JSF Not Too Hot For Carriers

JSF Not Too Hot For Carriers

The STOVL version of the Joint Strike Fighter is not too hot and is not too loud, Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway told DoD Buzz during an editorial board session.

The most troubling operational challenge that appeared to face the F-35B, next to weight, was reports that it would not be suitable for a carrier or other ship because its exhaust would melt the flight deck. Not so, Conway told reporters from Military​.com. The plane, at 1,500 degrees, is just 18 degrees hotter than a Harrier, he said Thursday.

He also debunked persistent reports that the JSF will blow the ears off of people living near their flight paths, Conway said that noise levels for the plane are “well in range of legacy aircraft” like the F-22 and the F/A-18 E/F. Bottom line, the JSF ain’t a whisper jet, but communities familiar with existing aircraft shouldn’t have much to worry about.


On the negative side, Conway noted that “we will lose 28 aircraft over the FYDP” but said he thought the “news for us on JSF is relatively positive” given the recent test successes at Patuxent River.

On an issue dear to his heart, Conway again praised the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. Recent blast tests give him “a high degree of confidence” that the flat-bottomed amphib can protect its crew almost as well as an MRAP.

He also said he had spoken with Reps. Gene Taylor and Roscoe Bartlett, senior members of the House Armed Services Committee who have expressed strong concerns about EFV, and believed he had convinced them that the flat-bottom design is “an absolute need” to cope with requirements for a vehicle capable of handling Category 4 sea states as it plows in to shore. The EFV must be able to plane, he said, and only a flat bottom lets it do that.

The Corps expects to take delivery of seven EFVs this summer, he said.

Join the Conversation

I don’t recall people saying that the F-35B would ‘melt’ decks, but that it can warp and distort the steel. And I understood that the Harrier hot exhaust is 1200F (with water injection), further cooled by the adjacent lo-temp foward nozzles, and has a lower velocity/cfs rate from a greater height than that of the aft nozzle of the F-35. in any case, isn’t the RSVL technique supposed to be the SOP so as to allow a 5000 lb fuel/load bring-back capability?

Indic: Marines switch to C-17s and become an expeditionary airborne force, (with the Navy constituting a parallel strategic airlift capability external to that of the Air Force.) (Amphibious fleets far too slow and far too vulnerable.) This intelligent proposal won’t happen until (all) obsolete inter-service restrictions are lifted; to wit, redundancy is not an undesirable when it fosters competitive dynamics and parallel actual approaches to strategic problem solving.
…this is only tangentially relevant to the discussion of the F-35B; the point there is that the variant only exists because of the interservice restrictions which should have been rescinded years ago. Turf wars and budgetary/territorial concerns trump strategic efficacy.
Counterfactual analysis on scenario in which the Navy is permitted to build whatsoever force structure necessary to achieve given force projection aims: I’m not suggesting that they would scrap /textit{all} the aircraft carriers in favor of a lily-pad and tanker approach extit{immediately}, but rather that they would emphasize the latter in recognition of the emergent obsolescence of the surface ship in the 21st century, and indeed would be planning to move almost entirely to an air and space platform based institution by the 2050’s. Undersea presence excepted to some degree from this trend, as per Keegan’s old analysis.

And for all of your big WORDS and you blithering soap boxing you cant seem to gasp the basic funtion and the histoory as to why marines want and need amphib fleet with there own organic air cover.

Why dont you go and read the history or the battle of Guadalcanal, it should explain to you why Marines have a doctrine of full expeditionary assets with there own organic air cover, and the ability to be self reliant for a period of time. How can surface ships be obsolete when you can still park a flotilla nearly off any coast in the world and out number and out shoot any adversary. if anything with the advent of missle defense ships and directed engery weapons its the ballistic missle anti acess strategy thats becomeing obsolete.

Gen. Conway– Doesn’t know because there have been no tests of an F-35B in shipboard operations. Calling BS on this guy is like shooting fish in a barrel. And.…. an F-35 is not a Harrier.

The Marine corps needs to resume the role of a light,sea borne fighting force. In all actuality, they are the “door kickers” when it comes to amphibious operations. There is nothing wrong with letting them resume this role. How ever,the Army needs to define its objectives in land combat,and go back to its original mission…to close with and destroy the enemy. See, when you take one big capability away that this country has above all others, and that is to operate a large,capable entry force from the sea, you really cripple military operations from all angles. Now as for the F35, let testing tell the results​.It is too early to tell if it will be suitable for the marines.

In theory n F-35 wouldn’t have to land on a flight deck to test deck warping. I would take a guess that you could do that with an engine and a mock surface in a test lab.

You dont need to go aboard a ship to meauser the exhust temps or even test it against what a flght deck is made of.

This guy really needs a history lesson.

