F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[ORAC]

Canada: No F-35 Buys Before 2018 (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140406/DEFREG02/304060010/Canada-No-F-35-Buys-Before-2018)

VICTORIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA — Canada has told the US government it won’t be in a position to purchase the F-35 fighter jet until 2018, a move that critics of the aircraft say intentionally delays the controversial procurement until after the next federal election.

The decision has a number of ramifications. It will allow the ruling Conservative Party government to claim during the 2015 election campaign that no decision has yet been made on the purchase of a new fighter jet. But if the Conservatives are defeated in that election, set for October 2015, it could mean further delays or even a cancellation of the proposed buy, since the country’s other political parties have raised concerns about the acquisition. Both the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party favor an open competition for a new fighter jet.

The F-35 Joint Program Office in the US has amended the Canadian “buy profile,” which indicates numbers of aircraft and timelines of the purchase. “This moves the notional date of first delivery of aircraft from 2017 to 2018,” the Canadian government noted in a statement. No official reason was provided by Canada for the change in dates.

But industry, military and government officials say the change means a final decision won’t need to be made until after 2015.

“This whole thing is designed to delay and to get the Conservatives past the next election so they don’t have to come clean with Canadians about their F-35 plans,” Liberal Party defense critic Joyce Murray said. Her analysis was echoed by Jack Harris, defense critic with the official opposition New Democratic Party, as well as Alan Williams, the Department of National Defence’s former head of procurement who approved Canada’s participation in the F-35 program..........

[Courtney Mil]

I'm sorry, guys. None of the stuff about reliability or Canadian delays can be true. There is nothing about it on the f35.com website; in fact, nothing but good news there.

[Heathrow Harry]

shurley you mean "GOOD NEWS!"

[Rhino power]

On a side note, what's happened to our perpetual F-35 good news generator, Spaz? Has he been tossed off... the forum?

-RP

[SpazSinbad]

Nope, still here mostly readin' (only any F-35 relevant thread becuz Crab****e in UK bores me senseless) because otherwise I'm very busy re-arranging the deck chairs on my 4.4GB PDF. :} Otherwise I'm over on the F-16.net. Mostly the latest 'goodnews' gets well covered and some news not so relevant to youse crabs - any NavAvers excluded. Some old video of the roll in testing (36) with the three flyins at Lakehurst was released the other day. Note that more testing will be done at PaxRiver for the hookythingy on the F-35C - but youse knew that. Anyhoo I made some vids from the main vid here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32yFZ2ZFjTU

Edits of the hookothingo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS9ufBNjwYw

SLOmo: (of the SloMo):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko5QtXocbm0

[NutLoose]

From the guys that did the boneyard film I posted elsewhere

F35 Moving into the Light on Vimeo

[Rhino power]

Glad you're still around Spaz! :ok:

-RP

[WildRover]

I know nothing of the F35 - but it amazes me to read all the crap from the other contributors. If you don't know - don't post.

[Heathrow Harry]

well no-one seems to know very much that is true about the F-35

The maker claims it's all OK, on budget and on track (and has done for over 10 years)

a lot of the potential users say it doesn't work right, may never work right and is costing a fortune as well as being so late it might make WWTen

The politicians take all sides

I can't see that anyone on here has any less authority or claim to being correct as that lot

[glad rag]

From the guys that did the boneyard film I posted elsewhere



Interesting bit of welding and turning going on there. :hmm:

So at what point does the [overall] RCS of the F35, with external stores, degrade down to legacy fighter levels?? :confused:

[Heathrow Harry]

You'll know when LM issue a press release about fitting JATO bottles

[peter we]

Australia is likely to commit to buying 58 more Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightnings this month, setting aside the alternative of consolidating its combat aircraft squadrons on the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. The decision will increase the country's total commitment to 72 F-35s and expand the Royal Australian Air Force's fast-jet fleet, counting a separate order for 12 EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft as additional to, not part of, the fighter force renewal.

The defense department has recommended the F-35 order, probably worth around $8 billion, and the proposal has the endorsement of a leading think-tank. The government shows every sign of accepting the recommendation, says a source closely connected to the authorities. Accordingly, Lockheed Martin has probably escaped the danger of losing one of its largest F-35 customers, one that has already backed away from an original requirement for about 100 of the stealthy fighters. Even the risk that Australia could trim its commitment a little further now looks low, although that option was suggested by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute think-tank.

Australia Likely To Order More F-35s (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_04_07_2014_p34-676627.xml)

[longer ron]

For a plane that is allegedly cancelled, they sure seem to be going into production.

Is the title to this thread now completely overcome by events?

This thread was originally created for the British F35B buy - which at the time was under threat.

It is the F35B which has the highest chance of being a real turkey,the A + C have the potential to be slightly less Turkeyish !

[Willard Whyte]

It is the F35B which has the highest chance of being a real turkey,the A + C have the potential to be slightly less Turkeyish !

Depends on how many shares one has in dry plate carbon-carbon clutch manufacturers.

[Just This Once...]

Mr Whyte, the clutch is well-engineered and completely integrated into the aircraft systems. I mean, how many other parts can recognise their own failing and automatically fire you out of the aircraft….

Ahh, I see your point.

[SpazSinbad]

F-35 Lightning II jet to make maiden British flight
"The F-35 Lightning II will make its international debut in July at the Royal International Air Tattoo in Fairford and in the same month will also fly at the Farnborough International Air Show....

...The Royal International Air Tattoo (http://www.airtattoo.com/) is open to the public from 11-13 July and Farnborough International Air Show (http://www.farnborough.com/) is open to trade visitors from 14-18 July and open to the public 19-20 July."
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/f-35-lightning-ii-jet-to-make-maiden-british-flight
________________________________

UPDATE 3-F-35 fighter jet to make first trans-Atlantic flight in July 16 Apr 2014 Andrea Shalal
"...Current plans call for several F-35s to participate in the air shows, including at least one of the three F-35 B-model jets already built for Britain, with a UK pilot at the controls.

U.S. and UK officials agreed on the need to bring over a number of aircraft to avoid any technical flight disruptions....

...U.S. defense officials said the overseas flights would be used for additional training and would help the F-35 program office learn how the plane's logistics, maintenance, aerial refueling, and security systems work overseas...."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/16/lockheed-martin-fighter-idUSL2N0N80Y220140416
____________________________

F-35B set to make international debut at RIAT, Farnborough 16 Apr 2014 Flight Global

"...The appearance also represents a logistical challenge for the F-35 flight test team. More than seven years and 15,200 flight hours after first flight in December 2006, the F-35 still has not crossed an ocean.

But the programme has been preparing for the extended trip across the Atlantic. On 25 February, a joint sortie by AF-6 and BF-18 – F-35A and B models, respectively – completed a 5.7h mission.

The nature of the F-35 flying display in the UK has not been announced, but the test team appears to be prepared despite the aircraft remaining at least. In March, an F-35B performed a full aerial display at the MCAS Yuma, Arizona, Air Show, featuring several high-speed passes in normal mode and low-speed passes in STOVL configuration.

In the final pass, the F-35B slowed to a hover about 100m over the runway, pivoted about 45 degrees, and then accelerated to make a final turn and land in normal mode."
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35b-set-to-make-international-debut-at-riat-farnborough-398334/

[LowObservable]

F-35Bs? The tanker crews will be busy bunnies.

[Maus92]

The KC-130Js better be stuffed with spares.

[PhilipG]

They could always deploy on the Wasp and flyoff from the Bristol Channel, Wasp should have enough space for spares.

[Maus92]

Gotta get the Wasp out of the BAE dry dock first. But maybe something bigger is better...

[LowObservable]

Bit late to start CV integration...

Fact is that the F-35B (not yet cleared with external fuel) has the shortest range of any fighter that I can think of that has routinely been deployed across the pond. Not that it can't be done but it will need a lot of tanker support to maintain safe fuel levels.

And whatever they do about VLs, rolling VLs, creeping VLs or SLs in the UK will be interesting, one way or another.

[chopper2004]

Royal Air Force Charitable Trust Enterprises - News: F-35 Lightning Strikes The Air Tattoo This Summer (http://www.airtattoo.com/news/2014/apr/17/f-35-lightning-strikes-the-air-tattoo-this-summer)

Cheers

[BEagle]

LowObservable wrote: F-35Bs? The tanker crews will be busy bunnies.

No worse than trailing Harrier GR3s back from Goose Bay, I would imagine?

Maus92 wrote: The KC-130Js better be stuffed with spares.

Not KC-130Js, I would venture.....:hmm:

[Maus92]

This is going to be a Marines marketing wet dream, so I'd expect they'll want to use the KC-130Js, even if it wasn't the optimal choice - If they had their MV-22 refuelers working, they'd want to use them. If they go with the KC-130Js, I'd imagine that the USAF *might* detail a KC-10 (not a KC-135 - their basket-to-boom drogues could snap off at the most inopportune time,) just in case... Good thing this is happening now rather than a few years later when the USAF has retired its KC-10s (to afford to buy its F-35As.)

[LowObservable]

Beags - The GR3 could carry drop tanks and had a higher-bypass engine than the F-35, and the F-35B has about the same internal fuel fraction as an F-16. The B's combat radius, all-hi-alt, is about 450 nm so its ferry range will be around or under 1000 nm. Harriers do better than that.

The F-35B tanked from a KC-10 last summer. You could do it with KC-130Js but it would be a complex little ballet.

[BEagle]

The issue is not so much the fuel fraction as the availability of en-route abort aerodromes. If Kangerlussuaq and Keflavik are open, then fine.....:hmm:

[LowObservable]

Right, Beags, and just make sure there's enough gas at all times to reach them.

[NITRO104]

Business: Washington Post Business Page, Business News (http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?docId=1376-N46M6E6JTSET01-28JJ4ON34ST4FH65JF53NOSJ1P)
Bogdan blamed Pratt & Whitney for failing to reduce engine costs as fast as promised, which he said accounts for $1.7 billion of the increase.
“Pratt’s not meeting its commitment,” he said. “It’s as simple as that. They told us years ago that the engine was going to come down at a certain rate in terms of price, and they haven’t met it. Not good. Not good at all.”
Fortunately, GE/RR motor was euthanized.

[ORAC]

Fortunately, GE/RR motor was euthanized. Well, they were warned (http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/09/23/uk-mod-letter-supports-f136/).....

F-35 Cost Up $7.8B, Bogdan Fires on Pratt (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:e683cc34-c688-40dc-96b6-ea037a0115c8)

......Bogdan seems frustrated by the lack of leverage he has in dealing with a monopoly engine provider. “There is only one engine on the F-35. Period,” he said. “When you are in a sole source environment it is difficult to find the right leverage and motivation and drive the cost out of a program.”........

[BEagle]

LowObservable wrote: Right, Beags, and just make sure there's enough gas at all times to reach them.

Of course. Making some F-35B assumptions concerning fuel burn rates and fuel onload rate, using Gander, Keflavik and Prestwick as abort aerodromes with a 1000 kg fuel on ground requirement, even with a single hose tanker and reasonable weather, a conservative refuelling plan from Bangor to Fairford (across the pond from DOTTY to QQ1, then TACAN route to WD2) would require 6 brackets per receiver assuming internal fuel only and 1200 kg at Fairford. Total flight time just over 6 hours.

Using normal criteria and mounting the trail from Gander, a CC-150T Polaris on an average day could probably trail 5 x F-35B (internal fuel only) on the route, even with a single hose failure, with a flight time of just under 5 hours and about 6500 kg transferred to each F-35B.

[LowObservable]

Awarding a company a government-funded monopoly leads to higher prices? Goldernit, who would have guessed that?

Why is the F135 lobby so desperate? One possibility: they need to get the alternate engine dead and buried before they stick the Pentagon with the real bill for the engine.

JSF Engine "Competition" Story Rises From The Grave (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%253A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%253Ae1ed3402-7ead-4af7-b823-c2a33ddf69f1)

Here's another question: What happens when the Super Hornet line closes and the F-35 itself becomes a monopoly?

[NITRO104]

Here's another question: What happens when the Super Hornet line closes and the F-35 itself becomes a monopoly?
I think the real question is what can and will be done, before that happens.

[Turbine D]

ORAC,

......Bogdan seems frustrated by the lack of leverage he has in dealing with a monopoly engine provider. “There is only one engine on the F-35. Period,” he said. “When you are in a sole source environment it is difficult to find the right leverage and motivation and drive the cost out of a program.”........

Another major planning and procurement lesson not learned from the early days of the F-15 & F-16 programs when Pratt was sole engine source. The "Great Engine War" with GE fixed the engine problem both technically and cost-wise. We have somehow managed to have all the world's stupidest planners and procurers assembled in one location, the Pentagon.

TD

[Rhino power]

We have somehow managed to have all the world's stupidest planners and procurers assembled in one location, the Pentagon...

Not quite, Turbine D, we seem to have a considerable number over here, in a certain building on Whitehall...

-RP

[PhilipG]

RP surely our friends in Whitehall are doing an apprenticeship under the tutelage of our cousinsat the Pentagon? One day they will rise to the same level of wastage management....

[Martin the Martian]

Maybe we can send Lusty over to collect them?

What do you mean, don't bang the door on my way out?

[TBM-Legend]

Sole engine suppliers are nothing new. Typhoon , F-18 all models, C-130, Grippen, Rafale, and the list goes on..
PW is a supplier to the KC-46 tanker . Switch to GE!

[MSOCS]

The euthanasia of the FET engine (F-136) was driven by many on 'the Hill' (lobbyists?) and Pentagon but not the Program Office. In fact, at the time the whole second engine debate was going on, the incumbent Program Executive Officer was vehemently against removing it. He cited reliability examples of the early F-16 engine, faults and issues with the AV-8 sole engine provider etc as clear reasons to maintain a parallel development option to mitigate the discovery of 'issues' in development and the potential grounding of an entire fleet of 'air vehicles' when fielded. The FET worked for 15 years to develop F-136 and was 80% complete when it was axed; in many respects it had advantages over the P&W F-135 engine. Taking the law of (un)intended consequences to one side for a moment, the decision to remove the F-136 will, ultimately, prove to be the wrong one imho. Pratt & Witney now have 12+ customers (governments) over a barrel. Without the F-136 there is nothing to meaningfully hold P&W's feet to the fire over cost, schedule or performance.

To quote HASC Chairman Buck McKeon: “I had hoped that the GE / Rolls-Royce competitive engine could be a model for government-industry partnership to drive down the cost of important weapons systems. As our military faces a dramatic decline in their budgets in the near term, this is just the beginning of the wave of cost-cutting decisions that both the military and industry will have to make”.

[LowObservable]

MSOCS - Interesting. The engine war covered a couple of PMs and I never heard of any resistance there.

The primary reason for the scrapping of the F136 was to offset the out-of-control overruns in the air vehicle and F135. However, the first attempts were reversed by Congress.

P&W then weighed in with a staggeringly mendacious lobbying campaign, repeatedly claiming that they had been selected competitively and that GE had lobbied its way on to the program. JSFPO could have at least disputed that, but they did not.

Most of the media was also AWOL, covering the dispute as "he said, she said, so the truth must be somewhere in between." Trouble is, that approach favors the side that tells the bigger porkies.

[MSOCS]

I was very aware that lobbying was the major contributor, plus Tea Party politics, but I can assure you I heard the words directly from the [then] PEO's mouth!

Politics is stronger than any combination of rank/experience/wisdom imho. The sooner one realises it the quicker one ascends the ranks but at what cost to reality?

I do so very much prefer the Kelly Johnson school of aircraft development!

[WillowRun 6-3]

Having been only lurking on this thread, prudence might dictate I should keep it that way, but generally speaking posters on the thread appear to know quite deep and extensive stuff about the F-35 program. So, I'd like to ask a question. The only contextual condition is that I'm not a complete cynic (my oath of license to practice the profession of attorney at law absolutely bars one from lying to a court (among other prohibitions) and so too, in public advocacy, there is a duty of candor).

Suppose someone with no axe to grind, other than wanting to find the facts in the most objectively reasonable fashion within his or her ability, set out upon the task of studying and ultimately mastering the facts, issues and controversies of the F-35 program. What sources would you recommend such a person read?

As an exemplar of objective analysis, you may be acquainted with the work of US lawyer Kenneth Feinberg, to whom apportionment of common fund awards has been entrusted (such as to victims of the September the Eleventh attacks). As an exemplar of a reason to think such an objective analysis could exist in the real world, certainly many are aware that the current chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee is retiring, so, as of the convening of the next Congress, it is at least possible that there would be a New Kid in Town.

[LowObservable]

A bit of history:

Before any contract was awarded on JSF - in 1996 - there was a plan to fund two engines all the way through the program. Because P&W already had the F119 in EMD, and the JSF engine was expected to build on F119, it was a leader-follower arrangement whereby P&W supported the X-plane program and the development aircraft, and GE/RR designed a new-centerline engine on a later schedule, but would be ready for full-rate production.

See this: http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3814

In 1996 a lot of people remembered how the Great Engine War went - the F100 failed repeatedly and P&W somehow could not get it fixed until the GE F110 was real and snapping at their heels. But after that the AF found it had two good engines. The Navy, too, hated the F-14's TF30 and was not happy about a single-P&W-engine JSF.

I'm not sure that GE ever really pitched an engine for any of the three X-plane designs. McD/NG/BAE's whole point was that their engine could use a stock F119; for either of the other designs the existence of the F119 gave P&W an advantage. So there was no real competition there either.

But much of the story had been forgotten ten years later, so P&W's fairy tale - that the F136 had been a pork-barrel project from the outset - was sold quite successfully.

