Royal Navy plans world's first running-jump jet British boffins and test pilots are continuing to work on a new deck-landing technique, to be employed by Blighty's upcoming generation of supersonic stealth jumpjet drivers when coming aboard the Royal Navy's new aircraft carriers. It seems possible that the "Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing" (SRVL) may become a routine …
so perfect every time then...
It is difficult to overshoot when vertical. and with arrester landings full AB is used so if the arrester wire is missed the plane can return to the sky... Now with an arrestor-less rolling descent doesn't the Overshoot question come into play? these are not going to be going fast enough to return to the sky (they will be too heavy with Downward Nozzles) so what are they going to do about overshoot? a big net? or a deep pocket?
I know that these planes have thrust vectoring, but do they have a reverse thrust capability. This would solve the overshoot problem mostly.
I would also like to say that in the event that you are dealing with a lot of planes at one time, most likely they will not be returning with weapons, or at all.
Like when they are fighting/intercepting/bombing etc.
The solution is simple - do not land. I'm sure the F-35 is able to refuel in flight. It would be a trivial matter to outfit the pilot with a special flight suit that washes the body, disposes of human waste, and massages the muscles. The HUD could be adapted to show television programmes and/or computer games. The pilot could stay in the cockpit for six months or so, and would be replaced at the end of his stint via helicopter.
I am going to fax this proposal to NATO tonight.
This post has been deleted by its author
I realise they can't generate the power for a catapult to get them in the air, but why can't they use an arrestor wire system to get them back on deck? It doesn't require any power (quite the opposite surely).
Why can't they use these pointlessly expensive VTOL capabilities to get in the air then use arrestor wires to recover them? Are they that hard to fit to a carrier?
Am I hopelessly misunderstanding the issues here?
Since every wardroom in the fleet has a complement of officers experienced in "carrier deck landings" that are exactly as described - a running jump followed by a heavy thud and slide to a standstill .... usually on the dining table(s).
For the uninitiated, "carrier deck landings" is a game played in wardrooms at that late stage of the evening when even mess rugby seems too tame. The idea is to simulate, as faithfully as possible, the action of landing on a carrier deck, complete with kicking one's legs up to catch the arrestor wire - usually a rolled bed sheet. It's fun at the time, but OMG the front of one's body is mightily bruised in the morning. And heaven forbid you should misjudge where the edge of the table is ....
The real question, though, is will the RN's new carriers progress beyond using a shaken up beer can to douse the flames if there is a "crash on deck"?
Mine's the beer-soaked mess jacket, thanks.
So, like why when the rest of the world just forks out for tried and tested carriers big enough, and the aircraft designed to work on them, do we go for the bodged different approach?
And am I the only one who'll feel just a little bit sad at the sight of the BRITISH Royal Navy flying US warplanes?
Hi Lewis, I'm writing to inform you that your El-Reg byline has been hacked, and someone is putting out articles under your name.
Us long-term readers can immediately tell this, since there were no Page-ean turns of phrase (Buckets of Sunshine, extra-mural early afternoon meals etc.)
Enjoyed the article though.
Brilliant plan, now all we need is an aircraft carrier that can do 50 knots.
Hmm... hull speed for a displacement boat, needs to be 470 yards.
An alternative would be to raise the density of the air around the carrier improving the planes aerodynamic performance. Just before landing the carrier pumps out a vast cloud of CO2 - simple. Reduces fire risk too.
Or, giant fans on the carrier could generate the lift from the boat rather than the plane.
VTOL and jet fighters has always striked me as a solution in search of a problem. the trade-off you have to cope with are such that no good solution is possible.
The harrier was a capable plane, but its role was much more limited than a conventional one. F35B looks like a very expensive way of degrading performance of a good plane.
Of course you need much larger ships for the "normal" catapult and arrest wires thingies, but at least, when airborne you have a plane with similar capabilites as it land based cousins.