The Marine Corps has the capability to immediately respond and deploy anywhere in the world for contingency operations independently, and conduct operations independently for 60 days (I think it was 60 days) outside of the Army, Air Force and Navy’s established zones of contingency response. It would take the Marine Corps less than 48 hours to begin mobilization for operations. The Army, Air Force and Navy would take significantly longer (best case scenario would be measured in weeks).

The Marine Corps ensures that our nation can gain the initiative on the enemy quickly. The “joint” part comes in because the Marine Corps wouldn’t be able to sustain their operations independently for very long, they’re buying the other services time to mobilize while maintaining our military initiative. Once the rest of the services are deployed and in theater ready to fight, the Marine Corps can then regroup it’s forces as needed and continue spearheading the attack at the front lines. Or they could re-deploy to flank and open up another front (such as an amphibious landing) while the Army continues on with the push at the currently established front lines.

As @7thwave already mentioned, the Marine Corps are the door kickers, and if there isn’t a door they’ll blast a new one. They aren’t the second Army.… they’re the boots already on the ground before the Army even begun strapping their boots on.

Take for example the Korean peninsula. Given the instability present with North Korea and the huge presence of American forces in the region, we have the Army, Air Force, Marine Corps and the Navy in the Korea/Japan region ready to be committed to the fight. Should the North come charging down south of the 38th Parallel, the Army and Air Force bases in South Korea are already in-place ready to fight (I don’t know if there’s any USMC bases/tenant units in South Korea). They won’t be able to eradicate the North Korean armies charging at them, but that’s not what they’re there for. They’re really there to hold of the North until the rest of our troops can get mobilized and deployed to South Korea. The Marine Corps has 10 installations (Camps Shields, Courtney, Foster, Hansen, Lester, Kinser, Schwab, McTureous, Gonsalves and Marine Corps Air Station Futenma) in Okinawa, Japan ready to deploy. While the South Korean military and our Army and Air Force are holding the North at 38th Parallel, the Marine Corps (with additional Air Force and Navy support) can use their unique amphibious landing abilities to storm the coast on the northern side of the 38th Parallel and halt the North’s advance as they direct their attention to the Marines landing ashore. After the Marine Corps push their way further inland, the Navy and Air Force can ferry more Army and Marine Corps units in from the new opening and the units south of the 38th Parallel can begin charging up north.

LOL…you guys are too easy. Couple of questions: How does the USMC get to the fight? USN maybe? Door kicker? Depends on who is behind the door.…if the opponent has a capable military, who establishes conditions for a ground force to operate like: air superiority? Deals with the IADS, TBMs.….USAF maybe? If the opponent is not very capable, how much should we spend for a “non-joint” service to deal with minor contingencies? As the US moves toward becoming a Euro-style social welfare state and military budgets come under severe strain, can we afford such a glorious anachronism?

and that is the reason why we must resist becoming a European style social welfare state…

If the F-35 exhaust heat ain’t a problem, why then is DARPA paying people to solve this apparently non-existent problem? Why are they looking for new non-melting non-skid? Why is DARPA looking for rapid deck cooling mechanisms?

Or does the Marine Corps care that their birds are out there warping structural steel and reducing the life-span of Navy ships?

V22?

This Navy PDF on base requirements for the F-35B includes this : ” For landing, VL (or
VTOL) pads will be used. This pads will be exposed to 1700ºF and high velocity (Mach #1)
exhaust.” ____http://​www​.wbdg​.org/​c​c​b​/​N​A​V​F​A​C​/​I​N​T​C​R​I​T​/​f​y​1​0​_​0​1​.pd

As for the V-22, as I understand it, steel plates are placed under the nacelles as the crews go thru their pre-flight procedures. It sounds from the above PDF that the same will be required for the IPP exhaust of the F-35.

BTW, the ‘necessity” that the USMC have their fixed-wing CAS assets based on their own AASs, is a total crock. The Marines are not going to be sent out to fight all by their lonesome, and in case anyone hasn’t noticed, Guadalcanal was more than 50yrs ago. And the USN admirals are never gonna allow a scenario where their trophy supercarriers might possibly be perceived as being expensive redundancies.

If you put the “Expeditionary Marines” in C-17s; when they go on an expedition, where are they going to land them.

Probably on the airfields built/repaired by SeeBees after the amphibious Marines take the land from the sea.

Or we could just do it the old fashion way and let the army land in C-17s instead of adding to the Marine Corps.

Agree that Euro-socialism is a bad deal on many levels but the fiscal reality is that it takes all of our tax revenue to pay for entitlements today…the DOD is funded by printed/borrowed money. European military spending was “defunded” by their populations taste for socialism and we may expect the same. That said, can we afford to keep all the mil caps of a super power? If not, what do we discard? The AF and Navy provide strategic deterrent (which Obama is about to downsize). After we conclude major operations in SWA, should we downsize/ecomomize our ground forces?? How best to do that??

