|
It can land normally. Landing on a CATOBAR carrier isn't normal though.
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 23:32 |
|
|
Am I reading hobbesmaster correctly that the F-35B isn't actually strong enough to survive a "normal" carrier landing such that it always has to VTOL down? Or is the reason for always using VTOL something else?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:It can land normally. Landing on a CATOBAR carrier isn't normal though. Yeah, I that's why the quotes. I understand the issues with landing on a carrier.  gradenko_2000 posted:Am I reading hobbesmaster correctly that the F-35B isn't actually strong enough to survive a "normal" carrier landing such that it always has to VTOL down? Or is the reason for always using VTOL something else? That's how I'm reading it too. If yes, this just keeps getting better. I'd say I'm surprised, but nothing about f35 surprises me anymore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
blowfish posted:The F35C on the other hand... (lol parts commonality lol).
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Am I reading hobbesmaster correctly that the F-35B isn't actually strong enough to survive a "normal" carrier landing such that it always has to VTOL down? Or is the reason for always using VTOL something else?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Am I reading hobbesmaster correctly that the F-35B isn't actually strong enough to survive a "normal" carrier landing such that it always has to VTOL down? Or is the reason for always using VTOL something else? If you want a plane to land on a boat, you have three options: 1. The plane can fly really, really slowly so that an ultra-short runway is long enough. Vertical landing is a way to satisfy this requirement, since having a landspeed of about 0 km/h while hovering does count as flying really slowly. 2. The plane cannot fly slowly, but it can take a serious beating in the form of decelerating really quickly: this is the AR part of CATOBAR and STOBAR: assisted recovery. This usually requires special equipment on the carrier. 3. The plane actually lands on the sea water, and then you pull it up on the boat. There are many difficulties involved in making a float plane or flying boat design into a supersonic jet fighter, so this approach is no longer used. I guess just for completeness's sake, here's the comedy fourth option: 4. The boat is big enough that its runway allows unassisted conventional landing. For reference, the minimum runway length for the F-35A has been stated to be 8000 ft, or 1.5 miles, and for further reference the longest ships ever built are barely above 1/6th of that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:I guess just for completeness's sake, here's the comedy fourth option: So you're saying that if we put seven ships end to end to make a connected runaway, this would work? Sounds like a plan!
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
Truga posted:IMHO, Russians took the right turn here and most of their planes are designed to be able to take off and land on unpaved runways. Level a chunk of land, run a couple rollers over it, land MiGs. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:If you want a plane to land on a boat, you have three options: That's quite the "if" you've got there. More to the point, once (1) you've surrounded all your adversaries with land bases and (2) none of your adversaries even have appreciable naval air power, why even bother needlessly and expensively complicating the development of your workhorse fighter? Hell, why even bother with the F-35 instead of just expanding the F-22 fleet at that point? None of it makes any sense except the Navy insisting that it needs to keep doing things a certain way because it's used to doing things that way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:I guess just for completeness's sake, here's the comedy fourth option: You need to step up your giant burning money pit game son. The DOD is way ahead of you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:That's quite the "if" you've got there. More to the point, once (1) you've surrounded all your adversaries with land bases and (2) none of your adversaries even have appreciable naval air power, why even bother needlessly and expensively complicating the development of your workhorse fighter? Hell, why even bother with the F-35 instead of just expanding the F-22 fleet at that point? None of it makes any sense except the Navy insisting that it needs to keep doing things a certain way because it's used to doing things that way. Well none of the bases are actually US bases and it can be logistically and politically complicated to use the bases of allied countries. Carriers can also be positioned closer to the action while a comparably close ground base may be easily attacked. That is the case for large carriers. The case for F-35B sized carriers is OORAH GUADALCANAL
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:That is the case for large carriers. The case for F-35B sized carriers is OORAH GUADALCANAL It also lets the marines cosplay being an alliance of second rate powers with harrier carriers that can beat up countries without an air force and/or pretend to be useful after the US Navy gets done freedomising any real opposition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 21:38
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
In other DoD/USMC failure news, I wonder how much this basketball court cost. (the game between Pitt and Gonzaga was just cancelled due to unsafe floor conditions)
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Well none of the bases are actually US bases and it can be logistically and politically complicated to use the bases of allied countries. Carriers can also be positioned closer to the action while a comparably close ground base may be easily attacked. Russia: We have solid relationships with the countries that offer land bases all over eastern Europe, nothing that can be replicated by carriers. The Middle East bases are more transitory, but that neighborhood doesn't really lend itself to carriers short of getting into corner of the Persian Gulf. In the far east, there's Japan. Can carrier groups even operate in the Arctic Sea? China: Not a chance in hell Korea or Japan object to US bases in the case of a shooting war with China. Where are these overseas land bases that create logistically and politically complicated situations that could be improved by carrier coverage in competitive air theatres?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