This approach seems a possible improvement, but it raises another few questions on its own :
- with no arrest wires, you will still need a fairly important vertical component in the landing motion. Could be quite rough on the airframe, no ?
- A military plane, by definition, can come back with damages. How a damaged plane will be able to do such a difficult maneuver ?
What's the big deal? The water's soft, it's not like hitting concrete. Plus, at the temperatures this is likely to happen it'll be warm too.
If the pilot doesn't want a bath, he just uses his ejector seat, right?
"The pilot could stay in the cockpit for six months or so, and would be replaced at the end of his stint via helicopter."
I like this idea, I saw Charlton Heston do it once in a movie and it worked a treat. He even got the girl at the end.
Altitude is relative, not absolute, so YES, obviously there would (hopefully) be 'near' sea level altitude absolute altitude, but temperature would make relative altitude vary.
The F-35 doesn't have swivelling outlets for main engines as per Harrier. Instead the main engine can be vectored down at the back and the lift-fan at the front provides counter-balancing up-thrust.
If it over-shot it's still hovering (with forward velocity) and can go-around or maybe to some extent back-up.
Being at high speed on an attempted landing is only necessary if your airplane can STALL as then you can fly away and go-around
(boffinry goggles activated)
Travelator: no, cos planes don't have powered wheels. It's the air-speed you need to brake, not the ground-speed.
Soft water: also no, actually pretty hard if you fall in from a height. That's why people can die/get crippled whilst jumping/diving badly into water from just a few metres up.
How about smearing the runway with very sticky jam?
TBH - the point about this only being required if a lot of aircraft return all at once fully-laden is important. That won't happen in a war situation, and can be planned against when there's less stress.
I've got the answer to all the Navy's problems: Fan Assisted Takeoff And Landing.
Vivian: "It's com-pletely brilliant!".
So it works* like this:
1) Stick some mega-huge fans under the carrier deck blowing air upwards through a grill on the deck. I mean huge fans, not like those panzy-ass motorized blowers you see behind the scenes of Twister. I am talking about those wind tunnel whirlers the F1 teams use to make their cars go faster.
2) Push jet, helicopter, boat, rubbish, naughty sailors or whatever onto grate.
3) Throttle up Fan to "Launch Speed"
4) Stand back and watch as items on deck accelerate upwards like fish in a water fountain.
5) Whenever said items wish to "land", repeat procedure as they are coming down into the "Target Landing Area".
6) After objects have come to rest, re-throttle up fan to "Spin Cycle" to clean up debris, blood, bone etc ready for next "landing"
There are some other benefits to FATAL:
1) Training: The paras could use it to practice their skydiving techniques.
2) Defence: bombs falling towards the deck could be blown back from whence they came
3) Thrust: When not used in FATAL mode, the air could be vectored backwards to add thrust to the carrier. This would be really useful if the Navy needs to deploy in the Bayou Swamps.
-- Phil
* Actual results may vary
Having recently watched the Sailor episode where the hapless Bucaneer pilot took about 10 attempts to land on the Audacious class Ark Royal (the one scrapped in the early eighties), it is clear that deck landings are always fraught with problems.
I don't see why a F35B would not be able to just go to full thrust, possibly bounce, and get back up to flying speed before running out of deck. The ski jump will not get in the way (at least in the CTOL design of CVF), because the aircraft will be landing on the angled part of the flight desk, and this will always have to be clear for a non-vertical landing.
Adding an arrestor wire hook means significantly improving the 'structural integrity' (had to get that one in!) of the fuselage to take the immense forces required to get a warplane to go from 120+ knots to ~25 knots in 10 metres. Never had the pleasure myself but am reliably informed its like 'a kick in the groin, but all over'.
This post has been deleted by its author
Re: Dunstan Vavasour
Yes - the undercarriage on a Harrier does get beasted pretty badly during take-off, but no worse than a heavy landing. That's why you design an undercarriage on all jets to use oleo-pneumatic shock absorption.
