided the launch bulletin for them. The
second ship was the Spanish Navy Principe de Asturias with a 12 deg ramp. This had a
much better configuration being based on the unbuilt US designed Sea Control Ship
sponsored by Admiral Zumwalt, USN.
The ski-jump so impressed me that I authored several technical papers and was a
huge advocate for the USMC to push the USN to install it in our amphibious ships (LHDs).
We could then use the single flight deck as essentially two runways; the helos launching
from the stern, the Harriers from the bow. There is nothing that can be loaded on a
Harrier that it can't take off with from 400 ft with 15 knots wind over deck absolutely
nothing and the flight deck is 800 ft long on the LHDs. Doubled take off performance,
increased inherent safety from the launch trajectory and no moving parts. Seemed like a
no-brainer to me but the USN didn't want to jeopardise their big deck carriers. I even
attempted to orchestrate a cross-deck operation with the Russian ski jump ship Tiblisi.
Towards the end of my flight testing career I conceived and got official approval to
take a test team to Russia to explore the YAK-141 supersonic VSTOL fighter and to fly
and report on the YAK-38 Forger. I was the first western TP to do this.
Guests Visit HMS Illustrious, Get Sneak Preview of War Game 23 Jul 2007
John J. Kruzel, American Forces Press Service
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=46816
...brought the special guests and media members to HMS Illustrious to see the
joint task forces inner-workings as it prepares for the war game. On the flight
deck, we watched as Marine aviators in Harrier jets readied to blast off the ski
jump. Cutting through the deafening engines were British and American members of the flight line, working in concert to direct the assault aircrafts & speaking in hand signals.
As Harriers whizzed by spectators, then up and off the ramp, the engines
bathed us in hot combusted jet fuel, which felt like sticking your face before a
scalding oven and ripping the door open. Thickly-padded headphones couldnt
damper the lions roar of takeoff that rocked the flight deck and jostled onlookers viscera.
In stoic terms, Marine aviator Maj. Stephan Bradicich, of the Marine Attack
Squadron 542 Tigers described the drama involved in taking off from the short
runway. When youre flying off a ship like this and youre looking 300 to 400 feet
in front of you and then, all of a sudden, youre dropping off the end of the boat,
theres a little apprehension, he said. But the kick in the butt when you throw
the power in the corner is absolutely phenomenal in the Harrier. Particularly
with the ski jump on this ship, he said. When you hit the end of the boat youre
going up fast....
1983 abstract: The U.S. Navy is evaluating ski jump launches as an alternative to shipboard
catapult launch for conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) airplanes. The Naval Air Test Center
(NAVAIRTESTCEN) conducted a ski jump launch test program using a T-2C and an F-14A airplane
operating from a variable exit angle ski jump to: (1) evaluate the feasibility of the concept; (2) define
the operating limitations; (3) document performance gains; and (4) verify aerodynamic & structural
ski jump simulations. A ground and flight test build-up program was conducted prior to actual ski
jump operations. This phase consisted of ground acceleration runs, definition of aborted takeoff/
committed to takeoff criteria, and high angle of attack (AOA) and dynamic single engine flight
characteristics. A total of 112 ski jump takeoffs with the T-2C and 28 with the F-14A was obtained.
Tests were conducted from both a 6 and 9 deg exit angle ramp. Significant performance gains were
obtained. Reduction in takeoff ground roll in excess of 50% was obtained with the T-2C. Maximum
capability with the F-14A was not achieved due to single engine considerations. With longitudinal
trim set properly, stick free ski jump takeoff is possible. A stick free ski jump launch is an easier
maneuver than a normal field takeoff. Any operational CTOL ski jump airplane should have a
Head-Up Display (HUD), nosewheel steering, stability augmentation in all axes, and an
accurate, repeatable flight control trim system. Investigation should continue to fully
define the application of the ski jump takeoff to both Shipboard and Shorebased use.
http://forum.keypublishing.com/
showthread.php?t=41054
NAS
Patuxent
River 1982
http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/NDc1WDcwOA==/$
(KGrHqJ,!hQE8mHt10HqBPMS3ZesC!~~60_3.JPG
26 September 1983
The first take-offs of an F/A-18
Hornet from a
ski-jump ramp
were conducted
at Patuxent River
http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.download&key=E2F96F0A-8324-40BB-BF94-6D2E9D04FDAA
The T-2 Buckeye flew 112 ski jump takeoffs in July of 1980. Takeoff
distances were reduced by than more than 50% using ramp angles of 6
and 9 degrees.
The Marine Corps tested an instrumented AV-8B Harrier II on the Spanish aircraft carrier
Prncipe de Asturias (R-11) in December 1988. Then-MajorArt Nalls, USMC, reported a
Harrier at its maximum weight could takeoff in 400 feet instead of 750 feet on a flat deck.
However, the ski-jump design has drawbacks: the forward part of the
flight deck is no longer available for parking aircraft and there is less
space available for moving aircraft around on the already crowded
carrier deck. In addition, the upward push of the ski jump also means
that aircraft structures may need to be stronger to bear the extra launch
loads. This could lead to aircraft that weighand costmore.
The Grumman F-14 Tomcat flew 28 times from a ski jump at NAS
Patuxent River in 1982, but never achieved maximum takeoff
capability because of single-engine operating concerns.
http://api.ning.com/files/xEh6B1KdSWQzOLt
*6Obkl-o0BM3q-SWX-dPNkEiSNU4zPiQadll1
LZc25fyGf9FsagaZJyoSrzjuoPESusZ4iYKXt
OXO6wOC/KneeboardWinter2014reduced.pdf
Flight tests showed that the basic theory was sound: all aircraft tested
took off in significantly shorter distances than they could from flat
decks. But except for the AV-8 Harrier, none of these aircraft ever flew
from ski-jump-equipped carriers.
The F-35B VSTOL (Vertical/Short Take-Off & Landing) version of the
Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will soon take its turn on a new ski
jump at NAS Patuxent River. These tests will support the Marine Corps
and JSF partner nations Great Britain and Italy, which operate carriers
designed with ski jumps.
The Harrier ski jump at NAS Patuxent River as seen from the
t air (left). The Harrier is seen
h
position (center). Cam
meras mounted underneath the
leaving the ski jump from a head-on
Harriers fuselage provided close-up views of how the landingg gear behaved during launches off
of the ski ramp (right).
The Kneeboard
The Kneeboard
www.paxmuseum.com
Like Us on Facebook
Winter 2010
Winter 2014
http://api.ning.com/files/xEh6B1KdSWQzOLt*6Obkl-o0BM3q-SWX-dPNkEiSNU4zPiQadll1
LZc25fyGf9FsagaZJyoSrzjuoPESusZ4iYKXtOXO6wOC/KneeboardWinter2014reduced.pdf
Ramp Height
ft
(m)
6de2
0
9de2
0
1.16
(0.35)
1.68
(0.51)
2.30
(0.70)
3.03
(0.92)
1.16
(0.35)
1.71
(0.52)_
2.44
(0.74)
3.33
(1.01)
DistanCe
Along Ramp
Ramp Height
ft
(m)
ft
(m)
6de2
3.88
(1.18)
4.81
(1.47)
5.85
0.78)
5.85
(1.78)
82.3
(2S.l)
92.3
(28.1)
102.2
_131.2)
112.1
(34.2)
122.1
(37.2)
9de2
4.40
(1.34)
5.62
(1.71)
7.02
(2.14)
8.58
(2.62)
8.S8
(2.62)
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=
Figure 10
ADA244869&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf Ski Jwnp Generol Amnsement
Test AjJplw
The F/A-18A airplane is a single-place, midwing. high
performanee, twin-engine strike fighler powered by two Genetol
Electric F404-GE-400 engines with an uninstalled thrust of
16,000 lb (71,171 N) each. The F/A-18 incorporates a digital flyby-wire flight control system. The test airplane was aerodynamically and structurolly represenWive of production airplanes.
No modifiCations were mode to the test airplane for the conduct of
the tests. The following speciol flight test instrumentation installations were available:
All build-up ground and flight testa and aki jump laUDCb
operationa were conducted in the normal takeoff configuration.
Table 2 details the test conditions. Two airpll!!e gross weights
were choaen to vary the thrust/Weight ratio. External stores
comprised two inert wingtip mDIDIIed AIM-9 (Sidewinder) and two
inert nacelle mounted AIM-7 (SJMfiUW) missiles.
Table2
Configuration S11111111ary
FtA-lBA~
Groll
a) Magnetic tape and telemetry syatem to record/tranamit
all required parameters.
b)
Takeoff
Configuration
Weight
lb
(k&)
Field
Takeoff
Airspeed
KEAS
Thrust/Weight
HolfFIIIJII
(30deg)
32.800
(14,878)
146
37.000
(16 783)
154
O.S2 MIL
0.76 Max
AlB
0.46 MIL
0.67 Max
AlB
Mmqod SinmJ"im
lanclins par loads model. The limulaticllll not only were llllld 10
predict performance pina and lllniCIUral loads. but enabled the team to develop a build-down procedure durin& actuo1 ski jump
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA244869&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
Jump
Ski
Midfield
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA237265
May
1991
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1976/1976%20-%202666.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1976/1976%20%202835.html
Remember when aircraft leave the end of the ski jump, they aren't actually flying yet,
flying peed being in the region of 130+knots. Ramp exit speed is around 80 knots,
taking a longer run isn't reaaly an option because ramp exit speed is defined as much
by undercarriage limits as anything else. Going up ramp puts a lot of stress on the
nosewheel, even moreso when the aircraft has a larger payload. In the RN the
Invincibles had charts kept aboard showing the required takeoff distance from the
ramp needed for a given payload, to ensure ramp exit speed did not exceed 80 knots.
[WOD Wind Over Deck needs to be considered also.]
After leaving the ramp aircraft are not yet flying as such, their wings are generating
some lift but not enough. The aircraft will have a ballistic component to it's momentum
that keeps it moving upwards and forwards, and during this time it is still accelerating.
before it reaches apogee and begins to drop back down again it will have reached/
exceded wingborne flying speed (130+knots), will also have reached a minimum of
200ft altitude (compared to a catapult lauched aircraft or a Harrier making a free takeoff from a flat decked LHD for example which leaves a 60 ft high deck and stays at that
height for several vital seconds) so if there is a problem such as engine failure the
pilot will have several vital seconds to decide to eject before hitting the sea.
http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk.nyud.net/documents/Research/RAF-Historical-Society-Journals/Journal-35A-Seminar-the-RAF-Harrier-Story.pdf
http://forum.keypublishing.com/
attachment.php?
attachmentid=179279&d=1259512375
SKI
P
-M
UJ
http://forum.
keypublishing.com/
showthread.php?
t=92518&page=4
Obi Wan Russell: "I get asked to explain the ski jump regularly,
since many seem unable to grasp the point. When you leave
the end of the ramp, you will only be at about 80 knots and you
aren't actually flying yet. But you are still accelerating and the
ramp has converted some of your forward momentum into
vertical thrust so you gain altitude whilst you are accelerating.
Before you reach the top of the arc you will have reached true
flying speed (about 130knots, and you will be at about 200ft)."
Abstract
The paper describes the first steps of a study aimed at assessing the modifications that should be introduced in ground-based combat airplanes to make them compatible with aircraft carriers designed with skijumps & arresting devices. The present analysis includes operational and performance aspects, & describes
the complexity of the take-off and approach/landing manoeuvres, identifying the key variables intervening in
such manoeuvres. A last section is devoted to summarise the most critical features for carrier suitability....
vOD
vT
qf
12
12
175 m
0m
100 m
15
200 m
15
68 m
242 m
140 m
CARRIER SUITABILITY
OF LAND-BASED
AIRCRAFT
http://www.
icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/
ICAS2012/PAPERS/167.PDF
htt
p://
exp
ert
she
re.f
iles
.wo
rdp
res
s.c
om
/20
10/
09/
ima
ges
trat
for
1.jp
g
http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/INS_Vikramaditya
Indian Navy Fighter RFI: Lockheed To Respond With Both F-35B & C
28 June 2010 Shiv Aroor http://www.livefistdefence.com/2010/06/indian-navy-fighter-rfi-lockheed-to.html
-
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?id=news/awx/2010/08/03/awx_08_03_2010_p0-245338.xml&topicName=India
-
A high-level naval delegation from the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) the government makers of
Indias much-anticipated Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) is in Russia for contract negotiations and issues
related to the programs shore-based test facility (SBTF). A senior official from the Defense Research &
Development Organization (DRDO) told AVIATION WEEK that the team is being led by Satish Babu, the financial
advisor to DRDO chief V.K. Saraswat, who also is ADAs director general. LCA Navy Program Director C.D.
Balaji is also on the ADA team. The team is currently holding contract negotiations with Russias
Rosoboronesport, the DRDO official says. The talks are mainly revolving around SBTF, thats coming up at
the Naval Air Station, Goa, to flight-test LCA naval variants. A naval prototype of the LCA was officially rolled
out by Indian Defense Minister A.K. Antony on July 6.
...Shore Based Test Facility (SBTF) to simulate an aircraft carrier with ski-jump and arrested recovery is being
set up at the Naval Air Station at Goa. The ski-jump facility is expected to be ready by the last quarter of 2011
and the landing area a year later. Goa Shipyard Ltd is handling the complete structural work, system integration
and operations. R&D Engineers and CCE(R&D) west Pune are handling the civil works. Specialised equipment
supply is from Russia in order to have the same configuration as on the Vikramaditya....
http://www.indian-military.org/news-archives/indian-navy-news/815-lca-navy-programme-director-s-speech-on-np-1-roll-out-day.html
LCA Naval Version Successfully Carries Out Maiden Flight 27 April 2012
...The additional features that the naval version would have when compared to the
other version of LCA are the LEVCON (Leading Edge Vortex Control Surface) to reduce the forward speed of the aircraft during carrier landing, Telescopic Landing Gear
with high sink rate, Arrester Hook for deck recovery and fuel dump system for emergency deck recovery. The aircraft is specifically designed for take off from a 14 degree
ramp on the aircraft carrier deck and use the Arrester Hook System to facilitate landing within the deck length of 90 meters.... http://www.defpro.com/news/details/34927/
2010
NAS Hansa, Dabolim, Goa Naval Air Station 1523'N 7352'E
The Indian Naval air arm is set to double its fleet of 217 aircraft in the next decade. The fleeta mix of
14 modelshas emerged as a mini air force, said assistant chief of naval staff (Air) Rear Admiral D.M.
Sudan. On May 11 the Navy will commission the first of three MiG-29K squadrons at its base in Goa.
One is for training. The 16 aircraft originally ordered have all been delivered, as have four of a further
29. They will fly from the aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya (previously Admiral Gorshkov), which has
taken five years longer than planned to be refitted. Later, they will also fly from the Indian-built aircraft
carrier (IAC-1), which is under construction in Kochi in Kerala. The MiG-29Ks are replacing Sea Harriers
that previously received a limited upgrade. The VTOL aircraft will be phased out within two years.
The Navy is in the process of introducing 17 BAE Systems Hawk advanced jet trainers, which will
be based on the East Coast beginning in July. At the end of the year, the Navy will take delivery of the
first of eight Boeing P-8I Poseidons to replace Tu-142s in the long-range maritime patrol mission.
The Navys main helicopter fleet of Westland Sea King Mk 42Cs was decommissioned even as the
RFP for 16 new multirole helicopters was released. Finalists Sikorsky (SH-70) and NH Industries
(NH-90) are in the process of completing the discussions on offsets, Sudan told AIN. On whether the
controversy over the AW101 helicopter buy could delay the decision, Sudan said, The government has
to make a call. Concerns about the suitability of the HAL Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH) remain.
The Navy has given [HAL] a lot of support, but the helicopter needs a blade fold and that it is unable to
do... so we cant take it onto our ships, said Sudan.
Future indigenous buys include the naval version of the HAL light combat aircraft (LCA). The prototype flew last year and carrier compatibility trials are scheduled before year-end at the Navys shore-based testing facility in Goa. This is a
critical test as [we will then know] if it can take off from and land on the carrier
We have grand plans for the LCA if it meets our requirements, said Sudan.