And the Army Airborne would be there before the Marines on board their Navy ships change course. The Airborne can be at just about any trouble spot in the world in 48 hours. Remember, both Special Forces and Army Rangers were in and conducting combat operations in Afghanistan well before the first Marine showed up.

Inter-service rivalry aside, I do believe there is a place for an amphibious expeditionary fighting force like the Marine Corps. Also their variant of the F-35 is IMHO the only variant that should be continued to be developed and the rest scrapped in favor of the more capable, and already operational F-22

Yes, this painting the F-35B in the best possible light without any testing to back up these statement is disturbingly familiar (V-22).

The F-35B and the Harrier are such completely different aircraft, that I’m having a hard time believing that Marine Commandant Conway would even say such a thing in public. And then there’s aforementioned DARPA team working to alleviate the problem that doesn’t exist!

The experts at the DOT&E made the following statement in their 2009 report:

“Acoustic, thermal, and blast impacts on flight decks and airfields caused by the propulsion system pose risks to personnel and facilities”

Again, there is a total and complete disconnect in these statements about the F-35, and the real identified problems in the program. Should we be surprised at this point?

Special operations operate covertly and would be conducting more reconnaissance than direct action in that early stage of conflict. The Marine Corps would bring the armor, artillery, and air cover needed to be able to sustain open and direct engagements with the enemy’s main forces. Special operations won’t have that kind of fire support readily available to them unless a carrier or airbase was nearby, but would still lack the armor and artillery.

As widely reported last year, they tested the propulsion system on a hover pit in Fort Worth — they know the temps and exhaust pressure ratio. The just hovered and VL’d one of the most highly instrumented test aircraft in history last week at Pax River — they know the temps and pressure ratio.

F402-RR-408 JPT limits at 800C (approx 1480F) in short lift wet.

“How does the USMC get to the fight? USN maybe?”

The Navy operates the amphibious assault ships, but those crews are dedicated to the Marine Corps role. Technically the Marine Corps falls under the Navy’s chain of command. But leave the technicalities and political correctness out of this.

“Door kicker? Depends on who is behind the door.…if the opponent has a capable military, who establishes conditions for a ground force to operate like: air superiority? Deals with the IADS, TBMs.….USAF maybe?”

Most of the trouble-spots that present a strong opposing IADS and TBM threat already have an airbase or carrier nearby to provide the EW and SEAD capabilities to cover the relatively small landing area. In this case this would be a high-intensity conflict. I don’t mean to sound heartless, but with this type of conflict high casualties should be expected… especially for this type of operation.

“If the opponent is not very capable, how much should we spend for a “non-joint” service to deal with minor contingencies?

I didn’t mean to insinuate the Marine Corps is a non-joint service. I already said they wouldn’t be able to carry on the fight by themselves. This is still true even for minor contingencies… often times civil engineer units or medical units from the other services are sent in for the late-stage operations. Even for other types of minor contingencies such as humanitarian relief; they don’t have the large-scale airlift or sealift capabilities. But they can still go in and provide some needed supplies, begin the initial preparations for large-scale relief operations for the arrival of the Navy and Air Force and help establish order. How much do we spend? Well we shouldn’t put the Marines lower on the budgetary priorities list that’s for damned sure.

“As the US moves toward becoming a Euro-style social welfare state and military budgets come under severe strain, can we afford such a glorious anachronism? ”

Not even touching that one.

So this whole DARPA program to mitigate the well documented thermal problems of the F-35B is just smoke and mirrors right? At this point, believing anything that Lockheed Martin says about the supposed performance of the F-35 in testing is ludicrous. When I see verifiable testing confirmed by reputable sources (GAO, JET, DOT&E) I’ll accept that as fact. At this point, a continued absence of reality is prevalent throughout most of the comments and statements on the JSF Program by US Military and DoD Leadership. Refer to DARPA program link below:

https://​www​.fbo​.gov/​i​n​d​e​x​?​s​=​o​p​p​o​r​t​u​n​i​t​y​&​a​m​p​;​m​ode=

Guess they do NEO more often then. I bet they were there in Lebanon 2006.

“… well documented…”? Link you posted says DARPA work was instigated by V-22. Language it uses ref F-35B is ‘may have…’. You’ve documented nothing. Come on cowboy, show us the money.

That’s why I mentioned the V22.

The harrier will warp a deck also if you leave it on a high power setting sitting there idling with the Nozzles down. Whats the point of THIS!

Juice:

Maybe actually reading the link might help (started for the V-22, supported and encouraged for the F-35B).

Or maybe you should just keep drinking the JSF Kool-aid, and believe the company that’s been telling us they are “On Track” for the last three years while spending billions of dollars, and putting this program in the ditch is going to tell you the truth.

