Japan to Build New Helicopter Carrier in The Asian Navies Forum

RSS
Email

0 Points

Japan to Build New Helicopter Carrier

Author	Comment
Bledlow		#41	[-]
Posts: 2486 Nov 19 11 4:12 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Fred the Great wrote: Other than the USMC, the likely operators of the F-35B - until recently - were the UK, Spain and Italy. The first of these has turned its mind elsewhere, while, as you say, the economic troubles of Europe may cause some to rethink such expensive and difficult to justify acquisitions. Spain & Italy have new ships which were built specifically to handle F-35B. Italy is going to buy F-35 come what may - so why not get some of them as F-35B? It currently plans to buy 50+ B, & slightly more A. A cut in numbers is far more likely than cancellation. Neither Spain nor Italy need to spend any money on F-35B for a few years. They may be in a better situation by then.
	Remove this ad
Fred the Great		#42	[-]
Posts: 3603 Nov 19 11 4:24 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Neither Spain nor Italy need to spend any money on F-35B for a few years. They may be in a better situation by then. Certainly we hope they're in a better position by then! You're right . . . There is time for their economies to turn around and in any case they haven't decided to change their plans yet. I'm a little surprised Italy would want 50. I'd be even more surprised if that happens, but we'll see. On the program itself, I would think it is more likely than not that it will go ahead, but I wouldn't bet my house on the F-35B being delivered and certainly not in the quantities originally intended.
OSCSSW	triring65 hate to tell you this but	#43	[-]
Posts: 4224 Nov 19 11 4:51 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Wiki is hardly an authorative source. Much of what is in there is just the person who wrote the articles opinion. No fact checking or authentication of the expertise of the writer is done. Yup triring65, there is also serious doubt about the authenticity of the Easter Bunny and the reliablity of the content of Oliver stones hatchet jobs movies. I do hope you will not take this too badly because YOU are well on the way of being as arrogant and down right ignorant as most "Professional Journalist"---)))) triring65 wrote: Quote from Wiki; In a joint report the U.S. Public Interest Research Group and the National Taxpayers Union called the EFV program wasteful spending and asked for its cancellation. The co-chairs of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform have also supported the cancellation of the EFV. If true, the opinion of ultra left wing military hating groups with minimal understandung of the technology sure does clinch it for me----)))) Why, oh why do you maske it so easy. What a mullet. In an interview on 5 January 2011 with Bloomberg Businessweek, Duncan D. Hunter, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, anticipated the cancellation announcement by Gates. However, Hunter has predicted that his committee will reject the cancellation. It was the USMC Brass that advised gates to cancel the dog because the new owners of FMC, GD? totally screwed up the prject and it did not meet the minimum requirements. Ditto re: Mullet Just a little more info for you and Freddy; Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) Program Cancellation as announced by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates on January 6, 2011 during his proposed budget efficiencies plan: Today, I am also announcing my agreement with the recommendation of the Secretary of the Navy and the Commandant of the Marine Corps to cancel the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. This program is of great interest to the Marine community so I would like to explain the reasons behind what I know will be a controversial decision… To be sure, the EFV would, if pursued to completion without regard to time or cost, be an enormously capable vehicle. However, recent analysis by the Navy and Marine Corps suggests that the most plausible scenarios requiring power projection from the sea could be handled through a mix of existing air and sea systems employed in new ways along with new vehicles – scenarios that do not require the exquisite features of the EFV. As with several other high end programs cancelled in recent years, the mounting cost of acquiring this specialized capability must be judged against other priorities and needs. Let me be clear. This decision does not call into question the Marine’s amphibious assault mission. We will budget the funds necessary to develop a more affordable and sustainable amphibious tractor to provide the Marines a ship-to-shore capability into the future. The budget will also propose funds to upgrade the existing amphibious vehicle fleet with new engines, electronics, and armaments to ensure that the Marines will be able to conduct ship-to-shore missions until the next generation of systems is brought on line… There is another flaw within your refute, most all large deck amphibious ships are not designed in accepting extreme heat variation resulting from the jet exhaust from constantly landing of the F-35B on the deck and will require major retrofit of the deck for heat resistant surfacing in which will add considerable weight this will call for major redoing of the ballast and trim. It's more of a burden than a mercy to cash stripped governments who most probably do not have the cash to acquire the fancy toys in the first place. Think Boy, Think. Heat resistant tiles and advanced coatings are a relatively minor "ship alt". If they can afford the Large deck Amphibs to begin with and the cost of the F35B, the heat treatments, which are well understood now, are a relatively inexpensive dockside availability upgrade. Guess who is laughing now? Re: Mullet Last Edited By: OSCSSW Nov 19 11 5:04 PM. Edited 2 times.