Navy to begin expansion at Dabolim [Goa] - Times of India, The, Feb 21, 2010
http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/times-of-india-the/mi_8012/is_20100221/navy-expansion-dabolim-goa/ai_n50193350/?tag=rel.res2
PANAJI: The Indian Navy has decided to go ahead with its expansion plans at the Dabolim
airport. Preparations are under way to build a Shore Based Test Facility (SBTF) which will be
used by its Light Combat Aircrafts (LCAs) and MiG 29K fighter jets.
The SBTF, which is being set up at the naval station INS Hansa, is meant to train fighter
pilots before they attempt take-off and landing on aircraft carriers.
Giving mediapersons a brief synopsis a day before the MiG 29Ks were inducted into the
naval air arm, Commanding Officer (CO) of the INS Hansa, captain Surendra Ahuja, said that
the SBTF in India will be only the second of its kind in the world, with Russia being the only
other country to have this facility.
Ahuja also outlined the Navy's expansion plans for several new facilities at the airport,
where three additional hangars and two simulators will be built.
Work on constructing a 1,255 m strip is also underway for the SBTF facility he added. A
feature of the project will be the ski-jump facing the seafront. This ski jump will be a replica
of the same facility available on board the mother ship for the MiG 29Ks - the INS
Vikramaditya - which is being refitted and which will only sail by December 2012.
Since the MiG-29K's flight operation on the aircraft carrier will be in the Short Take Off
But Arrested Landing (STOBAR) configuration, two wire arresting systems are also being
set up at the INS Hansa naval base.
"The STOBAR system will help arrest both the LCAs and the Mig-29Ks safely," he said.
He said that India is the second country in the world to have a 'wire arresting' system,
besides Ukraine. American aircraft carriers carry out such operations by using a 'catapult'
system, he added.
PUNE: The naval variant of light combat aircraft (LCA) Tejas will soon undergo carrier compatibility tests at the
newly commissioned shore-based test
facility at the Indian naval base INS
Hansa in Goa, the LCAs programme
director Kota Harinarayana told TOI on
Friday.
Before we go to the ship, we have
to do something on the ground that is
similar to the ship, Harinarayana said,
while pointing out that the shore-based
test facility is primarily a ramp similar to the ones on aircraft carriers
which facilitates ski-jump take-off and
arrested landing of a naval aircraft.
The aircraft will go to the test facility
in a months time, he added.
Apart from enabling carrier compatibility, the new facility will aid certification of the LCA naval variant, which
is critical to the LCAs future induction
in the Indian Navy, he said.
The LCA (Navy) is Indias first indigenous effort to build a carrier-borne
naval fighter aircraft, a vital ingredient in the Navys expansion plans. It
is designed to operate from future
http://sphotos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-aksnc6/282233_452154671492952_203250730_n.jpg
http://images.defensetech.org/
wp-content/uploads/2012/07/
Indian-carrier-flight-ops.jpg
http://www.global-military.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Su-27-series-aircraft-in-the-land-sliding-Yanliang-flight-deck-jump.jpg
http://defense-update.com/wp/20110426_j-15_unveiled.html?
utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A
+DefenseUpdate+%28Defense+Update%29
SIC
J-15 prototype was finished, China started aircraft carrier pilot training
http://www.global-military.com/j-15-prototype-was-finished-china-started-the-aircraft-carrier-pilot-training.html
According to 21, reported the latest issue of the Canadian Chinese Defense Review magazine, said China has launched aircraft personnel training
project, training centers may be located in Huludao. The article said that as Chinas first ship-borne fighter aircraft F-15 manufactured prototype, China
will build test base for the Navy, similar to Ukraines Navy carrier fighter NITKA as test center. Reported that Chinas naval pilot training center, carrierbased fighter aircraft flight test center is most likely located in Liaoning Huludao area. Huludao already have, Chinese Navy Flight School, which is the
famous 91 065 troops. Navy helicopters, bombers, transport aircraft pilot training in this. Han and that the future China is likely to fly in the Naval Academys structure, the building of carrier-based fighter aircraft flight test center, there may be an independent building a new naval flight test center. But
Huludao Xingcheng, Jiyuan Navy land-based aircraft carrier construction of the airport did not find signs of the runway test center. Han and the founder
of Ping Kefu said, building a new trial airport is very expensive, equal to land the aircraft carrier construction. At present, only Ukraine, United States,
the existence of such a test center. At the same time that the Chinese F-15 fighter flight carrier is facing difficulties because there is no Navy pilots in
the flight test center where, in Shaanxi, the Air Force Flight Test Center Yanliang J-15 only testing flight control systems, radar, weapons use and so on.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1000936112000155/pdfft?md5=
3407d67cbb90cd3bc1f9bdbd9087d249&pid=1-s2.0-S1000936112000155-main.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1000936112000155
Abstract: The flight safety is threatened by the special flight conditions and the low speed of carrier-based aircraft ski-jump
take-off. The aircraft carrier motion, aircraft dynamics, landing gears and wind field of sea state are comprehensively considered to dispose this multidiscipline intersection problem. According to the particular naval operating environment of the carrierbased aircraft ski-jump takeoff, the integrated dynam-ic simulation models of multi-body system are developed, which involves
the movement entities of the carrier, the aircraft and the landing gears, and involves takeoff instruction, control system and the
deck wind disturbance. Based on Matlab/Simulink environment,the multi-body system simulation is realized. The validity of the
model and the rationality of the result are verified by an example simulation of carrier-based aircraft ski-jump takeoff. The
simulation model and the software are suitable for the study of the multidiscipline intersection problems which are involved in
the perform-ance, flight quality & safety of carrier-based aircraft takeoff, the effects of landing gear loads, parameters of carrier
deck, etc....
...The effects of a moving carrier-based aircraft on an aircraft carrier motion are negligible as the mass of the aircraft is nearly three orders of magnitude less than the aircraft carrier. Therefore the carrier motion is independent of the carrier-based aircraft and regarded as an input of the multi-body dynamic system (MBDS)....
...3.5. Flight instruction and control module: The LSO is responsible for the safety of the carrier-based aircraft takeoff. Before the deck run, the aircraft is attached to the flight deck by the holdback fitting to enable the engine to run up to full power.
After the pilot signals the LSO that it is ready, the commander will make a right judgment by considering carrier motion, aircraft characteristics and flight mission, etc. If the takeoff decision is made, the LSO will give signals immediately to the launch
oper-ator to release the wheel gear, and the carrier-based aircraft will then start rolling and complete the takeoff process.
Otherwise a right time shall be waited for. The time decision-making system for carrier-based aircraft launching is shown as
Fig. 3....
...7. Conclusions: The simulation modeling of carrier-based aircraft ski-jump takeoff is complicated. This paper builds the
relatively complete system model of carrier-based aircraft ski-jump takeoff to resolve the problems of the coupling among
multi-motion bodies and flight environment, as well as the problems of the cooperative instructions control. This system model
takes into account three main effects: the coupling of carrier, aircraft body and the landing gears; the influences on the carrier
motion by sea state and on the flight by the induced wind field; the influences on the aircraft flight by the cooperative instructions control among deck commanders and pilot. Two simulation examples show that the system model can describe the dynamic characteristics of all the movement bodies reasonably. It has practical significance for the multi-disciplinary intersect
problem in the design of carrier deck, design of landing gears and aircraft body. This system model can be used to analyze the
influencing factors of flight safety comprehensively, such as flight environment, human decision-making control, etc., which is
supposed to play an important role in flight training.
New Chinese Ship-Based Fighter Progresses Apr 27, 2011 By David A. Fulghum
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2011/04/27/02.xml&headline=New Chinese Ship-Based Fighter Progresses
"Beijing is revealing pictures of its Shenyang J-15 Flying Shark design that is intended to populate the decks of its first aircraft carrier. The J-15 is
based on the J-11B, Shenyangs unlicensed and indigenously adapted version of the Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker, and resembles its Russian equivalent, the
Su-33 shipboard version, with a foreplane, folding wings, arrester hook and reinforced landing gear. Like the Su-33, the J-15 is designed to take off
from a ski jump rather than a catapult. There are some differences from the Su-33, including more complex trailing-edge flaps and advanced Chinese
avionics. The unlicensed adaptation has been a source of friction with Moscow, says Douglas Barrie, senior fellow for military aerospace with
Londons International Institute for Strategic Studies. The J-15s canards replicate those on the Su-33, indicating its flight control system is at least
similar, Barrie says. Moreover, a mock-up of the J-15 was seen carrying a dummy anti-ship missile, suggesting the J-15 may be intended to have a
strike role from the outset, while the Su-33 was an air-to-air design. The heavy shipborne fighter will be yet another piece in the foundation of a shipbased force that can project power at sea, far from Chinas shore defenses. They are expected to be first based on the former Russian Varyag aircraft
carrier. The first pictures were taken at Shenyang Aircraft Industry Corp.s No. 112 factory.
The design features exterior missile rails and a wide-angle holographic head-up display similar to those on the companys J-11 fighter. There are
competing claims about the aircrafts capability. Russians Ria Novosti news service called it inferior to the Su-33, but Chinese officials say the
Su-33s avionics are obsolete, so they have installed locally made sensors, displays and weaponry. While based structurally on the Su-33, the aircraft
features avionics including an advanced anti-ship radar from the J-11B program. Deployment is expected no earlier than 2016.
Analysts and aircraft watchers in China say the aircrafts first flight was made on Aug. 31, 2009, powered by a Russian-supplied AL-31. Ukraine is
the source of Chinas Su-33/Flanker D, U.S. analysts agree. Russias carrier training is done in Ukraine at Saki, and for years there was one of the
first prototype Su-33s sitting there, one of the analysts says. It disappeared a few years ago and likely ended up in China. The most recent photos
of the J-15 show that they are either already entering low-rate initial production or close to it. I expect these [LRIP aircraft] to move to the training
facilities soon and begin the long road to carrier qualification.
The first takeoff from a simulated ski jump was conducted on May 6, 2010.
The program began after a Su-33 prototype was acquired from Ukraine in 2001. China offered to buy Su-33s from Russia as recently as 2009. A
Ukrainian court convicted a Russian man in February of conspiring to give the Chinese details of a Crimean air base that had been used to train
Su-33 pilots to take off from a carriers ski jump ramp, according to the New York Times.
In Huludao, a navy installation on Chinas northeast coast, workers are said to have built a rough clone of the Crimea test center, complete with a
ski ramp for short takeoffs. There are lots of photos of a [dry, ground-based] carrier training facility that has a static flight deck for crew training,
the U.S. analyst says. The facility is shaped like a carrier, with the dormitories and classrooms below the flight deck. It already has both a Flanker
mock-up and a helicopter [onboard] to qualify deck and maintenance crews for carrier operations. Another facility at Xian has the ski jump for carrier
takeoffs and the arresting gear network for landings. We expect to see these J-15s do a lot of work there.
Taiwan intelligence officials say the aircraft carrier thought to be slated for a training role could make its first voyage by the end of the year.
The warship has been docked in Chinas eastern Dalian harbor, where it has undergone extensive refurbishing since 2002. The carrier is also
interesting in that it appears to be fitted with a close-in [Club-type cruise missile] weapons system, Barrie says.
U.S. intelligence analysts agree with the Taiwanese officials. Just last month we started seeing the powerplants firing up, showing they are
getting really close to going to sea trials sometime this year, [perhaps] as soon as this summer, the U.S. analyst says. Theyve also discussed a
second carrier [indigenously built] using the knowledge gained from their work on the one they bought from the Russians.
angle of 14 degrees
190 feet
reddish area
ski jump
centreline
length
just
http://www.
east-asia-intel.
com/eai/2009/
Images/skij1.jpg
http://
www.east
-asia-intel.
com/eai/2009/
08_26/list.asp
http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201012160435.html
BEIJING China has officially admitted for the first time that it has embarked on an aircraft carrier building program, part of a grand
strategy to build itself up as a maritime power.
A report published by the State Oceanic Administration says the countrys leaders decided last year to back plans to build Chinas
first aircraft carrier. The Chinese government & military had kept the program under wraps until now.
The annual national ocean development report says that asserting Chinas power at sea is indispensible to accomplishing the great
resurgence of the Chinese people.
Chinese military sources said initial plans had called for launching a conventional powered carrier with a displacement of between
50,000 & 60,000 tons in 2015. But, with construction progressing quickly, the launch of the first Chinese-made aircraft carrier now
appears to be set for 2014.
JUMP to
Construction has already begun at six military-affiliated companies & research institutes in Shanghai and other locations.
more info
The plan calls for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to be launched by around 2020.
Meanwhile, the Varyag, a Soviet-era Kuznetsov-class aircraft carrier bought from the Ukraine, is undergoing repairs in the northeastern port of Dalian and is expected to be pressed into service as a training vessel from 2012.
The Chinese military is developing a fighter jet to be used on its new carrier & 50 pilots have begun land-based training.
Facilities to train the pilots in landing & taking off at sea are being constructed at Xingcheng, Liaoning province, & Xian,
Shaanxi province, & a full-scale model of an aircraft carrier has been completed in Wuhan, Hubei province, to test radar systems.
The report, written by a research institute affiliated to the State Oceanic Administration, sketches a strategy for expanding the reach of
Chinese sea power and strengthening its ability to protect its maritime interests.
As part of that strategy, the report says, the Chinese military came out in 2009 with a vision and plan to construct aircraft carriers.
It also maps out a longer-term drive to build China into a mid-level maritime power by 2020, able to counter challenges & threats at sea.
The report indicates that possessing aircraft carriers is seen not only as necessary to compete with the United States, but also as a
way to heighten patriotic sentiment in China.
Military sources said the Chinese leadership decided in April 2009 at an expanded meeting of the Communist Partys Politburo to give
the go-ahead to the aircraft carrier building program.
But there appears to have been a tug-of-war within the Chinese regime about publicly announcing the program. Initial plans to announce the program were put off because of concerns that it would fan concerns in neighboring nations about the Chinese military
threat.
However, the military has been insistent that the construction plan should be announced. The report by the State Oceanic Administration, an agency of Chinas land ministry with close ties to the Chinese Navy, may have been a convenient vehicle for that lobby.
All the aircraft carriers will likely be based at Sanya, a South China Sea port on the southern tip of Hainan Island.
Lianshan,
...[gave] Chinese
details of a Crimean
air base that had
been used to train
Su-33 pilots to take
off from a carriers
ski-jump ramp, says
the New York
Times. In Huludao,
a navy installation
on Chinas
northeast coast,
workers are said to
have built a rough
clone of the Crimea
test center,
complete with a ski
ramp for short
takeoffs....
http://www.aviationweek.com/
aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?
plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage
=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%
3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%
3ae0019bc5-e488-488d-a55d-56cf54ed6ad4&plckScr
Huludao
JUMP
BACK
TO NITKA
Russian sold secrets for Chinas first carrier Ukraine sends him to prison
By Reuben F. Johnson The Washington Times Monday, February 14, 2011
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/14/russian-sold-secrets-for-chinas-first-carrier/
-
KIEV | Ukrainian authorities have imposed a six-year prison term on a Russian man convicted of spying for China who
was assigned to steal military secrets for Beijings program to build and operate aircraft carriers.
The Russian national, Aleksandr Yermakov, was blocked from attempting to transfer to China classified data that
would have significantly accelerated the Chinese armys effort to field its own operational aircraft carrier, according to
reports in the Ukrainian newspaper Segodnya and other news outlets.
Chinas military announced last year that it had begun construction of its first aircraft carrier, confirming Pentagon
and U.S. intelligence reports that Beijing was seeking the power-projection platform that requires highly skilled pilots
who can take off and land from the relatively short space of a carrier deck at sea....
...Chinas intelligence service directed Yermakov to steal classified information about Ukraines Land-based Naval
Aviation Testing and Training Complex, or NITKA, its Russian acronym, according to reports.