[Turbine D]

LO
Before any contract was awarded on JSF - in 1996 - there was a plan to fund two engines all the way through the program. Because P&W already had the F119 in EMD, and the JSF engine was expected to build on F119, it was a leader-follower arrangement whereby P&W supported the X-plane program and the development aircraft, and GE/RR designed a new-centerline engine on a later schedule, but would be ready for full-rate production.
In the late 1980s early 1990s, the GE YF120 engine competed directly against the PW YF119 engine for what was then the ATF (Advanced Tactical Fighter) program which became the F-22 Raptor. Both engines were funded during the development stages. Pratt's engine won the competition in the end. This was only after P&W made it known to Congress and the Pentagon that if they lost this competition they would shutter (close down) their military engine operation outside of West Palm Beach, Florida and manage what was left of their military engine business from East Hartford, Connecticut. At that time there really wasn't much left of their military engine business, only what they were able to competitively win internationally on the F-16, F-15 and as sole source on the USAF C-17 program. The GE /Rolls Royce F136 engine built on the technology gained from the YF120 engine plus what Rolls Royce brought to the table.

IMHO, what has happened to create the single source engine scenario for the F-35 was the cost overruns and subsequent cancellation of the F-22 Raptor program after only 200 some aircraft being produced.

TD

[SpazSinbad]

Federal Government to announce purchase of 72 stealth fighter jets for RAAF 23 Apr 2014 Ian McPhedran

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/federal-government-to-announce-purchase-of-72-stealth-fighter-jets-for-raaf/story-e6frg6n6-1226892633234)

“THE Abbott Government will purchase 72 [total for time being perhaps] advanced American-built stealth fighter jets to spearhead the nation’s defence for the next half century.

The $12.4 billion through-life outlay, to be announced in Canberra today by the Prime Minsiter, is the biggest defence purchase in Australian history and includes every aspect of the system from hangars to missiles.

The so-called “fifth generation” JF-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) planes will be deployed in three operational squadrons and a training squadron based at RAAF Williamtown near Newcastle in NSW and RAAF Tindal near Katherine in the Northern Territory.

About $1.6 billion will be spent on new facilities at the air force bases....

...The government has already ordered 14 planes and another 58 will be added, taking the total to 72 with the option of another 24 further down the track.

They will enter service from 2018 and will serve alongside 24 Super Hornet fighters already in service with the RAAF.

The jets will replace the RAAF’s fleet of ageing F/A-18 Classic Hornet fighters that will retire by 2022....”

[Courtney Mil]

Slightly random post there in the middle of the engine debate.:confused:

[SpazSinbad]

Sheesh. And I thought I was interrupting the girlie talk about appearances. Must be another thread. :} This entire thread is totally random.

[Courtney Mil]

Well, you're half right, Mate. The ugly talk is a different thread. I thought they were discussing engines.

[SpazSinbad]

As usual only a couple of good bits from the latest SAR - best to download and read it all for the good, the bad and the ugly.... :}

Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) Dec 2013
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft (F-35) As of FY 2015 President's Budget

http://www.scribd.com/document_downloads/219623367?extension=pdf (0.7Mb)

Executive Summary...
"...The F-35 program continues to make slow but steady progress and is moving forward in a disciplined manner. There were many successes as well as challenges in 2013. Successes include: signing the restructured SDD contract modification; completing the Block 3 Critical Design Review; announcing the decision to terminate development of an alternate Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS); completing the 2nd F-35B Ship-Trial period (DT-II) operations on U.S. Ship WASP, accomplishing 95 Vertical Landings and 94 Short Takeoffs, with 19 night takeoffs; rolling-out the 100th aircraft from the production facility at Fort Worth, Texas; and resolving lingering technical design shortfalls to include the F-35C Arresting Hook, Lightning Protection and Fuel Dump...."
&
“...One critical challenge the program made head way on in 2013 was the HMDS. For more than two years, the program worked with industry teammates to conduct dedicated flight tests and develop solutions to address the helmet's technical challenges. Those issues that hampered helmet function have been resolved, and the unit cost of the helmet system has decreased. As a result of testing and mitigation of the HMDS issues, the parallel development of an alternate helmet has been terminated. The current helmet has been deemed acceptable to support USMC IOC in 2015, and the Generation 3 helmet - to be introduced to the fleet in LRIP Lot 7 in 2016 - will meet program requirements to complete test and development in 2017. The Generation 3 helmet will include an improved night vision camera, new Liquid-Crystal Displays, automated alignment, and software improvements. The downselect to the current HMDS also resulted in a price guarantee that reduced the overall cost of the HMDS by 13 percent for the next five years...."

[LowObservable]

Interesting point in the SAR on cost per flight hour...

2011 - SAR reports CPFH of $32K/hr vs $22k for mostly->20-year-old F-16s, Lockmart goes ballistic, says auditors incapable of locating own fundaments without both hands, a flashlight and a search warrant &c, says cost is F-16 + 12 per cent, tops.

2014 - CPFH still $32k, based on operational experience.

By the way, that's the A model, without added 20 MW driveshaft and clutch and all the other STOVL paraphernalia.

[TBM-Legend]

They better not cancel it>>>

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/bn-fighter-deal-sets-defence-record/story-e6frg8yo-1226892807576)

Not a bad little Air Force

72 x F-35A, 24 x F/A-18F, 12 x EA-18G....

PS: Don't forget the P-8'sx 8 [+4] and Tritons..

[500N]

Don't forget the C-17's !

I think the only thing we should have got
was the Apache but that is Army !

[Ogre]

How ABC sees it:

Joint Strike Fighters: Government to spend $12 billion on 58 more next-generation F-35s - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-23/australia-to-buy-58-more-joint-strike-fighters/5405236)

[TBM-Legend]

I think the only thing we should have got
was the Apache but that is Army !


...and the UH-60M for Army and some MH-60S for Navy [painted grey]..:hmm:

[BBadanov]

Yes we normally pick the right horse.

C-130's all the way through and now C-17 and C-27J, P-3's now the P-8, F-111 was a classic and followed up with F/A-18 in 1984 and more recently Super Hornet and Growler.

True, Tiger was a bad choice - should have been AH-64D (prob without Longbow), and Blackhawk replacement should have been UH-60M, not MRH-90.

But where is the mistake? Army ordering, your European (French) design/manufacture?

[500N]

"But where is the mistake? Army ordering, your European (French) design/manufacture ?"

Pollies sticking noses in to ensure some work is done here in Oz !


Considering the majority of what else we use is US made and with
all the integrated systems now installed plus the good relationship
we have with the US that means we can virtually have access to
anything plus the fact we operate with the US a lot of the time,
going with Euro helicopters just made me shake my head.


Apologize for thread drift. End of discussion.

[BBadanov]

Apologize for thread drift. End of discussion.

No, drift ok 500, will get us back on.

You say.."plus the good relationship we have with the US that means we can virtually have access to anything"...

Not exactly true, as we probably would have preferred F-22 for air superiority, or dominance is the latest buzz word, but US was not going to release that to anyone...not to Japan, Israel, us. But even F-22 would not have solved our "bomb truck" requirement...that is where F-35 comes in, plus we have some insurance fortunately with Super Hornet.

Nostalgia time, takes me back to the day...what will replace the F-111? Well there was never an F-111 replacement.
Tornado could carry half as much, half the distance (the song goes "bombs in a bucket, 25 miles from base!").
I guess that made it a 1/4 F-111.

So Super Hornet was a good call, the only thing else available was a Strike Eagle, but with Hornet already in the inventory, SH was a laydown.

Having lived through the F-111 development problems - and experiencing what a great and flexible aircraft that became - I am keeping my fingers crossed for JSF/F-35, since we are now committed to 72 of them.

[TBM-Legend]

There was drama with selection of the F-111 [remember TFX?] then negativity about the F/A-18 both of which history shows turned into great machines. Now negativity about the F-35 [JSF].....am I surprised! It will work...

[SpazSinbad]

Italy To Cut F-35 Order By Half: Reports 23 Apr 2014 Source : Our Bureau

Italy To Cut F-35 Order By Half: Reports (http://www.defenseworld.net/news/10428/Italy_To_Cut_F_35_Order_By_Half__Reports#.U1gJWJB-8kI)

"Italy’s new government has decided to halve its procurement F-35 fighters, from 90 to 45, but will stretch out its implementation to limit any losses of related work for its aerospace industry, the Rome daily La Repubblica reported April 22...."

[500N]

BBadanov

It's a mute point since the F-22 isn't in production. And what if we had asked ?
Either way, we do have access to the majority of things.

F-35 - Heard a retired Australian AVM give it a bit of a caning the other day.

He focused on the "Joint" aspect of it and that as he said, it was supposed
to work in tandem with the F-22 and was concerned about the latest generations
of competition.

It will work, no doubt but as to how superior it is compared to the competition ?

[Stendec5]

Lots of good info around on the true nature of this 21st Century Fairey Battle.
Dump it. Get something better. End of.

[Lonewolf_50]

Moot point, perhaps? ;)

The F-35 reminds me of the Medieval armored knight: in certain fights, a great weapon, but bloody expensive to put together and support. :oh:

[GreenKnight121]

"But where is the mistake? Army ordering, your European (French) design/manufacture ?"

Pollies sticking noses in to ensure some work is done here in Oz !

CA-27 Sabres: redesigned & built in Oz.

MirageIIIs: assembled in Oz

Macchi 326: assembled in Oz

PC-9s: assembled in Oz

F/A-18A/B: assembled in Oz

S70-A9 & S70B: assembled in Oz

Hawk 127: 21/33 assembled in Oz


Note that all of the above had significant parts (like wings, etc) fabricated "down under".

And they turned out soooo bad, didn't they? :=

It's the design, not the Australian industrial participation.

[500N]

Green

Fine, but really, why the need ?

Are our requirements THAT different from the US that we need
to re create the wheel ?

Why not let the manufacturer do it or stick with good old off the shelf
purchases ???

[t43562]

Would it be possible to import the pilots as well? Would the decision not to have any defence aerospace industry/skills be roughly the same as deciding not to have any of the skills to operate them either?

[Onceapilot]

hmmmnnn...quite likely to lose carriers and F35 if the Scots vote for Independence! :oh:

OAP

[Wrathmonk]

quite likely to lose carriers and F35 if the Scots vote for Independence!

Random comment? Or are you on a fishing trip hoping to flush out the so-called "cybernats"....

(come on TomJ, have a nibble - we miss your red writing!)

[SpazSinbad]

...STATEMENT OF: Lt General Christopher C. Bogdan to SASC Program Executive Officer F-35 02 Apr 2014

http://www.airforcemag.com/testimony/Documents/2014/April%202014/040214bogdan.pdf (100Kb)

"...Program Accomplishments in the Last Year
The F-35 program team achieved a number of accomplishments in 2013, including delivery of 35 aircraft; rolling-out of the 100th jet from the production facility in Fort Worth; completion of the Block 3 Critical Design Review; announcing the decision to cease development of an alternate Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS); and resolving lingering technical design shortfalls to include the F-35C Arresting Hook, Night / Instrument (IMC), Fuel Dump, and Lightning Protection....

...The program also saw improvements with the redesigned F-35C arresting hook system on our CF-3 aircraft. In January 2014, the F-35 team accomplished 36 for 36 successful roll-in arrestment tests at Lakehurst, NJ. The aircraft is now at Patuxent River where it is continuing its ship suitability testing. Thus far CF-3 accomplished 8 for 8 fly in arrestments while at Patuxent River; however, testing has been delayed for approximately 60 days as we discovered a minor nose gear issue. These tests are expected to lead to a certification of the F-35C for shipboard flight trials, which are planned to commence fourth quarter 2014.

The program has also made progress on the redesigned fuel dumping seal and port. The F-35 employs a unique fuel dumping port on the underside of the wings in order to maintain its stealthy signature. Early fuel dump testing revealed that fuel was collecting within the wing flaperon cove, which led to significant external fuel wetting and pooling of fuel at the wing/fuselage root. We redesigned the fuel dump port to more efficiently move fuel away from the wing surface and designed a new and improved flaperon seal to minimize fuel collecting in the cove. Fuel dump testing with the redesigned seal and port has been successful and we are incorporating the new design in all three variants...."

[LowObservable]

Good old Sir Isaac again.

Need to keep hook on the deck to catch the wire, that has not yet bounced up after being trampled by the wheels, because the hook is too close behind said wheels
=
More pressure in hook damper
=
More upforce to aircraft tail, rotating the aircraft
=
Faster nose-gear impact
=
TWANG

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Since, as LO points out, this is pretty basic physics; are they making it up as they go along now because one of the Muppets designed the landing gear/hook?

[GreenKnight121]

I just love how you guys insist on ignoring reality and truth in your desperate quest to malign the aircraft and its designers.

You've been told repeatedly, and shown reports to verify, that the USN is who fouled up the tail-hook design by giving bad data to both LockMart (whose last carrier aircraft was the successful S-3 Viking, first flight 1972) and Northrup-Grumman (X-47B).

Both companies designed their tailhook to work with what the USN told them would work, and both companies had to redesign their hook set-up when it was learned the USN's data was FUBAR.


None of the tailhook's designers were in any way "muppets", but you insist on libeling them in defiance of reality.

[Rhino power]

So the hook don't work because the USN gave LM duff gen?! And what about the problems they're now encountering with the nose gear, is that the Navy's fault too?

-RP

[PhilipG]

If one is to believe GK121 the problems with the F35C hook are all down to the USN, this implies that LM are pure contract assemblers of the plane, relying on the USAF, USMC, USN, RN etc etc to instruct them what to build.

I thought that to begin with there was a competition between design teams as to who was to build the JSF, or did I miss a trick? If LM are just contract assemblers of the intellectual property of others, they are getting a very good profit contribution.....:rolleyes:

[SpazSinbad]

IF 'LO' can make wild guesses (incorrectly IMHO - see previous page) I feel free to proffer my own - so bear that in mind. Perhaps the modified CF-3 nose gear needs further mods for the sake of testing? As has been pointed out earlier - testing at PaxRiver is rigourous and every part of the aircraft needs to be at best possible state. Stats, that follow the quote below, probably point to why the USN - in particular - is meticulous & cautious about their preparations.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) DOTE Jan 2014
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2013/pdf/other/2013DOTEAnnualReport.pdf (48Mb)
"...F-35C Flight Sciences
Flight Test Activity with CF-1, CF-2, and CF-3 Test Aircraft
• F-35C flight sciences focused on:...
...-- Carrier suitability testing in preparation for the first set of ship trials scheduled for mid-CY14. The program configured aircraft CF-3 with a modified and instrumented nose landing gear system to begin initial catapult testing in August 2013. The test team modified CF-3 with the new arresting hook system and began on-aircraft testing with rolling engagements in late CY13...."
______________________

Admiral: China Will Likely Learn Carrier Ropes Faster than U.S. USNI News Editor
Published: May 16, 2013 Updated: March 6, 2014

Admiral: China Will Likely Learn Carrier Ropes Faster than U.S. | USNI News (http://news.usni.org/2013/05/16/admiral-china-will-likely-learn-carrier-ropes-faster-than-u-s)
"...The U.S. Navy’s education in carrier aviation came at a high price. From 1949 to 1988, “the Navy and Marine Corps lost almost twelve thousand airplanes of all types (helicopters, trainers, and patrol planes, in addition to jets) and over 8,500 aircrew,” according a section of the book “One Hundred Years of U.S. Navy Airpower” by Robert C. Rubel."

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Thank you GreenKnight121, I was unaware - GIGO, and yes RP, the knock-on effect of the nosewheel is still down to the duff data.
My apologies to the LM landing gear design team. It isn't an easy job, I know; I had a colleague once who had been on the Concorde landing gear design team

[Rhino power]

Sorry but, I'm just not buying the argument that the problems with the hook design is entirely down to wonky data supplied by the USN... I'll use very rough and ready analogy, If I want a builder to build me an extension on my house, and I supply him with the 'data' he needs in order to build it, the very least I'd expect, is for him to check my figures/measurements to make sure they are correct! The USN provide the specs, LM provide the design solution (apparently). If the specs are wrong, fair enough, but surely any significant error in the data should be found long before it gets to this stage of development?
As always, I'm more than happy to be proved wrong, after all, everyday is a school day! :)

-RP

[MSOCS]

I'm unable recall the last aircraft that didn't encounter an issue in the design, development or fielded phase of its usable life.

Probably because such an aircraft has never existed!

The thread title is, 'F-35 cancelled, then what?'. 217 pages and [nearly] 4 years later and the F-35 still isn't cancelled; it's still going strong as a matter of fact. Meanwhile, this thread has morphed into a soapbox for haters and uninformed critics, some of whom purport to be objective. The F-35 isn't perfect (see my initial point) but I'm confident it will be bloody brilliant and a workhorse of our future air forces; long after Typhoon OSD I'd wager.

[longer ron]

Maybe I should modify one of my previous posts...
Perhaps the 'C' will be as big a Turkey as the 'B' LOL

I don't buy the blaming the hook problems entirely on the USN either...One has to cross check all the design criteria if designing a system...it has all been done before - the basic design pitfalls should all be fairly well known !
Trouble is many people do not learn from history and historically designing a Jack of all trades a/c is extremely difficult (esp trying to make one version stovl).
Good job the USN have the FA/18 to fall back on - whereas the brits will have a carrier incapable of operating anything else...except maybe some third hand Harriers !!

[CoffmanStarter]

Basic physics ...

So I was just wondering if the F-35 Receiver shown here is net "up" on fuel at the breakaway from the Osprey ... note the F-35 Bin Lid is open and the Thrust Deflection angle ... :suspect:

http://becausewelivehere.us/wp-content/uploads/osprey-refueling-f35b-640x360.jpg

[longer ron]

Dunno what you mean Coff - its a nice relaxed low drag cruise profile with a low fuel burn (cough !)

Edit...surely must be an airshow demo or something :)

[MSOCS]

Hmm, interesting pic there CS. My understanding of the engine was that the augmentor (i.e. AB) is inhibited in converted mode with the engine nozzle at a position away from straight aft. If that is the case - and I sincerely hope someone on here can confirm - there might be a bit of Photoshop in that there pic!

[Rhino power]

I'm gonna say photoshop, given the MV-22 can fly at ordinary fixed wing aircraft speeds, why on earth would you choose to refuel this way?! The use of afterburner at the speed these would be flying in the pic is BS too I suspect. The MV-22 has done tests, last August, with an F/A-18 and that was done in normal wing-borne flight...
http://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/v22_f18_refueling650.jpg

-RP

[CoffmanStarter]

Nah ... I reckon the Osprey is just giving the F-35 a tow home Rhino :E

[Rhino power]

Ha, good one Coff!:ok:

-RP

[John Farley]

MSOCS

Exactly.