Re: Really a good idea ? - AC
So, if you look at the air-combat in the falklands war against pretty capable planes, the extra maneuverability you get from thrust vectoring actually made a big difference in dog-fights. Ok, back in those days the medium range missiles weren't up to the same standards as today, so you got more close range sidewinder stuff, but that is still relevant today as well. Why do you think they have the complex thrust vectoring on most modern fighters now?
Final point is a couple of people have mentioned returning with loads on not being an issue in wartime. Actually it is. The most simple examples that the US carriers do all the time (with 4 different launch positions) are recovering a combat air patrol at the same time as you are trying to launch a full fighter or bomber force. If recovering a couple of aircraft uses your entire deck, launching at the same or similar time is very hard. The other thing you can get is a situation with multi-role aircraft where you need to quickly recover the aircraft to re-role them. Let's say you are expecting an attack by a carrier force, you put up all your fighters for defence, but for some reason your intel is wrong and you want to rapidly switch the fighter defence for a full attack profile with mainly bombers - you might have to land you entire wing, with AMRAAMs on board, to re-equip with LGBs etc.
"I suspect our carriers wont be full sized comes down to 2 facts:
We don't have shipyards big anough to bild them
We don't have docks big enough to re-stock them."
I think it's more to the secret, hidden fact 3.
We don't have the defence budget anymore to build a supercarrier.
If the budget is there, then they could build / retrofit the docks to fit whatever ship needs to use them. No budget, use existing sites, build smaller ships.
Oh, what a wonderful way to decide the future of a country's defence network.
Mine's the one with 'conspiracy theorist' stamped across the back... in little red dots from the sniper teams' laser sights.
Well done for spotting things most people don't ever realise, our planes barely ever fly around in fully tooled up defensive combat patrol when not in a operational situation so why not use this technique.
And in fact the adoption of the Goalkeepr (I think, can't remember but its something like that) and the use of Type45 will mean the new carriers will be force projection.
Instead of very short landing planes, cant they make a very long landing strip? Observe the butterfly's tong that rolls into a tight roll, and scale up. So a kind of furlongs*-long inflatable erection, rolled out over/above the water as needed. If you'd allow photo-comments I could clarify it all...
Will also make for good Navy slang and lowbrow humor.
[*Is the furlong an accepted Reg standard dimension, or only for speeds (furlongs-per-forthnight)? Sometimes I can't remember anymore, and that scares me. Paris because... eh... I don't remember either.]
Bleedin boffins researching the already known - pah!
Is LP a tad too young to have watched how Buccaneers got back on deck? The Blackburn Buccaneer used compressor bleed air fed over the leading edge of the wing (years before NASA thought of it) to keep the wing flying at low airspeed; consequently, despite the pilots' best efforts, it did not really want to land at all. So they pretty much had to crash land the things every time. Even funnier watching the Buccs that were transferred into RAF service doing exactly the same routine on terra firma.
A speedy and smooth change of weapons for the planes aboard a carrier is vital for its own defence. "Back in the day" the Japanese were caught in one re-arming to many at Midway, and that battle essentially decided the war.
@Scott: its difficult enough getting a carrier weighing 65k tonnes rolling forward in the first place, let alone adding a few knots to its speed.
@Phil: FATAL is a brilliant idea. Not to mention the fact you could use it for paying tourists during peacetime......rush down to the Patent office at once.....
@AC
</quote> So, if you look at the air-combat in the falklands war against pretty capable planes, the extra maneuverability you get from thrust vectoring actually made a big difference in dog-fights. </quote>
There were no instances of thust vectoring being used in combat during the Falklands. Also nothing that could reasonably be called a dogfight.
In fact overshoot during a vertical landing is possible and can result in a large, fuselage-shaped hole in the deck. I would expect to see the occasional vertical overshoot during heavy seas when the deck is rising and falling.
This would seem to be a good candidate for automation. I mean for avoiding the overshoot, not producing it. In any case, any landing that you can walk away from is a good landing.