The facility is in the Crimea near the city of Saki and was built when Ukraine was a part of the Soviet Union. It
remains the only training complex of its kind in the world.
The NITKA base is vital for states that operate one of the Russian-designed carriers equipped with ski-ramp takeoff
decks, instead of the flat decks used on U.S. and French aircraft carriers.
The only two ski-jump carriers are the Russian navys Admiral Kuznetsov and its sister ship, the Varyag, acquired
by China from Ukraine in 1998 and initially announced in China for use as a floating casino. Russia continues training
its pilots in Ukraine while building a similar facility in the Krasnodarsky Krai region of Russia that is expected to be
completed in 2012....
...Chinese military officials have been quoted in Chinas state-run press as saying they plan to create a carrier-naval
aviation capability; but the Chinese need their own NITKA for training their own carrier pilots, according to Ukrainian
news reports, and they have already begun building their own complex.
U.S. intelligence officials said the first indications of Chinas plan for building aircraft carriers were land-based short
takeoff and landing drills going back a decade.
The Chinese are building a massive carrier pilot training base at Xingcheng, in the northeastern province of
Liaoning. Other facilities for training of carrier personnel and engineering support specialists have been built
in Xian, Shanxi province. The Xingcheng facility has features that duplicate the design of NITKA in Ukraine."
14 Nov 2013
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/527504-china-first-display-j-15-carrier.html#post8152130
Engines: ...this way of operating aircraft (often called STOBAR Short Take Off Barrier Arrested Landing)
was looked at in detail during CVF requirements development. It was also looked at by the USN many years
ago (in the 70s, I believe).
The basic issue with it is that you get relatively poor launch performance with CTOL aircraft. The key to
ramp launches is that you fly off the deck going upwards, which means you have more time to accelerate to
a speed where you start flying at a positive rate of climb.
Any aircraft has to attain a ramp exit speed that allows it launch at an acceptable initial sink rate, plus it
has to be controllable. That sink rate will be driven solely by wing lift and whatever thrust if can get by being
pitched up - although that will in turn cause significant drag. That will delay the ability of the aircraft to
accelerate to normal climb out speed. For a conventional aircraft with aerodynamic controls, and no thrust
vectoring, a ramp launch will not be achievable at anything like MGTOW off a runway. In fact, probably quite
a long way below. The sort of thrust/weight ratios used for flying displays are quite a long way away from
what you get when fully loaded for a strike mission, or even air defence work.
A STOVL aircraft (e.g Harrier, F-35B) has a couple of massive advantages off the ramp. The first is that
they have a control system that works at flying speeds down to zero, so they don't have to rely on control
surfaces. The second is that they can launch in a powered lift mode, where they can vector their thrust
through their CG. That means that they can launch at well below aerodynamic stalling speed, & then progressively shift thrust aft as wing lift builds up. Sea Harrier typically had ramp end speeds of around 85 kts.
The 'vanishing chocks' are used to allow the aircraft get into full reheat at higher weights before
they start rolling, to try to get the best ramp end speed they can. At higher weights, the effect is
minimal. Harrier did look at using a 'hold back' for deck launches, but it was realised that the gain
was not worth the complexity.
Bottom line is that CTOL ramp launches are not going to deliver the sort of payloads (fuel & weapons)
that operational air arms require. This is basic physics and is not solved by marketing. Ask the 'Sea
Typhoon' salesmen after a few quiet beers. The Chinese have recently gone public with some fairly severe criticisms of their aircrafts' performance off their new carrier, which seems to confirm the point....
China Has Plans For Five Carriers Jan 5, 2011 By Richard D. Fisher, Jr.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/dti/2011/01/01/DT_01_01_2011_p71-272520.xml&headline=China Has Plans For Five Carriers
Chinas Peoples Liberation Army is assembling the production & basing capacity to make its aircraft carrier program one of Asias largest military endeavors.
A plausible near-term projection for Chinas aircraft carrier ambitions was revealed in two 2009 articles in Japans Asahi Shimbun newspaper, which
featured rare access to Chinese military and shipbuilding sources. The sources noted that China would first build two non-nuclear medium-sized carriers
similar to the 50,000-ton ex-Soviet/Ukrainian Project 1143.5 carrier Varyag being rebuilt in Dalian Harbor. These carriers would start initial construction in
2009. Beginning in 2020 or soon after, two 60,000-plus-ton nuclear-powered carriers would follow, based on plans for the Soviet-designed but never built
Project 1143.7 Ulyanovsk class.
This would mean a likely fleet of five carriers by the 2020s, including Varyag, which entered a phase of accelerated reconstruction in 2009. Work
surrounding this carrier is also serving to create the development and production infrastructure for future carriers. Since mid-2005, Varyags reconstruction
has been documented by images from Chinese military fans on dozens of web pages.
In April 2009, Varyag was moved from its Dalian berth to a nearby drydock. Surrounding the drydock are large ship-component construction hangars, from
which the next carriers may emerge. By April 2010, the ship was berthed outside the drydock. Since the move the hull has undergone degaussing, likely in
preparation for the now-visible outfitting of a new naval electronics suite. This suite will include four arrays for Chinese-developed naval phased-array radar
and new rotating-array radar. Emplacements for the electronic warfare suite are visible.
A Sinicized model of a Varyag-like carrier, built in 2003 by students at Harbin Technology Institute, which does carrier development work, indicated it
would carry a heavy fixed armament of YJ-63 long-range antiship cruise missiles, vertically launched medium-range surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) and Type
730 30-mm. close-in weapon systems (CIWS). Last November, however, Internet imagery indicated it might carry a lighter weapons suite. It will be the lead
platform for the short-range FL-3000N SAM, similar to Raytheons SeaRAM, though it carries 24 missiles. The imagery shows that Varyag will carry four
FL-3000N launchers and at least two Type-730 30-mm. CIWS.
Varyags air wing is becoming visible. Chinese Internet sources reported that the first flight of the Shenyang Aircraft Corp.s copy of the Sukhoi Su-33 was
in August 2009, and by early 2010 Internet imagery and a video confirmed Shenyang had copied the Su-33. Since 2005 Russian sourceshave insisted to this
writer that China could not copy the Su-33, as it was a radical modification of the Su-27SK design. By 2009, these sources anticipated China would purchase
an upgraded Su-33 as it developed its own version with a Chinese-designed WS-10A turbofan. In 2010, an Asian source said the PLA might not be pleased
with its Su-33 copy, and would consider buying the Sukhoi-built version. Since 2005, negotiations have been held up over Russias insistence that China buy
a profitable number, around 40.
It is now expected that Shenyang will perfect its Su-33 copy, which will feature the latest Chinese-designed active phased-array radar, and new 5thgeneration air-to-air missiles and long-range antiship missiles, such as an air-launched version of the YJ-63, with a range of 600-plus km. (373 mi.). Varyag
may start its service with a multirole fighter more capable in some respects than the Boeing F/A-18E/F.
In 2010, Internet images appeared of a new airborne early-warning and control radar array of the size needed for a carrier aircraft. This followed a 2005
partial image of a turboprop-powered AEW&C. In October 2009, Internet images emerged of possibly retractable AEW&C radar on a Chinese Z-8 helicopter,
which may form part of the initial air wing.
The PLA is also building escort ships for its carrier fleet. In the autumn of 2009 it appeared that two Chinese shipyards were building two new destroyer
classes, but their configurations and equipment are not apparent. The PLA is expected to build up to 18 modern Type-065A air-defense frigates. Two new
Type-093 nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) have been built, and a more capable Type-095 SSN is expected.
When it enters service around 2015, the Varyag and its sisters, plus escorts, may be
located at a recently constructed naval base near Sanya on Hainan Island.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asiapacific-13693495
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/53316000/gif/_53316848_china_aircraft_carrier_624.gif
http://chinese
militaryreview.
blogspot.com.au/
2013/10/chinese-catobaraircraft-carrier.html
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hongpk8iON4/UmDpF_97ieI/AAAAAAAAfEI/QpdmxfygnEw/s1600/CATOBAR+%2528Catapult+Assisted+Take-Off+But+Arrested+Recovery%2529+kaunch+and
+recovery+of+aircraft+j-21+31J-15+Flying+Shark+Carrier+Borne+Fighter+Aircraft++Chinese+navy+pla+navy+construction+produced+built+designed+operationak+%25281%2529.jpg
http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1101&MainCatID=11&id=20131211000053
China has yet to decide whether its J-31 stealth fighter will replace the J-15
to become the country's next generation carrier-based fighter, according to
sources. The J-31 fighter entered service before the J-15, and is able to land or
take off from the flight deck of the Liaoning. Sources said that a decision will
only be made after the construction of the nation's second and third aircraft
carriers is completed. This will give the PLA more time to think about the type
of carrier-based fighter it will need in the future, the sources added.
http://
informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2009/05/
more-on-varyag-news-from-brazil.html
Jump
Back
http://
img37.imageshack.us/
img37/2086/varyag
diagrammay22.jpg
Liaoning
SHI LANG/
Chinese Navy
Pilots to train
with Brazilian
Navy
/VARYAG
Nelson Jobim, the Minister of defense for Brazil. I think the important part is that Jobim is going to China this
fall to basically finalize a deal that will allow Chinese naval pilots to train from Sao Paulo. You can see a little bit
about the Sao Paulo aircraft carrier in its Wikipedia Page. I think it's kind of interesting that they chose Sao Paulo,
because it's basically the only aircraft carrier with catapult and not serving for a country that current has military
embargo on China. US will obviously not let PLAN train on its carriers and French navy probably will not either
due to the embargo. I guess it shows that China is looking to build a CATOBAR carrier pretty soon. Otherwise,
there really isn't any need to train on Sao Paulo right now. On the other hand, it's kind of curious that China is
also planning to use NITKA training center, because that's probably preparing pilots for STOBAR carrier. Obviously, PLAN would be able to do more realistic training on Sao Paulo, but it would only have limited training
schedule on Sao Paulo compared to NITKA. So, it looks like PLAN is just covering all the basis with its plans. On
the whole, my guess is that Varyag will probably not equip any catapult, but the home built carriers will.
The other interesting part is that PLAN actually told Brazil that its building multiple carriers for power projection. We also heard a while back where a PLAN officer joked with USN about splitting power in Pacific Ocean
(and I think there are definitely elements in PLAN that thinks this way). Also a couple of years ago, I remember
reading Admiral Keating saying that PLAN officials were very forward about their intention to build aircraft
carrier in private conversations (this was at a time when China was still sort of denying their aircraft carrier
ambitions). I think this kind of conversation really contrasts with Chinese government's official statements. It
seems like PLAN officers are more relaxed and transparent with their intention in private conversations through
military exchanges than their civilian bosses are willing to be. In the past couple of years, I've seen many
politicians and military personnel complaining about lack of reciprocal invitations from PLA after they had been
fairly transparent toward visiting PLA delegation. I really think that PLA is still learning how to be more open
with their intentions and such. And it is clear that contacts with other countries are helping them to build trust
and understanding the importance of transparency. We are seeing PLA becoming more transparent recently
(with its white paper and the 60th anniversary review). Only positive military engagements can direct PLA to
become more transparent and reduce likelihood of a conflict.
In a May 9 interview with Brazilian defense, strategy and intelligence news website Defasanet, Brazilian Defense Minister
Nelson Jobim stated that Brazil and China had reached an agreement to train personnel from the Peoples Liberation Army
Navy (PLAN) in Brazil. In the interview (available in Portuguese), Jobim announced that the two sides reached a training
agreement to stage PLAN officers aboard the NAe Sao Paulo, Brazils Clemenceau-class aircraft carrier (Defesanet, May
13). There has been no reported official confirmation from the Chinese government concerning this agreement, however,
on May 19 the official Xinhua News Agency released a news report in its Spanish portal (no equivalent has been found in
the news agencys Chinese or English portal), which cites remarks that Jobim made to the media about the nature of the
plan in question. The Xinhua report cited Jobim as saying that the agreement was reached in April during Navy Admiral
Carlos Soares de Moura Netos official visit to Qingdao to attend the PLANs 60th Anniversary Naval Review (Xinhua News
Agency [Spanish], May 20). The defense minister noted that the Chinese wanted aircraft carriers for power projection, and
that he hopes naval cooperation between Brazil and China can serve as the gateway for defense cooperation in other areas
(Defesanet, May 13, Xinhua News Agency [Spanish], May 20). Jobim is planning a visit to China in September or October,
which analysts say is likely to finalize the training agreement.
http://www.
jamestown.
org/
single/?
no_cache=
1&tx_ttnew
s%
5Btt_news
%
5D=35116&
tx_ttnews%
5BbackPid
%
5D=13&cHa
sh=f072084
889
Although the details of this alleged agreement are still unknown, given the chronic lack of funding for the NAe Sao Paulo
within Brazils national budget, some observers speculate that a part of the deal may involve the Chinese paying for some
of the restoration of the aircraft carrier in return for some real on-deck operational experience for its carrier officers. An
article that appeared in a Chinese naval universitys website, Why did China Choose Brazil to Train it Carrier Pilots?
referenced an unspecified source as saying that the Chinese will provide technical support to Brazil for constructing its
nuclear submarines (Haijun.xaut.edu.cn, June 1). Western and Chinese analysts believe that at a minimum this agreement
will allow the Chinese access to Brazilian naval aviation expertise in addition to the carrier itself. In any event, training of
PLAN officers on NAe Sao Paulo would accelerate the development of Chinese capacity in naval aviation, which has been a
major weakness in Chinas efforts to operationalize an aircraft carrier.
There are currently nine navies with aircraft carriers in active service, and the United States, France, Russia and Brazil are
the only four naval forces that have operational aircraft carriers capable of launching and recovering conventional aircraft.
Reports that appeared in the Chinese press in the past have suggested that the PLAN is planning to employ the CATOBAR
(Catapult Assisted Take Off But Arrested Recovery) launch and recovery system for its carriers. This may explain why
Chinese leaders have selected the NAe Sao Paulo as the operational carrier for training its future star carrier officers.
Moreover, France is restricted from participating in any technical training that may lead to a possible transfer of sensitive
technology to China due to the current EU embargo on China. On the other hand, Russianand the British navy, which will
launch its Queen Elizabeth class carriers from 2014 to 2018operates STOVL (Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing)
system, thus Brazil appears to be the only viable candidate for the PLAN if they intend to adopt the CATOBAR system. In
addition, China's turn to Brazil may be the result of the standstill in Sino-Russian defense cooperation, Russia recently
suspended negotiations to sell Chinaits number one clientthe Su-33 fighter jet due to allegations that the Chinese are
illegally copying the Su-27SK and other Russian military hardware and technology (Defense News, May 4; Haijun.xaut.edu.cn, June 1).
SKI JUMP
NEXT PAGE
Novofedorivka
Nazyemniy Ispitateiniy
Treynirovochniy
Kompleks Aviatsii
(NITKA)
Ski Jump
https://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=
45.093035,33.59499&spn=0.043627,0.082226&z=13
http://en.rian.ru/images/16506/17/165061789.jpg
from article:
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20110706/165061686.html
Russian sold secrets for Chinas first carrier - Ukraine sends him to prison
By Reuben F. Johnson - The Washington Times - Monday, February 14, 2011
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/14/russian-sold-secrets-for-chinas-first-carrier/
...Chinas intelligence service directed Yermakov to steal classified information about Ukraines Land-based Naval Aviation
Testing & Training Complex, or NITKA, its Russian acronym, according to reports. The facility is in the Crimea near the city of
Saki & was built when Ukraine was a part of the Soviet Union. It remains the only training complex of its kind in the world....
&
...The Chinese are building a massive carrier pilot training base at Xingcheng, in the northeastern province of
Liaoning. Other facilities for training of carrier personnel and engineering support specialists have been built in
Xian, Shanxi province. The Xingcheng facility has features that duplicate the design of NITKA in Ukraine.
NITKA
ARRESTOR GEAR
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/14/russian-sold-secrets-for-chinas-first-carrier/print/
...Ukraine's Land-based Naval Aviation Testing and Training Complex, or NITKA, its Russian acronym...