[LowObservable]

The argument has been made that the Navy's data on the wire's behavior - specifically, its recovery after being trampled by the main gear - was faulty and a contributor to F-35 problems.
Up to a point, perhaps. But the Navy data had never been tested by such a configuration in terms of short axle-to-hook distances. It was the designers' responsibility to recognize that they had an outlier configuration.

[WhiteOvies]

Coff, someone has been clever on Photoshop for that one I would suggest!
The Pax jets usually tank from a KC-130 but have tested both KC-10 and KC-135.

As for the issue with CF-3, the aircraft at Pax are considerably more instrumented than test jets in the past. Better to find problems and deal with them early than have nose gear oleo failures after 50 traps or so in service.

[dat581]

Didn't a similar problem crop up with the F/A-18A? If I remember the story correctly Hornet number 3 performed an almost flawless series of carrier suitability tests on USS America and then embarrised itself by collapsing one of it's main gear on return to Pax River? That problem was found and fixed very quickly.

[GreenKnight121]

Rhino power & longer ron - the data provided by the USN was for how the wire interacted with aircraft wheels during landing.

Simplistically put, it was the amount of time after the aircraft wheels rolled over the wire (and pushed it to the deck) before the wire had lifted back up to, and remained at, a height where the hook would reliably and consistently "catch" the wire.

LM and NG (and Boeing with the X-32) then did the simple math task of dividing aircraft landing speed by the "lift time", and got a "minimum wheel>hook distance". They then designed the aircraft accordingly.


The only way they could have verified the USN data would be for them to take an aircraft to the USN's land-test facility for arresting gear and duplicate the tests themselves at significant expense (in part because it would interrupt any testing the USN was doing).

This would have had to be done "off-contract" (at LM/NG/Boeing's expense), as the whole reason the USN gave them the data in the first place was to eliminate the need for the contractors to do the tests themselves, and the USN would certainly not pay for them to repeat the tests.


I realize that you have a compulsive need to vilify LockMart, and cannot believe anything that proves they aren't incompetent and stupid, but in this case reality differs from your obsession.

[longer ron]

I am not obsessed by anything GK :)

But if I were designing a tailhook system - I would be looking at other aircraft and wondering why they have a larger wheel to hook distance...it aint rocket science - it has all been done before,reinventing wheels is ok if one uses some common sense !

LM have fallen into the old trap of trying to make a jack of all trades aircraft out of one airframe - this concept has failed on many occasions in the past !

rgds LR

[Engines]

Guys,

I did get some insight into the arresting hook design during my time on the F-35 programme, and I might be able to help the thread along.

First off - designing combat aircraft is hard. Designing combat aircraft to go to the deck is even harder. Designing a family of aircraft to include a deck landing and a STOVL aircraft - well, it's a big ask. But it wasn't LM's idea- it was the US DoD's strategy for an affordable tactical aircraft programme. LM, NG and Boeing all had to respond to that.

That's a decision that is open to comment and the most robust criticism - that's one of the things about open democracies. And the F-35 programme is one of the most openly reported there's ever been. That's a good thing, but it does lead to what I would respectfully call 'slightly less informed speculation'. In my posts, I try to add information as much as I can. So here goes.

The locations available for the arresting hook were driven by a number of factors, mainly the single engine design, which drives the hook lower down and further forward than on a twin engined aircraft. Modern aircraft have their C of Gs further aft than traditional designs, and going for stealth involves weapons bays - these two factors can drive the main gears aft.

The LM team knew that had a challenge with the arresting gear, and sought not only specifications but also active advice from the USN specialists. There were plenty of risk areas identified in the aircraft by the USN, but the hook system was not high up on the list in the early days.

The prosaic truth is that getting a fast moving aircraft to reliably and safely land by snagging a thin wire on top of a moving deck is one if the harder things to do in aviation. It often takes redesigns and repeated test, and this programme has had to do that. It looks as if thy are on the right track now.

Best regards as ever to all those trying to trap,

Engines

[Whitewhale83]

It's odd that after such much advancement in the world of aviation a hundred year old wire across the deck is still the preferred landing system.

You would have thought we would have come up with something a bit more 'modern' by now!

[Maus92]

The F-35 / MV-22 refueling pic is a fanboy fake.

Wire data. Although the Navy readily admits it supplied inaccurate wire data, the redesign of the arrestor hook system was more involved than simply sharpening the hook point and adjusting the hold down damper. There were significant structural changes to the aircraft that added over 100lbs to an aircraft that is already close to margins - which was contrary to what LM officials were saying at the time. That said, it is not uncommon for adjustments to be made to the AHS to aircraft in development, and since LM has not designed a carrier aircraft since the 1960's, no doubt that expertise in the company had atrophied. But just looking at the geometries of the F-35, it is hard to understand why nobody predicted that there *might* be a problem. Tom Burbage, a somewhat recently retired LM F-35 executive, has essentially admitted that F-35 engineering could have been more rigorous, which I take to mean that the program turned out to be much more complex, and required far more resources than LM had expected and allocated.

[WillowRun 6-3]

It's very interesting to see the discussion, and to some extent the debate, over how much reliance the DoD contractor for this platform should have placed on the specs for the arresting gear provided by the USN. Interesting because in the eyes of U.S. law, for one particular legal purpose, reliance by a defense contractor on specs provided by the government is the key to the contractor having a special type of legal immunity from negligence lawsuits over injuries or deaths caused by a negligent design. It's known as the "government contractor defense" and it was established as federal law by the US Supreme Court in the case of Boyle v. United Technologies in 1989. If the contractor follows government specs which are "reasonably precise" (IIRC), the contractor cannot be sued under a negligence theory if the design proves defective.

Why or how is this relevant? Well, to those advocating more diligence on the contractor's part, I would ask; 'so following specs insulates the contractor from a damage suit if the weapon system design turns out to be defective and causes the death of one or more servicemembers - but following specs isn't good enough in terms of general attainment of the system's capabilities to fulfill its roles and missions.....Congress could make that policy judgment, of course, but has it done so? It's okay to leave servicemembers and their survivors out of court, even though we turn around as a government and expect the contractor to peer into the specs provided by Uncle Sam and penetrate to find any flaws?'

I'd want to find, read, and analyze legally the rulings of lower federal courts applying Boyle before trying to catch the third wire on this question: if the DoD and/or the Congress in fact do expect LM to redo the data provided by USN, then hasn't the federal gov't canceled the government contractor defense altogether - at least for that specific weapon system; even "reasonably precise" specs no longer would justify reliance. My gut reaction is that the US federal government cannot have it both ways. Even in a multi-role, three-service, fifth generation fighter aircraft.

[Lonewolf_50]

You would have thought we would have come up with something a bit more 'modern' by now! Such as? I am sure that tail hookers the world over would welcome your better idea. :cool:

The launch side has come up, at long last, with a better idea: mag versus steam cats.

Willow:
before trying to catch the third wire on this question:
The jargon/slang/phrase you were looking for is "catch the three wire." :)

[glad rag]

Thanks for that informative post.

[Whitewhale83]

@Lonewolf_50

I never implied that I had a better idea.

[Haraka]

All lot to do with relative velocities.......
:)

When the Gannet first appeared at Farnborough, some wit congratulated the guys on the Fairey stand for finally producing an aeroplane that could keep up with the fleet..........

[sandiego89]

Italy To Cut F-35 Order By Half: Reports 23 Apr 2014 Source : Our Bureau

Italy To Cut F-35 Order By Half: Reports (http://apicdn.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fmilitary-aircrew%2F424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-216.html&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.defenseworld.net%2Fnews%2F10428%2FItaly _To_Cut_F_35_Order_By_Half__Reports%23.U1gJWJB-8kI&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fmilitary-aircrew%2F424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-217.html)


Quote:
"Italy’s new government has decided to halve its procurement F-35 fighters, from 90 to 45, but will stretch out its implementation to limit any losses of related work for its aerospace industry, the Rome daily La Repubblica reported April 22...."
Does anyone know how Italy will split this between the "A" and the "B"? With only 45 in the fleet, it seems like the pooled option between the Air Force and Navy as debated a few years back would be the best option. I recall the Airforce was going to have a small number of "B's" (@15?). Seems just one squadron of B's (say 12-15) would be risky in the long run if you want this to be your sole carrier capable aircraft for the next 25+ years. I recall the Italian Navy was pushing hard for a minimum of @22 B's to keep one squadron fully deployable aboard the carrier. With 45 aircraft split between the A and B they will likely only have one frontline squadron of each type, with a suitable amount left for training (a few in the USA), evaluation and as attrition reserve. Perhaps all 45 as "B's" might be best? I realize this would be a compromise.

[LowObservable]

They'd probably all be Bs at that point. It seems likely that Italy will end up reducing its purchase rate and thereby punt the 90 vs. 45 decision into the lap of some future administration.

If you take Italian politics too seriously (as a non-Italian) you will surely go mad, but my broad understanding is that it is a squabble among leftists who hate all armed forces, Europhiles who mistrust the U.S., and Atlanticists, and that a clear-cut final decision is unlikely.

[Heathrow Harry]

you missed out all those politicians who hope to get a cut of whatever deal is done

[SpazSinbad]

Thanks 'Engines' - another recent blast from the past about dat ole 'Shake, Rattle & Roll' which will await the F-35C instrumented CF-3 with production AHS and I'll guess modified nose wheel eventually soonish like....

STRIKE TEST NEWS Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 23 Newsletter 2011 Issue

http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.download&id=769 (PDF 3Mb)

FIXED WING SHIP SUITABILITY (SHAKE, RATTLE AND ROLL) LT David “La Douche” Hafeman - Page 18
"Every aircraft, store, or sensor that flies off the ship at some point needs to be tested to ensure that it can meet the demanding loads associated with a catapult shot or an arrested landing.

Sometimes referred to as “Shake, Rattle and Roll” testing, this is a unique specialty area of flight test that we do more of than anyone else in the world. Shake testing includes both catapults and arrested landings. Catapults build up in longitudinal acceleration up to 5.5g, and include shots with the aircraft deliberately off center in the shuttle. Arrested landings include high sink rates up to 20 feet per second (which translates to 1200 feet per minute or about a 5° flight path angle), maximum deceleration points, free flight engagements, and 18 foot off center points. There is both art and science involved in flying and waving these demanding test points...."

[AtomKraft]

'Designing combat aircraft is hard':ok:

But if anyone could fulfil the US DoDs requirements, Lockheeds must be the boys.
Unfortunately, events, circumstances, timing and physics can conspire to defeat the best.
This a/c is not going well at all. It's clear for all to see who wish to.
Maybe they're still sore about pulling the plug on the Avenger? Who knows...

I think the JSF saga will end badly, just a question of when...

[SpazSinbad]

NavAir (VADM Dunaway) seems to be contrite?

Tailhook13 HOOK Explanation VADM Dunaway NavAir

Tailhook13 HOOK Explanation VADM Dunaway NavAir - YouTube (http://youtu.be/0molUKZnUqI)

0molUKZnUqI

[SpazSinbad]

F-35 Lightning II Integrated Test Force 2013 Year in Review Published on May 7, 2014
"Highlights of the flight test accomplishments by the Patuxent River F-35 Lightning II Integrated Test Force (ITF) in 2013. Video produced by the Pax River ITF Lockheed Martin Multimedia Team."

I'll guess the F-35Bs for UK show will use the KC-10 Iron Maiden?

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/F-35BironMaidenKC-10ARFforum.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-35BironMaidenKC-10ARFforum.jpg.html)

voUNeb_JzLY

[Rhino power]

Were any of the F-35B VL's/launches aboard the USS Wasp done with the ship actually underway? All the vids I've seen so far seem to show the ship at anchor or, stationary at least...

-RP

[SpazSinbad]

How fast is the waspydoodledandy going at 4min 40sec in the video just mentioned up top?

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/LHAunderwayF-35BdtIIsideViewForum.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/LHAunderwayF-35BdtIIsideViewForum.jpg.html)

[SpazSinbad]

This is DT I in 2011 and somewhere there is some detail about 'envelope explansion' for DT II with cross deck landings / reverse landings and you name it they did it it seems. But HEY I was not there so we will have to take a reporters word on it - or someones anyway. Videos lie dontcha know. :}

Navy Sees Few Anomalies in F-35B Ship Trials 31 Oct 2011 Amy Butler |
Onboard the USS Wasp
"...Kelly acknowledges that the deck motion does impact landing operations, but “the control law you have is so good, you can compensate.”...

...Pilots were qualified using the heart of the Harrier wind envelope. During testing they have expanded that up to a 30-kt. headwind, 10-kt. crosswind and 5-kt. tailwind. Pilots report good handling qualities, Cordell says...."
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2011/10/24/AW_10_24_2011_p30-384427.xml&headline=Navy&next=0
___________________________

I guess all of this DT II stuff was not done at anchor with nil WOD but hey again...

F-35 Lightning II Program Status and Fast Facts 17 Oct 2013
“...F-35B accomplishes first night vertical landing aboard the USS Wasp (Aug. 14)

Developmental Test II aboard the USS Wasp completed; 95 VLs, 94 STO, 19 Night VLs; 42 flights each by two aircraft in 17 available flying days (Aug. 30)...”
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-18223.html (small PDF download)
___________________

STRIKE TEST NEWS Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 23 Newsletter 2013 Issue [produced 11 Oct 2013]
“...F-35B (STOVL) Flight Sciences aircraft
For each variant, Flight Sciences aircraft specifically go after flight test data requirements that would not be av-ailable in production configuration. Each has a unique set of instrumentation that has been incorporated throughout the airframe, and truly make these each one-of-a kind aircraft. They were the first to roll off the production line in Fort Worth, and each one is critical to the completion of the flight test program. The Flight Science jets do not have full sensor suites installed and do not run the block software that provides warfighting capabilities of the jet....”

...USS WASP Second Sea Trials (DT-II, scheduled for August 2013)
Building on the resounding success of the first sea trials for the F-35B on USS WASP in October of 2011, the team has completed significant efforts in preparation for expanding the envelope at-sea for the USMC/UK pilots who will operate F-35B aircraft at-sea. There is no better way to understand the performance of an aircraft than to take into the operational environment and make it work. The purpose of DT-II is to continue to expand the F-35B flight envelope, ultimately enabling fleet operations in operationally realistic wind and sea state conditions, at night, and with operationally realistic weapons load-outs. The first F-35B developmental test (DT-I) allowed the test team to evaluate the aircraft’s flying qualities and performance in conducting L-Class shipboard flight operations, mainly in the heart of the operating envelope.

Additionally, F-35B maintenance and servicing functions will be evaluated. While onboard Wasp, the F-35B and various functions of the ship are instrumented with sensors that will collect data and allow for post-event analysis. Test findings may drive improvements to the F-35B for operations at-sea in preparation for USMC initial operational capability, currently scheduled for 2015....”
http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.download&id=767
___________________

Perhaps there is some WINDY joy in this video - it has been awhile....

Lightning II jets in vertical night landing tests 13 Sep
“F-35 Operations onboard USS Wasp with interviews. Over the last few weeks, RAF and Royal Navy pilots and ground crew have been involved in the second round of Carrier testing onboard the USS WASP. The testing has been used to expand the operational envelope, with aircraft flown in a variety of air and sea states, landing at day and night, all while carrying internal weapons. This was the first time that vertical night landings had been conducted at sea.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jwstn1R24c&feature=youtube_gdata
_______________________

Blue Sky OPS AIR International F-35 Lightning II 26 April 2012
"Mark Ayton spoke with Peter Wilson, a former Royal Navy Sea Harrier pilot and now STOVL lead test pilot at NAS Patuxent River..."
"...Nine Hops
During STOVL testing in February 2010, Peter Wilson flew nine sorties from NAS Patuxent River in about four hours, all of which were less than 5 minutes in duration. Each sortie carried a relatively low fuel load allowing Peter to take off, and fly around for a brief period to ensure the fuel was at the right level in preparation for a landing test. “The highlights on the day were the take-offs. I took off as slow as 50 knots [92km/h] with the STOVL mode engaged, accelerated out to the normal pattern speed of 150 knots [276km/h], turned downwind, and positioned ready for a vertical landing,” he said.

Some of the vertical landings required extreme nose-down attitudes on the aircraft at various weights and phenomenal descent rates. Recounting the landings, Peter Wilson told AIR International: “I was trimming nose down to make the nose gear hit first rather than the main gear coming down as fast as I could, given the control law of the aeroplane. When the nose gear (underneath the pilot’s seat) hits first at that sort of descent rate it gets your attention because it’s a pretty heavy landing and a remarkable experience in the cockpit.”

F-35B Take-off Options
The F-35B STOVL variant has a range of take-off options using different modes to suit the basing. Take-offs from a ship, with either a flat deck or one with a ski jump, are also possible with a mode for each scenario. These are short take-off scenarios that can be achieved at speeds as low as 50kts with a deck or ground run of no more than a 200ft (60m). In the same mode, a take-off as fast as 150 knots is possible if the weight of the aircraft requires that speed. If the aircraft is light it can take off at a slow speed and faster when heavy.

Take-off at speeds as low as 5, 10, 15, 20kts (9, 18, 27 and 36km/h) are also possible, each of which is effectively a vertical take-off while moving forward. There are different ways of rotating the aircraft in STOVL mode, including the usual ‘pull on the stick’. Other ways are by pressing a button or programming a ground distance required after which, the aircraft control law initiates the rotation and selects the ideal angle for climb-out...."

[Rhino power]

How fast is the waspydoodledandy going at 4min 40sec in the video just mentioned up top?

Doesn't really matter, especially since the F-35 in that particular portion of the video is doing neither a VL, or a launch...

-RP

[SpazSinbad]

I guess you did not read any of the text then. Did the wind blow away your specs?