You don't fire ballistic missiles at CVs. CVs also don't care if the country you're fighting over already got gobbled up by the enemy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Where are these overseas land bases that create logistically and politically complicated situations that could be improved by carrier coverage in competitive air theatres? Turkey's a good recent example.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
blowfish posted:You don't fire ballistic missiles at CVs. The Chinese disagree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21#DF-21D
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
SgtMongoose posted:You need to step up your giant burning money pit game son. The DOD is way ahead of you. I don't want to live in America anymore if we don't build a Mobile Oppression Palace. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
Flikken posted:The Chinese disagree Fun geopolitics fact: It is extremely unwise to launch ballistic missiles at things America owns. Edit: Wow I had to edit this post like 5 times because I am bad at words. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Nov 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:If you want a plane to land on a boat, you have three options: Thank you. I understood all the other ways that a plane might land on a carrier, I suppose I was just expecting that the F-35B could use method #2 since it's specifically the naval version.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
They have nuclear weapons that fit in missiles of all sizes from small missiles to ICBMs. Of course they can take out a loving carrier.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:The Chinese have been hurf durfing about how they can totes IRBM carrier and how this CHANGES EVERYTHING for years. They have yet to actually demonstrate that capacity. Hasn't stopped someone from doing it before. A couple times. It's not much worse than using a plane to bomb something America owns unless you're a country with a doctrine that says "we'll totally nuke first for fun!" China is explicitly not such a country. They couldn't rely on conventional ICBMs as a credible force if they weren't extremely insistent that they will never just first strike somebody with a nuke.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Thank you. I understood all the other ways that a plane might land on a carrier, I suppose I was just expecting that the F-35B could use method #2 since it's specifically the naval version. mlmp08 posted:Hasn't stopped someone from doing it before. A couple times. It's not much worse than using a plane to bomb something America owns unless you're a country with a doctrine that says "we'll totally nuke first for fun!" China is explicitly not such a country. They couldn't rely on conventional ICBMs as a credible force if they weren't extremely insistent that they will never just first strike somebody with a nuke. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 05:19 on Nov 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:If you want a plane to land on a boat, you have three options: Just for completeness's sake of your comedy options: 6. Have a carrier that goes really loving fast, so that the difference between the carrier speed and the stall speed is low enough that it can be covered on a really short runway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Just for completeness's sake of your comedy options: What if you had a carrier with a conveyor belt that spins as fast as the landing plane is traveling?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Just for completeness's sake of your comedy options:
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
I think magnets would be a better fit. No need for landing gear, and if you just reverse the polarity you can launch. Also using the sides of the aircraft carriers as flight decks helps save taxpayer money.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Don't they kind of already do this, except in the sense that they point the carrier into the wind? And carriers are actually pretty fast too, you're still only getting like 40 knots out of that. Pretty big for WWII piston aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Don't they kind of already do this, except in the sense that they point the carrier into the wind? Yes, for WW2 era craft it was a pretty big deal gradenko_2000 posted:What if you had a carrier with a conveyor belt that spins as fast as the landing plane is traveling? The plane gets flung off the end of the conveyor belt? Malcolm posted:I think magnets would be a better fit. No need for landing gear, and if you just reverse the polarity you can launch. Also using the sides of the aircraft carriers as flight decks helps save taxpayer money. We already do this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_Aircraft_Launch_System
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:In other DoD/USMC failure news, I wonder how much this basketball court cost. Nah. The game was cancelled because they skimped out on HVAC. They couldn't dry off the floor because it was like 80% RH and the only thing trying to keep the court cool and dry were 4 big fans
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Turkey's a good recent example. So we need to maintain a dozen carrier fleets and handicap the development of a fighter in the off chance that each of the following happen: (1) Turkey drops out of NATO (2) Turkey secretly develops a large, modern air force (3) the US loses access to all of its land bases in Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Uzbekistan, Italy, Germany, UK (4) Turkey launches military operations against the United States (5) the US either fails to recognize or ignores all of the circumstances leading to this situation I guess this is all theoretically possible, but it certainly doesn't seem like a serious scenario to plan for when there are so many domestic spending priorities that are being ignored while money is being funneled toward military budgets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 06:50
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:So we need to maintain a dozen carrier fleets and handicap the development of a fighter in the off chance that each of the following happen: That's one good reason but another good reason is to be able to bomb just about any country on the earth if need be without asking anyone's permission.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:That's one good reason but another good reason is to be able to bomb just about any country on the earth if need be without asking anyone's permission.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 07:08