So a bad clone of the redoubtable Russian Sukhoi SU34/37 MKI is coming to the non existent UK RN Carrier that has yet to have been built for the usual UK cost over run specifications/crap accommodation designs for the shoehorned in extra crew let alone on the actual naval architects drafting board !
Oh well such is life the armchair warriors and admirals appear to be out in force today as they tend to forget the Russians were there before them !
What price a choice indeed ? , says a certain some one or some things in life never change because fools fail to recognize reality in a real world !
What I do not get is why they keep saying you need nuclear power to generate enough steam for steam catapults. Ark Royal (R09, Audacious class) had steam catapults (maybe not as powerful as needed now), but had conventional propulsion.
Regarding VTOL not being useful: ask the US Marines about that one, they LOVE their OV8Bs (Harriers). It is also a solution if you think your long runways may be vulnerable to attack (Battle of Britain anyone), as a Harrier could take of from a FAR shorter stretch.
Still like the FATAL approach though
>So, if you look at the air-combat in the falklands war against pretty capable planes
The only "capable" planes the Argies had were the French Mirage's but for range they would have wiped out the fleet. The rest of their aircraft were sixties US planes, crippled by a US arms embargo. They even used a few swizzlestick driven things for ground attack.
>Ehuum, does sea-level vary outside the british isles?
Yes the rest of the world has tides, although not always as radical as the British ones.
>I suspect our carriers wont be full sized comes down to 2 facts:
They are full sized, just not fully equipped.
>We don't have shipyards big anough to bild them
Yes we do, but only a right numpty would build a hull in a first world country.
>We don't have docks big enough to re-stock them.
Yes we do, but carriers are mostly restocked at sea, indeed the fit out of every large ship is done afloat.
@heystoopid
>redoubtable Russian Sukhoi SU34/37 MKI
It's not. Russian aircraft are shit. The techno-gizmosity (avionics) is what matters and the yanks have it.
The main disappointment with the whole Georgian slaughter is that the yanks didn't take the opportunity to show the Russians what a real military looks like. The ruskies would've had their asses whupped, more than Max Mosely on a two-for-one Tuesday - because Russian stuff is crap.
(AND REG! Why do all my comments come out double spaced!!! [FF3, Windows])
Alas, that's not going to work. A fixed upward fan thrust is indeed like a waterspout and highly unstable - thrust not only fluctuates but also drops off to zero on the vertical and increases in the lateral as the object moves away from the central axis. The flight control necessary to make a VTOL aircraft work is very complex - and that's tightly integrated within the engine control/avionics systems. To make it feasible (I don't think it is) would require a VERY fast real-time link between multiple, rapidly variable deck jets and the aircraft's attitude sensors. I don't think the multiple deck jets needed could be varied fast enough to control the descent safely. Plus there's the amount of thrust needed. I've seen the size of fans necessary to suspend one freefall skydiver trainee, and I've seen how unstable it is. In the skydiver's case, the fan zone is surrounded with soft padding for the inevitable case when the trainee "slides off" the fan air stream. Padding is not going to work for something the size of an F35B!
Thanks JonB!
Take note all Injury Lawyers: All complaints for operational inevitabilities of the FATAL system are to be vectored to "marketing-challenged" JonB.
Take note all Copyright Infringement Lawyers: The FATAL trademark remains the property of Phil.
A bloody great gift from JonB to Phil: no risk and all-da-money - thanks dude - you're aces.
"Ark Royal (R09, Audacious class) had steam catapults (maybe not as powerful as needed now), but had conventional propulsion."
And that conventional propulsion was Steam Turbine. And hence big boilers with (presumably) spare steam capacity.
Invincible & later carriers are Gas Turbine. RR Olympus, like Concorde & InterCity 125s. I don't think there are any steam aircraft and steam trains died out a while ago.
The other "conventional" marine propulsion are based around diesel ( / electric). Again, not much spare steam.
I can support a piece of paper in the air by blowing it, without the paper reacting at all. Why not an aircraft?