NITKA
http://www.9abc.net/wp-content/uploads/tathumbnails-cache/TAdownload/2011/8/2922-1.jpg
Old/Former
Russian Naval
Aviation
Centre
MOSCOW, March 15 (RIA Novosti) A new Russian carrier-deck pilot training site will be ready for operation by fall, the
Federal Agency for Special Construction Work confirmed on Friday, replacing a Soviet-era base in Ukraine which Kiev
has said it may lease to other countries. The construction work there is effectively complete. I believe aircraft will start
flying there in August or September, Grigory Naginsky, head of the Federal Agency for Special Construction Work
(Spetsstroi) said. Former Russian Navy chief Adm. Vladimir Vysotsky had previously said the training facility in the city
of Yeisk, on Russia's Black Sea coast, should be complete by 2020.
Earlier in March, Ukrainian First Deputy Defense Minister Oleksandr Oleinik said Ukraine, which does not operate fixed-wing shipborne naval aircraft, was considering leasing out its Nitka training site in Crimea to other countries. Under a 1997 bilateral agreement,
Russia occasionally uses Ukraine's Nitka Naval Pilot Training Center, the only land-based training facility for its carrier-based fixedwing pilots. At present, the site is only used by Russia on a short-term basis to train Northern Fleet carrier pilots, who fly Su-33 naval
fighter jets and Su-25UTG conversion trainers for Russia's sole carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov.
The Nitka Center was built in the Soviet era for pilots to practice taking-off and landing from aircraft carrier decks. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the facility remained under Ukraines control. The center provides facilities such as a launch pad, a
catapult launch device and arrester wires, a glide-path localizer, a marker beacon, and an optical landing system. The Russian Defense Ministry has previously asked the Ukrainian Defense Ministry to lease the site to Russia. Ukraines then-Defense Minister Mykhailo
Yezhel supported Russias request. However, a firm deal for the Russia lease option was not clinched, Oleinik said earlier this month,
so the Ukrainian Defense Ministry was looking at other options for using it.
"India and China are the obvious potential candidates for this," Douglas Barrie, air warfare analyst at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, said earlier this month. India is awaiting delivery of a refurbished Russian aircraft carrier
which will operate Russian MiG-29K fighter jets. China only has one carrier, from which naval aircraft were seen operating for the first
time last year, and has little experience of fixed-wing naval operations. Most other aircraft carrier operators either use short take-off/
vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft whose crews would not need a facility like Nitka, or have their own such facilities, or use only ships
for training.
Under the original agreement, Russia traded use of the Nitka facilities for spare parts for Sukhoi-family naval fighter jets, which were the
only type allowed to operate at the center. Russia and Ukraine were Nitka's only users. In August, Russias then-Defense Minister Anatoly
Serdyukov said Russia and Ukraine had signed a protocol on amendments to that agreement, setting out payment for using the site, unrestricted use of a range of naval aircraft for training & testing, & the possibility of sharing the center with third parties. The Russian Defense Ministry said last year it was paying about $700,000 annually to rent Nitka and was willing to upgrade the facility. Russia, which has only
one aircraft carrier the Admiral Kuznetsov is drawing up plans for a new nuclear-powered aircraft carrier for its Navy by 2018.
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA378145
SEE
EXCERPT
-
NEXT
PAGE
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA126456
"...While the performance benefits to be gained through the use of the ski jump have been demonstrated, it seems reasonable that, as in the case of an actual skier, an assist from gravity in the
initial downhill run prior to the ramp entry would provide for greater initial acceleration and thereby further performance gains. The current report is an effort to determine what the ski jump shape
should be in order to provide for a maximum payload with the shortest takeoff roll. The payoff
would include smaller ships platforms from which such aircraft could operate...."
CONCLUSIONS
"...The purpose of this report has been to present results which are necessarily preliminary in the
sense that a limited number of variables have been evaluated. Although such an arrangement of
ski jump ramps may be physically challenging, the challenge is no greater than the single ski jump
ramp first presented...." EXCERPTS from Previous Page PDF (on the right hand side of the page)
morning and afternoon flight periods available on the ship which lasted for up to five hours and took place
between May and October.
Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) simulators at Pax were developed for the test mission and can
be linked to the test control rooms
on the base. Landing Signal Officers
(LSOs) and carrier suitability engineers took part in the simulator training and provided the calls usually made by controllers in the bridge
of the ship, primary flight control and
the tower. We started with just the
basic mechanics and worked our way
into specific test points, emergency procedures and eventually to periods involving every conceivable type
of test. You name it, we basically simulated it, said Maj Rusnok. The next
training requirement was Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) at Pax
for which a deck painted to look like
a ship with instrumentation was set
up in the middle of the airfield and
equipped with a landing aid used on
LHDs.
FCLPs were flown with the support of sailors assigned to Pax with
prior LHD experience. Two weeks
at what we saw there was no smoking gun, we didnt have any near
misses and the deck crew was happy
with what they were doing, said
Rusnok.
Spray Coming onto the Ship
trial and is now being permanently installed on the ship with lighting, explained Rusnok. Its based on optimising the performance of the aircraft
and its flying qualities, so we can get
the aeroplane off with the maximum
amount of nozzle clearance and performance. The STO line is our visual cue to either pull the stick aft or hit
the button; or if youre on automated STO you should start seeing the
aeroplanes flight controls moving by
the line, otherwise the pilot can intervene and pull back on the stick. Weve
never had to intervene.
The pilot also has command of
the throttle. Two power setting options are available for take-off: Mil
STO and Max STO, as Maj Rusnok
explained: When you taxi to the tram
line you stay in mode one, the conventional flight mode. You convert the
aircraft into mode four, the STOVL
flight mode, and it takes about 15
seconds or so for the doors to open
up and the lift fan to engage.
Then you push the throttle about
halfway up the throttle slide into a
detent position at about 34% engine thrust request. It sits there and
you check the engine gauges: if the
3
readings are okay you slam the throttle to either Mil or Max position and
then release the brakes simultaneously. Pushing through to max is like an
afterburner detent. But its not an afterburner you cant go to afterburner in mode four.
Its a very fast acceleration. The
closest we would spot from the bow is
400 feet, so about 175 feet before we
would actually start rotating the aeroplane [at the STO rotation line]; so
very, very quick.
One of the big test points for DT I
was to ensure adequate nozzle clearance in all the different test conditions. The engine nozzle swings down
and back up during the take-off in accordance with inputs from the aircraft
control laws.
Its all automated, said Rusnok.
The pilot is not in the loop whatsoever either theyre pushing the button
and letting the aeroplane do its own
thing or pulling back on the stick to
help it. Monitoring systems cue when
something is wrong, so you have to
rely on them to keep you safe because the flight controls are being
moved unbelievably quickly.
Maj Rusnok said the take-off was
ship motion to increase the loads envelope, evaluate the effects of motion
on the control system, and how the
pilot would track the motion, and further stress the Thermion flightdeck
coating.
US Marine Corps test pilot LtCol
Jimi Clift flew the first night vertical
landing on August 14. VX-23 also performed regression testing of the test
points that failed during DT I. Takeoffs during DT I showed that the nozzle swung, in some angles, just two
inches from the flight deck, requiring improvements to the flight control
system. You cant test that scenario
ashore, so we repeated some of the
conditions seen during DT I to prove
that the corrections made aligned
with the simulation, said Wilson.
Night Ops, HMDS, Mission Systems
and Crosswinds
Although the ramp is physically part of the ship and responsibility for its
manufacture and installation lies with the ACA, its profile is entirely based
on the aircraft characteristics and for this reason the development of a
profile optimised for the F-35B was conducted by the CVF Integration
Support Team (CVFIST) on behalf of Team JSF in 2006 and 2007.
BAE Systems
Warton
UK THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL
ABSTRACT
NOMENCLATURE
3BSM
ACA
CG
CTOL
CV
CVS
Paper No. 3324. Manuscript received 31 July 2008, accepted 16 October 2008.
Copyright BAE Systems 2008. All rights reserved. Published by the Royal Aeronautical Society with permission.
This paper was originally presented at the 2008 International Powered Lift Conference at The Royal Aeronautical Society, London.
79
The F-35B has a number of unique elements that facilitate its STOVL
capability, and these are critical in the optimisation of a ski jump ramp
profile for the aircraft. A basic description of the layout and function of the
lift and propulsion system is shown in Fig. 2 and described below:
a Lift Fan driven by a shaft from the main engine which provides
vertical lift through a variable area vane box nozzle using louvered
vanes to vector thrust between vertically downwards and partially aft.
a three-bearing swivel module (3BSM), which vectors the main
engine exhaust thrust from the core engine through vertically
downwards to fully aft the latter being the default for conventional
mode flying.
roll nozzles, ducted from the engine and exiting in each wing
providing roll control and vertical lift. These are closed off during the
initial portion of the short take-off (STO) in order to maximise
forward thrust from the main engine, opening towards the end of the
ramp in order to provide control and lift during the fly out.
5.0 CHARACTERISATION
2.2 Principles of the ski jump
The ski jump ramp works by imparting an upward vertical velocity and
ballistic profile to the aircraft, providing additional time to accelerate to
flying speed whilst ensuring it is on a safe trajectory. This additional time is
manifested either in a reduced take-off length for a given weight, or
increased weight (i.e. launch performance) for a fixed take-off distance as
in a ship based STO.
The additional performance does not come for free, with a significant
increase in landing gear loads above those of a standard take off (which are
very low compared to a landing). The increase represents the energy transferred to the aircraft as it translates up the ramp; and if the angle and
curvature of the ramp are increased to obtain greater performance benefit,
so are the loads. This is tolerable up to a point because the gear strength is
defined by landing events and thus has the ability to accept the increased
take-off loads, but loads act as an upper boundary on permissible ramp
size, as illustrated in Fig. 5.
The ideal landing gear vertical load time history for a ski jump ramp
STO is sketched in Fig. 6, with a rapid increase to a steady maximum
where the area underneath the curve represents the energy imparted by the
ramp. However, the actual loads are different, and reflect the complex
dynamic response of the gear components as they enter and travel up the
curvature of the profile.
References 1, 2 and 3 describe in further detail the principles behind the
ski jump and its advantages as part of a STO manoeuvre compared to a flat
deck launch and the design of the profile is described later.
It should be noted that non-STOVL aircraft can benefit from a ski jump
manoeuvre, as illustrated by the Russian use of ramps with conventional
type aircraft from their carriers. STOVL aircraft are unique however
because of the flexible and complex manner in which the thrust and control
effectors generate combinations of thrust and forward speed in conjunction
with the speed dependent wing lift.
5.1 Performance
Figure 6. Ideal and Actual Ramp Landing Gear Vertical Load Profiles.
4.0 REQUIREMENTS
5.2 Loads
For loads, the gear response on entering the ramp is essentially a function
of energy, i.e. mass and speed, and it was necessary to investigate a range
of weight and speed cases in order to identify the worst case in order to
then use that as a working case for the optimisation phase. This balance is
not intuitive since the highest weights are only achievable with higher
WOD speeds and the gear loading may be offset by the additional wing
lift. The opposite case, at lighter weight but with excess deck run and thus
high entry speed, was included for balance.
The sensitivity to changes in the control effector scheduling was investigated in order to understand how changes to these to optimise for performance can impact loads as were centre of gravity (CG) variations,
different WOD speeds, use of external stores (for their aerodynamic drag
increment effect on speed, forces and moments) and different methods of
modelling the strut internal pressures.
The sensitivity studies initially used the existing CVS ramp profile as a
baseline, and showed that the high weight configurations at higher ambient
temperatures were the most stressing in terms of what payload capability
was achievable. Figure 10 displays a performance characterisation at
different environmental conditions (EC 1 to 4) with the CVS ramp, and
showing the target configuration (weight) is achievable bar the most
stressing condition.
A nominal case from which comparisons could be made against past
and baseline predictions of performance was developed, as were a range of
weight cases in order to provide the on-ramp schedules of control effectors
(nozzle angles, thrust split and elevator angle) for use in the landing gear
loads analysis. The effects of varying WOD and aircraft CG were also
investigated.
For the F-35B, optimum scheduling of thrust and control effectors is a
vital component of maximising the performance benefit of a ski jump ramp
and this was assumed possible based on SDD practice. Optimum scheduling after leaving the ski-jump was achieved using a theory developed by
Dstl and outlined in Ref. 9.
In a ski jump STO event, the gear axle load is almost entirely in the vertical
direction represented by Fz. Additionally, because the rate of application of
load is relatively slow in comparison to a landing event, the load and stroke
can be considered to approximately track the airspring force/displacement
curve as shown in Fig. 9.
The maximum load and stroke are defined by the limit load and
bottoming stroke of the landing gear, but it is necessary to set an optimisation metric below this in order to generate an engineering margin.
To account for ship motion due to the sea state, a delta was added to the
value used for gravity (G). This is a legacy approach and replaces the
huge matrix of pitch, roll and yaw attitudes, velocities and accelerations of
the ship and aircraft with a single factor.
Figure 11 shows the main gear axle load for the worst weight and and
speed case at 1G and 1+G, using both short and long ramps of the same
exit angle as a way of examining the effect of ramp curvature on gear
loads.
This phase of the work demonstrated that for the worst case launch the
CVS ramp would breach the load metrics applied, but also indicated that
using additional length, thus reducing the curvature, could alleviate this.
gear from uncompressing too quickly. Note that the CVS 12 ramp is
actually now 1126 as a result of converting the last section of the ramp to
a let down and entailing a slight performance reduction.
6.4 Profile development
6.0 OPTIMISATION
This phase centred on the selection of a ramp exit angle and the shaping of
the ramp profile to achieve this.
6.1 Performance
Analysis showed that performance is affected primarily by the exit angle,
with diminishing aircraft performance returns from increasing exit angle.
Figure 12 shows the trend of launch benefit flattening off as the exit angle
increases above the CVS datum.
This flattening off is more severe than seen in legacy Harrier analysis,
but exists due to the fundamental differences in the
F-35Bs STOVL propulsion system. For the F-35B, with increasing ramp
exit angle, the nozzle vector angles and thrust split (between lift fan and
core) required to trim the aircraft mean the propulsion system is not
operating at the point at which maximum total system thrust is generated,
thus reducing the air path acceleration. At higher weights the acceleration
reduces below the minimum threshold, as shown in Fig. 13.
This lower air path acceleration results in the initial post-exit increased
height rate benefit of higher exit angles being washed out to approximately
the same as lower exit angles by the end point of the analysis, as demonstrated in Fig. 14.
This balance is indicative of the complexity of optimising the performance, other factors including the need during the STO manoeuvre to
angle the core nozzle downwards slightly in order to offset the lift fan
vertical thrust (since its aft angle is restricted) and ensure a minimum nose
gear load for adequate steering.
Figure 14. Height rate against air speed for varied ramp exit angle.
The method used to generate the nominal profile was that of a cubic
transition into a circular arc, consisting of a fixed transition length and a
fixed radius of curvature, an approach common in engineering disciplines,
e.g. railway track transitions from straight sections into corners and aerodynamic streamlining. Geometric relationships are used to match the
tangency at the end of the cubic transition curve with the start of the
circular arc. Overall height and length are outputs and creating a ramp to
satisfy constraints in these requires iteration. The key advantage is that the
curvature can be controlled in two easily understood and modifiable
variables that relate directly to the profile and loads.
There are alternative ways of generating the nominal profile, described
in the references, but the cubic plus transition was deemed the most
effective. Trials with other methods proved them to be significantly more
complex to use with no observable benefits.
The lead-in step intersects the nominal profile allowing the section prior
to this, which consists of negligible height (and thus of minimal benefit
whilst also being difficult to manufacture) to be eliminated so the length
freed up can be used for a higher radius of curvature. The resulting load
spike at the step is within load limits and actually aids the overall process
by rapidly increasing the load towards the steady maximum as in Fig. 6,
which also reduces the peak of the overshoot on ramp entry, particularly
for the nose gear.