Bledlow		#44	[-]
Posts: 2486 Nov 19 11 9:12 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Fred the Great wrote: I'm a little surprised Italy would want 50. I'd be even more surprised if that happens, but we'll see. The original plan was for fewer. The navy was going to get F-35B, the air force F-35A. Then the AF decided it would like a split buy, including some B. The current plan is for roughly 60:40 A:B, with a total buy of 131. The navy aircraft will be dedicated to the carriers, & the AF F-35B pilots will train to operate off the carriers, but will mostly be land-based. That's much easier with STOVL than CTOL, & is similar to what the UK planned before it ditched F-35B.
Fred the Great		#45	[-]
Posts: 3603 Nov 20 11 7:48 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I'm not quite sure how we got on to the USMC and the Osprey, the EFV and the F-35B but it is hardly earth-shattering to say the Marines have had to fight for all three, suffering a partial loss on the first, a complete loss on the second and a slight setback at this time on the third. With regard to the Osprey . . . It's much troubled development saw not only the loss of lives but also the embarrassing revelation that officers had deliberately falsified maintenance records in an effort to make the aircraft appear more reliable. During his time as the SECDEF, Cheney tried to kill it off altogether at least three times. Where I would argue it was for the Marines a partial loss is that the numbers to be acquired have been cut from the original 552 to 360. That's not insignificant. And, of course, it is a program that remains high on the priority list for cutbacks in the minds of many. With regard to the EFV . . . How much money did the USMC manage to have directed to its development and how much political capital did it expend keeping it alive? And to not be at least a little cynical about the Commandant of the Marine Corps public support of SECDEF Gates' decision to finally put a bullet in the program is naive at best. The immortal line in politics: "Well, he would say that wouldn't he?" comes to mind. The program was a dead duck and Amos knew that. Indeed, at least one defence commentator openly suggested Amos was doing as he was told. I'm not sure if I'd go that far, but Amos and the Marines had and have much in the pipeline and supporting Gates in applying the knife to the EFV may have been in their eyes a reasonable price to pay. With regards to the F-35B . . . Well, this is ongoing and early days still, but Gates' decision in January to apply a two-year pause in its production and suggestion that if it cannot be "fixed" then it may be cancelled, is a setback. The British decision, as noted, won't have helped. The Marines are no doubt now fighting a political battle to keep the program and ensure it's not curtailed or, worse, cut altogether. As I said, I would think it is more likely than not that it will go ahead and be a very capable aircraft for the Marines. But, if you were the Marines or part of the Marine lobby, you wouldn't wanting to be fighting in Washington for the full 360 Ospreys, continued development of the EFV and 340 F-35Bs.