Attached is below is the DOT&E report I originally quoted for your edification and enjoyment.

http://​www​.cdi​.org/​p​d​f​s​/​D​O​T​E​2​0​0​9​A​n​n​u​a​l​R​e​p​o​r​t​.​pdf

JSF Kool-aid? The attacks on the JSF program are typical in this day and age, and most problems are highly exaggerated. This is one of them. The exhaust isn’t much hotter than the Harrier. For the most part Lockheed has been on track. Most of the problems they have encountered have been production related as opposed to design related.

Lying offshore, ready to act, the presence of ships and Marines sometimes means much more than just having air power or ship’s fire, when it comes to deterring a crisis. And the ships and Marines may not have to do anything but lie offshore. It is hard to lie offshore with a C-141 or C-130 full of airborne troops.
Gen. Colin Powell, U. S. Army
Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
During Operation Desert Storm

I’ve read the whole report and the 2008 version also.

“Acoustic, thermal, and blast impacts on flight decks and airfields caused by the propulsion system pose risks to personnel and facilities”. As do all aircraft… now there’s some news. This is routine stuff and certainly not cause for declarations of fraud and deceit by a service chief. But I suspect you already know this…

DOT&E raises these kinds of questions on a range of issues for all aircraft in advance of actual data — that’s part of their job. But, many of the things they raise questions about end up being non-issues because they are resolved in the natural course of developmental test. The fact that some concerns remain from report to report is because a given DT schedule addresses them later in the plan. Doubt DOT&E had access to hard data about deck heating because it wasn’t available when the report was written. But I suspect you already know this…

You haven’t documented anything but official opinion based on ‘might have…’, ‘may have…’ potentialities — in this case by folks whose job it is to ask such things. It’s also DARPA’s job to ask ‘what if’ and then put bright scientific and engineering minds to work on potential solutions should ‘concerns’ grown into ‘real problems.’

Don’t give us innuendo, don’t give us speculation (official or otherwise) — give us hard data.

Juice:

Since you like a hard facts perhaps the attachment below might shed some light on why the DOT&E are talking about the dangerously high temps created by the F-35B. I have attached the official Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Interim Technical Guidance (IGT-2010–01) Maintenance Hanger Design and Planning Guidance for the F-35B/C dated January 12, 2010.

On page 7 this document states the following under VTOL Pads:

The F-35B or short take off and landing (STOVL) is capable of vertical take off (VTO) and VL although takeoff with generally be via STO. For landing VL (or VTOL) pads will be used. The pads will be exposed to 1700F and high velocity (Mach 1) exhaust. This exhaust will melt the top surface of asphalt pavements and is likely to spall the surface of standard airfield concrete pavements on the first VL. Therefore high heat resistant materials are required for the pavement and the joint sealants. At present time there are no identified sealants that can survive a number of VL’s and the pads shall be constructed using continuously reinforced concrete.

Is that factual enough for you “Cowboy”? By the way, be sure to read page 6 which discusses the other heat generating problem for the F-35, the integrated power pack (IPP) which is capable of generating enough heat to cause accelerated decay of both asphalt and concrete.

The F-35B certainly sounds like something I want landing on my airfield of carrier.…

http://​www​.wbdg​.org/​c​c​b​/​N​A​V​F​A​C​/​I​N​T​C​R​I​T​/​f​y​1​0​_​0​1​.pd

Juice:

If you are unable to look at the attached link above (which sometime does not open), you can see the document at the F​-16​.net site, and then click on the link to read the original PDF.

http://​www​.​f​-16​.net/​i​n​d​e​x​.​p​h​p​?​n​a​m​e​=​P​N​p​h​p​B​B​2​&​a​m​p;f

You will also see the engineering guidance for the Marine Corp posted here, which states the same thing.

Maybe Commandant Conway needs to read his own services documents for some clarity on the F-35B?

Most of you here don’t understand or never understood Marine Corps Doctrine. This is exactly why the Army chose in 2004 to take the 82nd Airborne out of Fallujah and put in the 1st Marine Division. Lots of love for the Airborne guys, but Marines are Americas Pit Bulls. They go in with there complete augmentation of Infantry, air support, armor and artillery. Combined, no one does it better than they do. All this came about during the Cold War. The Marines were not designed to set up bases and get comfortable. As a matter of fact, the Marines were only outfitted for 30 days of battle at which time the Army would come in and build up their forces. With the mast armor divisions the Russians were sporting, the Marines doctrine was to meet the Russians head on with all their might, which is why they use Marine Air Ground Task Force or MAGTF. They would spear head the Russian advance, but knew they couldn’t stop 10 armor divisions, but they could cause enough damage to slow them down and keep them busy until the Army showed up. C-17’s are just as vulnerable in the sky as ships in the ocean. Difference is Navy ships carry a full Armada of Death and Destruction.

Maybe the General knows his job and doesn’t need advise from those who are not privy to the top secret documentation he has access to. I’m pretty sure they can handle whatever it is they need to handle all by themselves.