The let down was added to previous ramps when it was discovered that
the rapid unloading of the gear at ramp exit caused loading problems and
there was a requirement to provide a section of ramp that would restrain the
8.1 Manufacturing
The ramp profile must be transformed into a physical structure, and to
do this build tolerances on the candidate profile are required. Figure 20
illustrates the elements of the ramp profile and the issues related to
manufacturing.
As discussed earlier, a margin was applied to the loads metrics in
order to account for variations between the mathematical profile
derived during the analysis and the as-built structure. To ensure this
margin was sufficient and to provide the ship builders with useful
guidance regarding build tolerances, analysis was conducted on each of
the elements and issues:
Segment size: this is the discretisation of the ramp when specifying ordinates and represents the size of each flat plate that forms
the curve. Increasing segment length raises the angle between
each plate leading to load spikes.
Co-ordinate accuracy; this represents the accuracy to which the
theoretical curve is converted into a set of design-to points at an
accuracy level appropriate for manufacturing, with loads affected
due to the change in angle between each point.
Bumps and dips: These are variations from the design-to profile
when designed, fabricated, installed and subject to usage, which
result in raised and/or sagged parts of the ramp. A modified
DEFSTAN approach (Ref. 10), using bump/dip depth and length
parameters based on legacy experience was utilised to produce a
suitable build tolerance.
Figure 19. Main and nose gear loads for original and quartic fit.
9.0 CONCLUSION
The paper has covered all the principles and processes used in
designing a candidate ski-jump ramp profile for the CVF, optimised for
the F-35B.
With loads metric eventually dictating the choice of exit angle and
the ramp profile shape, this demonstrates the importance of developing
and defining the optimisation metrics.Compared to the CVS ramp, the
candidate ramp offers comparable performance but with acceptable
loads.
The key issues involved in converting a mathematical profile to a
physical structure have been explained.
The team and customer are now taking this profile forward as part of
the continuing integration of the F-35B aircraft onto CVF.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
7.
Rob Chapman
John Johnson
John Medzorian
Tim Newman
Martin Rosa
Steve Solomon
9.
BAE Systems
BAE Systems
Lockheed Martin
BAE Systems
Dstl
Lockheed Martin
8.
10.
FOZARD, J.W. Ski-Jump A great leap for tactical airpower, British Aerospace
Paper, 1979.
SPAVINS, C.S. Harrier ski jump, RAE Bedford Paper, ~1981.
THORBY, D.C., JOHNSON, J., AULD, A.B.K., NEWMAN, H.T. and BROOKER, M.J.
The special requirements of a VSTOL aircraft, British Aerospace, AGARD
Paper October 1990.
JOHNSON, J. and THORBY, D.C. Sea Harrier: The design of a 6 degree ramp for
a 425ft flight deck, BAE Systems Internal Report: HSA-KSD-N-HAR-715,
April 1976.
AULD, A. A ski-jump ramp design for INS Vikrant, BAE Systems Internal
Report: BAE-KSD-N_HAR-1042, October 1981.
THORBY, D.C. Landing gear for ASTOVL: A Discussion Paper, BAE Systems
Internal Report: BAE-KAE-N-AST-4081 June 1993.
THORBY, D.C. STOVL Landing gear criteria and related topics, British
Aerospace Internal Memorandum, 1999.
ROSA, M. and ROLFE, R. Ski-Jump launch performance studies in Dstl, Dstl
IPLC08 Paper 06, July 2008.
NICHOLAS, O.P. An insight into optimal launch performance from a ski-jump,
Dstl Report, October 2003.
MoD DEFSTAN 00-970 Pt3, 1, (305), Design of undercarriages operation
from surfaces other than smooth runways. UK MoD Publication, 1994.
http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2013-4267
Using Simulation to Optimize Ski Jump Ramp Profiles for STOVL Aircraft Dec 01, 1999
Greg Imhof and Bill Schork | Naval Air Warfare Center/Aircraft Division | Air Vehicle Department | Patuxent River, MD
Abstract for AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference 14-17 August 2000 Denver, Colorado http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA378145
Introduction
Ramps have been used for many years aboard the Navy ships of many countries to reduce takeoff run distance and wind-over-deck (WOD) requirements, as well as to increase the aircraft takeoff gross weight capability over that of a flat deck carrier. Under the Joint Strike Fighter program, an
effort has been funded to evaluate various ramp profiles & ramp performance optimization methodologies. Results of these evaluations will be used
with an advanced STOVL aircraft to provide the maximum benefit to takeoff performance, while not becoming a design driver for landing gear or
adversely affecting ship designs.
The Boeing AV-8B Harrier is a true STOVL aircraft, in that it routinely performs short takeoffs and vertical landings. This allows operations from ships
not equipped with catapults or arresting gear and that are considerably smaller than the US large deck carriers. This unique capability is obtained through a
group of variable angle nozzles for vectored lift and a reaction control system for stability and control, which uses engine bleed air to provide thrust
through several small nozzles located on the aircraft.
Many foreign navies operate Harriers from ships equipped with smooth profile ramps. The US Navy has conducted many ship and shore-based tests of
smooth and segmented (flat plate) ramp profiles over the years to demonstrate the performance advantages of a ramp-assisted takeoff. Much of this work
serves as the basis for our research initiative.
Preliminary Work
The first step was to collect data from prior flight tests to validate the AV-8B landing gear model. The test data were incomplete because the test aircraft did
not have sufficient instrumentation to measure gear/store loads and accelerations. Therefore, criteria were developed which enabled us to compare predicted gear load trends and instead of actual gear and structural loads.
Preliminary Results
Preliminary simulation runs have been completed. Test results indicate that the segmented ramp concept shows great promise and could allow ship
designers options in building retractable or reconfigurable ramp designs for future STOVL capable ships. Segmented ramp takeoff performance is not
diminished as compared with a smooth ramp. Initial results indicate that segmented ramp profiles can be modified to keep the gear loads well within their
structural limits. Since the velocity of the aircraft remains fairly constant while it is on the ramp, an equally distributed (same length) segment pattern
generates a recurring load on the landing gear at each joint. If the frequency of these inputs is close to the natural frequency of the gear, or transmitted
through the aircraft structure to a wing store, a resonance condition could be excited. This will be investigated at in more detail in the coming months.
Preliminary Conclusions
The smooth and segmented ramp profiles have demonstrated significant performance gains over a field or flat deck ship takeoff. Work will continue over
the next several months to expand & refine the optimization criteria and investigate various ramp profiles and quantify their benefit to aircraft performance.
800
750
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7369/9929674624_53b0df94ae_o.png
The ski jump ramp was conceived by a Royal Navy officer in the 1970s and subsequently developed by the UK
services, industry and Government as a way of increasing the STO launch payload for the Harrier1,2,3. It has since
become an integral part of embarked operations for UK and most maritime STOVL operators. The QEC was
designed with a ski-jump ramp from the outset and the shape of the ramp was designed to be optimal for the F-35B
STOVL JSF.
The ski jump ramp works by imparting an upward vertical velocity and ballistic profile to the aircraft, providing
additional time to accelerate to flying speed whilst ensuring it is on a safe trajectory after launch, reducing risk from
mis-timed launches with regard to ship motion, reducing pilot workload and giving the pilot more time to diagnose
any issues compared to a flat deck STO. The upwards trajectory at ramp exit also allows either a reduction in takeoff length for a given weight, or increased weight (i.e. launch performance) for a fixed take-off distance. The
additional performance does, however, increase landing gear loads above those of a flat deck STO. The loads
increase represents the energy transferred to the aircraft as it translates up the ramp; and if the angle and curvature of
the ramp are increased to obtain greater performance benefit, so are the landing gear loads. This is tolerable up to a
point because the gear strength is defined by landing events, the landing loads from which far exceed flat deck STO
loads, therefore the landing gear has the ability to accept increased loads at take-off, but these must be carefully
controlled because they act as an upper boundary on permissible ramp size and the ramps shape needs to be
optimized to control the loads across the range of launch weights, speeds and conditions. The minimum safe launch
speed is defined where the ramp exit speed does not result in any rate of descent during the trajectory until the
aircraft has transitioned to fully wing-borne flight. This results in the launch profile shown in Fig. 2, with an
inflection point at which criteria for a successful launch are defined and assessed.
Two safe launch criteria derived from legacy STOVL experience have been used for JSF ski-jump launch, of
which the more stressing is adopted: (a) achievement of zero sink rate having taken a margin from the WOD (known
as Operational WOD); and (b) achieve a defined positive rate of climb using the full value of WOD. Both criteria
also require a threshold forward acceleration. Optimisation of the QEC ski-jump ramp design (Fig.3) is described in
Ref 4. The optimal QEC ramp was assessed to be a 200 foot long 125 degree angled ramp with the profile achieved
by combining a nominal profile based on a quartic fit to an optimum cubic transition plus circular arc, a rounded
step lead in and an elliptic let down (Fig. 4). Performance and landing gear loads data has been generated to
demonstrate the resulting capability and compliance with the loads metric, which is defined by consideration of the
maximum load and stroke at the limit load and bottoming of the landing gear after allowing for an engineering
margin.
Bumps and plate sags result in increases of loads beyond those achieved on an idealized ramp profile, see Fig. 5.
The initial loads analysis, performed using commercially available dynamic software, assumed values for the
maximum bumps and plate sags, placing them at the worst credible positions on the ramp, i.e. where peak loads
occur in the idealized profile. The QEC ski-jump ramp has been built as accurately as possible using conventional
shipbuild techniques, however there are practicalities associated with ship-build that results in deviations from the
pure mathematical profile and it is important to check how they compare to the design assumptions; for example, the
detail of how the entry to the ski-jump ramp interfaces with the slightly cambered flight deck. The CAD model of
the ski jump ramp has been used to define the shape of features such as ramp entry, light fittings in the QEC skijump ramp and to allow actual weld positions to be used to place bumps, plate sags and/or steps in the dynamic
model (Fig. 6). The dynamic model will be further updated with data from laser mapping of the ramp after the ship
has been floated up and the analyses will be re-run to confirm that the loads metrics continue to be met for the
defined launch conditions and therefore enable the launch parameters for QEC ski-jump launch to be fully defined to
high confidence, ready to be verified by flight tests during Lightning/QEC First of Class Flight Trials (FOCFT).
http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/
abs/10.2514/6.2013-4267
A ski-jump ramp, being a curved surface, consumes deck area that could otherwise be used to park aircraft or
operate helicopters. A further major consideration for integration of a ramp has therefore been its width, because it
needs to be as wide as possible for launch safety purposes while avoiding excess width to preclude aircraft parking
on the starboard side of the ship. The QEC ski-jump ramp has been designed to ensure that the aircraft will safely
launch, with margins, when the aircraft stays within the STO launch safety lines, the criteria for which have been
carried forward from previous UK fixed wing aircraft carriers.
...Onboard the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers, the aircraft would take off at its maximum weight of nearly 27 tonnes
using a UK-developed ski-jump,... 2204.62lbs = 1 tonne 59,535lbs = 27 tonnes [Wing Commander Hackett explained]
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zLM6-NPZRyE/U0AFvxfVZjI/AAAAAAAAC0I/b8hcjBArqts/s1600/9929674624_636076b854_k.jpg
...The 300-tonne section of ramp, which is 64 metres long and 13 metres wide, is
the final exterior piece of the aircraft carrier to be fitted. At its highest point, the
take-off ramp is 6 metres above the flight deck, which will allow aircraft to be
propelled into the air. The pictures come on the same day as MOD announces that
a fourth Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter aircraft has been ordered from Lockheed
Martin. The UK has already taken delivery of 3 Lightning II jets and Royal Navy and
RAF pilots are training on the aircraft in the USA. This fourth jet, which is specially
designed to be a test aircraft, will help boost the on-going training available....
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/royal-navy-aircraft-carrier-ramping-up
http://www.flickr.com/photos/
qeclasscarriers/10797672293/
sizes/o/in/photostream/
The final section of the flight deck of HMS Queen Elizabeth has
been fitted onto the Royal Navy's new aircraft carrier 11 Nov 2013
Start of a momentous year for Carrier project 3 Feb 2014 David Downs
...On the upper deck, the catwalks around the edge of the flight deck are being prepared
and will shortly be painted with a heat resistant paint scheme. This will survive the thermal effects of the exhaust of an F35 jet while hovering on the approach to a vertical landing. This work also entails application of the thermal metal spray coating to the edges of
the flight deck. This coating system will later be applied across the whole flight deck....
...Meanwhile recognising that access to the ship and craneage is much easier while
the ship is in the dry dock, served by the Goliath crane, than when afloat in the non-tidal
basin, the chance is being taken to install anything that might be difficult to do later. This
includes the platform at the stern for the SPN 41 Precision Approach Radar, the seatings
for the Glide Path Cameras and some CCTV cameras. It looks like 2014 is going to be
another busy but very interesting year.
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/home/blog/guest-blog/start-of-a-momentous-year-for-carrier-project/1017934.article#ixzz2sGrXdsvd
http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.co.uk/~/media/Files/A/Aircraft-CarrierAlliance/2014-weekly-comms/weekly-communication-24-feb-2014.pdf
5DPS-LJ5HPRYDO&RPSOHWLRQ
WK)HEUXDU\
/DVWZHHNWKHILQDOVHFWLRQRIMLJZDVUHPRYHGIURP+064XHHQ(OL]DEHWKVUDPS
7KLVLVDJUHDWVWHSWRZDUGVUDPSFRPSOHWLRQWKHILQDOVWDJHIRUWKHUDPSLVWR
FRPSOHWHWKHLQWHUIDFHDWWKH$IWHQGRIWKHUDPSWRWKHIOLJKWGHFN7RP*LIIRUG
6KLSEXLOG,QWHJUDWLRQ0DQDJHUVDLGWKLVWKLVDQRWKHULFRQLFHYHQWLQWKHSURJUDP
PHZKLFKKHOSVWRKLJKOLJKWWKH&DUULHUSURILOHDWWKHIRUZDUGHQGRIWKH6KLS
:)(/VHWWRVRDUDIWHU http://www.
