Remember Sweetman's article that I linked to earlier this week? I was high and to the right believing that the Marine Corps was looking at future Camp Leatherneck attacks in this plan...and if they were successful in thwarting them then we'd see an infantry battalion delegated to guarding aircraft.
Bill said that the plan was reminiscent to the way that the Brits deployed Harriers during the cold war. I disagree. If anything its more like the Viggen thing!
I wonder but no one is asking. How will the asphalt deal with the heat produced by these engines? You're going to have to move them around because after two launches your street is trashed!
Asphalt cant deal even with single VTOL launch but concrete can .
ReplyDeleteMany roads in countries(Sweden,Finland,Austria,Swizerland etc) that used to practice operating planes off highways have concrete not asphalt pavement not because of the heat but weight as you can imagine some planes are near weight of a loaded semi and that one drives around slowly with 5-6 axles and lots of wheels while STOL planes drop in hard almost like on a carrier landing..
In any case concrete can be made very much fire and heat resistant
concrete can't even deal with a single F-35 launch. read some of the reports that i've seen on the subject.
DeleteThere are in Europe a "road airfield sections", parts of standard highway system. They have a thicker than normal surface and a solid concrete base to support additional pressure and heat from jet engines. In Poland you have no more then 21 with 14 operational ready type of sections, one is used regularly for training's.
ReplyDeleteBut they are design to support a "fixed wings" not VTOL ones as they create a much higher heat pressure on it's surface. I read some years ago then some of those section would be able to support a Harrier type of VTOL start as it project less heath stream, it's more disperse though 4 nozzle. The surface would deteriorate rather quickly but it would be use for multiple start/landing operation. But they had a serious concerns over single nozzle of F-35B as they call it a "welding torch" that would destroy a surface to non operational status every time it will start or land.
Btw: love this pic, but I'm just a big fan of Viggen. ;)
Well, just do SRVL on land. No need for a vertical landing, just land at 60 mph instead.
ReplyDeleteVertical landing is overrated. Had the requirement been changed from vertical landing to SRVL, then the JSF program wouldn't be in the mess it is in today.
Yes it would, because the mess includes large delays in development, unproven performance and serious reliability problems including the engine, and an exorbitant price two or three times the target price.
DeleteSRVL still puts the nozzle straight or near straight down. The F135 signature issue remains and, for shipborne use (which is what gets the Marines free from being the Navy's RAG) you have a big issue with helos on the spots ahead of the jet's runout.
DeleteSRVL doesn't buy you back the 5,000lbs of fuel you lose and the need for that big mass flow on the SDLF means you're stuck with a derivative F119 core which is to say .9lb/lb/hr TSFC.
In terms of utility, there flatly isn't any. A jet coming from 1,500nm away at Mach 1.5, using a relay of tankers is -safer- than a STOVL airframe using 'dispersal' to avoid main bases.
Seriously. If you have a drone like a Shadow or Heron and you fly it, _One Way_ (turning a 150nm radius into a 300nm range, via GPS and handoff to specwar teams) to spot targets for an Iskander type ballistic missile, before sacrificing the drone in a lake to keep your presence unknown, you will be trading a 500,000 dollar airframe and a 1.5 million dollar missile for a 150 million dollar STOVL jet.
Who doesn't like that trade?
OTOH, if you come from BFE Anderson Field, even if the threat can still target you (encapsulated launch of a Sea Ferret type drone from a submarine), the cost is now up to 10 million per shot for something like the DF-21 and there is going to be about ten times the number of things that can go wrong or be interfered with, midcourse, (SM3IIa, Upper Tier) relative to saturation attacks by much shorter ranging TBMs.
The notion of road-mobile air forces has always been a ridiculous one, since we stopped using recip engines. At 14,000lbs of fuel per sortie and 4,500lbs of munitions, the logistics are just flatly unmanageable, especially if other military and civilian assets are on the roads. Now throw in LDSD radars and you just don't want to be trusting to blue-sky anonymity as a replacement for 10ft of concrete in a HAS.
The exception to this rule is drones. You can launch a drone vis catapult from the back of a 5 ton truck and or even a simple roll-around trailer-
http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Figure2-drones-300x222.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3f/BQM-74E_launch.jpg/1280px-BQM-74E_launch.jpg
http://militaryforces.ru/photo/rusarms_1914.jpg
And count on it to fly a 1,000nm @ 450 knots on a paltry 1,500lbs of fuel and be recoverable like a target or recce drone, via parachute into a prelaunch inserted GPS coordinate in the strapdown navigator, likely miles distant from any launch point.
The difference is, you may only get 10 flights out that drone but even if you only get one, it's a 2-4 million dollar investment that comes at the beginning of the air campaign when 150/4 = 38 total drones as added sortie gen numbers or DMPI impacts or targeting look see. Or-or-or.