Ppfff… more cherry picking. That’s Interim Technical Guidance based on a two-year old Facilities Required Document (Feb 2008). The jet hadn’t even flown by then.

Best money says CMC is saying something now because they have hard data and the level of dis/mis-information warrants comment.

Actualy the thermals from the F35 would be less of a problem because of the hoizontal take off as oposed to the vertical of the Harrier

Sorry Cowboy, the USN document was dated 12 January 2010, your going to have to try a little harder!

You have yet to provide any tangible proof supporting the Commandants claims other then regurgitating the supposed test result from Lockheed Martin. The same company that that been lying for years about the true dismal state of the JSF Program.

The single and only pre-production F-35B in existence is so far behind in its test flight schedule, that it will be YEARS before we have accurate data on how STOVL operations will impact airfields and carrier decks. The 2012 IOC for the USMC looks more ludicrous every day.

So now we have a $137 million STOVL fighter that generates so much heat (1700F) that the constant rebuilding of airfields and carrier decks will become necessary, as documented in the USN/USMC own engineering/support documents.

For everyone’s benefit let me post again the document again:

UNIFIED FACILITIES CRITERIA (UFC)

AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE
HANGARS: TYPE I, TYPE II AND
TYPE III

F-35B or C SUPPLEMENT: 12 January 2010

VTOL Pads

The F-35B, or short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL), version of the JSF is capable of both vertical take-off (VTO) and VL, although take-off will typically be via STO. For landing, VL (or VTOL) pads will be used. This pads will be exposed to 1700ºF and high velocity (Mach #1) exhaust. This exhaust will melt the top surface of asphalt pavements, and is likely to spall the surface of standard airfield concrete pavements on the first VL. Therefore high heat resistant materials are required for the pavement and for the joint sealants. At the present time there are no identified sealants that can survive a significant number of VLs, and the pads shall be constructed using continuously reinforced concrete (CRC). The pads shall have a minimum 96-ft by 96-ft (or 100-ft by 100-ft) CRC center, with continuous reinforcement in both directions to insure that all cracks and joints remain closed (the center is surrounded by a 50-ft wide paved area). High heat resistant materials for the pavement have been identified but are still being tested. For the latest information on those materials, contact the Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center (NAVFAC ESC) or the Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency (AFCESA).”

when they go test f-35 on one carrier they need make multiple take off in the same place not just one time and say see the ground, he have no prob and in futur on operation when one great number take off is making

Good Morning Folks,

This is a silly of course, but back in the 1960’s when I was in high school I seem to recall that the melting point of steel is in the neighborhood of 2600 Deg. F.( I know that this isn’t an exact number but is close enough for this discussion) but steel will start to soften at a prolonged exposure temp. of around 1500 F ( again not an exact number) the temp.of most operating Blacksmiths forges. I’m assuming that the flight decks of the vessels handling the F-35B are made of steel.

Certainly a consideration must be given to the safety of crew members who must work right underneath the flight desks of these ships.

Since most of your comments have nothing to do with the post and are as usual basically just silly I will end it here.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

It would seem that even at 1500 deg. F. there is a very real possibility of at least distorting the steel plates of a flight deck. That is unless General Conway has commanded that the laws of chemistry be changes to accommodate the F-35B.

Perhaps if the Marines insist on using the F-35B a ceramic coating, or tiles be used on the flight decks of ships that will launch and land the F-35B.

In a very few years they can just buy a used Shuttle and peel the tiles off of it.
Marines might just do that.
I forget the wording exactly but don’t they adapt, improvise and whatever?

OF course nobody has bothered to ask the private sector. They have many tested and available
extreme heat resistant materials that they would be glad to sell to the Navy.

We all know that the USMC is the greatest force on the planet. No other branch gets the traning no other branch comes close to how amazing they are. From their ability to fight to the uniform they wear (dress blues) they are number 1

SEMPER FIDELIS!

1500 degrees is enough to cause degradation of steel decks over time,
cyclical heating and cooling will weaken the decks. The issue is how
to prevent the weakening of the flight decks in the Gator Navy. The Harrier
has proven that this is a concern and Harriers have been known to
blast holes in conventional runways like Oceana Naval Air station.

Since NAVSEA has not released test data regarding the STOVL exhaust, it appears there is still a great deal of speculation out there. When the developmental testing aboard ship is complete sometime in March of 2011, the real answer will be in.

Already been done..January 2010 in Ft Worth. No warping

No plates are used for V-22 on the big deck amphips. Only on the LPD paltforms. As far as the IPP is concerned, it is ungoing a slight redesign that will further reduce is thermal impact. No plates will be required.

If the Army and Air Force did their jobs correctly then there would not be a need for the Marine Corps. Obviously they don’t, so we have Marines and Marine Aviators to show them how.