wfel.com/
ODWHVW$PHULFDQGHDO
news/wfel-set
to-soar-after2FWREHU latest-american-deal/
:)(/WKH6WRFNSRUWEDVHGGHIHQFHHQJLQHHULQJFRPSDQ\
KDVFRPSOHWHGDPDMRUQHZRUGHUIRUWKH86'HSDUWPHQW
RI'HIHQVH
'HVLJQHGGHYHORSHGDQGPDQXIDFWXUHGE\:)(/WKHPLOOLRQPLOOLRQ
MXPSLVWKHEUDLQFKLOGRIHQJLQHHU*UHJ5RQH\
http://www.wfel.com/news/archive/
$WHDPIURP86'HIHQVHWUDYHOOHGWR6WRFNSRUWWKLVZHHNWRVHHWKHILQLVKHG
SURGXFWEHIRUHLWLVGHFRQVWUXFWHGDQGVKLSSHGWR0DU\ODQG2QFHWKHUHLWZLOO
WDNHMXVWWZRZHHNVWRUHDVVHPEOH
7RP%ULJJVIURPWKH86'HIHQVH),QWHJUDWHG7HVW)RUFHVDLG:H
YH
7KHEXVLQHVVEDVHGLQ+HDWRQ&KDSHOLVDERXW
ZRUNHGZLWK:)(/IRUPDQ\\HDUVDQGNQHZWKH\KDGWKHLQWHOOHFWXDOFDSLWDO
WRVKLSDWRQQHVNLMXPSUDPSWRWKH86
DVZHOODVTXDOLW\PDQXIDFWXULQJSURFHVVHVQHHGHGWRGHOLYHUDFKDOOHQJLQJ
ZKHUHLWZLOOEHXVHGE\SLORWVWHVWLQJWKHQHZ)
DQGEHVSRNHSURMHFWOLNHWKLV
7KHFRPSDQ\
VFKLHIH[HFXWLYH,DQ:LOVRQLVDOVRLQWDONVZLWKRWKHUPLOLWDULHV
XQGHUGHYHORSPHQWE\WKH860LOLWDU\VLQFHPLG
VLJQHGXSWRWKH-6)SURMHFW
VDQGLQYROYHVQLQHRWKHU:HVWHUQPLOLWDULHV
ZRUOGZLGH
,DQVDLG7KH-6)ZLOOEHRQHRIWKHPRVWDGYDQFHGPLOLWDU\DLUFUDIWHYHUPDGH
7KHVNLMXPSWKHILUVWRIWKLVW\SHWREHEXLOW
DQGZHDUHSURXGWRVXSSRUWWKHGHYHORSPHQWWHDPLQDFKLHYLQJRQHRIWKHLUNH\
DQ\ZKHUHLQWKHZRUOGZDVGHVLJQHGWR
PLOHVWRQHVERWKRQWLPHDQGRQEXGJHW:HKDYHDORQJKLVWRU\RIDSSO\LQJRXU
UHSOLFDWHWKHUXQZD\RIDQDLUFUDIWFDUULHU,WZLOO
VSHFLDOLVHGGHVLJQDQGPDQXIDFWXULQJVNLOOVWRKLJKTXDOLW\DQGWHFKQLFDOO\
HQDEOHWKH-6)WREHWHVWHGRQODQGSRWHQWLDOO\
FKDOOHQJLQJSURGXFWVZKHUHGHOLYHUDELOLW\DQGUHOLDELOLW\DUHSDUDPRXQWDQGWKLV
VDYLQJWKHPLOLWDU\PLOOLRQVRISRXQGV
SURMHFWKDVEHHQQRH[FHSWLRQ
:)(/DOUHDG\DJOREDOOHDGHULQWKHGHVLJQDQG
7KH86PLOLWDU\LVRQHRIRXUELJJHVWFXVWRPHUVDQGZH
YHEHHQZRUNLQJZLWK
/WR5*UHJ5RQH\:)(/
PDQXIDFWXUHRIWDFWLFDOPLOLWDU\EULGJHVKDV
7RP&KDLOORXDQG7RP%ULJJV WKHPVLQFHWKHV7KLV\HDUDORQHZHIRUHFDVWDURXQGPLOOLRQLQVDOHV
WRWKH$PHULFDQVDORQH
PDGHDVWUDWHJLFPRYHWRH[SDQGLWVHQJLQHHULQJ ),QWHJUDWHG7HVW)RUXP
,DQ:LOVRQ:)(/
H[SHUWLVHLQWRQHZPLOLWDU\VHFWRUVZLWKWKHVNL
MXPS http://ww2.dcmilitary.com/stories/070909/tester_28153.shtml
The mock ski-jump is 150-feet long, with a 15-foot high lip for aircraft
launch. These shore-based ski-jump takeoffs will be conducted at
varying airspeeds prior to the first UK ship detachment with the F-35B.
Pax ski jump readied for future F-35B Lightning II launches 22 May 2014 Sarah Ehman
Atlantic Test Ranges Business Communications http://www.dcmilitary.com/article/20140522/NEWS14/140529960/pax-ski-jump-readied-for-future-f-35b-lightning-ii-launches
-
Thanks to a partnership between the Atlantic Test Ranges (ATR) and the F-35 Lightning II Pax River
Integrated Test Force (ITF), the Joint Strike Fighter took one step closer this Spring to making its debut on
international ships. The Pax River ITF partnered with ATRs Geomatics and Metrology team to perform a high
fidelity survey of the shore-based ski jump at Naval Air Station Patuxent Rivers center airfield. The survey is
a prerequisite to future F-35B flight testing by the Pax River ITF, the United Kingdom and Italy. The shorebased ski jump at centerfield was built in the United Kingdom, divided into sections, then transported and
reassembled at Pax River.
Launching off our Pax ski-jump paves the way to F-35Bs launching off our international partner ships
that feature ski-jumps, said Bob Nantz, the Pax River F-35 ITF external environment and performance lead.
The significance of the Pax ski-jump shape is connected to aircraft loads & performance
modeling. Ideally, the loads will never limit the launch weight or speed, thus allowing the
maximum performance benefit.
Together, Fred Hancock, Sung Han and Warren Kerr, each with ATR Geomatics and Metrology, employed
electronic differential leveling and total station measurement techniques to check for drift in construction
and determine precise deviations in both vertical and horizontal components of the ramp. We captured
hundreds of elevation readings, determining the relative vertical difference between points, Hancock said.
We also obtained precise angular distance measurements to determine if the ramp edges were parallel to
the center line. This helped us to know whether the ramp was at all skewed. Hancock noted that the team
achieved readings accurate to within one millimeter approximately the thickness of a credit card. The
razor-sharp accuracy of the Geomatics teams survey is a key part of the process
leading to future ski-jump operations at sea, Nantz said.
-
http://www.dcmilitary.com/storyimage/DC/20140522/NEWS14/140529960/AR/0/AR-140529960.jpg
-
U.S. Navy photo/Jennifer Amber The Atlantic Test Ranges Geomatics and Metrology team, from left,
Fred Hancock, Sung Han and Warren Kerr survey the ski jump ramp that was assembled at Naval Air
Station Patuxent River in 2009 to document potential deviations from the original design plan.
The UK F-35B is required, and is perfectly able to, use a 'STO' technique to get airborne. The pilot will
select 'powered lift' mode before it starts its take off run, & the aircraft will be partially jet borne & partially
wing borne when it leaves the ramp. At the appropriate point as it flies away, the pilot selects back into
'conventional flight' mode.
The landing gear is fine. What you see on the video is the tyre flexing. The Harrier nose leg was massive
because it was a 'bicycle' gear layout with the nose wheel taking around 50% of the weight of the aircraft.
The F-35 has a conventional gear, with the front leg taking around 10% of the load. Oh, and I can testify that
Harrier landing gears (outriggers & nose legs both) flexed plenty during deck ops. Stopped them breaking.
&
The last few feet as a jet powered lift aircraft nears a surface are both complex and critical. There is the ever
present risk of Hot Gas Ingestion (HGI) as well as quite complex flow around and under the aircraft that can
lead to 'suck down' and/or loss and deterioration of control.
The Harrier had some quite challenging characteristics in this area, although the fact that it was able to
enter service without much artificial stability augmentation was a great achievement by the people who
designed it. You probably know that a key to this was controlling the 'fountain' of air generated under the
aircraft, hence the use of strakes, airbrake and on the AV-8B, a separate air dam.
The best way to avoid problems in this area for the Harrier was to land 'firmly', and so get through the
critical 'near to ground' area as fast as practicable. Hence the sometimes firm landings. Although it's worth
noting that the vertical velocity of these was still way less than is normally used in 'cat and trap' operations.
Fast forward to F-35B. The team have used design tools and test rigs that didn't exist in the 60s when
the Harrier team did their work. That has given the F-35 team a much better understanding of how the jet
operates close to the ground, and this has paid off. You'll see from the videos that they are using the inboard weapon bay doors as 'strakes' during vertical landings.
Another major difference from Harrier are the flight controls. F-35B has a 'rate command' system, which
reduces pilot workload, but it did, in the early days, lead to some 'rebound' on landing look up some of the
X-35 videos that are out there. This appears to have been solved now.
NAS Patuxent River Ski Jump + Run Up being in total 908 ft from right to left
Date: 20 Oct 2013
SKI JUMP
START
'ENGINES': "...Trust me on this, loads are not the problem for ski jump, it's the load profile and whether the
leg closes, as John Farley has already pointed out. One of the many insanely great features of the ski jump
launch is that is a fairly gentle manoeuvre, both aerodynamically and structurally. It's the closest thing I have
ever encountered to 'something for nothing'.... http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-478767-p-5.html
PATUXENT RIVER NAVAL AIR STATION (Oct. 29, 2009) - A new jet aircraft will soon be
calling Naval Air Station (NAS) Patuxent River home. The F-35 Lightning II, Joint Strike
Fighter (JSF) will arrive from Fort Worth, Texas to continue its System Development and
Demonstration (SDD) testing efforts at NAS Patuxent River. Since early 2002, NAS
Patuxent River has been getting ready for the arrival of the F-35 with the addition of new
facilities and equipment required to support the testing of this new aircraft....
...The F-35B and F-35C will be tested and developed at NAS Patuxent River,
which will host a total of eight aircraft at the peak of the testing program.
The Centerfield Complex will be used to test these capabilities including vertical landings on pads mimicking those found on land and on the LHD class of ships; short-distance
takeoffs using the ski jump which is similar to those found on U.K. carriers; and flight performance testing on the EAF. Expeditionary Airfields are mobile systems that allow U.S.
Marines to quickly build functioning airfields in mission critical areas that do not support a
standard-use airfield. These areas allow the JSF to perform missions in any terrain. Additional testing activities to occur at NAS Patuxent River include carrier approach and landing flights, software and aircraft systems development, and aircraft certification testing.
The JSF SDD program operations at NAS Patuxent River are expected to continue
through 2013 although the F-35's presence at the Naval Air Station will likely extend
well into the future. Aircraft equipment and systems requirements continually evolve,
resulting in the continued need for follow-on test and evaluation.
The Program Office for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is to shortly com-mence UK-specific trials for carrier operations of the short take-off/vertical landing (STOVL)
variant F-35B, it was announced at the Farnborough Airshow 2012. Speaking on 10 July, BAE Systems lead STOVL test pilot Peter 'Wizzer' Wilson said that 'ski-jump' launch trials will begin at Naval Air Station (NAS) Patuxent River, Maryland, in the near future, while work on the shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) is also ongoing. "A 'ski jump' is in place at Pax River that is based on
the one [formerly fitted to HMS](sic) Illustrious," [not true as info in PDF clearly states] he said, adding: "If we can get a few launches in over the next 12 months or so to help de-risk the programme,
that would be something that [the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD)] would be interested in."
Wilson said the advantage of the 'ski jump' launch method is in the extra time it gives the pilot
on take-off. "The real benefit is one of timing. Once airborne you are flying upwards rather than
horizontal, and this gives you extra time to think if something should go wrong," he explained. In
addition, Wilson noted that the 'ski jump' saves approximately 100 to 150 ft of deck run over the
standard 'flat top' carrier deck. "Everything we have seen in modelling is that [the 'ski jump'] is the
best way to get this aircraft airborne," he said.
Wilson noted that the lift-fan door behind the cockpit does not affect the aircraft's handling
when open for the landing and take-off phases of flight. "There are no issues in terms of drag," he
said. "We can open [the door] up to speeds of 250 kt and you don't feel a thing in the cockpit."
With regard the SVRL landing technique, which is designed to increase the aircraft's fuel
and/or weapons bring bag capacity, Wilson said that the Program Office is continuing the support the UK-specific work in this field, although he added that the UK government has not yet
decided if it will adopt this technique on the two Queen Elizabeth-class ships (CVF) when they
enter service....
http://www.pw.utc.com/media_center/assets/me_f135_cv.pdf
OLD
PHOTO
- New
Ski
Jump
for
F-35B
testing
not
shown.
LHA
deck for
Harrier /
F-35B
seen
NORTH
Forum: F-35
Lightning II
AV-8B/
Expeditionary
(F-35B)
Basing on
AM-2 Matting
Exercise
http://www.f-16.net/
index.php?
name=PNphpBB2&file
=viewtopic&t=16017&
postdays=0&postorde
r=asc&highlight=paxri
ver&start=30
http://www.f-16.net/
attachments/
swppaxrivervlpadsski
jumphoverpit_200.gif
PAX
RIVER
Centrefield Ski
Jump
SPOT
Graphic by
http://naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/1104/00314AD.PDF
NORTH
NAS
Patuxent
River
Updated
Apr-May
2011
Centrefield Ski Jump / VL Area
NE-3, 07 APR 2011 to 05 MAY 2011
S
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQgekw47CPg
F35
B/
C
http://www.jsf.mil/program/prog_field_nawcad.htm
Field Activities > Patuxent River Naval Air Station, Maryland
The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD), Patuxent River
Maryland, is the Navy's research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E),
engineering and fleet support center for air platforms. Patuxent River is also
home to the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR). Ranges at Patuxent River
include extensive inshore and offshore operating areas to support the full array
of testing required for a new air platform. The airfield test facilities include a
land based TC-7 catapult and MK-7 arresting gear and other unique test
facilities geared toward the evaluation of weapon systems designed to operate
in a shipboard environment. Also Mid-Field Ski Jump & EMALS from Dec 2010
NAWCAD provides approximately 220 Work Years (FY05) of critical engineering
expertise to virtually every Integrated Product Team within the JSF program.
Major efforts include the standup of facilities to support a total contractor and
government F-35 test team of approximately 700 personnel. All Carrier and
STOVL F-35 variant test airplanes will be developed at Patuxent River, totaling
nine aircraft at peak. Unique F-35 tests to be conducted at Patuxent River
include land based catapult and arrestments, STOVL vertical and short takeoff
and landing tests, expeditionary airfield operations, the full range of aerosciences envelope expansion, mission systems development and weapon
certification testing.
T
E
S
T
I The Lockheed Martin X-35C and the Boeing X-32B were both tested at
River during the JSF Concept Demonstration program. The X-35C is
N Patuxent
currently on display at the Patuxent River Naval Air Museum, and the X-32B will
G be prepared for display by March 2005.
HOME | PROGRAM | LEADERSHIP | F-35 | GALLERY
HISTORY | DOWNLOADS | ACRONYMS | SITE MAP | CONTACT
Ski Jump
is here in
2010-2011
Hover Pit
Vertical Landing
Pad (now with
AM-2 Matting
over concrete)
LHA
30 March 2007
Centrefield Ski
Jump & VL Pad
SKI JUMP LEFT
16 February 2011:
BF-1 Completes
Longest Hover
BAE test pilot Peter
Wilson made the longest hover during the
ninety-fourth flight of
F-35B BF-1. On the
final vertical landing,
Wilson spent more
than 5 minutes in
hover, with almost 6
minutes elapsing from
entering the hover to
touching down. The
flight consisted of 3
other vertical landings, 5 short take-offs,
& 1 slow landing.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/zHVDSRWTXm8/TYvBYpa0LpI/
AAAAAAAAQT4/mc_NavBSMcM/s1600/
2011_13_BF_1_Hover_1269967624_8138.jpg
North
http://www.codeonemagazine.
com/article.html?item_id=69
Home
Home
Blog
About Us
Partnering With Us
Facilities/Capabilities
Facilities/Capabilities
Employment
Contact Us
Links
Centerfield STOVL
http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/
index.cfm?fuseaction=home.content_detail
&key=99E8E3FA-3C12-4BCC-A905-6838819A5C10
Home
About Us
Partnering With Us
Facilities/Capabilities
Employment
Contact Us
Links
This is an official U.S. Navy Web site. This site is a U.S. Department of Defense System. Please read our Privacy Policy and our Web Site Accessibility Notice.
HOVER AREA
LHA Deck
SKI JUMP
STOVL Air Power - The Ramps, Roads, and Speedbumps to Exploiting Maneuver Air Warfare
Major Charles R. Myers Conference Group Ten, April 1, 1996 http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a527872.pdf
Amphibious Ships Page 7
The most significant contribution that the Navy could make to STOVL air & helicopter-borne power projection is adding a
ramp (ski jump) to all Tarawa- & Wasp-class amphibious assault ships. The technology is proven and for return on investment relatively inexpensive. A ramp not only improves dramatically a STOVL aircraft's takeoff performance, it facilitates concurrent fixed- & rotary-wing operations afloat. Of all countries that operate STOVL aircraft (the United States has more STOVL
aircraft & ships to employ them than anyone) the United States is the only country without a ramp-equipped STOVL assault
ship. Now is the time for ramps...."
& on page 9:
"...The skeptics insist that ramps will displace landing spots. Tests prove otherwise.
On a 12 degree ski jump approximately 150 feet long, the slope gradually increases from zero up to 12 degrees at the bow.
