This from Inside Defense/Navy (subscription).
INSIDE THE NAVY - DECEMBER 7, 2015
Navy must address weight growth in future carrier airwing
As the Navy mulls the future carrier airwing of 2025 it must address weight growth associated with future platforms such as the Joint Strike Fighter and Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike system aboard legacy Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, according to the service.
The air warfare division director in the office of the chief of naval operations (N98) and the program executive officer for tactical aircraft programs are conducting a study to evaluate the performance, operational capability, costs and schedule of developing, installing and supporting alternative arresting gear systems or approaches to meet the 2025 airwing identified in an operational requirements document from 2007 and a Joint Requirement Oversight Council memo dated April 27, 2015, according to a request for information posted December 3 on the Federal Business Opportunities website.
"To support the study, Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) Mission Engineering Analysis Department (AIR-4.0M) is conducting a market survey to obtain industry input relative to addressing shortcomings," the RFI reads. "Responses will assist in the requirements generation process, development of the acquisition strategy, and budgetary submission."
Last year, the AAG's water twister -- a key component that is designed to absorb 70 percent of the load when the tailhook of a landing aircraft pulls against an arresting wire to come to a stop -- failed and had to be redesigned, Rear Adm. Thomas Moore, program executive officer for aircraft carriers, told reporters during a March 19 roundtable at Washington Navy Yard. The process of redesigning, manufacturing and testing the new water tester took about two years, which translated into a two-year delay in installing the system, he said.
Let us look at some of the F-35 weight history. This is something I scribbled in 2008. What was the F-35 weight growth up to 2006?
| F-35 Target Weight | *240-1 CY2002 (pounds) | *240-2 CY2003 (pounds) | *240-4 CY2006 (pounds) | Change since 2002 |
| F-35C | 30,049 | 30,700 | 32,072 | 6.7% |
| F-35B | 29,735 | 30,500 | 32,161 | 8.2% |
| F-35A | 26,500 | 27,100 | 29,036 | 9.6% |
How about today? Empty weight growth of the F-35C is now at a 15 percent heavier since the start of the program. And the trend isn't under control.
That F-35C empty weight trend is progressing toward 35,000 pounds. Of interest, we still do not have a published "operational empty weight".
Are these the Design Empty Weight of each variant……or are they what is called the Basic Empty Weight for each variant (which includes the unusable fuel and undrainable oil, survival equipment, etc) …..or are they the Operational Empty Weight for each variant which is the Basic Empty Weight + weight of crew, weapon racks, ejectors, rack adaptors, gun and everything else for the operational mission except the actual weapons and fuel?"
I am curious if some in the Navy know their history of what defines heavy carrier aircraft?
North American A-5 Vigilante
Crew: 2
Length: 76 ft 6 in (23.32 m)
Wingspan: 53 ft 0 in (16.16 m)
Height: 19 ft 4¾ in (5.91 m)
Wing area: 700 ft² (65.1 m²)
Empty weight: 32,714 lb (14,870 kg)
Loaded weight: 47,530 lb (21,605 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 62,953 lb (28,615 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × General Electric J79-GE-8 afterburning turbojets
Dry thrust: 10,900 lbf[32] (48 kN) each
Thrust with afterburner: 17,000 lbf[32] (76 kN) each
You can gander at the A-5 figures above and come up with your own F-35C "loaded" and "Max. takeoff weights. What does your calculator tell you?