bager1968		#46	[-]
Posts: 7595 Nov 22 11 9:54 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	triring65 wrote: There is another flaw within your refute, most all large deck amphibious ships are not designed in accepting extreme heat variation resulting from the jet exhaust from constantly landing of the F-35B on the deck and will require major retrofit of the deck for heat resistant surfacing in which will add considerable weight this will call for major redoing of the ballast and trim. Re: F-35B exhaust exaggerations again. Shall we quote from the recent F-35B shipboard trials that have been extensively covered in the Aircraft Carriers section of this board to maybe put this bullshit to rest finally? http://www.marinecorpstim...ates-f35b-at-sea-101811/ Cordell said that one piece of good news is that the “outflow” from the jet’s exhaust while hovering is less intense than expected. “It’s counterintuitive, but the jet has a less harsh environment hovering at 40 feet than it does at 100 feet,” he said. Engineering models had predicted the outcome, but skeptics — Cordell included — had doubted those conclusions. The hazard zone around the jet therefore has shrunk to about the same size as that of a Harrier, he said. ..... Ansis Kalnajs, the test director for Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), said that the ship had been extensively instrumented for the test series. The instruments measure everything from sound, to heat, the velocity of the exhaust hitting the flight deck. In order to facilitate the trials on the Wasp, some antennas have been removed, others covered, and some equipment needed to be moved to accommodate the F-35B’s larger wing span compared to the AV-8B Harrier II, Kalnajs said. The ship’s “tram line,” which guides pilots during take-off and landings, had to be shifted by 34 inches, he said. The flight deck and a lot of the ancillary deck equipment had to be extensively instrumented to measure the impact on the ship, Kalnajs said. From all indications, the test results are matching predictions, he said. Similarly, the “outwash” on take-off is far less harsh than anticipated, Cordell said. http://www.kansascity.com...-questions-lockheed.html One of the major highlights and testing accomplishments in October was the work accomplished using two F-35B short-takeoff vertical-landing models operating from the USS Wasp amphibious ship off the Virginia coast. Over a three-week period, the aircraft made 72 short takeoffs and a like number of vertical landings. "There's a lot of positive indicators we're seeing between the ship trials and the land-based tests," Rein said. "We're ahead of plan. We're seeing good indicators of things to come." ..... Rein said he was not aware of any serious mechanical or flight handling problems that have been discovered during testing. "We've killed some bad myth," Rein said, referring to speculation that the F-35 jet exhaust would damage the amphibious ship or that engine downwash on landing and takeoff would make it hazardous for personnel to work near the aircraft. Who'd have thought 30 years ago Hermes would still be in active service when Invincible was at the breakers yard? Last Edited By: bager1968 Nov 22 11 9:56 PM. Edited 1 times.
daetaku		#47	[-]
Posts: 4106 Nov 22 11 10:30 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	"http://www.marinecorpstim...ates-f35b-at-sea-101811/ Cordell said that one piece of good news is that the “outflow” from the jet’s exhaust while hovering is less intense than expected. “It’s counterintuitive, but the jet has a less harsh environment hovering at 40 feet than it does at 100 feet,” he said. Engineering models had predicted the outcome, but skeptics — Cordell included — had doubted those conclusions. The hazard zone around the jet therefore has shrunk to about the same size as that of a Harrier, he said." Maybe that "outflow", crudely, simplistically, is similar to the burning match, or to the torch, or lab burner, but inverted? http://answers.yahoo.com/...id=20080222163412AA6X09i So, I'm wondering: if the heat rises, and most of it is hotter at 100' than at 40 feet, and probably the plane has to swoop in quickly to get to near or below 40', does that imply a very fast, automatically-controlled approach to reduce the time the hotter heat is able to cook the deck adjacent to the spot landing pads? If the deck benefits by the plane's being lower, is there a natural -- but undesired -- tradeoff of heat greater than desired closer to the fuselage? I'd like to be enlightened. Thanks! In the meantime, using: f-35 dynamics heat landing I'm looking at some links: http://www.dodbuzz.com/20...ady-for-sea-is-the-ship/ http://www.freerepublic.c...cus/f-news/2802938/posts (a vid is at that one) http://www.aviationweek.c...0_24_2011_p30-384427.xml (which appears to have quoted or cribbed the first url Bager provide above...)
daetaku		#48	[-]
Posts: 4106 Nov 22 11 10:42 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Fred the Great wrote: Neither Spain nor Italy need to spend any money on F-35B for a few years. They may be in a better situation by then. Certainly we hope they're in a better position by then! You're right . . . There is time for their economies to turn around and in any case they haven't decided to change their plans yet. I'm a little surprised Italy would want 50. I'd be even more surprised if that happens, but we'll see. On the program itself, I would think it is more likely than not that it will go ahead, but I wouldn't bet my house on the F-35B being delivered and certainly not in the quantities originally intended. At DODBUZZ, there is a comment about the F-35B vs F-35C, and the USM, UK, and Spain reasons. Likely, it's already known by the avid followers of the F-35 here, but for those who still might want to know something of it: http://www.dodbuzz.com/20...ady-for-sea-is-the-ship/ "pfcem September 21st, 2011 at 12:21 am Of coarse he can. The pilot just has to bring the aircraft down to its maximum landing weight. In pretty much all aircraft that requires AT LEAST buring off/dumping a considerable amount of fuel. An F-35B pilot would not be cleared to land UNTIL the deck is clear. The F-35C can not operate from LHAs/LHDs. The USN is not procuring F-35Bs to operate from its CVNs, the USMC is procuring them to operate off our LHAs/LHDs & ‘short’ (<1000′) runways. Thankfully the Royal Navy was able to overrule the British politicians & SWITCH from the F-35B to the F-35C as its new carriers are large enough to do so. Italy & Spain however can not."