F-35B Shipboard Testing: Phase 2 18 Oct 2013 Andy Wolfe
“...The flight tests at sea were critical to clearing the flight envelope to support the Initial Operational Capability trials for the US Marines scheduled for 2015. During the deployment, four F-35B test pilots combined to fly almost 100 short takeoffs and vertical landings between the two aircraft. The flights were made in a variety of conditions that included day and night operations as well as unique crosswind, tailwind, and other dynamic wind-over-deck conditions. The trials expanded the F-35B flight envelope to include internal weapons carriage in a variety of configurations at varying weights and centers of gravity, as well as asymmetric loadings of stores in the aircraft internal weapon bays.

The sea trials also included logistics test and evaluation test points, such as assessing the ease of towing the aircraft in the constrained spaces below deck as well as testing a variety of chaining configurations for the aircraft on deck.”
Code One Magazine: F-35B Shipboard Testing: Phase 2 (http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=126)
___________________

Slight difference is details compared to previous page but whatever....

Marine Corps demonstrates the F-35B at Sea 18 Oct 2011 Dave Majumdar
"...The team started off the flights by using the flight envelope cleared for the AV-8B Harrier as as starting point before expanding into new territory, Cordell said. From that initial envelope, the testers expanded it up to 30 knots of headwind and down to 10 knots of headwind. The also flew with a 15 degree crosswind..."
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/10/dn-marine-corps-demonstrates-f35b-at-sea-101811/

[Rhino power]

I guess you did not read any of the text then. Did the wind blow away your specs?

I didn't read the extra million links and extracts simply because you edited your post and added them AFTER I'd replied!

I just found it odd that no video of ship underway VL's /launches seems to be available if they have done them...

-RP

[Lonewolf_50]

Why did you think that the shipboard vids were not from ships that were underway? :confused:

Did you see the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0jwstn1R24c)? It's pretty obvious to me that the ship was underway.

As a taxpayer, my comment is "it's about damned time."

[Courtney Mil]

Rhino, yes. I noticed that too. The timeline here doesn't quite reflect the order of posts as I was reading them. Still, a fast game's a good game!

[Rhino power]

Lonewolf_50, in the video you linked there is indeed views of the ship underway, just not during VL's or launches, certainly not as far as I can make out... But no matter, if the F-35B has made VL's/launches whilst underway then it's all good and, as you rightly say, "it's about damned time."

CM, yes, a fast game is indeed a good game!

-RP

[SpazSinbad]

'rp' I do not get your point. Are you suggesting that VLs and STOs were not conducted as per the news reports/articles/whatevers? Mostly we see a top view of the deck fore/aft without a view of either the ship wake or bow wave. The background shows the sea however due the relatively benign sea state I can only imagine that the ship was making some headway, because that is likely for 'steerage' way for the ship. Otherwise they will wallow in whatever swell there is and point their nose this and that way willydenilly.

WOD Wind Over the Deck is a combination of the natural wind and the ship speed into the wind. The ship will make whatever WOD is required at whatever crosswind angle required for the stated tests. Are you suggesting that none of this occurred because you did not see it in any video?

[SpazSinbad]

Probably no internal weapons were carried in DT II aboard USS Wasp because the F-35B aircraft cannot STO nor VL with any weapons carried internally in either symmetrical or asymmetrical combination. Why? Because we cannot see them in any video.

[Rhino power]

'rp' I do not get your point...

http://metaversemodsquad.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/picard-facepalm2.jpg

I thought I sort of clarified my 'point' in the last sentance of post #4362, and then further in post #4365 but, nevermind... So, here it is again, none of the video clips conclusively show the USS Wasp underway during VL's/launches, HOWEVER, if VL's/launches HAVE taken place with the USS Wasp underway then, splendid!

-RP

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

The video also clearly makes the important point that the F-35B has exceeded the landing envelope of the legacy aircraft, i.e. Harrier/AV-8B.

Next gripe?

[SpazSinbad]

April Marks New F-35 Flying Records 08 May 2014
"...Among the record SDD flights, the F-35B version completed its 700th vertical takeoff and landing sortie, and it began crosswind landings and expeditionary operations....”
April Marks New F-35 Flying Records · Lockheed Martin (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2014/may/140508ae_april-marks-new-f-35-flying-records.html)

[LowObservable]

Whatever "exceeded the landing envelope" means, should that be surprising, or an occasion for awarding the program a cookie, 50 years later than the P.1127 and after $20 billion in STOVL-specific R&D?

Oh well, the UK public will be able to see a spectacular demonstration of F-16-like agility and vertical landing this summer. One might hope. :E

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

*sigh*

LO - My point was in response to those who were questioning whether the F-35B had landed on a moving ship.

Seeing as a Harrier can do, and regularly does this, the comment that it has exceeded the legacy aircraft's flight envelope would suggest it has landed on a moving ship, yes?

Or are you just reaching...again...?
(would post a 'hmmm..' smiley if Admin hadn't disabled my smiley access...)

[Bismark]

Rhino,

Why on earth would they take the aircraft to a ship if not to carry out trials underway? Don't forget a ship underway is a ship not alongside or at anchor. It would be a complete waste of money to go there to sit at anchor - and at anchor the ship would "swing" which would make the situation even worse. Without actually having been there I can pretty well guarantee the the ship was moving (forwards) when the aircraft was operating to/from it.

[Don Bacon]

These are development tests, not operational tests.

[MSOCS]

Who

Honestly

Cares...

[SpazSinbad]

F-35 Flight Test Update 13 12 May 2014 Eric Hehs

Code One Magazine: F-35 Flight Test Update 13 (http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=136)

[Don Bacon]

You'll notice that the photos at Code One magazine by Lockheed, and photos in other sources, that the F-35 is never pictured entering or departing clouds.
The recent DOT&E Test report explains:

"Restrictions on the aircraft operating limits prevented instruction in most high performance maneuvering and flight through instrument meteorological conditions (i.e., clouds)."
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2013/pdf/dod/2013f35jsf.pdf

[BEagle]

The F-35 is, however, vulnerable to ballistically-induced propellant fire from all combat threats.

Well, no $hit, Sherlock.....

[SpazSinbad]

AFAIK flying F-35s near potential lightning strikes is an issue to be solved. However even the USAF these days are (earlier USN/USMC were) night flying - considered to be IMC last I knew. Getting good photos in cloud is probably a little difficult but I guess modern technology should be up to it these days.

Not to disappoint but here is a news item:

Glavy: No F-35 Vertical Landing At Farnborough Due To Ongoing Mat Tests Inside the Navy - 12 May 2014
"Testing on the matting needed to support an F-35B Joint Strike Fighter vertical landing won't be complete before the aircraft's planned international debut at the Farnborough International Air Show in the United Kingdom this summer, the Marine Corps' deputy assistant commandant for aviation told reporters last week...."

SOURCE: Login (http://defensenewsstand.com/index.php?option=com_ppv&view=article&id=2470393) OR http://defensenewsstand.com/index.php?option=com_customproperties&tagId=10&Itemid=412
____________________

FWIW: Air Force F-35A Makes First Nighttime Flight 03 Apr 2014 Shane McGlaun (Blog)
http://www.dailytech.com/Air+Force+F35A+Makes+First+Nighttime+Flight/article34649.htm
"Marine and Navy pilots took first night flights in January
An F-35A fighter took off from Eglin Air Force Base on its first nighttime training mission late last month. Prior to this flight, the Air Force version of the advanced fighter was prohibited from operating at night or during adverse weather.

One of the issues which prohibited nighttime flights involved symbols displayed to the pilot that traditionally differ between the Air Force and Navy/Marines versions of aircraft. The Air Force has a different airworthiness authority, AFLCMC, than the NAVAIR standards already incorporated into the F-35 night systems.

“Back in [training] the displays the pilots were looking at were confusing to Air Force pilots but not confusing to Navy and Marine Corps pilots because a lot of the symbology was of Navy origin," described Air Force Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan.

To get around this issue, the Air Force trained 15 pilots on simulators at Elgin and at the plant in Ft. Worth until the Air Force was sure its pilots were ready for night operations...."
__________________

Weather Certification A Boon To Qualified F-35 Pilots At Eglin AFB Inside the Air Force - 25 Apr 2014
"The recent decision to clear the F-35A for flight in cloud cover or other weather has had an immediate positive effect on Joint Strike Fighter operators in Florida, with pilots who are already qualified in the aircraft able to take advantage of sorties that had been canceled in the past...."
http://defensenewsstand.com/index.php?option=com_customproperties&tagId=10&Itemid=412

[Don Bacon]

@Spaz
Certainly such an important decision point as weather certification for the F-35, after twelve years in development, to actually fly in bad weather and in clouds is a matter of record, besides the sketchy "decision news" above.

Where is the evidence of the "decision?" Perhaps they decided to fly in clouds next year, only with pilots who have accumulated a hundred hours? Or what?

[SpazSinbad]

Don Bacon said:
"@Spaz
Certainly such an important decision point as weather certification for the F-35, after twelve years in development, to actually fly in bad weather and in clouds is a matter of record, besides the sketchy "decision news" above.

Where is the evidence of the "decision?" Perhaps they decided to fly in clouds next year, only with pilots who have accumulated a hundred hours? Or what?"
Heheh. I thought you were going to come back with your hook conspiracy. Oh well - disappointment sets in - I'll go look for whatever you require but I'll guess it will not be good enough eh. As I mentioned the 'lightning' problem is being solved so the F-35s will have to remain clear of potential lightning (some 25 miles?) AFAIK, especially on ground special precautions have to be made re lightning. And by the way where are these lists of 'matters of record'?

Flying in cloud and at night means flying in IMC Instrument Meterological Conditions using IFR Instrument Flight Rules when different pilots will have different experience/training which will perhaps limit their individual abilities to fly to certain minimum criteria - such as decision height and distance for landing - emerging from cloud/rain near the runway after a precision instrument approach for example. One day with JPALS things will get a lot easier for automatic precision instrument landings especially on aircraft carriers (precision similar to what we have seen with the recent X-47B tests onboard).

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

I read recently that they zapped the hell out of the second Dutch jet in lightning tests and it "started first time"! Just the scientific evaluation and validation of the tests to be done.

[SpazSinbad]

Thanks 'FA18' - here are some excerpts relevant to 'night flite' and 'light strike' - left out were the hooky references because AFAIK they are in this thread already, anyways they are in the PDF cited below....

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE | WRITTEN TESTIMONY FOR THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WITNESS STATEMENT OF: Lt General Christopher C. Bogdan Program Executive Officer F-35, March 26, 2014

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS25/20140326/101954/HHRG-113-AS25-Wstate-BogdanUSAFC-20140326.pdf (305Kbs)

"...Program Accomplishments in the Last Year
The F-35 program team achieved a number of accomplishments in 2013, including delivery of 35 aircraft; rolling-out of the 100th jet from the production facility in Fort Worth; completion of the Block 3 Critical Design Review; announcing the decision to cease development of an alternate Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS); and resolving lingering technical design shortfalls to include the F-35C Arresting Hook, Night / Instrument (IMC), Fuel Dump, and Lightning Protection....

...We have also seen significant progress in our ability to fly at night and Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC). The Navy granted clearance and conducted the first night flights on the F-35B (VMFA-121) in December 2013. Subsequently, in January 2014, the Navy granted night/IMC clearance for the F-35C. The Air Force also granted night/IMC clearance for the F-35A in January 2014, although initially weather restricted to a ceiling greater than 600 feet and visibility greater than two nautical miles. In March 2014, the Air Force lifted the restrictions following additional simulator evaluations, allowing the F-35 aircraft to fly to weather minimums posted by the airfields.

All LRIP lot 6 and later aircraft will be delivered with night / IMC capability. LRIP lot 5 aircraft require an improved landing/taxi light prior to operating in night/IMC. LRIP lot 4 aircraft require a planned aircraft software update as well as improved wingtip and landing/taxi lights. All possible software updates have been accomplished, and the lighting upgrades are in progress. LRIP lot 3 and earlier aircraft require the Block 2B 9 upgrade planned to begin in late 2014 to gain night/IMC capability.

We currently have 11 F-35As, 6 F-35Bs, and 1 F-35C fleet aircraft configured and certified for night/IMC. The remaining LRIP lots 4 and 5 fleet aircraft are either in process or awaiting the wingtip and landing/taxi light modifications for night/IMC. The program has also made progress on lightning protection. In 2009, fuel system simulator testing revealed deficiencies in the On Board Inert Gas Generation System’s (OBIGGS) ability to maintain the necessary tank inerting to protect the aircraft from lightning strikes. The program completely redesigned the OBIGGS and performed a F-35B ground test that verified inerting distribution in the tanks. Ground and flight tests are planned for second quarter 2014 where we expect to evaluate fuel system performance and prevention of nuisance alerts. A unique opportunity occurred with the availability of the Netherlands F-35A aircraft; our team took advantage of the aircraft to test for lightning electrical transient stress to aircraft subsystems in the Fall of 2013. The aircraft was subjected to 865 simulated low level “lightning strikes,” and we are happy to report that the aircraft received no damage, all subsystems worked appropriately, and the aircraft’s reaction to the lightning strikes closely matched engineering models. Aircraft that have OBIGGS inerting and subsystems that can function with lightning electrical transients are expected to allow the removal of the lightning flight restrictions by the beginning of 2015...."

[SpazSinbad]

Here ya go for the F-35C lookyhookylooky on this thread page 216 (more news as it arrives)....

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-216.html#post8449331

[SpazSinbad]

F-35 May Fly At Queen Elizabeth Carrier Christening.... Colin Clark 13 May 2014
"WASHINGTON: The best Fourth of July celebrations this year may happen in the evil empire we cast out, if the F-35B flies at the christening of the United Kingdom’s newest aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth.

The final details are still being hammered out, and it may all fall apart, but the official announcement is expected soon. Someone clearly thought this might happen — or was really smart — as the British Ministry of Defense had a new CGI-generated photo of an F-35B landing on the Queen Elizabeth (see above) posted on its web site. It’s likely the US Marine Corps is pushing for this to happen: Gen. James Amos, the first jet pilot to serve as Marine Commandant, has campaigned relentlessly for the Marine version of the Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35B, to be certified first for Initial Operating Capability and for the plane to be seen publicly as much as possible.

Whether or not it flies at the carrier christening, the F-35B will fly a week later at the Royal International Air Tattoo, where the world’s air chiefs all gather for the famous gala dinner on the Friday night before the Farnborough Air Show begins. And it will fly at Farnborough, arguably the world’s biggest air show. That will be remarkable exposure for an aircraft that has never flown outside the United States before and will be remembered in years to come — presuming all goes well — as a major turning point for the program, especially on the international scene...."
F-35 May Fly At Queen Elizabeth Carrier Christening; Sen. McCain Praises Plane?s Capabilities « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary (http://breakingdefense.com/2014/05/f-35-may-fly-at-queen-elizabeth-carrier-christening-sen-mccain-praises-planes-capabilities/)

[LowObservable]

Farnborough may "arguably" be the world's biggest air show, but "factually" it takes second place to Paris.

[Turbine D]

McCain's praise of the F-35 capability:
Meanwhile, one of the program’s harshest critics, Sen. John McCain, offered some positive comments about the F-35 when I asked him for his views at today’s annual Norwegian American Defense Conference.

“The aircraft itself is turning into a pretty good weapon system,” the senator said, saying that his earlier harsh criticisms of the program had been all about cost and schedule — not the aircraft’s performance. “I never questioned whether it would be a good weapon.”
Good example of how major DoD programs go amuck under Congressional oversight. Perhaps a question McCain should have asked was: What were the promises and what is the reality as to aircraft performance? Pretty good isn't exactly great, an expectation surely required for an aircraft that is replacing the current fleet of fighter aircraft, all services…

[SpazSinbad]

U.S. general confident F-35 logistics system will work overseas 07 May 2014 Andrea Shalal
"(Reuters) - The computerized logistics system that controls the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jet still needs work, but it will be able to support three F-35s on their first overseas trip for two UK air shows this summer, a top Pentagon official said....

...Marine Corps officials twice tested a version of the ALIS system from a U.S. base in Britain before approving the plane's trip to the Royal International Air Tattoo and the Farnborough air show in July, according to a source familiar with the issue.

Schmidle said hangars were also being built for the planes at the military base in Fairford that will host the RIAT air show from July 11-13. The planes will fly over the Farnborough air show the following week but not land there."
U.S. general confident F-35 logistics system will work overseas | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/07/us-lockheed-fighters-uk-idUSBREA4610T20140507)

[SpazSinbad]

Meet the First British Pilot to Take the F-35 to the U.K. Published on May 14, 2014
"Royal Air Force Squadron Leader Hugh Nichols will become the first British pilot to fly the F-35 in the skies over the United Kingdom when the Lightning II makes its international debut there this summer. Hear what Nichols has to say about this aircraft's 5th gen capabilities and how he's looking forward to taking the F-35 overseas for the first time."

Meet the First British Pilot to Take the F-35 to the U.K. - YouTube

[Rhino power]

Quelle surprise... He was never going to call it (the F-35B) a pile of dog$hit was he?

-RP

[Don Bacon]

Now hear what DM Hammond has to say about the stuck-in-mid development F-35:

May 4, 2013 --Philip Hammond Unsure About F-35 Order (SkyNews)

British operational military pilots have begun flying what is being touted as the world's most advanced stealth fighter jet, the F-35.

But even as they take to the skies, Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has given the clearest indication yet that the UK may not now buy all the jets it had planned.

Speaking exclusively to Sky News, Mr Hammond pledged that the first 48 aircraft on order at a cost of around £100m each would be bought to service the new Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers from 2020.
Philip Hammond Unsure About F-35 Order (http://news.sky.com/story/1086720/philip-hammond-unsure-about-f-35-order)

[Whitewhale83]

I wonder if LM employees are paid a bonus for each '5th generation' ™ drop.

[melmothtw]

Mr Hammond said there were two trains of thought, one suggesting an 80/20 split of manned to unmanned aircraft in future, the other suggesting the exact opposite.

It seems to me that unmanned is being seen by the politicians as a means to reducing expense by eliminating personnel costs, when in fact the manning levels required for 'unmanned' platforms is at least as high, and in most cases higher than that required for manned.