Private Industry is half the problem, development of an aircraft without regards of where and how it will be operated led to this issue. Solutions to mitigate the F-35B impact to both steel decks and concrete landing areas are not trival when you must account for all the components impacted and the evnvironment those materials must survive. Take it from somewone who has been working this problem since 2004!

The harrier has movable nozzles, so it can turn its heat backwards while in idle. The center lift fan of the F-35 doesn’t turn, so it will warp the decks. DARPA says so, 1700 degrees for up to 90 minutes. Spaces below deck must be emptied as temps rise to 150F. That’s a big problem, so either CMC is incompetent or sticking his head in the sand to pass the buck.

You do if you’re an F-35 hater!

The forward lift fan doesn’t blow esp hot, and in any case, the engine doesn’t need to be in STOVL mode to idle. Harriere aren’t the only jets with movable nozzles.

The “center lift fan” has a variable nozzle as well, it can vector a good amount of degrees to aft, besides what Butters said, that air coming through that fan is not going to be hot. Nowhere near 1500 degrees. Off the ass end yes but not from the lift fan.

Good Morning Folks,

The F-35B will go ahead as is Carl, and the Marines will find ways to adjust, they always do. I agree with you Carl this is a problem, really one the basics of inorganic chemistry is the melting points of elements and compounds that I would assume is still taught in High School, that should have been know about from the inception of the F-35B, but like the critical structural flaw that was built into frame the F-15A,B, & C’s it will be to expensive and take to long to fix. It will be cheaper to injure or kill a few Marines and Sailors the to correct the problem, it’s the price of being in the military. You have to remember, profits first Carl.

I favor the incompetent argument on this issue. The DoD lost control of the F-35 as it did with the MV-22, EFV, FCS, MRAP’s and the F-22 programs from the signing of the first contracts and industry has gone wild with spending and flawed designs. The privatization of the defense industry has been a total disaster. The F-35 is only the latest example of industrial, institutional and bureaucratic incompetence in the DoD and the defense industry.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

The most troubling operational challenge that appeared to face the F-35B, next to weight,

They managed to put an A-3 on a carrier deck.….….….….but a more pressing question would be
why the issues of
weight and exhaust were not projected when the F35 was still in planning stage?
We are in the 21st Century
It is about time contractors were held to some sort of standards before the $$$$$$ are spent.

Heh, heh.…people love to quote Sun Tzu and Clausewitz, but they’ve got no problem saying the amphibious assault is obsolete.…..lessons learned, lessons forgotten. I’m bettin’ that General Schwarzkopf was pretty happy that he had Marines avalible and sittin’ off the coast of Kuwait. The demonstration got Saddam and his commanders looking in the wrong direction.….and those Marines were still available to come in over the beach, should their combat capabilities have been needed, along with their brother Marines ashore attacking into Kuwait City. That was all of, what, 19 years ago? MacArthur, that ol’ Army rascal, understood the nature of the amphibious assault, in that he got to pick the point of entry. Inchon was about as bad a place for an amphibious assault as you could find on the planet, but.…we had the expertise to pull it off. Since those distant days of yor, the Corps has added the over-the-horizon capability of the helo assault.…all the better. If your the bad guys your question is.….where do you put your anti-ship missiles when you don’t know which door the Marines are gonna kick in? How thin can your defenses get and still be effective? Semper Fi.

Interesting theory. You do need to test out everything. But I guess not in the world of faith-based PowerPoint program management.

Amazing.… supposed classified material can ignore the laws of physics. We need to make the whole F-35 program black so that it will succeed.

Didn’t I hear this before in about 1949. Yeah, it was Harry Truman’s argument. That was before Korea. Before the USMC plugged the gap at the Pusan perimeter stopping the North Koreans then turned around and cut them off at Inchon before they invaded Wonsan where they destroyed four (4) Chinese Army groups at the frozen Chosin Resivior. Before they landed at DaNang. Before .….…..

Guys,

The lift fan blows cold air downwards, it does NOT take exhaust gas from the engine and direct it straight down. Virtually NO heat will be coming off the lift fan.

The F-35B will also not be doing vertical liftofts, but plenty of vertical landings. They will NOT be sitting in idle with the exhaust nozzle pointed down at the deck…

” lift fan blows cold air downwards, it does NOT take exhaust gas from the engine”

Second part is true but the first part? Not so much. Air being rapidly compressed at say a 10:1 ratio is far from cold, Mr. Simonds.

The 1700 degrees wouldn’t be from the center lift fan, as it’s not blowing any hot exhaust gases. In fact, it’s not blowing any exhaust gases of any sort. It’s a ducted turbine that acts in the same principle as a helicopter’s main rotor. The temperature of the downward airflow from the center lift fan is actually quite cool, just like the downwash of a helicopter’s main rotor.

The Lift System is comprised of the center lift fan that is located in the central fuselage and the 3BSM nozzle located in the aft section of the engine. The 3BSM nozzle is the area of concern for this heat issue.