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:I guess this is all theoretically possible, but it certainly doesn't seem like a serious scenario to plan for when there are so many domestic spending priorities that are being ignored while money is being funneled toward military budgets. If we cut military spending by 90% tomorrow, not one dime would be 'freed up' for domestic priorities. That's not how federal spending works. You still have to get Congress on board with allocating additional funding to those programs. Oh wait, the Republicans hate spending money on social welfare programs, and would probably use the drawdown as an excuse to just cut taxes more. Farmer Crack-Ass fucked around with this message at 07:39 on Nov 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 07:35
|
|
|
Same argument applies to "why not cut manned spaceflight so we can spend more money on robots?" - because the money spent on astronauts by NASA is allocated by Congress for the purpose of spending on astronauts, and removing the appropriation for astronauts would not automatically increase the civilian space robots budget by one dime. If we wanted to spend more money on space robots that look outward, we'd do so. We spend lots of money on space robots that look back at us though. There are spy satellites that individually cost more than a brand-new aircraft carrier! And that's not counting the cost of the rocket to get it up there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Thank you. I understood all the other ways that a plane might land on a carrier, I suppose I was just expecting that the F-35B could use method #2 since it's specifically the naval version. Nah. The kind of deceleration you get from an assisted landing is comparable to being in a car crash, you have two or three seconds to lose 140+ mph. Imagine a stunt car designed to be slammed into walls repeatedly. You'll need a strongly reinforced structure if you don't want it to break apart on impact, and you need ways to ensure the pilot isn't killed as a consequence of standard operating procedures. Now imagine your stunt car also needs to fly, so you have to make it as light as possible by removing all structural reinforcements and shock absorbers and other such useless features. That's your F-35BC, an impossible plane. There's no precise figure online, but the engine block on the F-35B is about two tons heavier than on the A and C versions: the lift fan is the main culprit of course, but you also have the whole stuff to bend the jet exhaust, the extra ducts in the wings, etc. and all that adds up to about two tons. Despite that, the C version is still heavier than the B version, and that's not something you can entirely explain by its larger wings. TL;DR: If the F-35B was made CATOBAR-capable, it would become too heavy to fly. gradenko_2000 posted:What if you had a carrier with a conveyor belt that spins as fast as the landing plane is traveling? The flight deck crew would be flung into the sea, and the tires on the landing gear would be used up twice as fast, no other noticeable effect. Now if instead you put a really strong fan on the carrier, that blows air at the speed the landing aircraft is traveling, then you'd still fling the flight deck crew into the sea but any plane could become VTOL. AreWeDrunkYet posted:So we need to maintain a dozen carrier fleets and handicap the development of a fighter in the off chance that each of the following happen: Turkey didn't need to drop out of NATO to deny US forces the use of their Incirlik air base until some agreement was negotiated, the terms of which are not public but it apparently involving not protesting when Turkey bombs our Kurdish allies and thereby provides direct assistance to Daesh. Cat Mattress fucked around with this message at 10:57 on Nov 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 10:49
|
|
|
quote:Now if instead you put a really strong fan on the carrier, that blows air at the speed the landing aircraft is traveling, then you'd still fling the flight deck crew into the sea but any plane could become VTOL. I knew we could find a reasonable compromise. FuriousxGeorge fucked around with this message at 11:16 on Nov 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 10:55
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:All the insistence in the world isn't going to save them if they decide to pop off a wave of IRBMs in the general direction of Japan. Nobody is going to wait for those suckers to land to see if they're ballistic kill vehicles or MIRVs. There's a reason the US and USSR both abandoned this idea in the 1980's (and again in the 90's-2000's). Launching IR/CBMs at things is a hyper-provocative move for a nuclear power in a conventional conflict. Where are you getting this from? What kind of conceptual breakthrough had been achieved in "the 90's-2000's" where people weren't running the gently caress away from launch-on-warning? Which doctrinal paper is there to be read about this? Are you describing a situation where the US isn't going to wait and check on the payload type of incoming RVs outside CONUS, but instead goes for an immediate WMD retaliation? Are you suggesting that the US will automatically escalate a theater conflict into global nuclear war?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 11:06
|
|
|
How exactly do you propose checking the payload of a missile in flight?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 14:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 23:32 |
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Turkey didn't need to drop out of NATO to deny US forces the use of their Incirlik air base until some agreement was negotiated, the terms of which are not public but it apparently involving not protesting when Turkey bombs our Kurdish allies and thereby provides direct assistance to Daesh. So use any of the other dozen or so bases in the neighborhood? Especially if the conversation is some non-state actor like ISIS rather than a real enemy, the conclusion to a slight inconvenience in starting a bombing campaign shouldn't be "Well, we could spend more effort on engagement with partners and maybe reconsider the immediate necessity of some campaigns. That sounds hard, let's spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a dozen floating cities that individually outclass most of the world's air forces."
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 14:19
|
|