[SpazSinbad]

A one year old news interview. Phew. I'm glad you did not go back to prehistoric times when the F-35B was on probation. I wonder if the old Hammond has his thoughts sorted now - May 2014.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iicvhi07uW0

[melmothtw]

A one year old news interview. Phew. I'm glad you did not go back to prehistoric times when the F-35B was on probation. I wonder if the old Hammond has his thoughts sorted now - May 2014.

Good point - didn't stop to notice the dateline. Still, it does seem that this headlong rush to unmanned is being driven more by perceived cost savings rather that any increase in operational effectiveness (in the cash-strapped West at least), but isn't that always the way?

[HTB]

Apologies for duplicating here what I have just posted in Nightfall - Unmanned fighters (and for contributing to to a slight thread drift):

Saving in manpower? Here's an extract from the RAF website (open source RAF - Reaper (http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/reaper.cfm)):

The Reaper RPAS is operated by Nos 13 & 39 Squadron. The aircraft is operated by a pilot, a sensor operator aided by a non-aircrew Mission Coordinator (MiC). In support of current operations the Reaper RPA is launched from an airfield within Afghanistan by crews deployed in theatre. Once airborne the mission is flown by the crews of 39 Squadron from Creech Air Force Base in the USA or 13 Squadron from RAFWaddington by secure satellite communication before control is handed back to the crew in theatre for landing. The current aircrew of UK Reaper have all been previously qualified as pilots on other military aircraft (such as Tornado, Harrier, Apache, Nimrod, Puma, Merlin and C-130).

So, two crews involved, one consisting of three mission operators (leave aside the groundcrew/maintenace for the moment, as this could be common to both manned and unmanned aircraft) and one that launches and recovers the aircraft.

Don't see much saving there; plus for long missions (14 hours fully loaded) you might have to use two or three replacement crews, especially the sensor operator.

Mister B

[5 Forward 6 Back]

HTB,

Rather than the simple comparison of "3 crew on Reaper vs 1 in F35," a better comparison might be the total footprint required.

How large is the TGRF, how many pers do they have at KAF, and how many hours airborne per day do they generate?

Then compare that to the size of the Reaper Force, the number in theatre, and how many hours airborne they generate.

Pretty sure that there'll be a considerable manpower saving when you look at it like this. Unmanned stuff seems mostly about efficiency; your entire Force can fly combat missions every day, with no need to deploy, carry out pre-det training, no need to be away from family, etc etc.

[HTB]

5F6B

Partially agree. No need to deploy? How about (from the RAF site): launched from an airfield within Afghanistan by crews deployed in theatre...handed back to the crew in theatre for landing;flown by the crews of 39 Squadron from Creech Air Force Base in the USA [or Waddo].

That sounds to me like "deployment", which would require an element of pre-det training, and in the Afghan case certainly not accompanied by family (probably not at Creech either).

Sure, they can fly long missions, but once the ordnance is delivered, do they loiter for surveillance, or RTB to re-arm? Guess that depends on a host of associated or conflicting requirements.

As for airborne hours/sortie rate, this could be constrained by the number of "cockpits" and airframes (which must inevitably be prone to malfunction or require servicing). From the RAF website:

"The Reaper system consists of 4x Reaper Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA), 2x Ground Control Station (GCS), communication equipment/links,spares, and personnel from all 3 services and contractor ground crew. At present the UK has 5 aircraft with a further 5 on order with associated ground equipment, spares and personnel."

So, you are correct to say that it is not a simple comparison of bums on seats in a cockpit, it's a bit more complex, but no less labour intensive (maybe more even more).

Mister B

[LowObservable]

New hangars?????

[Willard Whyte]

HTB, I would suggest that in terms of operating crew comparing Reaper et al to future drones is much like comparing a B-36 to a B-2. One major purpose of the Taranis project, for example, is to vastly increase the automation of operation. Whether it will be politically acceptable to have a drone 'think' for itself is another question. There will, for Air to Ground missions at least, almost certainly be a ground operator - but only to permit/deny weapons release. Command of the airframe during any phase of flight will be by black box, not some chap or chapess dressed in a flying suit and sat in an iso-container.

I agree the support crew for an autonomous drone will be much as it is for a current type with a similar mission, but they tend to be much cheaper to train and keep than the '2-wing master race'.

[LowObservable]

So now it's no VLs, because the unspecified new matting hasn't been tested, and building special hangars? Isn't there a nice big secure and air-conditioned B-2 barn they can use?

[PhilipG]

Not wanting to restart the Rivet Joint thread but what as a matter of interest, are the regulations regarding "foreign" test and development aircraft displaying at airshows and overlying major cities?
Thinking that single engined aircraft do not seem to be too welcome over London.
I would have thought that the F35 would have to keep a number of miles from the VIPs at Rosyth, making a display interesting.

[t43562]

ALIS seems to me like a very nice way for some people in the States to know where all your aircraft are and how ready they are. Also any spies they don't manage to block out.

I wonder if it's so real-time that they know when you're getting ready to do something and roughly what it is?

[Maus92]

Spaz said earlier:

"Flying in cloud and at night means flying in IMC Instrument Meterological Conditions using IFR Instrument Flight Rules ..."

Maybe there are differences in flight rules, but flying at night is not considered IMC in the US. Night VFR is perfectly legal if the aircraft is properly equipped, and some F-35s have been cleared to do so (after they fixed the nav/position lights.)

[SpazSinbad]

Jump jets on Defence radar 17 May 2014 Nick Butterly, Canberra, The West Australian
"Australia could buy "jump-jet" Joint Strike Fighters to base aboard new landing ships, giving the nation its first aircraft carrier since the early 1980s.

Defence Minister David Johnston told The Weekend West the Government was considering buying the "B" model of the F-35 - a specialised variant of the stealth jet being built to operate from aircraft carriers....

...But the Government has left the door open to buying more F-35s and the minister says the F-35B will be considered.

"Now that aircraft is more expensive, does not have the range but it's an option that has been considered from day one," Senator Johnston said....

...Senator Johnston said stationing the F-35 aboard an LHD would be costly and technically challenging, but it could be done.

"The deck strength is there for such an aircraft," he said....

...The F-35 will replace Australia's fleet of F/A-18A/B Classic Hornet aircraft, due to be withdrawn in 2022."

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/national/a/23583014/jump-jets-on-defence-radar/

[500N]

Spaz

I just don't see that happening.

For a start, the money, secondly, the logistics of doing it for what return
are just massive, absolutely massive.

And what about having to replace the deck to handle the F-35B which
would mean the ship would be out of action.

[Engines]

500N,

I thought Spaz posted a quote saying that 'the deck strength is there'.

If it helps, I can confirm that the Spanish design target was to have the deck strength (and elevator capacity) to handle the F-35B.

Money and logistics - as ever, it depends what you want to do from what bases against what scenario. The Aussies have a massive potential operational area, with Host Nation Support (land bases) fairly thinly spread, as are their own land bases. They also have nations around them building aircraft carrier capacity.

Finally, the F-35B is designed to operate from small decks. The logs support system is designed to work from small ships as well. It's straightforward to operate from small ships.

OK, I'm a naval aviation type. But from where I look at it, it doesn't look such a far fetched idea.

Oh, and the Aussie ships already have a ski jump.

Best Regards as ever

Engines

[500N]

Engines

Yes, I read the quote re the deck strength.

Happy to be corrected but doesn't the deck of a carrier require a special deck covering to be able
to handle the downward force and heat ???
That is what I was referring to.

Hopefully someone can set me straight.


Good points in your post.

[Engines]

500N,

Happy to oblige on deck aspects.

The deck steel can handle the F-35B doing VLs. Any potential issues could be further mitigated by using a 'creeping landing' technique as pioneered by the Kestrel in the 60s, where the aircraft lands with a knot or two of forward speed. This was hard in the Harrier, it's easy in the F-35B.

What does need to be considered is the resistance of the deck paint, or non-skid coating. Normal deck paints, especially the UK type, doesn't have a long life with Harriers. More a through life cost issue, though, not a 'deck capability' one. The 'Thermion' system, which is a sprayed on metallic coat, seems to perform extremely well. This can be applied to the areas of the deck most exposed to hot jet efflux.

I can post with a little knowledge here as I was involved with the BAE Systems trial and test work being carried out at Warton and Brough a few years ago. It was a thorough, extensive and ground breaking effort that took the US/UK knowledge of hot gas effects on surfaces many years forward. We also tested Thermion.

The bottom line is that the teams are well placed to put this aircraft on a range of decks. It's not a big deal. Seriously. It's normal STOVL at sea stuff.

I know some reading this will not want to believe that, but it's the truth.

Best Regards as ever and hope this helps,

Engines

[500N]

Engines

Thanks, that is great info.

I thought the deck required was much more complicated.

I had read about the creeping landing.

All good :ok:


As an aside, it will be interesting to see if the Marines bring any F-35's out to Aus as part of the
rotation training of Marines up in Northern Australia with basing at Tindall.

[SpazSinbad]

Many thanks as always 'Engines' for your input.

For '500N' the Spanish LHD was designed for operating F-35Bs. Oz LHDs are the same on the exterior as that original design; and mostly I'm told in interior with some minor mods to best suit our purposes. THERMION or whatever the Brits will use on CVFs (if it is not the same) will suffice for surface of the deck treatments. I was learning YankSpeak for our future USMC F-35Bs on Oz LHDs but now I guess the Queens Anglaisich will be necessary also. :} sigh.:}

[rh200]

I just don't see that happening.

I would be surprised if it did, there might be a case for it, but the budget issues makes me wonder.

[LowObservable]

Budget issues? No big deal. Just take the entire budget for air operations, set fire to it and throw it off the back of the ship.

$32K per flying hour for the F-35A will be dwarfed by the bill for the B. Not to mention $140 million per jet in average procurement unit cost (at full rate, if everything goes to plan).

On the other hand, if the Australians can figure out a practical scenario where you need a (just about) supersonic and (somewhat) stealthy fighter, on a ship with no tanker, AEW or EA support, then good on yer cobber, because the Marines have yet to articulate such a thing.

[SpazSinbad]

Here is a blast from the ancient past from the ancients themselves (the little tyros).... 2004 'tis.

Australia’s Maritime Strategy Jun 2004
"...5.70 The Government is not required to commit to the purchase of the F-35 until 2006. The Government should give consideration to purchasing some short take-off and vertical landing aircraft (STOVL).
&
Conclusions
5.86 As part of the inquiry, the key maritime capabilities that were examined include amphibious lift, the protection and capability provided through the provision of air warfare destroyers, and the capability provided through an aircraft carrier. In addition, while the role of the Collins Class submarines was not discussed in detail, the committee fully supports the ongoing role provided through submarine capability.

5.87 The proposed acquisition of three air warfare destroyers is fully supported. These will provide a high level of protection against air attack and ensure Australian forces are adequately protected. The only concern is that the air warfare destroyers will not become available until about 2013.

The Government should explain what alternative type of area protection it will provide particularly for disembarking land forces.

5.88 In the previous conclusions, the committee suggested that if the Government, in 2006, confirms the decision to purchase the F-35, it should consider purchasing some short take-off and vertical landing aircraft (STOVL). This could provide the ADF with some organic air cover while it is engaged in regional operations. It is assumed that the F-35 STOVL version will be able to meet its design specifications. The committee is aware of reports that the STOVL version is subject to weight problems.

5.89 In relation to maritime surveillance, the impending use of uninhabited air vehicles (UAVs) such as Global Hawk is fully supported. This type of capability offers real advances in efficiency and surveillance time.

Recommendation 8
5.90 The Government’s decision to purchase three air warfare destroyers for delivery by about 2013 is supported.

The Department of Defence, however, should explain how adequate air protection will be provided to land and naval forces before the air warfare destroyers are delivered in 2013.

Recommendation 9
5.91 If in 2006 the Government confirms that it will purchase the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) then it should consider purchasing some short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) F-35 variants for the provision of organic air cover as part of regional operations...."
http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=jfadt/maritime/report/report.pdf (0.8Mb)
___________________

Despite assertions otherwise the money for DefBuys is squirreled away once the Budget passed according to DMO:

Defence Portfolio Budget Statements 2014-15 Defence Materiel Organisation | page 158
“...Joint Strike Fighter | Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft - AIR 6000 Phase 2A/B
Prime Contractor: Lockheed Martin is contracted to the United States Government for the development and production of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Australia is procuring the aircraft through a government-to-government agreement.

This project is approved to acquire 72 JSF aircraft and supporting elements to form three operational squadrons and one training squadron. This comprises 14 aircraft approved in 2009 and 58 approved in April 2014. The funding for the recently approved 58 aircraft and associated elements will be transferred to the DMO post the 2014-15 budget.

During 2014-15 production of Australia’s first two JSF Aircraft will be completed at the Lockheed Martin facility in Fort Worth Texas. The aircraft will then be ferried to the International Pilot Training Centre at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona to support the commencement of Australian pilot training.

Some of the major risks for the project include the establishment of an electronic warfare reprogramming capability [ACURL - a JOINT effort with UK & CANUKS (yet to pay up dem Nuks) and Oz) and the stand up of sustainment systems and facilities required to support Australian operations....”
http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/14-15/pbs/2014-2015_Defence_PBS_04_DMO.pdf (0.7Mb)

[500N]

Unless a full scale war, the aust sf have always assumed no air cover.

Although now we have tiger and f18 and refueling capability, you wonder
If that is still the case.

[SpazSinbad]

Here are some items for the 'wet' Brits....

STOVL testing at Edwards 16 May 2014 Darin Russell
"...A Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing variant of the F-35 Lightning II is shown performing Crosswind and Wet Runway testing at Edwards AFB May 6. Pilot Dan Levin and a team from the F-35 Integrated Test Facility at Patuxent River, Md., accompanied aircraft BF-4 for the deployment April 11. Testing is expected to continue until June 14....

...The F-35 ITF at Edwards AFB also operates variants BF-17 and BF-18 for its mission systems testing of the STOVL variant...."
SOURCE: STOVL testing at Edwards (http://www.aerotechnews.com/news/2014/05/16/stovl-testing-at-edwards/)
________________

And that thing about a STOVLie at the CVF 'naming ceremony'? WTF?

F-35B To Fly At Christening Of Brits’ Newest Aircraft Carrier, If Weather OK 16 May 2014 Colin Clark

F-35B To Fly At Christening Of Brits? Newest Aircraft Carrier, If Weather OK « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary (http://breakingdefense.com/2014/05/f-35b-to-fly-at-christening-of-brits-newest-aircraft-carrier-if-weather-ok/)

[SpazSinbad]

I'll guess a lot of old plans will emerge from desk drawers now that the OzDefMin has said what he said. An LHD is NOT an aircraft carrier nor will it ever be one in Oz Service I'll imagine. The Spanish can speak for themselves. Meanwhile here is an old CVF story I do not recall seeing until today.

Royal Navy Widening Scope Of Carrier Use 11 Sep 2013 Anthony Osborne

"The U.K. Royal Navy is broadening the scope of how it might use its future fleet of Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers....

...Rear Admiral Russell Harding, the head of the U.K. Fleet Air Arm, speaking at the Defence Services Equipment International (DSEI) exhibition in London Sept. 10 [2013]....

...The carriers will form the centerpiece of the Responsive Force Task Group (RFTG), capable of embarking a wide variety of rotary-wing platforms as well as a squadron of the U.K.’s planned F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters. Although the last Strategic Defense and Security Review (SDSR) called for an embarked complement of 12 JSFs on the ship, Harding suggested that a new Joint Air Maneuver Package could be developed in support of amphibious operations.

A surge force of up to 24 JSFs could deploy on the ship along with what he described as a Maritime Force Protection package of nine Merlin Mk. 2 helicopters equipped for the anti-submarine warfare (ASW) mission, while a further four or five would be available to provide an airborne early warning capability. A littoral maneuver package also is envisaged, potentially using the Royal Air Force’s Chinooks, the upgraded Merlin Mk. 4, Army Apache attack helicopters and the Wildcat helicopter.

Studies are being carried out by the U.K. Defense Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) to see if the ship can operate safely with more landing spots than the six currently planned. Harding suggests that by adding a further four landing spots, the ship will be able to lift a company-sized unit of troops (up to 250 soldiers) in a single group lift using medium helicopters. “This is possible,” Harding said. “We just need to decide how we paint the lines on the flight deck.”..."
Royal Navy Widening Scope Of Carrier Use | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/royal-navy-widening-scope-carrier-use)

[Bastardeux]

A surge force of up to 24 JSFs

This made me laugh... With what aircraft? The latest procurement number doing the rounds is 30!

[glad rag]

Clutching at straws.

"up to 250 soldiers" oh yeah where are they going to ****, sleep and eat?

[Frostchamber]

Glad Rag the situation may be helped by the fact that the vessels have been designed from the outset to accommodate a company of 250 Royal Marines, including provision for basic bodily functions. Sorry to disappoint :).

Bastardeaux in fact the reference to surging to 24 is a more realistic take given the earlier references of a surge to 36, which always struck me as a tad optimistic with a total carrier-based buy of 48 airframes. I see that many who were confidently asserting that the carriers would never be built have now moved on to variations on the tired old "no aircraft" theme, but the fact is the Govt would find it politically difficult to go much south of the 48 they have publically committed to. I imagine you'll disagree with that, but happy to agree to differ.

[LowObservable]

With 48 aircraft, you can sustain a 24-aircraft carrier wing for a sensible length of time. If your regular carrier strength is lower than that you might be able to provide some land-based operational capability as well. Under 48 aircraft, however, you can't even maintain a fig-leaf pretense that the GR4 is being replaced.
This is what happens when you select an aircraft that costs 80 per cent as much as an F-22.

[Bastardeux]

Frostchamber, I've never hoped, or even postulated that the carriers will be scrapped...like the typhoon, they would cost more to cancel than to build, so why would I advocate such a waste of money and capability?

I'm simply saying what friends involved in SDSR15 have told me. In any case, how long could a purchase of 48 aircraft (29 FE@R? 6 OCU, 3 OEU, 10 in deep servicing) realistically sustain a 24 aircraft surge?...embarking nearly the entirety of the deployable force in one go? Serrrioously?

