F-35 Carrier Test USS Wasp.

[bongodriver]

I don't get the VTOL version at all, that barn door on the top must produce so much drag during the ski-jump type take off, and if the drive train to the lift fan breaks.......eeek, what ever happened to 'keep it simple'?, unnecessary weight and all those doors that need to open for VTOL, thank god the UK decided to opt for the CTOL version.

[JG53Frankyboy]

i didnt follow the last decissions, the UK realy decided to choose only CTOL versions. All C versions, or a mix of A and C ?

at least the B will give such "carriers" the opportunity to carry a air strike component.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by JG53Frankyboy

i didnt follow the last decissions, the UK realy decided to choose only CTOL versions. All C versions, or a mix of A and C ?

at least the B will give such "carriers" the opportunity to carry a air strike component.

as far as I iknow it's all C versions for the UK

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

I don't get the VTOL version at all, that barn door on the top must produce so much drag during the ski-jump type take off, and if the drive train to the lift fan breaks.......eeek, what ever happened to 'keep it simple'?, unnecessary weight and all those doors that need to open for VTOL, thank god the UK decided to opt for the CTOL version.

Au contraire, I think the barn door helps feeding the turbofan better, considering they merely rely on thrust on the takeoff run, the drag component is probably negligible. It's interesting to see the clean design wings from the back and the amount of work done by the tail surfaces and nozzle.
But I agree about the whole malarkey being too complicated: maintenance costs on that monster must be insane!

[bongodriver]

You mean the lift fan? the turbofan(main engine) is still only fed by the fixed intakes, but you are probably righ in that the drag is probably minimised and potentially due to the fact air is sucked past it.

yeah all the extra weight and complexity has reduced interna fuel and weapons capacity for the B model, but Frankboy is right that it's a solution for alowing the small carriers a fixed wing operation once harriers are gone.

[Ploughman]

Thanks for the vid, despite all the negativity surrounding the F-35 I cannot help but find it a very impressive machine, if a little 'busy' looking at take-off. Glad our new carrier(s), as and when it (they) arrive(s), will be big enough to allow, and arranged for conventional carrier ops with the F-35C.

[TomcatViP]

There is a secondary intake aft of the lift fan "barn door" intake for the F135 engine that is opened for the vertical flight regime.

They are now calling the barn door a chevy 57 like convertible roof.

The lift fan duct geometry has necessited a great amount of rework since the old straight design. It's now like some kind a S-shape although not really making a "S"

The shaft transmitting the power from the F135 to the lift fan is a masterpiece of engineering. I thought at the time that it was polygonal due to high torque transmitted and the difficult transient regime (sry don't hve the right word in English in mind) but it's not.

It seems to be a fairly classical circular geo with planetary gears and a constantly cooled clutch that would make shy any engineer aboard the Star Treck Enterprise.

Regarding the skin thickness I think you are right Herbs107. But keep in mind that teh cicilian industry is also converting to carbon skins. It's an all new world for the maintenance and the guys ard there would hve to work with new methodologies (robotics ?).


Thx for sharing this nice vid

Regarding UK choice for teh F35, I won't be surprised if in a decade the politics revert the move back from CToL to VTOL. We alrdy hve seen that with the F4 The worst of teh story was the selling of the entire Joint harrier force for 35M$.

[Sternjaeger II]

that's what I don't get: all that refined engineering for an aircraft meant for war, which costs a bomb not only to buy, but to maintain as well, and frankly not that insanely revolutionary

EDIT:
well, it's not that I don't actually get it, but I find it a ridiculous speculation for something that can be so easily destroyed and won't have much longevity anyway..

[bongodriver]

Regarding UK choice for teh F35, I won't be surprised if in a decade the politics revert the move back from CToL to VTOL. We alrdy hve seen that with the F4 The worst of teh story was the selling of the entire Joint harrier force for 35M$.

Surprising statement, I don't see any reason, VTOL birds are going to be much more expensive and the new QE class carrier will be geared arount CTOL ops, we are after all talking about operating french units from UK carriers and the french don't have any VTOL, so I don't see an operational need for VTOL.

p.s. F4?

p.p.s. even more annoying was that we bought all our harriers from the US in the first place

[TomcatViP]

Well if you are looking back at FAA past 40 years, the usage of a small carrier force was well theorized and efficiently put at work. Today Italy, Spain, India, Russia has gained from that "heritage".

Bigger carrier need to work in dual, with a wider backup crew force and logistic.

I fear that the move to bigger unit will lower the force effectiveness. I am not a pro VTOL but we hev seen in France that a single large unit does not provide as much deterrence as two smaller (and older). There is a strategical capacity loss despite all the top tech hardware that give a short tactical advantage.

If the carrier were build in a series such as it was envisioned at the beginning, the price gain would hve make a two carrier force possible and sustanaible. Now i'ts not. Hve a look to our flat top and how rusty it looks alrdy.

F4 stands for F4 Phantom K (with spey eng )