The cool air downflow from the center lift fan actually helps to alleviate the heat from the 3BSM nozzle.

Good Morning Folks,

Once we got by socialism, the MV-22 and other side trips of personal and political ideology and focused on the topic some pretty good discussion came out of this and a lot of information that General Conway concern and form the basis of some rather pointed questions for LM.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

cover the affected areas of steel with more heat resistant products …a HOT landing zone of sorts.
hell. they can even spray/water cool the decks with sea water as a stop gap fix.

I love these rectally derived analyses. I guess that’s why the root word of analysis is what it is.

IOC being 2012 what else could he say, this is just more PR & spin.

Comments like:
“well in range of legacy aircraft” like the F-22 and the F/A-18 E/F. Bottom line, the JSF ain’t a whisper jet, but communities familiar with existing aircraft shouldn’t have much to worry about.” doesn’t square with the data:

F-35 Landing: 105–106 dB
Eglin F-16 Landing: 90 dB (avg)
Eglin F-15 Landing: 91 dB (avg)
TDY F-16 Landing: 97 dB

On Landing Approach:
F-35 is 15–16 dB louder than Eglin F-16’s
F-35 is 14–15 dB louder than Eglin F-15’s
F-35 is 8–9 dB louder than TDY F-16 (probably has –229 engine)

Why would you expect the truth on thermal data either. Wonder what NAVSEA is saying?

“The privatization of the defense industry has been a total disaster.” I’m trying to imagine what you mean, Byron. The vast majority of the defense industry in the United States has been in private hands since at least the Second World War. “The DoD lost of control of the…” the MRAP program? The DoD bought a lot of life-saving trucks a most expeditious manner. And yes, in the long run, profits are essential. Just as workers don’t work for free, investors expect a return competitive with the market, or they’ll take their money elsewhere. To expect otherwise is naive.

I’m getting deja vu reading all this drivle about melting flight decks! Anyone remember the F-111, and how those engines were going to destroy the JBL’s and sections of the flight deck! Did we deploy the F-111 aboard A/C carriers? No, we didn’t, not because the engines were too hot, but because the aircraft was too damn big for shipboard operations. The similar aircraft that did deploy in its place, a little later, was the F-14, which had equivalent engines. Both of the aforementioned aircraft served their respective services admirably. Besides, the people at Dalhgren can and do come up with solutions for minor problems as being discussed here.

I spent three years on the Saipan in the early 1990s, and my stateroom was right underneath a landing spot that Harriers used. It got noisy in there, but never too warm. Others may have noticed this, but if so, I’d like some references.

One way to dissipate heat would be to use tiles similar to those on Space Shuttle on exhaust areas. However, it does lend that the F-35 will have to use designated spots to land.

I see that not many people know how the joint force operates. Every service has it’s weak points and in a joint environment those holes are plugged by the other services. So this is not about what service can get there first but rather it is about a specific capability.

It was the Exhaust from an F-4 that ignited a zoonie rocket aboard the USS Forestall in 1967 ‚as the planes were lined up on the carrier flight deck in preparations for an air strike , we learned that lesson the hard way around 260 men lost their lives in that tragedy thus the phrase “Learn or Burn” was coined , I say if the Flight decks need to be Modified on all Carriers then do it , we need to keep a militarily advantage for any future conflicts we may be involved in , But it the test they put them through fail dont buy the whole cow just to get the milk

Very good points.

I have seen an F135 engine and I can tell you that it is a beast. I have also seen it do damage to test cells that have been designed to run it. Personally I think that the F-35 and its concept is the modern day version of the F-111. It is very difficult to build an aircraft that meets the requirements for all of the armed services, the F-4 was the most successful.

I have to ask RSF…how many years have you been on the JSF Program? You talk like you know everything there is to know about the jet so I was wondering which product team do you work for at Lockheed? The Base and Ship Suitability group studied this years ago; a jet like this does not get built then worry about flight deck heating. The hover pit testing last year was intense and reams of data were collected on this subject…as our Brit partners at the plant say…no worries Mate!

The research would also apply to areas like missle blast (the Old CG-16 adn CG-26 class ships had to apply epoxy coatings after every missile shot.), While the heat may not distort or melt the deck, a non-ablative coating could save on maintenance costs.

Neither the F-4 or that other successful multi-service tac aircraft, the A-7 were designed with the USAF’s ‘needs’ in mind. And I think that is the key to their success. The Navy tends to go more for the practical/cost-effective and less for the Buck Rogers gee whiz stuff that senior AF culture is so infatuated with,

As for the USMC: it’s really time for that Navy’s army’s air force’s tail to stop wagging the procurement dog. The STOVL design requirement is mainly why the JSF is such a late over-priced pig. Just the time and money wasted on that STOVL –required single huge engine when a number of proven engines would have allowed a safer twin-engine design… sheesh!