I'd just prefer to see people stop talking out of their butts as if launching 250 troops or surging to 24 aircraft will be some sort of regular occurrence!

[LowObservable]

And to underline the point: 48 F-35Bs = no Tornado replacement, and a land-based combat force of 107-some Typhoons.

[Frostchamber]

Sorry Bastardeux my frustration at the repeated "no aircraft" line was getting the better of me. In circs where current plans (including the 48) already take us down to 7 sqns of FJ I'd still be genuinely surprised - and very worried - if the commitment to 48 didn't hold good.

In practice I certainly don't expect to see 24 embarked very often at all, but in some ways for UK diplomacy purposes the possibility of a surge to 24 - even if only demonstrated very occasionally - would probably suffice, and 48 airframes would just about permit that.

I'd concede though that building up to 48 and being able to generate 24 for ops isn't something we'll see near term, and 10 years is a long time in politics. Hey ho. I'll do my best to hang on to what little optimism I have left for the time being.

[Maus92]

Any existing LHx will likely need to be modified to operate the F-35B. Even the brand new USS America LHA needs modification to its deck structure, and relocation of under deck equipment to mitigate thermal loads that were not anticipated during its design (this is in addition to the new Thermion deck coating.) It is a safe bet that both the Spanish and Italian LHD designs will need similar modifications, plus their aviation fuel bunkerage, weapons storage and MX spaces will need to be enlarged / modified. The USN will manage the thermal situation by rotating landing spots until each ship visits the yard to be modified - not sure if this is possible on smaller deck LHDs.

[SpazSinbad]

'Maus92' safe bet is looking a tad unsafe to me but I'm not a betting individual - I look for evidence. Here is some from an Italian RADM Harrier pilot:

The Italian Approach to the F-35: A Discussion with Rear Admiral Covella 2013-11-08 By Robbin Laird

The Italian Approach to the F-35: A Discussion with Rear Admiral Covella | SLDInfo (http://www.sldinfo.com/the-italian-approach-to-the-f-35-a-discussion-with-rear-admiral-covella/)
RADM Covella: "...The Cavour will see some changes as well; there are no structural changes necessary but some adaptations such as dedicated secure networks and laying down a new type of surface treatment for the ship flight deck...."

I have seen only quotes suggesting the Spanish LHD Juan Carlos I is OK for F-35B use but nothing detailed AFAIK. However now that the F-35B possibility is back in the political arena in our Great Southern Land then more details about these aspects may emerge over time.

[chinook240]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10838453/RAFs-70-million-F-35-fighter-may-be-cancelled-because-of-poor-performance.html

[typerated]

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/digital/pdf/articles/2014-May-Jun/F-Pietrucha.pdf


Owch.


Conclusion

It is time for a rational discussion of the F-35. Such a dialogue would
have to be free from the vacuum of a notional volume of contested airspace
and consider the context of the complete CAF enterprise and its
application across the globe. The F-35 program has long since passed the
point where we can expect it to provide a substantial improvement in a
broad war-fighting context over its predecessors. Designed for a European
conflict that did not occur and a threat environment less advanced
than the present one, the F-35 program offers little improvement over its
predecessors and demands vast resources from diminishing funds.

Following the example of the Comanche program, we should consider
cancelling the F-35 in favor of a robust, modernized CAF that emphasizes
broad capabilities rather than occupying the short-range
stealthy niche. Facing a decade of reduced budgetary authority, we
must follow a prudent path towards recovery after more than 20 years
of continuous combat operations. Doing so will help address a number
of collateral issues, including force readiness, global reach, and the inventory
of fighter/attack aircrews. Viable alternatives to the F-35 exist
if we have the courage to examine them. 

[PhilipG]

Makes a lot of sense for the USAF, a slight problem fo the USMC, the Harriers cannot go on forever. Slightly embarrassing for the MoD.

[Not_a_boffin]

Hmm. An O6 writes a paper in the Air & Space Power Journal which debates perfectly valid opinions, but has no actual input to decision-making. The Telegraph translates this into "the programme may be canned due to poor performance".

The standard of journalism really is slipping.

[Frostchamber]

Par for the course I'm afraid. Reminds me of where policymakers present a full range of options including, for completeness, "thinking the unthinkable", such as cancelling a project. When it leaks, editors invariably headline it "Ministers consider cancelling x" which in one very strict sense is true, and helps sell papers, but is highly misleading.

Which reminds me, we must be overdue for a Winslow Wheeler rentaquote, surely? It's been at least a week.

[Bastardeux]

Is the author still serving?

[Just This Once...]

Perhaps they forgot to employ the media handler to explain what the colonel meant to say.

It was ever thus - from a previous fictitious war:

The following statements were recorded when a civilian correspondent interviewed a shy, unassuming Air Force Phantom jet fighter pilot. So the correspondent would not misconstrue the pilot's replies, a Wing Information Officer was on hand as a monitor to make certain that the real Air Force story would be told. The Captain was first asked his opinion of the F4C Phantom.

Pilot: "****, it's so friggin manoeuvrable you can fly up your own ass with it."

WIO: "What the Captain means is that he has found the F4C highly manoeuvrable at all altitudes and he considers it an excellent aircraft for all missions assigned."

Reporter: "I suppose Captain you've flown a certain number of missions in North Vietnam. What did you think of the SAMs used by the North Vietnamese?"

Pilot: "Why those bastards couldn't hit a bull in the ass with a base fiddle. We fake the **** out of them. They're no sweat."

WIO: "What the Captain means is that the surface to air missiles around Hanoi pose a serious threat to our air operations and the pilots have a healthy respect for them."

Reporter: "I suppose Captain you've flown missions to the South. What kind of ordinance do you use, and what kinds of targets to you hit?"

Pilot: "Well, I'll tell you, mostly we aim at kicking the **** out of Vietnamese villages, and my favourite ordinance is napalm. Man, that stuff just sucks the air out of their friggin lungs and makes a son of a bitchin' fire."

WIO: "What the Captain means is that air strikes in South Vietnam are often against Viet Cong structures and all air operations are under the positive control of Forward Air Controllers, or FACs. The ordinance employed is conventional 500 and 750 pound bombs and 20 millimetre cannon fire."

Reporter: "I suppose you've spent an R&R in Hong Kong. What were your impressions of the Oriental girls?"

Pilot: "Yeah, I went to Hong Kong. As for those Oriental broads - well, I don't care which way the runway runs, east or west, north or south - a piece of ass is a piece of ass."

WIO: "What the Captain means is that he found the delicately featured Oriental girls fascinating, and was very impressed with their fine manners and thinks their naiveté is most charming."

Reporter: "Tell me Captain, have you flown any missions other than over North and South Vietnam?"

Pilot: "You bet your sweet ass I've flown other missions other than in North and South. We get fragged nearly every day for.. uh, those mothers over there throw everything at you but the friggin kitchen sink. Even the goddamned kids got slingshots."

WIO: "What the Captain means is that he has occasionally been scheduled to fly missions in the extreme western DMZ and he has a healthy respect for the flak in that area." (Translation: the 'extreme west' of the Demilitarized Zone was 'neutral' Laos, where most if not all of that section of the Ho Chi Minh Trail was located and where the Americans did not officially go.)

Reporter: "I understand that no one in the 12th Tactical Fighter Wing has got a MiG yet. What seems to be the problem?"

Pilot: "Why you screwhead! If you knew anything about what you were talking about, the problem is MiGs. If we got fragged by those peckerheads at 7th for those counters in MiG valley you could bet your ass we'd get some of those mothers. Those glory hounds at Ubon get all those frags while we settle for fighting the friggin war. Those mothers at Ubon are sitting on their fat asses killing MiGs and we get stuck with bombing the goddamned cabbage patches."

WIO: "What the Captain means is that each element of the 7th Air Force is responsible for doing their assigned job in the air war. Some units are assigned the job of neutralising enemy air strength but hunting out MiGs, and other elements are assigned bombing missions and interdiction of enemy supply routes."

Reporter: "Of all the targets you've hit in Vietnam, which one was the most satisfying?"

Pilot: "Oh, ****, it was getting fragged for that friggin suspected VC vegetable garden. I dropped napalm in the middle of the friggin pumpkins and cabbage, while my wingman splashed it real good with six of those 750 pound mothers and spread the fire al the way to the friggin beets and carrots."

WIO: "What the Captain means is that the great variety of tactical targets available throughout Vietnam make the F4C the perfect aircraft to provide flexible response."

Reporter: "What do you consider the most difficult target you've struck in North Vietnam?"

Pilot: "The friggin bridges. I must have dropped forty tons of bombs on those swaying bamboo mothers and I ain't hit one of the bastards yet."

WIO: "What the captain means is that interdicting bridges along enemy supply routes is very important and a quite difficult target. The best way to accomplish this task is to crater the approaches to the bridges."

Reporter: "I noticed in touring the base that you have aluminium matting on the taxiways. Would you care to comment on the effectiveness and usefulness in Vietnam?"

Pilot: "You're friggin right I'd like to make a comment. Most of us pilots are well hung, but ****, you don't know what hung is until you get hung up on one of those friggin bumps on that goddamned stuff."

WIO: "What the Captain means is that the aluminium matting is quite satisfactory as a temporary expedient, but requires some finesse in taxying and braking the aircraft."

Reporter: "Did you have an opportunity to meet your wife on leave in Honolulu, and did you enjoy the visit with her?"

Pilot: "Yeah, I met my wife in Honolulu, but I forgot to check the calendar, and so the whole five days were friggin well combat-proof. A completely dry run."

WIO: "What the captain means is that it was wonderful to get together with his wife and learn first hand about the family and how things were at home."

Reporter: "Thank you for your time, Captain."

Pilot: "Screw you, why don't you bastards print the real story instead of all that crap."

WIO: "What the Captain really means is that he enjoyed the opportunity to discuss his Tour with you."

Reporter: "One final question. Could you reduce your impression of the war into a simple phrase or statement, Captain?"

Pilot: "You bet your ass I can. It's a f**ked-up war."

WIO: "What the Captain means is it's a f**ked-up war."

[SpazSinbad]

Iraq, Feb. 25, 1991 • F/A-18C Hornet • Lt. Col. Jay Stout, VMFA-451

Marine Corps Aviation Centennial: Marine Aviators In Their Own Words | Defense Media Network (http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/marine-corps-aviation-centennial-marine-aviators-in-their-own-words/3/)
“...I was an F-4S Phantom II pilot when I converted to the F/A-18A/C Hornet. After the first flight in the Hornet, there was nothing about the Phantom I missed. The Hornet was easier to fly, more modern, with reliable systems, & incredibly maneuverable. It was comfortable. The ability to see almost 360 degrees contrasted tremendously against the Phantom, where you couldn’t look out the canopy and see your own wings. The Hornet was a little slower at the top end but I never flew the Phantom that fast....”

[Bastardeux]

Ask how many F4 pilots missed it when they converted to the F3...

[glad rag]

Missed what? the inter-granular corrosion, the tired engines, NO SPARES, or even the rose coloured glasses?

:}

[LowObservable]

My learned friend Mr Boffin is apparently not familiar with some of the Torygraph's previous Air Correspondents.

Mind you, even the less technologically apt of those gentlemen would never be caught dead blathering on about "Z-axis warfare" and "game shifters" and "paradigm changers" like some of the so-called "independent consultants" who infest the intertubez.

[Rhino power]

Ask how many F4 pilots missed it when they converted to the F3...

All of them, I should think! :ok:

-RP

[Courtney Mil]

I think you're right, Rhino. We did. I had the F-15 between the F4 and the F3, but that (strangely) didn't change things much.

[typerated]

CM,


Do you think the Luftwaffe made the right choice upgrading the F4? After all they retired them a while after we retired the F3!


Also, was there ever a plan to replace the F4s at Wattisham and Wildenrath with anything (F3s?) before they closed?

[SpazSinbad]

F-35B Hover MCAS Cherry Point May 2014

Turn your sounds up to ELEVEN! :}

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8VQssvoAhc

[Rhino power]

Well, that was 1min and 2 seconds of my life that I'll never get back... :zzz:

-RP

[newt]

Ugly, loud, expensive and very visible!

How the heck can they call it Lightning Two?:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Lonewolf_50]

The original Lightning being the P-38, of WW II vintage ... what's in a name? :confused: See also the A-10 (officially named) Thunderbolt II ... Warthog was an informal name.

[Bastardeux]

I fully appreciate the technical achievements behind that, and it's an extremely cool party trick. The problem for me though, with all those trap doors and various other scrinsons moving about, is that I just see a big, flashing U/S sign!!

[LowObservable]

VP - Engineering, Caractacus Potts.

http://www.ianfleming.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/chitty_film.jpg

[Wander00]

But can it bow to the crowd like the Harr.................... OK, hat, coat...but can it?

[CoffmanStarter]

That video clip has just reminded me to put out my Wheelie Bin tonight :}

[SpazSinbad]

'rp' you must be pleased then that I do not have a clip of the '10 minute hover' carried out at Pax River 30 Nov 2012.

[gr4techie]

The problem for me though, with all those trap doors and various other scrinsons moving about, is that I just see a big, flashing U/S sign!!

For the first few seconds of the video I thought he had the canopy open. Now that would be a good trick in the hover on a sunny day.

[LowObservable]

Wander00 - I'm sure Engines knows the answer, but my impression is that in hover mode, fore and aft stick commands longitudinal acceleration; left and right stick command sideways acceleration; the rudder pedals rotate the jet around the vertical axis; and the throttle commands vertical speed.

Which means that a whole lot of computers are there to stop anyone doing anything independent in pitch and roll.

[NoHoverstop]

LO - the clue is in the name. Left hand always does stuff related to fore-aft movement, right-hand always does stuff related to up-down. It's not rocket science and neither is it hard to find this information on the internet. Hope that helps!

[Wander00]

CS - just put my bin down the road too.


LO - sorry, it was a joke

[glad rag]

10 minute hover.. guess that beats the 8 second Cobra then :E

[SpazSinbad]

Some internet guff by GT about it all (excerpts about Unified Control Law by John Farley are available)....

Test Flying The Joint Strike Fighter 17 Jun 2011 Graham Tomlinson

Test Flying The Joint Strike Fighter (http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/hawkerassociation/hanewsletters/hanewsletter030nvu/testflyingjointstrikefighter.html)
"The STOVL mode control system is derived from ‘Unified’ developed by the ‘RAE’ on the VAAC Harrier. The throttle commands acceleration and deceleration (or thrust on the ground and in the STO mode, and in all conventional modes); in the hover the stick moved backwards/forwards commands upwards/ downwards vertical velocity (or pitch rate elsewhere); in the hover the stick moved from side to side commands bank angle (or roll rate elsewhere) and if released returns the aircraft to wings level; in the hover the pedals command yaw rate (or sideslip elsewhere).

Future development will clear full envelope autopilot/auto throttle, automatic deceleration to a spot, and TRC (translational rate command) which in the hover allows the pilot to make small positional corrections easily, and will then bring the aircraft to a standstill if the pilot releases the controls. A pilot’s helmet mounted display (HMD) is fitted instead of a HUD.

In the Harrier the pilot must obey the rules. The F-35B flyby-wire system gives angle-of-attack and sideslip control, and departure protection. Further pilot workload reduction is given by performance deficit protection, conversion speed window protection and FOD protection warning; and flight test has a watching brief on the requirement for possible tail strike protection during slow landings (currently not considered necessary [2011]). Pilot cognitive errors (of trying to control thrust with the throttle) have been mitigated in the design...."
_____________________________

History of Unified Control Law development (and alternatives) here:

A V/STOL FLIGHT CONTROL JOURNEY ENABLED BY RAE SCIENTISTS by John Farley 2006

http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk.nyud.net/documents/Research/RAF-Historical-Society-Journals/Journal-35A-Seminar-the-RAF-Harrier-Story.pdf (25Mb)

“...UNIFIED. Unified was the most radical mode. Here the pilot pulls back on the stick to go up and pushes to go down, regardless of airspeed. At all speeds above 40 kt ground speed the stick commands flight path rate and so relaxing it to the centre position when the aircraft is flying level maintains height. If the aircraft is in a climb or a dive, relaxing the stick maintains the existing climb or dive flight path angle. As the aircraft decelerates through 40 kt the stick response blends to become a height rate control by 30 kt ground speed so, in the hover, with stick centre commanding zero height rate, it appears to the pilot as a height hold.

When flying up and away lateral stick commands roll rate. This blends between 130 and 100 kt to become a closed loop roll attitude control, so that relaxing the stick to centre below 100 kt commands wings level. Above 40 kt ground speed the rudder pedals command sideslip. Decelerating below this speed the pedals blend to a yaw rate command by 30 kt, providing a heading hold in the hover with feet central.

A throttle-type left hand inceptor, incorporating two detents, commands longitudinal acceleration.

Putting the inceptor in the centre detent holds the current speed. Acceleration or deceleration is selected by moving the lever forward or aft of the detent, with full travel demanding maximum available performance. Decelerating through 35 kt ground speed starts a blend and below 25 kt the aft detent commands zero ground speed. Either side of the aft detent gives the pilot a closed loop control of ground speed up to 30 kt forwards or backwards.

In summary, if the pilot centres both the stick and throttle when flying on the wings, the aircraft holds the existing speed, bank attitude and climb or dive angle. In the hover, centralising everything maintains the existing hover height, position and heading. Such hover characteristics are the stuff of dreams for every Harrier pilot at the start of their conversion...”

[Navaleye]

Just eliminate a couple of infantry battalions. We don't need them now. Also the obsolete tranche 1 Typhoons could be binned. That save a few bob.

[draken55]

Turn your sounds up to ELEVEN!

In the current edition of "The Hook" the Journal of Carrier Aviation, a Pentagon representative highlights that the F-35C will require crew to have hearing protection not only on the Flight Deck but also one deck below. Also mentioned was the increased maintenance requirements for an aircraft with stealth capability. This means daily cleaning and at least in the short term, the minimum time on deck when at sea. Also, as the F-35C does not have a HUD, the Helmet Mounted display must work.