Besides, it's not supporting all the weight, it's providing enough extra lift allow a slower approach speed...
Actually, since the problem is air speed, the fans don't even need to point straight up...
> "I can support a piece of paper in the air by blowing it, without the paper reacting at all."
Bullshit. The reaction, which is very complex, is what keeps the paper in the air, momentarily ... and it "slides off" quickly and unpredictably - you cannot suspend it in a stable manner. If you've tried that (honestly) you will find I am right.
> "Besides, it's not supporting all the weight."
I never said it was. But 13 tonnes (empty weight) of aircraft requires an enormous thrust source to counter.
> "Actually, since the problem is air speed, the fans don't even need to point straight up.."
Unfortunately, if they don't, they present a rather nasty crash hazard, since they would not be flush with the deck surface anymore. Putting a vent shaft at an angle to avoid that problem creates more flow instability.
The forces at play mean very small errors and instabilities have critical consequences.
In the 1960s an aircraft named the P1127 Harrier took to the skies, so did it's sister developement the P1154 Kestrel which was the Mach 2 version. A traitor to Britain stopped the developement of this version and, along with other items, he stopped the British aviation industry from being in the lead in World Military aviation. It is my contention that Harold Wilson should be named as that arch traitor, along with those who did an equal amount of damage to this country by betraying secrets to the Soviet Russians. But for this treachery, I can call it nothing else, the Military aviation industry in this country would remain viable. We had/have the breadth of vision and inventiveness to produce such things as Bouncing Bombs and the ability to deliver them. The same man, Barnes Wallis, designed the principle of the Swing Wing aircraft which was similarly "gifted" to the United States and became the F111. Our current crop of heroes are insisting that the British forces do their jobs whilst stabbing them in the back by failing to supply adequate weaponry and protection for them.
The total lack of understanding of the requirements of the Armed Forces denies understanding and can be only equated with the lack of Ex servicemen within Parliament and lack of knowledge of what the Armed forces are all about. But for their dedication and willingness to serve and defend us we would have been overrun before this and would now be subservient to a foreign nation with no recourse to justice or mercy. Read Kipling's "Tommy" and see how little has changed in the past hundred years. I speak having given 22 years of my life in the service of our beloved country.
@ Michael H.F. Wilkinson
A colleague (and former Matelot) informs me that the R09 (Audacious) class were driven by steam turbines, which had plenty of the hot wet stuff to drive catapults. The new carriers will be powered by 2-stroke diesels burning heavy oil.
Nitrogen gas rams a la Top Gear anyone? (Yes, I know, you'd need a nitrogen-gen/compressing rig, but that could be powered off the ship's generators)
@Altitude = sea level
They're talking about the altitude the a/c is flying at, what's known in the trade as "Hot and High" conditions, where jets can lose up 20% of their thrust ('poke' in Page-ean). You tend to get H&H flying conditions a lot when operating in, say, the middle East, Just for those of you who were being serious.
Solution is simple: buy the F35C, stick atom-smasher plants under the bonnet of the carriers. Cheaper in the long run. Thank you MOD, invoice for consultantcy in post.
Paris because she's usually Hot and High.
Perhaps I wasn't clear, I meant that the paper itself doesn't have to do anything. Obviously I do.
http://www.shopwiki.co.uk/detail/?q=folding+air+hockey+table&s=639568&o=129077329&d=folding+air+hockey+table
Consider the puck.
Crash hazard? Pah. So does the control tower.
While there are obviously design considerations, I've only spent about 3 minutes working on it. You naysayers would've stopped the original steam catapult.
Speaking of which, why use steam at all? All you need is high pressure gas so just burn some diesel. Could just run an air compressor off the gas turbines as well of course.
Anonymous Coward wrote:
> Alas, that's not going to work. A fixed upward fan thrust is indeed like a waterspout and highly unstable thrust not only
> fluctuates but also drops off to zero on the vertical and increases in the lateral as the object moves away from the central axis.
Let me assure you that the design as outlined above will produce a highly effective FATAL system.