Sorry, Larry, but that incedent was caused by a GT-85 gas turbine support equipment used to impinge start the aircraft engines, it hot started and flames licked the missile, causing ignition. I watched the film footage of the incedent, didn’t know it at the time but an A4 pilot was clearly seen to jump out of the cockpit and run forward athwartships to avoid the continuing chain reaction explosions that were occuring, dodging schrapnel and the flames that were upon him. That was John McCain. I was working the flight deck of the USS America at the time and didn’t sleep well for awhile. I slept right below the flight deck in the landing area, right where all the implosions occurred on the Forrestall. 12 hours on, 12 hours off was our duty hours at sea. I was a Plane captain on F-4s, dragging 16 tie down chains and wing locks, duck boards, etc. needed to secure the aircraft after it landed. Only time in my life that I truly felt being a contibutor to a hard working flight deck crew, that at the end of the day, when your head hit the pillow, you knew you had earned your keep and help defend your country. Getting too wordy. Take care. E

How’s life in the Air Force?

It is obvious that you have little experience with the actualities of amphibious or naval warfare. I’m more than a little surprised that you did not also mention that the Air Force could bring back and use B36’s, B47’s, B52’s, B-1’s and B2’s to replace the carriers. I assume you could use RPV’s equipped with harnesses to bring the Marines to shore – just launch them and let them sort it after they are dropped at the LZ (the enemy would too astounded with “Shock and Awe” to fire back). Better yet – let the Air Force form the “Air Solders” were they use stealth RPV cargo aircraft, that don’t need to bother with those redundant landing strips, to deliver to deliver the troops who will then use stealth fire support to subdue the enemy with overwhelming and disproportionate force. As an alternative we could have Hollywood make a new movie which will show the enemy that resistance is futile and follow it up with some very harsh memos from the State Department and the UN and negative commentary on CNN.

Robin B
.

On the subject of your recommendation of the “lily-pad and tanker approach”, it has not been pursued do to a few of the most basic issues regarding the use non-purposed designed vessels of any type, the first of which is, the enemy, for what ever reason – SHOOTS BACK! Any merchant vessel using this approach has very slow sortie cycle time due to the fact that is not designed to function as such. Also it lacks appropriate damage control capability or self defense capability — that pesky enemy issue again (ask the British – they have a modicum of experience using this approach – and backed away from it). This approach also demands that you either anchor in a weather protected, inshore location or hope that sea gods grants you very calm seas (a new focus for the Public Relations or Psy warfare guys). This means that you can only use less than 0.5% of the earth’s oceans. I also question the ability of Air Force pilots or aircraft to make arrested landings on such a vessel (those pesky training, design and technology things again). Oh and don’t ask the Army to support an amphibious landing, again no training, and to do so, they would need those pesky ships again.

COOL DECK APPROACH: PART 1: I approached this challenge with SAFETY as my first concern for ship’s crew, aircraft and for ship structure. In order to mitigate and virtually eliminate the looming safety challenge to the deck crew from high temperature deck plates, I believe a simple water (salt water for fresh water) cooled heat exchanger inserted in each of the deck’s projected “hot zones” is the appropriate solution. Ultimately a Ti deck insert plate would be utilized coupled with either sea water or fresh water cooling tubes. The result will be the elimination of safety hazard “hot spots” and the mitigation of deck warping and any high cycle fatigue of the deck structures by repetitive high temperature thermal cycling.

COOLD DECK APPROACH: PART 2: Considering this type of material will not require any protective corrosion inhibiting or “non skid” coating it will require only minimal long term maintenance. The very expensive “non skid” coatings currently required on deck for the “hot zones” will be replaced by mechanically texturing the Titanium plate surface to replicate any “non skid” characteristics and reflectivity standards required for deck operation. This solution completely eliminates the requirement for high temperature heat resistant coating development for the landing pads thus saving initial development, purchase, storage and installation funds and best of all, saving all of the associated repetitive removal and reapplication costs. This simple technology could be utilized on ship and shore sites with dedicated heat exchanger landing areas being established for these aircraft.

Here’s an even cheaper solution; cancel it and let the marines fly SuperHornets off CVs and Cobras off their AAS’s.

The F-35B will never be operating just behind the FEBA, anyway. ‘Austere’ basing for an obscenely complex, stealth-coated machine with a 7 ton fuel load is a fantasy.

JL

“Here’s an even cheaper solution; cancel it and let the marines fly SuperHornets off CVs and Cobras off their AAS’s.”

They already do.

Oooh! Ouch! Test it as you’re going to use it. Computer simulations and models aren’t 100% accurate.

Incorrect. Marines fly dying F/A-18A,B, and C models. They are whole heartedly against aquiring SuperHornets, it goes against the idea of an “ALL STVOL” force.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2014 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.