In due course, the USN is seeking to use the F-35C as more of an information gatherer and collector. It will be able to go it alone in contested areas but more often it will be working with an Air Group of other types.

[Navaleye]

LowObservable,

I had to watch that truly awful film in 1969 while my Brother and my cousin went to see the Battle of Britain. My life long hatred for Dick VanDyke has lasted ever since. :ok:

[John Farley]

But can it bow to the crowd like the Harr....................

No.

But neither does it need to. As a supersonic vertical lander the crowd should bow to it.

The problem for me though, with all those trap doors and various other scrinsons moving about, is that I just see a big, flashing U/S sign!!

I had a friend in the old days who thought the same about retractable undercarriages.

His dad did not trust airspeed indicators and thought it was safer to listen to the wind in the wires.

[SpazSinbad]

'draken55' I have not seen the current HOOK edition however NavAir have been working on 'hearing protection' solutions for more than a decade with some results.

F-35 Forcing Navy To Develop New Hearing Protection For Flight Deck Crews 09 Apr 2014 MEGHANN MYERS

F-35 Forcing Navy To Develop New Hearing Protection For Flight Deck Crews | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140409/DEFREG02/304090026/F-35-Forcing-Navy-Develop-New-Hearing-Protection-Flight-Deck-Crews)
“The Navy is developing new hearing protection for flight deck crews to block out the roar of new and noisy jets. The F-35 Lightning II, which clocks in at a thundering 152 decibels, is forcing the service to come up with better hearing protection for sailors. Enter the new headset: they offer 14 decibels more protection and are worn over earplugs, like the legacy “Mickey Mouse” headphones that the fleet has used for six decades. “The Navy flight deck is one of the noisiest places in the military,” said Dan Ratcliff, program manager of aircrew systems for Naval Air Systems Command, in an April 8 briefing at the Sea-Air-Space expo outside Washington, D.C. The new headset, known as the DC2, is a 14-decibel [more protection] upgrade already in use with the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Marine Aircraft Wings. Some sailors may also get to wear new foam ear plugs that have an embedded speaker, allowing yellowshirts to listen to the plane & the ship while on deck....

...NAVAIR isn’t done trying to protect sailors’ hearing. Officials are now in the early stages of a triple hearing protection system that works at up to 39 decibels [more protection? as seen in sentence no.3 above?], Ratcliff said.”

NRAC 2009 Noise Chart from: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA526482&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/NoiseChartNRAC2009usnUSAFforum.gif~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/NoiseChartNRAC2009usnUSAFforum.gif.html)

[draken55]

Spaz

Thanks for the info and graphic.

The Hook mentioned the problem as on the new Ford Class, one deck down is where Mission Planning space is going so noise cancelling could be more of an issue.

[SpazSinbad]

Some extra info....

Flight Deck Cranial (FDC) & Hearing Protection Devices (HPD)

http://www.dawnbreaker.com/about/publications/pdfs/14_Profiles.pdf & Adaptive Technologies, Inc. (http://www.adaptivetechinc.com/#!solutions)
"...Noise generated in and around military aircraft presents a significant risk to short and long-term hearing health and creates an environment in which communication becomes intractable....

...Today, there are tens of thousands of Aegisound hearing protectors incorporating ATI’s technologies aboard Navy ships. ATI also partnered with Lockheed Martin on its Joint Strike Fighter Program, and Lockheed Martin has purchased hundreds of Digital Active Noise Reduction (DANR) Double Hearing Protector (DHP) systems from Aegisound, which are designed to be used in extreme noise environments such as jet noise up to 140 dB(A)....”

[LowObservable]

As a supersonic vertical lander the crowd should bow to it.

Or they may have their heads down to see where their fillings ended up.

[Bastardeux]

I had a friend in the old days who thought the same about retractable undercarriages.

How f@*king old are you!?

I don't really see an aircraft pioneering retractable undercarriage, as a valid comparison...

[SpazSinbad]

Yeah youse brits - be warned - and brung youse ear defenders with youse (to any F-35B display) and probably pocket your falsies (teef) also... :}

DOD PROGRAMS F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) [2013 end of]

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2013/pdf/dod/2013f35jsf.pdf (0.5Mb)
"...F-35B Air-Ship Integration and Ship Suitability Testing...
...The Marine Corps has determined that new active noise reduction personal hearing protection is necessary for on-deck personnel because of the high level of engine noise. Noise damping materials and/or personal hearing protection may also be needed for below-deck personnel....

...F-35C Air-Ship Integration and Ship Suitability Testing
Although a number of air-ship integration issues are common to both CVN and L-class ships, such as lithium-ion battery storage, pilot flight equipment storage, need for new shipboard firefighting procedures, and high noise levels, some issues and their solutions are particular to aircraft carriers. The Navy has made progress in addressing some of these integration issues, but several challenges remain...."

...Engine noise is a potential risk to personnel on the flight deck and one level below the flight deck. The Navy has decided to procure active noise reduction personal hearing protection for on-deck personnel. Projected noise levels one level below the flight deck (03 level) will require at least single hearing protection. On most carriers this is a berthing area, but on CVN-78 this is a mission planning space; personnel wearing hearing protection in mission-planning areas will find it difficult to perform their duties. The Navy previously tested acoustic damping material in 2012 and is developing a model to optimize material placement....

[WildRover]

Bastardeux

I had a friend in the old days who thought the same about retractable undercarriages.
How f@*king old are you!?

I don't really see an aircraft pioneering retractable undercarriage, as a valid comparison...

Type in Google John Farley Aviation.......haha

Think he may know quiet a bit about the subject.

[glad rag]

Hmm, there seems to a lack of objectivity creeping into this [love] thread.

:}

[gr4techie]

Jet noise comparison

Comparing the sound of aircraft in dB can be misleading, an difference of just a few dB can in reality be quite a lot. As dB is not a linear scale but logarithmic. The way I interpret it, for every 10dB the noise increase by a power of 10.
10dB=10
20dB=100
30dB=1000

As noise is considered, I reckon the Tornado GR4, with it's constant speed and variable noise is way up the league table. It amuses me when you compare the thrust of noisy "fast" jets with much quieter civvy airliners.

Anyway, I'm glad I won't be trying to sleep on an aircraft carrier with F-35's above me.

[Courtney Mil]

gr4techie raises a very important point here. The graphic showing how all the fast jets are "fairly consistant" in their noise levels is very misleading, using a log scale that few people understand to falsly make a point. For example, the 148 bd of an F-35 in burner is actually twice the volume of the 145 db in cold power - even though it looks virtually the same on the graph. Poor choice of illustration vithout a proper explanation. :=

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Au contraire, it is an excellent choice if you wish to play down a negative feature.

Mind you, it's also the standard measure in the industry. Perhaps people who don't understand logarithmic scales shouldn't be making decisions about information which uses them. ;)

[SpazSinbad]

So via the chart an F-14B/D in A/B on the catapult at 153 db is somehow overlooked? I guess we will have to guess that the db for the F-35C on the catapult in burner is the same as the F-35A in A/B? 148 db? [changed - misread the 148 for 145 earlier]

Then some Hornets are at 2 db less or same (146-148) on the log scale? Wow Dem Tomcats sure must have howled at 153 db eh. No wonder a lot of USN people are deef even today wid dose Hornetoes on the go.
_______

I have read a few times now that USN LSOs often do not wear ear protection because they want to hear the engines on short final (in close - at the ramp). No wonder the LSOs do not like Hornets going to burner in the wires (not recommended by NATOPS anyway unless needed for whatever reason otherwise). Going to burner with the aircraft being arrested puts extra strain on all the bits and bobs.

[Engines]

Guys,

Perhaps I can help here, as I have some knowledge of the work done on F-35 noise issues.

Courtney and gr4techie are quite right to point out the issue of the logarithmic scale used for noise measurement. It's a complex area, and made more complex by the many scales used, not just 'dB', but also the more commonly used (and slightly more accurate) 'EpNdB', which is 'Ear perceived noise in Decibels'.

The real problem is not that the F-35 is significantly noisier than any 'legacy jets'. It's not. The key issue is that the programme's initiation coincided with the application of more stringent noise protection regulations in both Europe and the US. In a nutshell, the customers are no longer willing (or legally able) to tolerate the levels of noise exposure they happily accepted just a few years ago.

Because of this, the F-35 programme has done more work than any other in getting the best knowledge of the actual noise generated in all operational scenarios, including cat launches, VLs, and STOVL launches. Flight decks and ships pose a special challenge, because you can't keep personnel as far away from the noise source as on a land base.

Knowing the noise levels is also important in designing aircraft structures that are exposed to even higher levels of sound energy. Those of us who struggled with cracking Harrier heat shields and failing wiring know what 'acoustic damage' can entail.

The F-35 is as noisy as most other jets generating nearly 40,000 lbs of thrust from low bypass engines. There are some jets that are louder, and some quieter. The programme's predictions and measurements put in around the middle of the pack, but as I've explained, the incoming noise regulations led to a number of special programmes to assess all possible solutions.

Active noise reduction and more intrusive (in-ear) designs have made ear defenders better and better, but there are drawbacks, including problems in keeping the ear inserts clean and properly fitted. The next step could include larger helmets that reduce noise transmission through the skull - some of the designs were scarily similar to the 'Judge Dredd' model. Other solutions include reducing the noise exposure over time - at one stage, the CVF team were looking at 'acoustic shelters' around the flight deck to give crew some respite from the noise.

Bottom line is that managing noise exposure around high powered combat aircraft is a tough nut to crack. It's tougher on board. And the new regulations have made it harder still. But there are some extremely smart people working the issue.

Hope this helps

Best regards

Engines

[Courtney Mil]

Which shows even better how misleading your chart is Spaz. Those extra 5db you point out represent about 4.5 times the volume (power).

[Courtney Mil]

EpNdB is Effective Perceived Noise in Decibels. Due to noise saturation of the human ear it does not equate directly to hearing damage. Doubling the power ratio or sound pressure does not equate to doubling the perceived volume (EpNdB). Remember as well that this log 10 scale is all about ratios, not absolute sound pressure. Unless used relative to a reference, dB are somewhat meaningless.

But my main point is that the graphic on the previous page tends to suggest that all jet engines produce virtually the same noise. Clearly they do not and the spread of power across the audible frequency spectrum varies hugely.

[Engines]

Courtney,

As I alluded to in my last post, using straight 'dB' tells you how much sound pressure is being generated. But EpNdB is a better measure of the potential for damage to hearing. But Courtney's absolutely right that it doesn't equate directly to hearing damage. The duration of the noise exposure is, as I remember it, an equally critical factor.

As i said, it's complicated. Sorry, but there it is. As an example, during cat launches, the sound source interacts with the deck and the JBDs (and other aircraft if it's a two ship launch) (and other aircraft around on the flight deck) (and the wind) to create complex and variable EpNdB contours. STOVL launches present far less problems, but have still been worked in detail.

Not looking at the chart Spaz posted, but from my own knowledge of the predictions and tests that the programme carried out, the F-35 was not the noisiest aircraft the USN and LM found. It was certainly not the quietest. But, given the new regulations on hearing protection that were coming in, the programme took noise protection extremely seriously.

I know it's a lot more complicated than swapping dB (or EpNdB) numbers, but it's what the engineers had to do to find out exactly where the issues were and how they might mitigate them.

Best Regards as ever to all those doing the detail science type stuff (because it matters)

Engines

[SpazSinbad]

May we assume that the chart on previous page refers to full A/B for all aircraft? If so then this lil' tidbit may be one way that the horrendous noise of the Shornet and F-35C when catapulting is and will be mitigated?

JBD Testing A Key Step For Joint Strike Fighter Aviation Week & Space Technology Jul 18, 2011 p. 84 by Amy Butler | Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, N.J.

http://www.navair.navy.mil/lakehurst/nlweb/pao/InTheNews/2011-07-18_JBD_Testing.pdf (125Kb)

“...Even without the more extensive data provided by today’s sensor array, Super Hornet engineers gained valuable experience during JBD trials that led to a change in how the aircraft is launched. During testing, hot air was inadvertently recirculated into the air intake of the Super Hornet, prompting a “pop stall,” or hiccup in the airflow for the propulsion system. The result was a dangerous fireball coughing from the back of the Super Hornet, says Briggs.

The design fix was the creation of a limited afterburner setting for [Shornet & F-35C] launch. Engineers crafted software such that the engine is at 122% of military power when a pilot sets it to afterburner. By the time the jet reaches the edge of the deck, the system automatically opens the throttle to full afterburner at 150% of power without intervention by the pilot, says Briggs. Having completed the first phase of JBD trials with a single F-35C, engineers are eager to test a more realistic scenario with one aircraft in front of the deflector and one behind.

Because of this lesson, the limited afterburner setting was designed into the F-35 in its infancy....”

[GreenKnight121]

So via the chart an F-14B/D in A/B on the catapult at 153 db is somehow overlooked?

As has been the listing for the non-afterburning EA-6B, which has been aboard USN carriers since the late 1960s, which matches the 148 Db of the F-35 in afterburner!

[SpazSinbad]

For those who do not want to read this long screed - just put your fingas in your ears as hard as you can and shout out loud "Lah Lah Lah Lah" - be a TeleTubby for the day. Others may read some text supporting the NRAC chart on previous page plus dis udda one....

Report on Jet Engine Noise Reduction April 2009 NRAC Naval Research Advisory Committee
Firstly from page 49:
"Appendix A - Terms of Reference - NRAC Tactical Jet Engine Noise Reduction Study
Objective
The noise on the flight decks of our carriers is 20 to 30 dB higher than any technology we have to protect the hearing of our Sailors and Marines. We are not in compliance with OSHA standards, and to quote the DASN for Safety, “We are creating a hearing loss certainty, not just a risk.” The noise problem cannot be solved by only hearing protection devices. The source of the noise must be reduced in addition to finding better ways to decrease the noise exposure times of our Sailors and Marines. The technology does not exist to achieve the needed decreases in engine noise from tactical aircraft jet engines without significant adverse impacts to performance. This study will investigate current technology for reducing tactical jet engine noise and will make recommendations for actions that can be taken to both reduce jet engine noise in existing engines and to be able to achieve lower noise levels in the next generation of tactical jet aircraft.

Background
Progress is being made in developing improved hearing protection devices to replace the current day cranial helmets that were designed in the 1950’s and are still in use on the flight deck. However, there has been no focused effort to reduce tactical aircraft jet engine noise. In fact noise has never been a design parameter for designing a new tactical aircraft, but rather aircraft such as the JSF/ F-35 have a contract specification to only mitigate the noise. No requirement exists for engine noise staying below any threshold noise level. The needed design tools to make such advances do not exist.

F-35A noise levels have undergone some measurement and appear to be comparable to the dB levels of other current tactical aircraft in Mil and afterburner. However, the noise power, watts per square meter, not just dB, generated by the F-35A is two times greater than that generated by the F/A-18 E/F. All tactical aircraft engines grow in thrust over time, and that equates to even greater noise in the future.

THEN... page 9.... "...Although it is desirable to have a single number to measure noise, near-field noise measurements require more than a single dB metric to fully quantify the acoustic pressure levels generated by an engine or to compare one engine to another.

Overall sound pressure levels, i.e., noise, are normally measured in dB, and are a summation of the sound pressure levels across a spectrum of frequencies. Because the human ear is not equally sensitive to all the frequencies of sound across the spectrum, noise levels at maximum human sensitivity between 2 and 4 kHz are factored more heavily into sound descriptions using a process called frequency weighting. Therefore, the noise levels affecting humans are normally shown in dBA (A-weighted decibels), a frequency weighted average.

There were concerns that the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) F-135 engine would be noisier than existing engines and that hearing protection might possibly be inadequate for speech intelligibility for flight deck personnel. Accordingly, in 2002 the JSF Program Office funded a study of the noise environment during carrier qualification operations aboard USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) and USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) and during AV-8B operations aboard USS Nassau (LHA-4). This was the first time since a 1971 study that measurements of the noise during flight deck operations were recorded. Note that many of the conclusions and recommendations of reports generated in 1971 and 2002 are similar to those made in this report.

Noise levels approaching 150 dB are generated by today’s tactical aircraft. This chart represents a graphical representation of the peak jet noise levels (in dB) for several modern, high performance tactical jet aircraft. The noise numbers on the chart represent the maximum sound pressure levels (SPL) in dB measured for each aircraft in both Military and Afterburner (A/B) power settings along a 42 ft line parallel to the aircraft (representing the “foul line” on a modern aircraft carrier).

The data were collected by the Joint Strike Fighter Flight Systems IPT Vibroacoustics Team during the late 1990’s and are documented in the reports which are referenced in Appendix C. Additional data from a more recent (Oct 2008) test of the F-35 AA-1 Aircraft was provided by the JSF Program office as part of a brief to the NRAC Panel, and additional data from a test of the F/A-18E aircraft in 2000 was provided by the F/A-18 Program Office and is documented in a report titled “Effect of Jet Blast Deflector on Exhaust Noise of F-18E” also listed in Appendix C.

While the above data are considered the “best” data available, there are some concerns as to their absolute validity and the ability to compare data from one aircraft to another, because of the lack of standards for collecting such data as described previously.

Tests were a “one-off” event, and no attempt to produce repeatable data was documented. The Panel raises this concern because there have been two instances in which later measurements were made of both the F-35 and the F/A-18E/F, and differences of 4 dB and 2 dB, respectively, were measured. This shows that a single test, while an indicator of noise levels, cannot be construed as the true level. This variation could be caused by (at least) several contributing factors such as: test set up and execution, microphone placement, type, calibration, weather conditions, engine variability, etc.

NASA Glenn has estimated that at best a good consistent engine test may be able to yield +/- 1 dB for 1/3 octave spectra and +/- 0.5 dB for overall sound pressure levels with today’s techniques and technology. Flight test data will have larger error bars due to other influences such as aircraft position uncertainties and weather, which includes wind, humidity and temperature. Some, but not all, reports documented these variable conditions; however none of the data in the reports were corrected to a standard condition.