Vivian: "I flight tested it with SPG and it com-pletely excellent!"
Neil: "Oh Viv man, thats not cooool man."
Vivian: "Shut up Neil, or I will tell everyone what Rick did with that packet of lentils"
> The flight control necessary to make a VTOL aircraft work is very complex
> - and that's tightly integrated within the engine control/avionics systems.
To deal with this issue I have freshly trademarked the completely original: Fan Assisted Takeoff And Landing Internal Tightly Integrated Electromagnetic System (FATALITIES).
This system uses electromagnets on the deck to stop errant planes from missing the landing zone. Just switch it on during a landing to ensure the plane, chopper, or other metallic items that are off course receive a guiding force exponetially proportional to the distance said item is away from the Fan axis. Poor pilots, (who miss the zone by quite a ways), or those without mathematical skills, risk having their brains scrambled by the awesome power of this equation.
Other uses include:
1) Cloaking System: The carrier is able to repeat (on demand) the Philadelphia Experiment and dissappear into 1984*.
2) Practical Jokes: During parade on deck, some wag can switch on the magnets to make all the buttons fly off everyones uniforms. Those Navy guys are such crazy funsters they would get some real jollies out of that one!
> To make it feasible (I don't think it is) would require a VERY fast real-time link between multiple, rapidly variable deck jets and the aircraft's attitude sensors.
> I don't think the multiple deck jets needed could be varied fast enough to control the descent safely.
You make a very good point. I have considered this issue of controlling the thrust of the deck jets. I propose directing them from a linked system on the aircraft, or Attitude Sensing Speedy Fan Adjustor in Real Time (ASSFART)
The pilot will need to have good ASSFART control to make a controlled descent. During a take off the ASSFART needs to be in "Blow Off" mode, and landing, the pilot should ensure it is switched over to the "Go Down On" position. A really confident pilot, who can land the plane using manual stick control, has the option to disengage the ASSFART altogether by setting it to "Hand Job" mode.
* Time-travel not guaranteed
Re Travelators:
It is the forward inertia of the aircraft that you need to arrest. Sticking the aircraft on a travelator will not slow the inertia of the aircraft, but the wheels will simply spin underneath the aircraft. If you were to apply the brakes you would gain no improvement on reducing inertia on a moving platform than you would for a stationary one (brakes only reduce inertia by a set amount, and that is not dictated by the velocity of the wheel).
For the less boffin inclined:
Watch the episode of Mythbusters where they drive a car at 40mph (I think) on to the back of a trailer, and watch how the car doesn't magically lunge forward when it hits the relatively stationary ramp. This is the same principal. If the car was driving at 100mph, and mounted the trailer doing 40mph, it still needs the same amount of space to slow down frm 100-40mph, as it would 60-0mph.
For the idiotic:
Find yourself a treadmill, a good run up, and a bike. Set the treadmill to 10mph, and ride as fast as you can towards the treadmill (should get a decent 20mph). Launch onto the treadmill, and try and stop in the short distance... See you in hospital!
I remember reading that a British F4 cost about £5k an hour to operate and some years later that a Harrier codt about the price of an R22, probably about £60-70k at that time, to operate. On that basis alone building bigger conventional carriers would seem to make sense.
I also remember someone saying that the warload a Harrier could carry was a joke compared to that of an conventional shipborn aircraft.
was watching a prog with peter snow about the creators of the harrier, very awe inspiring stuff..
why we couldn't have simply tried to get the harrier supersonic, is beyond me. (no, really, it is).
i remember hearing how the americans used GRP and a ceramic engine to beef it up..surely we could have acheived a supersonic harrier at a fraction of the cost?
anyways..our primary medium to long term threat will be THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of chinese jets coming over the horizon, NOT russian ones (despite recent events, putin is merely a willet on the a*se of history), so that's what we need to prepare for.
cheers!
bill
p.s. stuff and nonsense: http://www.eupeople.net/forum
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