	Remove this ad
daetaku		#49	[-]
Posts: 4106 Nov 22 11 11:05 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	F-35B recap/refresher F-35B - Taking STOVL to a New Level https://www.youtube.com/w...J1KksHUQ&feature=related Uploaded by LockheedMartinVideos on Apr 16, 2010 --------------- F-35 C Cat Launch: First F-35C catapult launch https://www.youtube.com/w...PFn1pV84&feature=related Uploaded by LockheedMartinVideos on Jul 28, 2011
triring65		#50	[-]
Posts: 149 Nov 23 11 7:43 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	bager1968 wrote: Re: F-35B exhaust exaggerations again. Shall we quote from the recent F-35B shipboard trials that have been extensively covered in the Aircraft Carriers section of this board to maybe put this bullshit to rest finally? http://www.marinecorpstim...ates-f35b-at-sea-101811/ Cordell said that one piece of good news is that the “outflow” from the jet’s exhaust while hovering is less intense than expected. “It’s counterintuitive, but the jet has a less harsh environment hovering at 40 feet than it does at 100 feet,” he said. Engineering models had predicted the outcome, but skeptics — Cordell included — had doubted those conclusions. The hazard zone around the jet therefore has shrunk to about the same size as that of a Harrier, he said. ..... Ansis Kalnajs, the test director for Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), said that the ship had been extensively instrumented for the test series. The instruments measure everything from sound, to heat, the velocity of the exhaust hitting the flight deck. In order to facilitate the trials on the Wasp, some antennas have been removed, others covered, and some equipment needed to be moved to accommodate the F-35B’s larger wing span compared to the AV-8B Harrier II, Kalnajs said. The ship’s “tram line,” which guides pilots during take-off and landings, had to be shifted by 34 inches, he said. The flight deck and a lot of the ancillary deck equipment had to be extensively instrumented to measure the impact on the ship, Kalnajs said. From all indications, the test results are matching predictions, he said. Similarly, the “outwash” on take-off is far less harsh than anticipated, Cordell said. http://www.kansascity.com...-questions-lockheed.html One of the major highlights and testing accomplishments in October was the work accomplished using two F-35B short-takeoff vertical-landing models operating from the USS Wasp amphibious ship off the Virginia coast. Over a three-week period, the aircraft made 72 short takeoffs and a like number of vertical landings. "There's a lot of positive indicators we're seeing between the ship trials and the land-based tests," Rein said. "We're ahead of plan. We're seeing good indicators of things to come." ..... Rein said he was not aware of any serious mechanical or flight handling problems that have been discovered during testing. "We've killed some bad myth," Rein said, referring to speculation that the F-35 jet exhaust would damage the amphibious ship or that engine downwash on landing and takeoff would make it hazardous for personnel to work near the aircraft. Some people really don't understand metallurgy and physics. With the down wash of the F-35B burners pointed directly on the surface, without heat protection it will stretch the steel due to heating. Since the heating is localized the surrounding surface will maintain ambient temperature. The result will be similar to rail tracks bent out of shape on a hot summer day. Of course the steel surface will transfer the heat relieving the stretching into a more moderate state but the surface will be bent out of shape at joints if you constantly apply and remove the heat source. Ships not treated with heat resistant surfacing can manage an occasional emergency landing but to operate a F-35B regularly on them, you'll need to remove the current surface covering install the surface with heat resistant material place spacer material to smooth out any height difference re-coat the entire surface with finishing coating then re-calibrate trim and ballast of the ship due to additional weight it took on for the moderation. Some says this is only a minor treatment but it still will place the ship out of commission for couple of months to finish it properly.