The first half of the ski jump has a slope no greater than that of an LHA during wet-well operations with the well-deck flooded
both Harriers and helicopters can land on it.10..." [Major Art Nalls, USMC, "Why Don't We Have Any Ski Jumps," U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, November 1990, 81.]
The ramp not only bolsters a STOVL aircrafts combat payload to its maximum and enhances fixed- and rotary-wing interoperability, it provides a margin of safety to the pilot in emergency situations. The upward vector off the bow offers the
pilot extra precious seconds to handle takeoff emergencies and an expanded ejection envelope if required. The price of one
saved STOVL aircraft, and potentially the pilots life, would probably fund several ramps on amphibious ships. The Navy and
Marine Corps need ski jumps on the big-deck amphibious ships.
Unquestionably, an LHA and LHD could never replace an aircraft carrier in total air power projection or air space dominance; however, if task organized properly, either could greatly augment it....
& on page 12:
"...Sea-based platforms are not the only places where ramps are effective. The Marines must focus on their employment once
phased ashore. An all STOVL aviation component provides the Marines an opportunity to double its current EAF capability by
simply installing ramps at each end. Today's typical 4,000-foot EAF would decrease to less than 2,000 feet using ramps, yet
still provide a maximum gross weight takeoff capability to STOVL aircraft. Additional EAF matting provides vertical landing
spots and parking space if needed. More over, ramps provide almost limitless EAF locations wherever there is a straight
quarter-mile stretch of road or highway. Korea and Sweden, for example, have designed much of their highway systems for
use as conventional runways. A STOVL aircraft requires a mere fraction of that if augmented with light-weight, high-strength
modular ramps. Smaller EAFs provide several advantages. A reduced footprint makes it less susceptibile to targeting and the
chance of being hit. Reduced construction time, especially when a road or highway is used as the runway, maintains operational tempo...."
29-Jun-09
http://www.navair.navy.mil/press_releases/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.view&Press_release_id=4144&site_id=15
PATUXENT NAVAL AIR STATION, Md. -- Marine Wing Support Squadron 274 gave engineers help in April to lay the first
expeditionary landing site for the F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter for short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL)
capabilities testing.
Expeditionary Airfields are mobile systems that allow Marines to quickly build functioning airfields in areas without airfield
support. EAFs are built using AM -2 matting: aluminum panels which are assembled in a brickwork pattern to form runways,
taxiways, parking sites and other areas required for aircraft operations and maintenance.
These EAFs allow the JSF to perform missions in any terrain that does not support a standard -use airfield in mission critical areas.
This joint testing is a significant step for the Aircraft Launch and Recovery Equipment program, said ALRE Program
Manager Capt. Randy Mahr. The JSF and EAF have an integral relationship in expanding our capabilities and success on
the battlefield. The EAFs AM -2 matting is battle tested, dependable and versatile. Its exactly what we need for our
expeditionary landing and take-off platforms.
Although the AM -2 matting is serving its purpose as vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) pads and a 1,900 x 96-foot
runway for the EAF/STOVL testing, it also doubles as the run-up for a test ski -jump used in conjunction with JSF testing
for the British Royal Navy. The AM -2 matting and the 12-degree ski-jump ramp were installed at the centerfield area last
month.
NAVAIR is excited about our involvement in the JSF program, said Mike Jiavaras, ALREs EAF team leader. Knowing that
the first time this aircraft demonstrates its impressive VTOL capabilities will be on an expeditionary airfield raises the level
of pride the team has in our program and in support of the warfighter.
The ski-jump ramp is used by British Her Majestys Ship (HMS) Invincible -class carriers for launch of STOVL aircraft, such
as the Harrier GR7A, and is located on the forward-end of the flight deck. JSF program experts explain that the ski-jump is
a more fuel efficient way for aircraft take-off. However, the drawback is that it does not allow larger aircraft such as the E 2D Advanced Hawkeye, F/A -18E/F Super Hornet and the EA -18G Growler - future carrier deck -mates with the JSF, the
needed distance for launch and recovery.
The mock ski-jump is 150 -feet long, with a 15-foot high lip for aircraft launch. These shore-based ski-jump takeoffs will
be conducted at varying airspeeds prior to the first UK ship detachment with the F-35B.
We are extremely excited about getting the first of eight F-35s to Patuxent River beginning this summer. The first aircraft
to arrive, a STOVL aircraft designated BF-1, will use test facilities we have built to test and verify the unique warfighting
capabilities the STOVL variant brings. We look forward to supporting the long -standing traditions of expeditionary warfare
capabilities for the next 50 years of Marine Corps aviation, said Capt. Wade Knudson, acting deputy program executive
officer and program manager for F-35 Lightning II development.
-- 30 --
Maneuverability is addressed in both general and specific terms. The requirement for
all three variants is to provide a platform that will have a positive exchange ratio during
air combat maneuvering (ACM) engagements against "high performance threats that
employ helmet mounted cueing and high off-boresight weapons." The JSF must further
possess high angle of attack (AOA) capabilities "similar in nature to (or better than) the
F-18C." The fuel levels and payloads at which maneuverabilty is calculated differs for
each variant but generally focuses on a post-weapons release payload and fuel state at
50% of the required combat radius. Figure 3 below lists the specific maneuverability requirements and shows the differences among the variants. The most notable differences
are related to the USAF requirements for the CTOL JSF. The USAF includes a threshold
requirement for a 9.0 G capability at 60% fuel and no air-to-ground ordnance remaining.
In addition to the high-end requirement, the USAF also provides for a more realistic
scenario of high altitude, large payload performance. The CTOL must have the capability
of performing a 30 degree bank turn while still maintaining a 1,000 foot per minute climb
at 30,000 feet with a combat loadout of two external fuel tanks, two external JDAM, two
internal JDAM, two internal AIM-120 missiles, and a fully loaded gun.... Footnote text for the table graphic:
1. Configuration: 2 x empty external 370 gallon tanks internal fuel for 540nm combat radius, 4 x JDAM Mk-84,
2 x AIM-120, gun with 150 rounds. Airspeed <0.9M.
2. With 60% of internal fuel load required for 540nm combat radius and JDAMs jettisoned/released
&
Parameters
0.4Mb PDF
USN &
USMC
Land &
STO
KPPs
See Next Page
for KPP Tweaks
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-14791.html
The STOVL Variant of Joint Strike Fighter: Are its Tactical Compromises Warranted?
Captain G.M. Beisbier, 01 Mar 2002 http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA496827&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
...The short-take-off-and-landing KPP before the JROC review last month was 550 feet. In
April 2011, the Pentagon estimated that the STOVL variant could execute a short take-off
in 544 feet while carrying two Joint Direct Attack Munitions and two AIM-120 missiles internally, as well as enough fuel to fly 450 nautical miles. By last month, that take-off distance estimate grew to 568 feet, according to DOD sources. The JROC, accordingly, agreed
to extend the required take-off distance to 600 feet, according to DOD officials....
Tweaks Allow Navy To Meet JSF Aircraft-Carrier Landing Speed Target | DefenseAlert, 09 Mar 2012
&
http://insidedefense.com/index.php?option=com_user&view=login&return=aHR0cDovL2luc2lkZWRlZmVuc2UuY29tLzIwMTIwMzA5MjM5Mjc0NC9JbnNpZGUtRGVmZW5zZS1EYWlseS1OZXdzL0RlZmVuc2VBbGVydC90d2Vha3MtYWxsb3ctbmF2eS10by1tZWV0LWpzZi1haXJjcmFmdC1jYXJyaWVyLWxhbmRpbmctc3BlZWQtdGFyZ2V0L21lbnUtaWQtNjEuaHRtbA==
-
With the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft-carrier variant expected to miss a key performance parameter related
to its maximum allowable landing speed, the Pentagon recently adjusted F-35C fuel storage calculations to
ensure the aircraft met a critical operational requirement, according to Defense Department officials.
A Marine Corps official told concerned lawmakers yesterday the weight of the developmental Joint Strike Fighter F-35B jet fighter has dropped since tests showed it near
its maximum poundage in recent months.... ...House Appropriations Defense subcommittee (HAC-D) member Jim Moran (D-Va.) cited data from November showing the
F-35B was only 230 pounds shy of its maximum intended weight of 32,557 pounds,
saying: "We want to raise that as a warning flag."...
...Assistant Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Joseph Dunford told Moran F-35B
workers have worked to keep the aircraft's weight in check since the November assessment was conducted. "You identified a point in time when there was an issue," the
No. 2 Marine Corps official said. "We are actually better off than we were back in
November."
Pressed by HAC-D Ranking Member Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) on what improvements
have been made, Dunford said the F-35B engineering team has worked on an "engineering solution." "And weight is an independent variable in every single one of the
engineering solutions that's been identified," he said. "Solutions that have been identified for those engineering challenges have been such that they have not penalized
the aircraft with regard to weight," he added. "I think the trends are absolutely in the
right direction, and everyone that's involved with the program is sensitized to the issue
of weight and how important that is.....
http://handle.dtic.
mil/100.2/
ADA399988
ttp://www.navair.navy.mil/press_releases/index.cfm?
fuseaction=home.view&Press_release_id=4144&site_id=15
http://navymatters.beedall
.com/images/
jsfcompair.jpg
N
A
V
A
L
http://handle.dtic.mil
/100.2/ADA399988
http://www.jeffhead.com/worldwideaircraftcarriers/bpe-10.jpg
A small delegation of Australian Defence Force (ADF) officers led by MAJGEN Rick Burr and CDRE Ian Middleton
saw firsthand the future of the Australian amphibious capability last month with a visit aboard the Spanish Helicopter Landing Dock (LHD) VP Juan Carlos I. The Spanish vessel was commissioned in 2010 and is similar to
the two Canberra Class LHDs, the first of which is due in service with the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) in 2014
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/hawkerassociation/hanewsletters/hanewsletter016nvu/seaharrierflyon.html
...Editor's Note. In answer to some questions raised by the above, Art [Nalls] sent the following.... I
was a military test pilot at Pax River, having graduated from the USAF Test Pilot (TP) School with
Class 85A. At that time the new AV-8B was being introduced & there was no shortage of work. In fact,
I had been offered a TP job Edwards AFB while a student there but Marine Colonel Harry Blot, my
former CO, told me in no un-certain terms that if I accepted a job testing for the Air Force I was to stay
there & never come back to the Marines; I had been sent to Edwards to become a qualified TP so had
better get back to work for the Marines!
I was the project officer for the ski-jump testing aboard ship. The first ship was the Italian Navy
Garibaldi, with a 6 deg ramp, designed specifically for Harriers. The ship must have been designed by
someone who had never actually been aboard a fighting ship centre deck elevators, centre hangar
bay with passages round the outside, fuel lines running round the ship perimeter, no deck-edge
scuppers and no lights but it does look good!
Anyway, we did the tests and provided the launch bulletin for them. The second ship was the
Spanish Navy Principe de Asturias with a 12 deg ramp. This had a much better configuration being
based on the unbuilt US designed Sea Control Ship sponsored by Admiral Zumwalt, USN.
The ski-jump so impressed me that I authored several technical papers and was a huge advocate
for the USMC to push the USN to install it in our amphibious ships (LHDs). We could then use the
single flight deck as essentially two runways; the helos launching from the stern, the Harriers from
the bow. There is nothing that can be loaded on a Harrier that it can't take off with from 400 ft with 15
knots wind over deck absolutely nothing and the flight deck is 800 ft long on the LHDs.
Doubled take off performance, increased inherent safety from the launch trajectory and no moving
parts. Seemed like a no-brainer to me but the USN didn't want to jeopardise their big deck carriers. I
even attempted to orchestrate a cross-deck operation with the Russian ski jump ship Tiblisi.
Towards the end of my flight testing career I conceived and got official approval to take a test team to Russia to explore the YAK-141 supersonic VSTOL fighter & to fly & report on the YAK-38 Forger. I was the first western TP to do this.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BEiC7xLvRLY/UPyzpEUVCsI/AAAAAAAAGMo/
gD8xrCHznng/s1600/Farewell%2Bto%2BPDA%2BJAN%2B2013.jpg
L-61
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA244869
http://www.navaltechnology.com/projects/num/
CAVOUR
http://i842.photobucket.com/albums/zz349/ontheroger/cavour_2_zps58de9f08.jpg~original
http://www.sldinfo.com/the-italian-approach-to-the-f-35-a-discussion-with-rear-admiral-covella/
CAVOUR
http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/cavour05.jpg
Invincible Class
Spanish/Oz LHD
Fighter aircraft plan marred by a strategic mistake 18 Mar 2014 Nicholas Stuart
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/fighter-aircraft-plan-marred-by-a-strategic-mistake-20140317-34y98.html
-
carrier jet, but although (for tens of millions more) the two landing helicopter dock
ships we are buying from Spain could be fitted with catapults and arresting gear
like aircraft carriers (Lockheed has done feasibility studies), there are no plans to
add this capability. We are not planning to buy any of the Short Take Off Vertical
Landing (STOVL) ''B'' versions of either. This is a disastrous strategic mistake. :-)
This means flexibility in how the aircraft can be used will be severely limited. Without a long
runway, the plane just can't get airborne. This is a critical weakness in an era of precision guided
munitions. Shooting the planes out of the sky may, as advertised, prove impossible for any adversary - although that is exactly why they will be searching for other vulnerabilities which can also
render the Joint Strike Fighters ineffective. Lacking the STOVL capability means the aircraft can't
be forward deployed to other areas where our forces might be operating, such as small islands or
underdeveloped countries. More time will be spent burning up fuel in transit. Response time will
be slower.
If we are buying 70-odd aircraft anyway, it would make good sense to have at least one of the
squadrons with this capability. Yet the RAAF hasn't even presented the minister with this option it was ruled out years ago. No one is been prepared to put it up again, despite the increasing strategic evidence that this might be exactly what our country needs.
Landing
Helicopter
Dock
by MarkLBailey (19-Oct-2012)
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/sreply/309398/LHD-01-Departs-Spain-Australia-Bound-22-August-2012
-
Jump
THE CHALLENGES OF AN
ORGANIC FIXED WING CAPABILITY
FOR AUSTRALIAS LHDS
Back
By Mark Boast
The best way to overcome a challenge is to understand it. With this in mind former Sea Harrier squadron commanding
officer Mark Boast takes a look at the challenges that could confront the ADF adopting organic CAS for the new
Canberra class LHDs.
The acquisition of two LHD ships within an expanded amphibious
capability has naturally stimulated thinking within the Defence community
about the best force mix to support the capability. There has even been
guarded speculation about the potential of operating fixed wing aircraft to
provide enhanced offensive capabilities in air and surface environments;
a natural path given that the basic ship configuration so clearly reflects its
evolution as a STOVL jet platform.
The Australian operational concept for both LHD ships is focussed on
amphibious operations but does not include an organic fixed wing aircraft
capability that operates from the LHD or within the deployed amphibious
force. This has left open the traditional questions about the need for
organic offensive fixed wing aircraft capabilities where land based air
assets may be limited due to range or response times, and other organic
assets such as Tiger are relatively limited in their offensive roles, range
and firepower.
In order to simplify the approach and get straight to the organic fixed wing
aircraft discussion, I am going to assume that the Minister has requested
the ADF to provide some initial key discussion points on the development
of a fixed wing offensive air support capability to operate from the LHD
ships. I leave it to others to ponder on the Ministers request and reasons
for it!
The purpose of this article, therefore, is to explore some of the fundamental
operational and support implications of an organic fixed wing aircraft
capability. There is no intent here to question a similar land based air
capability or the role and contribution of an embarked ARH Tiger. If it
eases the readers concern, consider the Ministers request as being
one based on risk reduction for the more demanding offensive land and
maritime scenarios, or as a peace of mind force protection requirement
for the future.
An F-35 STOVL JSF, to be used by the RN, USMC and a number of other nations. The Australian operational concept the LHDs is focussed on amphibious operations but does not include an
organic fixed wing aircraft, like the STOVL JSF, for CAS missions. (Lockheed Martin)
All the systems were dual use. To my knowledge, none were removed or not installed.