The selected test site can also induce variability, and not all aircraft were tested at the same location. This discussion is not meant to degrade the excellent work and effort done to collect the data which were provided to the NRAC, but it is a further justification for the Panel to believe that a set of standards for the measurement of near-field jet engine noise is required....
&
...page 13 ...Eliminating afterburner during takeoff will also provide a significant noise reduction benefit. Afterburners increase the jet noise levels by 5 to 10 dB above military power....
&
...page 25-26 ...Unfortunately, acoustic signatures have not been critical performance parameters in military tactical aircraft system development programs. For future aircraft programs, concern should be paid to acoustic signature effects on the hearing of our Sailors and Marines as well as the environmental affects on the local air base communities. The Navy must rethink how to incorporate lower noise signatures into a full system parameter requirement. This new contracting strategy will allow the prime contractor, in concert with the propulsion system contractor, to initially tradeoff the contributions of the various signature elements with the normal system performance elements (e.g., speed, range, and maneuver) and perform a system level optimization taking all elements into consideration. Without integrating all performance and signatures together, there can not be a system of systems optimization. In order to make significant reductions in aircraft noise, aircraft system contracts need to specify a noise requirement. This can be done by establishing noise as a Key Performance Parameter (KPP) and incentivizing the prime contractor and the propulsion system subcontractor to develop designs which meet this KPP.

In preparation for the next generation tactical aircraft, the Panel believes there should be a KPP for noise. The Navy should initiate a competitive design study to identify the technologies critical to minimizing mid-field and far-field noise for the next generation, high performance tactical aircraft. This design study should include the definition of the multidimensional vehicle design space available and the tradeoff factors between vehicle design characteristics and vehicle performance. In addition, the study should indentify the critical technologies, vehicle configuration and integration features to reduce jet noise and the realistic bounds of vehicle KPPs, including key mission performance and noise. Such a competitive design should be one of the steps in order to define a noise KPP for the next generation tactical aircraft...."
&
...Another chart from page 32 below....
&
...page 37 ...When noise levels exceed 85 dBA, for a period of greater than eight hours, humans run the risk of permanent hearing loss. Even with state-of-the-art protection providing 47 to 53 dBA of attenuation, one is still at risk in the high noise environments (145 – 150 dB) around jet aircraft. The magnitude and impact of noise transmitted via bone and other media such as fluid is largely unknown. The ear canal, if maximally protected, will reduce the noise by 47 – 53 dB. As the sound intensity increases past 110 dB, noise can be transmitted to the hearing apparatus via other routes – most notably bone conduction. In high noise environments noise is transmitted by bone, so attenuating the noise only in the ear canal will never be sufficient at noise levels above 150 dB. The Navy must anticipate that some fraction of the “at-risk” population of Sailors and Marines could lose their hearing, even when outfitted with protection that occludes 100% of the noise. Navy medical research into antioxidant therapy for brief impact noise in Marine subjects, suggests that there may be an effective “pre-exposure” therapy available that will increase noise-level tolerance. Data also suggests that post exposure therapies can potentially re-grow damaged hair cells. This kind of research needs to be expanded to include chronic noise exposure on the flight deck.

Noise levels below 500 Hz are normally not recorded by either dosimeters or medical audiograms. Although in the research environment audiograms routinely record down to 125 Hz. Various anecdotal reports have noted both the presence and absence of subjective discomfort attributed to “low-frequency” noise. Those who have stood near an F-22 or F-35 at high power levels report uncomfortable sensations and believe their internal organs are moving, such as could be caused by low frequency noise. Other occupational environments — undersea sound and human physical vibration — have produced human injury and disease. Critical organs of the body have harmonic resonances ranging from a few Hz to 400 Hz. For these reasons, greater bio-medical research into the adverse effects of low frequency, air-propagated, sound is needed. As is the case with our hearing conservation research recommendations, we recommend that this research be guided by individual, job-specific, noise level exposure data....
&
...page 39-40 ...Since 2003, the Navy has invested approximately $15 million in tactical jet noise reduction research. This research has focused primarily on university basic research and subscale/lab demonstrations. One full-scale demonstration was conducted to assess several technologies, and did lead to the current chevron rapid technology transition effort for introducing chevrons into the F/A-18 E/F F414 engines.

The Air Force investments in engine noise have been solely focused on measurement and modeling, largely for community noise which has been and remains the focus for the Air Force. [b]The JSF Program has invested in numerous acoustic surveys of baseline noise data for the F-135 engine and also the F-35A aircraft. However, these efforts were focused on characterizing the noise level for hearing protection, and providing adequate hearing protection for the aircrew and maintenance personnel – a requirement of the JSF contract.

The JSF Joint Program Office initiated a study (by Pratt & Whitney, General Electric Aviation, and National Aerospace Laboratory – funded by the Netherlands) to investigate reducing the F-35 near-field personnel noise and far-field community noise. This study was a low-detail, high-level assessment of noise impacts. It evaluated and estimated the effectiveness and viability of currently available and emerging “public domain” technologies for reducing the propulsion system’s contribution to the F-35 acoustic footprint...."
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/NRAChearingProtectionFORUM.gif~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/NRAChearingProtectionFORUM.gif.html)

[Hempy]

So, how much would it cost to research and implement noise reduction measures in military jet engines versus say researching better earmuffs?

Russians? Pencil?

[SpazSinbad]

F135 Exceeds Expectations During Live Fire Survivability Testing 20 May 2014 ASDnews

F135 Exceeds Expectations During Live Fire Survivability Testing (http://www.asdnews.com/news-55072/F135_Exceeds_Expectations_During_Live_Fire_Survivability_Tes ting.htm)
"...Three F135 test series were conducted, including Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) propulsion system tests; dynamic and static engine ballistic tests; and finally, total fuel ingestion tests. These tests were aimed at better understanding the advanced engine control system, the capabilities of the main engine with battle damage, and to assess the engine's fuel ingestion tolerance.

According to the JASPO report, the "STOVL propulsion system was very tolerant of damage with little performance loss over the course of the testing." The report also indicated that the "propulsion control system is very capable in its ability to withstand and accommodate damage via built in redundancies… [and] the engine showed a high tolerance of ingested fuel."

The JASPO report concluded that damage to blades and vanes in both the lift fan and main engine did not result in catastrophic damage, and that, in fact, the F135 engine and its control system are capable of withstanding and accommodating damage, and providing information to alert the pilot to the damage sustained by the system. The data collected from these LFTs will be used to update assumptions used in the F135 vulnerability assessment.

"This series of tests on the CTOL/CV and STOVL variants is intended to mimic battlefield damage in wartime scenarios...."

[Lonewolf_50]

Noise, California, and Environmental Impact Statements.

Over a decade ago, I was in a working group that had as one of its objectives the forwarding to the flags/stars recommendations on bases for operating the FRS/RAG when JSF was deployed.
This was a joint deal, not a Navy deal, so I think USAF RTU was their term. (Gawd, those meetings sucked.)

At the time, our little group (one of many in various places dealing with such matters) was hung up on the noise problem the JSF presented.

Some of the local pissing and moaning around NAS Lemoore regarding their resentment of the sound of freedom as delivered by the Super Hornets was expected to get worse, since part of our brief was that Super Hornets were a few dB less noisy than a JSF.

This 2009 study puts a number on something we had no power to change, but had to account for in our staff recommendation. Thanks for the post.
However, the noise power, watts per square meter, not just dB, generated by the F-35A is two times greater than that generated by the F/A-18 E/F. All tactical aircraft engines grow in thrust over time, and that equates to even greater noise in the future.

Blah. The greenie twits in California will be up in arms over F-35's making noise in the San Joaquin Valley.

Again. :uhoh:

[SpazSinbad]

NAS Lemoore is preferred West Coast home for F-35C jets 15 May 2014 Sentinel Staff

NAS Lemoore is preferred West Coast home for F-35C jets (http://www.hanfordsentinel.com/news/lemoore/nas-lemoore-is-preferred-west-coast-home-for-f-/article_c8e1595c-dc65-11e3-81df-001a4bcf887a.html)
"Naval Air Station Lemoore has been named the preferred West Coast home base for the F-35C aircraft, according to a final environmental impact statement...

...A final decision will follow a mandatory 30-day waiting period, after which the assistant secretary of the Navy or his representative will sign a record of decision to be published in the Federal Register."
The Final EIS is available for review at: Environmental Impact Statement - Home (http://www.navyf35cwestcoasteis.com)

EIS DOCUMENTS for NAS Lemoore: Environmental Impact Statement - Document (http://www.navyf35cwestcoasteis.com/EisDocument.aspx)

[Courtney Mil]

Jeez, Spaz, sometimes you post material way faster than anyone can deal with it. Do you ever go out? Great info, but find a pub one evening.

[SpazSinbad]

By inference is the MB seat in the F-35 better? Or is that an ejection too far. :}

Congressional Panel Warns Aging Ejection Seats Could Kill Pilots - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2014/05/21/congressional-panel-warns-aging-ejection-seats-could-kill-pilots/)

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

I've been at Eglin and seen a late block GE powered F-16 take-off in full burner closely followed by an F-35A...OMG! Not only was the F-35 considerably louder, but it's a much higher 'tearing' pitch compared to the deeper F-16 'rumble'.


At Amberley in Oz the transition from the F-111 (very deep rumble sound) to the (much louder and higher pitched) Super Hornet required an intense EIS and considerable engagement with the local community at Ipswich, and some amendments to the flight paths around the base. Fortunately, the Ipswich mayor and the town's folk are generally very supportive of the RAAF base and the economic benefits it brings to the community.

[SpazSinbad]

The RAAF and other users intend to mitigate noise by doing as few A/B takeoffs as possible with the F-35. Meanwhile I found this pub....

AS Journal 14 / SPRING: F135 PROPULSION SYSTEM LIVE FIRE TEST (LFT)

http://jaspo.csd.disa.mil/images/archive/pdf/2014_spring.pdf (1.5Mb)

[CoffmanStarter]

The Honourable Member for East Sussex would like to thank the Honourable Member from Australia in respect of the excellent info-graphic posted @ #4478. One has now been able to reassure ones domestic staff here at Coffman Towers that there is no need for Ear Defenders to be worn when putting out the Recycling and Refuse Bins to the main gate each week.

Those kind Euro Bureaucrats have rated my Brown Recycling Bin at 89dB :ugh:

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/imagejpg1_zps3caebefa.jpg

Coff.

[glad rag]

I am impressed that the F35 has demonstrated the advances in aircraft electrical design with the current round of survivability testing.

Indeed the airframe is a game changer for the entire aviation industry, one that can only lead to more efficiency now that the use of electrical protection devices can bypassed.

:D

[FODPlod]

...Those kind Euro Bureaucrats have rated my Brown Recycling Bin at 89dB

That's not very 'green'. What's the rating when it's moving?

[LowObservable]

Aces 5 was being offered as a substitute seat for the F-35 a couple of years ago, when the F-35 seat was in trouble and LM, MB and VSI (the helmet people) were alternately blaming one another and the customer.

[CoffmanStarter]

FODPlod ...

My Brown Recycling Bin would appear to be a Mk3 (2013) "Stealth" variant as the Grey Landfill Bin is a Mk2 (2010) rated at 99dB ... perhaps a bit of NATO standardisation is required here ... :E

[Lonewolf_50]

Spaz:
Thanks for the links to the EIS.
To give you an idea of how much of a clusterhump I think that the F-35 program has been, our conservative estimate on the EIS initial was 2005-2006, with a final in 2009-2010. I seem to recall that a risk factor in all this was the BRAC rounds going on in the early 00's.

This Final EIS looks to me to be five years late ... standard acquisition / ops / integration FUBAR that makes me intensely glad I am not on that :mad:ing hamsterwheel anymore.

[Maus92]

At the Navy League Sea-Air-Space Expo earlier this year, Dan Ratcliff, program manager of aircrew systems for Naval Air Systems Command, stated that the F-35C SPL is 152db, higher than the figures in the charts that show numbers for the F-35A.

Numbers in an EIS don't directly translate to the flight deck environment. Measurements around an air station are taken from areas (neighborhoods) most likely to be affected by noise, i.e. approach and departure ends of the runways, and underlying the patterns. whereas flight deck / on-field measurements for personnel safety are taken quite a bit closer to the aircraft.

[SpazSinbad]

Sad for ACES 5 that it was not an alternate seat for the F-35 - good news but that it may be resurrected as described earlier for those seat upgrades for older aircraft with their cumbersome if not lethal during high speed ejection helmets with addons.

And whatever the full burner noise is it likely will be less on the catapult (when people are nearby) when at something like 122% power. See: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-224.html#post8486246

[SpazSinbad]

Pax ski jump readied for future F-35B Lightning II launches 22 May 2014 Sarah Ehman

Pax ski jump readied for future F-35B Lightning II launches -- DCMilitary.com (http://www.dcmilitary.com/article/20140522/NEWS14/140529960/pax-ski-jump-readied-for-future-f-35b-lightning-ii-launches)
"...The Pax River ITF partnered with ATR’s Geomatics and Metrology team to perform a high fidelity survey of the shore-based ski jump at Naval Air Station Patuxent River’s center airfield. The survey is a prerequisite to future F-35B flight testing by the Pax River ITF, the United Kingdom and Italy....

...said Bob Nantz, the Pax River F-35 ITF external environment and performance lead. “The significance of the Pax ski-jump shape is connected to aircraft loads and performance modeling. Ideally, the loads will never limit the launch weight or speed, thus allowing the maximum performance benefit.”...

...Hancock noted that the team achieved readings accurate to within one millimeter — approximately the thickness of a credit card.

“The razor-sharp accuracy of the Geomatics team’s survey is a key part of the process leading to future ski-jump operations at sea,” Nantz said."

http://www.dcmilitary.com/storyimage/DC/20140522/NEWS14/140529960/AR/0/AR-140529960.jpg
"U.S. Navy photo/Jennifer Amber The Atlantic Test Ranges Geomatics and Metrology team, from left, Fred Hancock, Sung Han and Warren Kerr survey the ski jump ramp that was assembled at Naval Air Station Patuxent River in 2009 to document potential deviations from the original design plan."
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/SkiJumpPaxRiverSurveyMay2014AR-140529960.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/SkiJumpPaxRiverSurveyMay2014AR-140529960.jpg.html)

[LowObservable]

No vertical landings planned yet in the UK visit:

Why Can?t America?s Newest Stealth Jet Land Like It?s Supposed To? - The Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/26/why-can-t-america-s-newest-stealth-jet-land-like-it-s-supposed-to.html)

Matters less than it might if the Marines are correct in predicting that one operation in ten will be a VL: they may not be planning even to match the "one off-main-base action per major war" standard that they set in four decades of the Harrier. But... Guadalcanal, I suppose. It only cost $21 billion or so.

[SpazSinbad]

Somewhere wayback on this thread there is a LONG series of posts about the concrete/asphalt issues with the pizza oven effect so I'll not repeat that whilst this news makes the DAILY BEAST old news eh.

Page 219 of this thread on 12 - 13 May 2014 here is some old news:

F-35B 700 VLs already by April 2014: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-219.html#post8469783

News about no VL in UK: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-219.html#post8475765

'Creeping' VLs as opposed to 'runny landings of some kind' is somewhere on this thread but anyway...

“...BF-1 accomplished the first F-35 five Creeping Vertical Landings (CVLs) on August 23 [2012]....” F-35 Lightning II Program Status and Fast Facts September 5, 2012

f-35.ca - f-35 Resources and Information. This website is for sale! (http://f-35.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/F-35-Fast-Facts-September-5-2012.pdf) I see this website is Kaput so here is a graphic of that part of that PDF.

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/F-35BcreepingVLsAug2012septLMfastFacts.gif~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-35BcreepingVLsAug2012septLMfastFacts.gif.html)

[LowObservable]

Posting old and mostly irrelevant stuff may impress the teenyboppers elsewhere.

The question is when anyone plans to demonstrate sustained STOVL/STOSL passes on the kind of surface likely to be found at the site of a forward operating location. Since that (in the US) is half the justification for the B, it would seem to be relevant.

[gr4techie]

If we get a sqn of F35, will we be doing engine ground runs late on a night shift? Or will there be a curfew? It could make trying to generate sufficient serviceable aircraft for the next morning interesting. By the way, parking a jet in front of a tube with a 90 degree bend in it, doesn't make all the noise magically disappear.

[SpazSinbad]

'LO' said: "...The question is when anyone plans to demonstrate sustained STOVL/STOSL passes on the kind of surface likely to be found at the site of a forward operating location...."

QOT from that BEASTly site:
"...Rolling or creeping vertical landings can spread the heat load over a greater area. But there is no sign that they have been tested on concrete, asphalt, or AM-2 over asphalt...."
Signs given above bro LO.

Being a reader and NOT A REPORTER my ability to discover information is limited. I like the BEATLES reference on the BEASTIE BOY site though. 'LO' said: "Posting old and mostly irrelevant stuff may impress the teenyboppers elsewhere...." I guess the young ones are impressed by the white bearded Bill Sweetman up to the minute music references eh.

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-219.html#post8469783
"...began crosswind landings and expeditionary operations....”
April Marks New F-35 Flying Records · Lockheed Martin (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2014/may/140508ae_april-marks-new-f-35-flying-records.html)

I wonder if youse Brits will be treated to the F-35B TWERKING at YOUSE in Hover Flight?

TWERK DEMO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL5PJ1N4H18

3 Bearing Swivel Duct Vector Capability:
Pitch Angle - Axial to 95 degrees
YAW Angle - +/- 13 degrees
Lift Fan Vectoring - -5 degrees Forward & -42 degrees Aft

http://4.bp.blagspot.com/-ABF2yIXwytY/UxokVj09d3I/AAAAAAAAEjM/8IlCoQ40zBg/s1600/PW-engine-changeTimes.jpg [change 'a' for 'o' in 'blagspot']

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/3bsnDEGREESPW-engine-changeTimes.gif~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/3bsnDEGREESPW-engine-changeTimes.gif.html)

[glad rag]

Well someones taken the bait....:hmm:

[LowObservable]

Creeping VLs have been tested at Pax, on the AM-2-over-concrete pad. Not what you are likely to find on a 3000-foot runway in Filthistan.