A ray of hope? Here are the figures for:
F-14 Tomcat
Crew: 2 (Pilot and Radar Intercept Officer)
Length: 62 ft 9 in (19.1 m)
Wingspan:
Spread: 64 ft (19.55 m)
Swept: 38 ft (11.58 m)
Height: 16 ft (4.88 m)
Wing area: 565 ft² (54.5 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 64A209.65 mod root, 64A208.91 mod tip
Empty weight: 43,735 lb (19,838 kg)
Loaded weight: 61,000 lb (27,700 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 74,350 lb (33,720 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × General Electric F110-GE-400 afterburning turbofans
Dry thrust: 16,610 lbf (73.9 kN) each
Thrust with afterburner: 27,080 lbf (120.5 kN) each
Maximum fuel capacity: 16,200 lb internal; 20,000 lb with 2x 267 gallon external tanks
And:
F-18 Super Hornet
Crew: F/A-18E: 1, F/A-18F: 2
Length: 60 ft 1¼ in (18.31 m)
Wingspan: 44 ft 8½ in (13.62 m)
Height: 16 ft (4.88 m)
Wing area: 500 ft² (46.5 m²)
Empty weight: 32,081 lb (14,552 kg)
Loaded weight: 47,000 lb (21,320 kg) (in fighter configuration))
Max. takeoff weight: 66,000 lb (29,937 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × General Electric F414-GE-400 turbofans
Dry thrust: 13,000 lbf (62.3 kN) each
Thrust with afterburner: 22,000 lbf (97.9 kN) each
Internal fuel capacity: F/A-18E: 14,400 lb (6,780 kg), F/A-18F: 13,550 lb (6,354 kg)
So the Navy has been here before in regard to aircraft weight for carrier launch and recovery. The above mentioned Vigilante, Tomcat and Super Hornet actually contributed combat value to the fleet.
And, after all this, the USN tac-air carrier air wing roadmap is obsolete to the emerging threats. So the real story isn't about heavy aircraft on carriers. It is about finding ANY value at all of putting the F-35C in the carrier air wing. I rate it as negative value.
---
-Defence covered up chemical contamination at RAAF Williamtown in order to pass $1B F-35 upgrade
-When will Marine Air leadership stop misinforming the public over the F-35?
-DOT&E Report: The F-35 Is Not Ready for IOC and Won't Be Any Time Soon
-Time's Battleland - 5 Part series on F-35 procurement - 2013
-Summary of Air Power Australia F-35 points
-Bill Sweetman, Aviation Week and the F-35
-U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) F-35 reports
-F-35 JSF: Cold War Anachronism Without a Mission
-History of F-35 Production Cuts
-Looking at the three Japan contenders (maneuverability)
-How the Canadian DND misleads the public about the F-35
-Value of STOVL F-35B over-hyped
-Cuckoo in the nest--U.S. DOD DOT&E F-35 report is out
-6 Feb 2012 Letter from SASC to DOD boss Panetta questioning the decision to lift probation on the F-35B STOVL.
-USAFs F-35 procurement plan is not believable
-December 2011 Australia/Canada Brief
-F-35 Key Performance Perimeters (KPP) and Feb 2012 CRS report
-F-35 DOD Select Acquisition Report (SAR) FY2012
-Release of F-35 2012 test report card shows continued waste on a dud program
-Australian Defence answers serious F-35 project concerns with "so what?"
-Land of the Lost (production cut history update March 2013)
-Outgoing LM F-35 program boss admits to flawed weight assumptions (March 2013)
-A look at the F-35 program's astro-turfing
-F-35 and F-16 cost per flying hour
-Is this aircraft worth over $51B of USMC tac-air funding?
-Combat radius and altitude, A model
-F-35A, noise abatement and airfields and the USAF
-Deceptive marketing practice: F-35 blocks
-The concurrency fraud
-The dung beetle's "it's known" lie
-F-35's air-to-air ability limited
-F-35 Blocks--2006 and today
-The F-35B design is leaking fuel
-F-35 deliveries
-ADF's wacky F-35 assumptions
-Gauging performance, the 2008 F-35, Davis dream brief
-Aboriginal brought out as a prop
-Super Kendall's F-35 problem
-LM sales force in pre-Internet era
-History of F-35 engine problems
-Compare
-JSF hopes and dreams...early days of the Ponzi Scheme
-The Prognostics
-2002--Australia joins the F-35 program
-Congressional Research Service--Through to FY2013, F-35 has received $83.3B in funding
-F-35 choice gives Dutch a shocking high cost per flight hour
-More indications that the F-35 is a failed program
-From the year 2000. Very insightful. The JSF: One More Card In The House (PDF)
“It will be affordable because already there are 3,000 aircraft on the order books.”
—27 June 2002, Air Marshal Houston, Defence press announcement, Australia joins the F-35 program—
---
No comments:
Post a Comment