Therefore she is perfectly capable of operating
something like SHAR or STOVL F-35, although
undoubtedly additional kit would be needed
(hence the weight and space mentioned above).
The Navy guys were so delighted with the
Treasury response they were too terrified even
to move a muscle. It was as funny as hell to
watch.
Cheers:mark http://navyleague.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/The-Navy-Vol_72_No_4-Oct-2010.pdf
THE NAVY VOL. 72 NO. 4
27
An Australian Army Tiger reconnaissance helicopter. The Tigers limited range and weapon load, plus its
un-marinised nature, means it cannot provide the necessary CAS required by Australian troops during an
amphibious operation. (Defence)
OPERATIONAL ROLES
Potential roles for organic fixed wing aircraft in
support of an amphibious force are as broad
as those of land based aircraft in support of
a conventional land force. But in practice the
roles will be restricted to the capabilities of
smaller aircraft types able to be operated from
the restricted space and characteristics of the
flight deck. Long range and high endurance
air and surface surveillance and high mass air
logistics will remain in the domain of land based
aircraft such as Wedgetail AEW&C and C-17
Globemaster III respectively. These capabilities
are mentioned here because they will continue
to be required even if the LHD develops its
organic fixed wing capability.
Similarly, Air Refuelling and the additional
land based offensive aircraft that it enables
will always play a vital role in providing the
numbers and breadth of battlefield coverage
that a small number of embarked aircraft will
never be able to meet. Beyond the scope of
this discussion but not far from the back of the
28
THE AIRCRAFT
The provision of land attack by an organic STOVL jet requires some
fundamental enablers. Deck and hangar space that support flying
and support operations, weapons stowage and assembly areas,
accommodation for associated personnel, ship technical and operations
systems to support flying, and a training system to provide an effective,
deployable and safe capability. The majority of these enablers come at
the cost of space, utility and cost within the strict boundaries of the ship
environment. Whether above or below deck, the aircraft will displace
other aircraft, amphibious force elements or stores. The weapons
will require appropriate storage, handling and assembly areas. The
personnel will need a certain amount of appropriate accommodation that
will probably displace others who may have been assumed in the full
warfighting configuration. The aircraft will require appropriately equipped
workshops while in the hangar and finally, flying operations will need the
communications and instrument approach aids whilst flying.
These requirements are unsurprising and distil into being competition
for space with the confines of the ships design. What may not be
apparent is that the nature of fixed wing flying that includes rolling take
offs, high thrust vertical landings and the presence of weapons will
dominate the ships flying operations. Nor will this domination diminish
during amphibious operations when the natural tendency will be to
support intensive helicopter operations. Even ships position, heading
and speed will default to the fixed wing flying operation, albeit within the
generous flexibility that STOVL capabilities provide and far less extreme
than that which would be required for a conventional (non STOVL) naval
fixed wing aircraft.
But back to the space competition. In the first instance it is worthwhile
considering the number of aircraft that may be required and their
residential requirements; the amount of time the aircraft are embarked
and when they may not be present.
Let me immediately constrain the discussion to two STOVL jet aircraft
types based on feasibility and the ADFs acquisition plans respectively.
The first is the Harrier AV-8B family and secondly the STOVL F-35
JSF. Both these single seat multi role aircraft have been taken into
account in the development Australias LHD design, given their Spanish
predesssor, and therefore are valid for this discussion. But it is important
to remember that neither aircraft has been or is planned to be in the
Australian inventory. Whilst still under development, the STOVL JSF
has perhaps the greater application in the longer term as it is a more
specialised (and expensive) version of the land based JSF already being
planned for the RAAF. Before going further I have already assumed that
the reader is aware of the tremendous impact that catapults and arresting
gear would have on the LHD design and that such an option is well outside
the spirit of the Ministers question, and probably that of engineering
feasibility as well.
Aircraft of this type are operated in pairs. This doctrine has been
developed from experience in the conduct of operational tactics, self
protection and mission assurance. Individual mission planning will
therefore always include two aircraft plus a further one at least as a
spare in the event one of the planned aircraft suffers an unserviceability
prior to launch. Depending on the criticality of the planned mission, the
spare may be manned or their may be a further spare, manned or
unmanned. Assuming that there will be critical missions in a land battle
associated with amphibious operations, then we can assume that four
aircraft equipped with weapons will be the minimum number required
on deck.
From this fundamental assumption, the increase in STOVL jet numbers
is driven by issues such as aircraft maintenance cycles, the battlefield
coverage required (numbers and time), and secondary role requirements.
A simplistic answer to the question of how many aircraft on the ship
required to provide a reliable capability is four ready to fly, one in the
hangar in maintenance, and if required a further pair to provide additional
land attack or maritime force protection. Depending on aircraft reliability
and maintainability, it would not be unrealistic to expect that between
six and eight aircraft would be required on board to provide a sound
capability base. These numbers would not be unfamiliar to current AV-8B
operators, most of whom are operating these squadron sizes from ships
in the twenty thousand tonne category i.e. smaller than the Canberra
class LHDs.
STOVL jet aircraft are deliberately designed to be able to be operated
from a range of airfields and landing pads. Therefore it is feasible to
consider that the aircraft may disembark to shore operating locations.
Six USMC AV-8B Harrier II on a USN LHD. It would not be unrealistic to expect that between six and eight aircraft would be required to provide a sound capability base on each LHD.
These numbers would be familiar to current AV-8B operators, most of whom are operating these squadron sizes from ships in the 20,000 tonne category
i.e. smaller than the Canberra class LHDs. (USN)
29
A common misunderstanding within the ADF is that fixed wing and helicopters cant
operate from the same straight deck. Here a USMC Harrier takes off from a straight
deck from the USN LHD IWO JIMA with helicopters parked to one side. (USN)
THE WEAPONS
Fixed wing roles such as CAS, Strike and Air Defence cannot be achieved
by the aircraft alone; the weapons are the essential element. The subject
of weapons on both ships and aircraft is both complex and demanding.
Being ship based we will want a sufficient range of weapon types and
numbers to do those tasks which by default can only be accomplished
reliably by the organic aircraft. And in the amphibious role, the useage
rate of air to surface weapons can be very high in order to maintain the
edge in force protection and progression of the ground battle.
Whilst the trend in developing smaller and highly accurate weapons
may mitigate some magazine and handling space requirements, there
will always be highly desirable weapons with longer range, endurance
and payload that require large stowage areas. This requirement can
be exacerbated if the weapon or its major components are designed to
be stored individually in its own container. The storage and preparation
spaces will therefore need to be scaled accordingly and also be equipped
with the range of machinery and specialist manpower to support the
potentially high useage rate.
Multiple magazines are very demanding on ship design and it is inevitable
that painful compromises will be required with competing weapons
storage requirements such as those for the embarked land forces.
Stowage incompatibility between weapon types based on characteristics
such as explosive content, propellant type and cook off times will
30
Weve done it before Minister. Seen here are nine Australian Army Blackhawk helicopters on the USN LHD USS BOXER
undergoing familiarisation and Tactics, Techniques and Procedures training in anticipation of the Canberra class LHDs
arrival. Any adoption of fixed wing CAS for the Canberra class LHDs will rely on the RN and USN for exchange opportunities
to relearn much that has been forgotten about fixed wing operations since the demise of Australias aircraft carrier capability
in the old HMAS MELBOURNE. (RAN)
CONCLUSION
So given the consideration of only three
assessment criteria; aircraft, weapons and
organisation and culture, what does a potential
response by the CDF to the Ministers question
look like?
Well Minister, to start with we need to purchase
at least one squadron of approximately 12
STOVL aircraft and training systems; train
the pilots on a different variant of an existing
aircraft but one that flies differently; develop
our engineers and flying operations people
overseas with one of our major allies, which
weve done before, and integrate the new
squadron onto the ship overseas using our
allies support for up to a year. Needless to say
this will have an impact on our existing plans
within the RAAF fast jet force and those for the
LHD, but we have excellent people and with
careful management it is certainly achievable.
When would you like to see 1st Pass?
Mark Boast is a former naval aviator of 23 years
experience in both the RAN and RN. The majority of
his flying was on the Sea Harrier where he was CO
of the training squadron and operational evaluation
unit. He was also an MOD staff officer for the
Sea Harrier replacement and was involved in the
concept development for JSF and CVF.
Opinions expressed in this article are entirely his
own and developed without reference to any ADF
project including the LHD and JSF projects.
http://navyleague.org.au/wpcontent/uploads/2012/06/TheNavy-Vol_72_No_4-Oct-2010.pdf
THE NAVY VOL. 72 NO. 4
31
Big Ships, Big Challenge By Alan Stephens, Deputy Chairman | Oct 2011
http://www.williamsfoundation.org.au/sites/default/files/Big%20Ships%20Big%20Challenge%20Oct%202011.pdf
...There are suggestions that the [RAN] LHDs will only be used in permissive environments. This is an unsound
concept. Even if a deployment started under permissive conditions, the task force would still have to be prepared for
non-permissive operations, to guard against the possibility of a change of circumstances during transit, or even after
arrival. Any inability to deal with a suddenly-emerging, non-permissive environment could compel the Australian
Government into an embarrassing, even dangerous, back down. This means that any operational deployment would
need some degree of protection from hostile aircraft, submarines, surface ships, stand-off missiles, and ISR
systems. Suddenly, the development of a concept of operations sounds like headache material....
...In short, the LHDs are a very big deal. The Williams Foundation is concerned that the political/strategic implications of bringing them onto the ADFs order of battle are not well-understood....
...To return to the question of embarked strike/fighters. Australia is in the process of acquiring up to 100 Joint
Strike Fighters, all of which are to be the conventional F-35A variant. However, the F-35 will come in a STOVL variant,
-
Ship-borne fighter operations are enormously complex and expensive. At the same time, when done properly,
they provide a unique capability by removing in one fell stroke the perennial strike/fighter problem of range and
endur-ance. Take your own fighters with you, and that particular dimension of control of the air has been addressed.
Great Britains recapture of the Falklands Islands from occupying Argentineans in 1982 could not have succeeded
without the fleet protection provided by embarked RN and RAF Harrier strike/fighters.
Whatever the government and the ADF might be saying now, it is certain that, as
the in-service date for the LHDs grows closer, calls to acquire STOVL F-35Bs for
the Fleet Air Arm will increase. Theres nothing wrong with that; on the contrary.
But we do need to understand the issues. Any one of the challenges outlined above warrants serious attention;
in combination, they constitute a compelling case for action at almost every level of Defence planning.
Background
Technical data
Systems
Mission profile
Propulsion systems
Launching
Page 1 of 12
Page 2 of 12
Air Capability
The ship has the following elements for air operations:
Flight deck with a 12 sky-jump for VSTOL aircraft.
Helicopter landing spots for, at least, 4 CH-47 CHINOOK or 6 medium type helicopters like the SH3D or NH-90.
2 elevators with capability for embarked aircraft with portable control panels of the elevator
platforms. The elevators will be big enough for future larger aircraft. Specifically, the ship will be able
to operate with the scheduled VSTOL version of the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter).
Flight Deck 201.9 metre long and 32 metre wide.
Mission profile
Flight Deck
The following aircraft can operate from the LHD:
Mission Profile
Depending on the mission assigned, the ship will be configured accordingly.
The main configurations are:
Amphibious operations.
Combined deployment with the Army.
Fleet projection (alternative aircraft-carrier)
Humanitarian aid operations.
Capabilities
In order to carry out the mission entrusted, the ship has certain capabilities allowing for flexibility in her
configuration.
The ship has an aft RO-RO ramp and two lateral ramps. The aft ramp and those of the heavy cargo deck are
capable of embarking Leopard type tanks.
The main capabilities of the ship are:
Air capability.
Vehicle transport capability.
Flight Hangar
Amphibious capability.
Troop transport capability.
The air capabilities of the ship include parking and hangar areas for VSTOL aircraft (AV-8B Plus Harrier
Page 3 of 12
Page 4 of 12
Amphibious capability
For amphibious operations the ships has a flooding deck with capacity for:
Light cargo hangar
Heavy vehicles: The heavy vehicles garage has 1,400 m2 for M-60 or Leopard type tanks. This area
can be increased in 975 m2 if the dock is used as a garage (up to 46 tanks).
Light vehicles: The light vehicles garage is next to the aircraft hangar. The area, therefore, can take
up to 2,046 m2.
Dock features:
1 LCAC
Length: 69.3 m.
LVTs
Width: 16.8 m.
Page 5 of 12
Page 6 of 12
2 Operating theatres.
1 Dentists room.
1 Sick bay.
1 Consulting room.
1 First aid room.
1 ICU.
1 Infectious unit.
1 Injury selection area.
1 X-ray room.
1 Lab.
1 Chemists.
Petty-Officers
Ratings Total
Crew
24
49
170
243
Staff
45
32
26
103
Landing Force
46
64
792
902
18
23
41
60
71
172
The ship has an elevator for sick personnel connecting the dock, the flight deck and cargo decks with the
Page 7 of 12
Page 8 of 12
Propulsion plan
Background
Technical data
Systems
Mission profile
Propulsion systems
Launching
Propulsion systems
Propulsion plant
Diesel generator: IZAR MAN 32/40 16V 7,860kWm 720 rpm.
Turbo generator: GE LM-2500 19,750 kW, 3,600 rpm.
PODs
Performance
Propulsion
Propulsion system: Electric ship.
Propulsion machinery: 1 Gas turbine + 2 Diesel generators.
Propellers: 2 x POD @ 11.0 MW each.
Speed and Endurance
Deployment operations:
Full load displacement: 27,078 tons.
Max. sustained speed: 19.5 knots.
Operations as aircraft-carrier:
Full load displacement: 24,660 tons.
Max. sustained speed: 21 knots.
Endurance: 9,000 miles at 15 knots.
PERFORMANCE
Speed (nudos) Sea State Displacement (Tn) Power(kw)
Generators
Regime (%)
10
27.079
2.680
1 x DDGG
100
15,0
Pruebas
27.079
5.466
2 x DDGG
70
15,0
27.079
6.814
2 x DDGG
79,5
19,5
Pruebas
27.079
15.344
19,5
27.079
18.653
21,0
Pruebas
24.660
22.000
2 x DG+TG
86
Page 9 of 12
Page 10 of 12
Components of diesel-electric propulsion
Benefits:
No operational risk.
No rudders.
No shafts.
Excellent manoeuvrability.
Minimum consumption, maximum endurance.
Maintenance. Simple assembly and replacement of gas turbines and community with the Alpha Group
and F-100.
Drawbacks:
Shipbuilding benefits
In agreement with current shipbuilding trends which demand high manoeuvrability and the initial feasibility
studies, the ship is conceived as a totally electric ship (AES) with POD-type azimuthally propulsion
propellers operated by alternating current electric engines. The propulsion electric engines are fuelled by
two diesel engine generators and a gas turbo-generator group.
A POD propeller eliminates:
Propulsion Types
Typical diesel propulsion with fixed or
controllable pitch propellers.
Reducer.
Thrust block.
Shafting.
Sterntube and airtight closing systems.
Rudder.
Servo.
Aft thrusters.
POD Propellers.
POD Propellers
POD design:
2 screws rotating in the same direction and coupled to the same shaft.
Page 11 of 12
Page 12 of 12
Technical data
Systems
Mission profile
Propulsion systems
Launching
Technical data
Amphibious Operations
Displacement fully loaded: 27,079 tons.
Maximum sustained speed: 19.5 knots.
Air Operations
Displacement fully loaded: 24,660 tons.
Maximum sustained speed: 21 knots.
Internal Arrangement of the Ship. The ship has four decks:
Dock and garage for heavy cargo.
Habitability deck.
Hangar and light cargo garage.
Flight deck with a portside sky-jump.
Officers
Petty-Officers
Ratings Total
Crew
24
49
170
243
Staff
45
32
26
103
Landing Force
46
64
792
902
18
23
41
60
71
172