jim3au		#51	[-]
Posts: 4488 Nov 23 11 11:57 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Watched daetaku's ads. We can't get them soon enough.
daetaku		#52	[-]
Posts: 4106 Nov 24 11 12:46 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Instead of lightning, they could locally be called "Duck Tails" or "Mallards". The burner when pivoting/swinging (does it swing side-to-side?) remind me of ducks waddling along. (Now, if the plane had duck sound-makers....) On the F-22, the 4 look mechanical, alien-like. On the -35 the nozzle looks organic, almost enough to look away....
bager1968		#53	[-]
Posts: 7595 Nov 24 11 3:53 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	triring65 wrote: Some people really don't understand metallurgy and physics. Like the people who designed & built both the aircraft and the ships... along with the people who maintain & repair the ships? Really? triring65 wrote: With the down wash of the F-35B burners pointed directly on the surface, The F-35B does NOT use the afterburner during landing... and the nozzle is pointed more aft than down during take-off, heating only a small part of the deck for a very short period of time before the aircraft (and thus the heat of the exhaust) begins to move. Your statement is incorrect. triring65 wrote: Ships not treated with heat resistant surfacing can manage an occasional emergency landing but to operate a F-35B regularly on them, you'll need to remove the current surface covering install the surface with heat resistant material place spacer material to smooth out any height difference re-coat the entire surface with finishing coating then re-calibrate trim and ballast of the ship due to additional weight it took on for the moderation. Funny how the USN is not planning to do any of this to the ships that will be operating these aircraft. All they are going to do is apply a new form of non-skid coating that has some thermal protection qualities while increasing the time between re-surfacing from a couple of months to about a year. You are aware that non-skid is applied not only in port, but also at sea by the ship's crew, right? And that non-skid, including the new Thermion coating, is basically painted onto the steel of the deck? Again, your points are drawn from the blatherings of avowed enemies of the aircraft, who don't care how many exaggerations, distortions of fact, and all-out lies they have to make to get the aircraft killed. Who'd have thought 30 years ago Hermes would still be in active service when Invincible was at the breakers yard?
Bledlow		#54	[-]
Posts: 2486 Nov 24 11 4:32 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	triring65 wrote: Some people really don't understand metallurgy and physics. With the down wash of the F-35B burners pointed directly on the surface, without heat protection it will stretch the steel due to heating. It lands in dry thrust, not afterburner (burner, BTW, not "burners": F-35 is single engine) with the lift fan & roll posts operating. The lift fan blasts out large volumes of unheated, relatively slow-moving air (cooling the deck under the fan), & provides about 50% of the lift. The roll posts are fed from relatively cool bypass air, & provide about 10%. The jet nozzle that you are so worried about provides about 40%. In this mode, the main nozzle is producing less than half the thrust it would with afterburner, & about 2/3rds of its full dry thrust. Last Edited By: Bledlow Dec 2 11 6:06 PM. Edited 1 times.
pfcem		#55	[-]
Posts: 1113 Dec 2 11 9:14 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	triring65 wrote: Some people really don't understand metallurgy and physics. With the down wash of the F-35B burners pointed directly on the surface, without heat protection it will stretch the steel due to heating. Since the heating is localized the surrounding surface will maintain ambient temperature. The result will be similar to rail tracks bent out of shape on a hot summer day. Of course the steel surface will transfer the heat relieving the stretching into a more moderate state but the surface will be bent out of shape at joints if you constantly apply and remove the heat source. Ships not treated with heat resistant surfacing can manage an occasional emergency landing but to operate a F-35B regularly on them, you'll need to remove the current surface covering install the surface with heat resistant material place spacer material to smooth out any height difference re-coat the entire surface with finishing coating then re-calibrate trim and ballast of the ship due to additional weight it took on for the moderation. Some says this is only a minor treatment but it still will place the ship out of commission for couple of months to finish it properly. And some people, such as yourself, don't understand that naval ships already use heat resistant anti-skid/anti-corrosion deck coatings which are perfectly capable of withstanding more than just an occasional emergency landing &/or that said coatings are replaced periodically due to normal wear &/or that even if the existing coating is not sufficient for 'regular' F-35B use that you DO NOT have to redo the entire ship with a new coating.
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Japan to Build New Helicopter Carrier