When you are outnumbered 10:1, airpower is a major force multiplier, simply because it can cycle so rapidly. For that reason you can count on your airfields being first priority targets that will be lucky to defend themselves, let alone take an active support role in any other unit/service action and particularly when a commando attack just blew up three of your five fuel tank farms, putting your remaining jets into roadbasing-
NATO Road Base Operational Testing
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jwdRL9L_MQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx7Meo7w-pY
Isn't likely to work. An R-11 tanker-
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/R-11_Refueler_-_U.S._Air_Force.jpg
Carries roughly 6,000 gallons of fuel, or roughly 40,800lbs of JP-8 which equates to all of 3 F-16 sorties with 370 tanks.
Even if you ignore the zero protection from fragmentation and blast effects and the 1 million Germans headed West with Soviet T-72s hard on their heels, that's not a useful metric.
Compare it however to a drone airframe that can be shot from anyplace a car can drive, maneuver and parachute land with a micro-signature effect on tracking distances (esssentially not backtraceable to a single use recovery point) and for which that same R-11 now equates to 27 sorties.
Drones may well be the /only/ airpower that survives if you let the enemy 'say when' on that initial strike.
BQM-34 Launch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW2NDtae0Qk
BQM-34 Recovery
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9u8SeploJA
BQM-34 Flight Profile Sophistication
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BAdznrKSwY
Maverick and HOBOS firing from BQM-34
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9JIZa_meVU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTKjlhRrIjo
JASDF TACOM Land (note, you can extend range by underwing carriage too)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmysvZ2VfAA
Navy Facilities Engineering, Dec 16, 2009
ReplyDeleteUNIFIED FACILITIES CRITERIA (UFC)
AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE HANGARS: TYPE I, TYPE II AND TYPE III
F-35B or C SUPPLEMENT
...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. [spall: To break up into chips or fragments.]
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 (NAVFACESC) or the Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency (AFCESA).
Sol, was your question on heat regarding VTOL or STOL? If it's STOL, the heat thing is more of someone grasping at straws trying to discredit road/runway launches than an actual problem. VTOL may be more of a problem.
ReplyDeleteMr.T, looks like asphalt to me!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsBrZqFKeNM&list=PL6AD9DAE4587EEF47&index=1
This guy has a whole set of these videos, doesn't look like the road was any worse from all that sandblasting.
Think they do it every 4 years or so, can't see it from the condition of the road.
Or maybe they figure that if you need to do it for real, the condition of the road in the future is going to be the last thing on their minds.
Like Shas mentioned many highway sections that are meant to support aircraft are concrete due to weight loading reasons ,some have asphalt over to make them smoother but in any case concrete in some form will be the material to handle VTOL .
DeleteConcrete: Higher initial cost, lower maintenance cost
Asphalt: Lower initial cost, higher maintenance cost
Dunno about F-35 but FiAF has done the Viggen thing successfully with F-18:s for about two decades now.
ReplyDeleteAnd if F-35:s are unable to take off normally due to the runway having been hit then trashing the asphalt in a vertical take off is a less bad option.
F-35 can't take off vertically with any kind of a useful fuel and weapons load.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLPrnc8GNPU
ReplyDeleteYoutube of a swedish road base !
DeleteI'm just curious though about the level of experience the Swedes and Finns have at operating out of austere bases, roads,etc compared to USMC? Is this something you can do every couple years and you "got" this? or is it something you have to practice on a regular basis? Let's not forget that both countries have been doing this kind of operation for decades, there's LOTS of institutional knowledge and SOP on how to do this right. How well does the USMC compare?
ReplyDeleteUSMC pilots have trained landing on moving carriers so they should be able to land on a static FiAF austere base as the arrestor systems are compatible.
DeleteMore problematic is that everything on the ground is working properly like if someone didn't attach one cable properly in the mobile comm tower and the jet coming to land already on low fuel has no comms with the air base or some street signs or other potential obstacles are is still in place.
For a example we had one case where the tailhook got stuck on a sort of short road light and (luckily) broke off from the rest of the jet. Way too close for comfort.
We had to make new regulations for roads potentially used as spare airstrips.
If it is not trained enough regularily something is bound to go wrong.
The Road bases are usually a regular airstrip as the main runway but the 1-4 reserve runways are kilometers away and accessible via regular roads built to also accomodate aircraft!
DeleteAircraft dispersal and arming sites are alos accessible through the road network !
A fighter base might have three runways 1 main and two reserve 2 and all have a pair of fighters on alert to intercept an enemy given the opportunity !
Here's one of the still active road bases.
http://kartor.eniro.se/m/GvpDq
This is a wonderful idea for a forward deployed aircraft!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/555558/luke-afb-changes-refueling-truck-color-mitigates-f-35-shutdowns.aspx
It is still a Swedish requirement so even the Gripen manage to use small roads and no need for large highways.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoW4OXenm0Y