F35 C first deck landing

[david parry]

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=84238

[atakacs]

Better late than never but given the current rate of development and achievements with UAVs I really wonder if this is not already too late.

[dagenham]

You do have to wonder if usn is ready for this when they can't even master a simple link to click through for a you tube video on their website

[sandiego89]

I do realize this is way over budget and time, but I think this is kinda a big deal with stealth strike from the sea making its first steps. Long overdue with the demise of the A-12. Latest gen jet, independent of shore bases makes the us navy perhaps more relevant.

[PeterGee]

Considering the doom and gloom of not being able to catch a wire some time ago, think this is big news (assuming they continue to catch the wire reliably) For the sake of the programme, I just hope that most of the other concerns of PPRUNERs can be addressed as well!

[Mechta]

A view from a camera looking along the wire at the point of touchdown would be useful.

Given that the original problem appeared to be the wheels squashing the arrester wire flat on the deck, so the hook passed over before the wire could be lifted back into position again by the springs in the deck for a reliable trap, I would like more reassurance that a reliable solution has been found.

[Courtney Mil]

Mechta, good point. Good observation too.

[Engines]

Melchett and Courtney,

Perhaps I can help a little.

The USN and Navair in particular have been bringing new aircraft to flight decks for longer than anyone else in the world. They know this stuff backwards, forwards and sideways. So:

1. I would be extremely surprised if such cameras weren't installed for the trials. I would also be very surprised if the videos were publicly released before they were thoroughly analysed by Navair.

2. I would also offer the thought that the F-35C would have got nowhere near the flight deck unless Navair were totally convinced (and indeed reassured) that the aircraft can reliably take a wire. I'm sure that if any of us posting on this thread were actually involved in the project and required that reassurance we would get it. We're not, so we won't.

Best Regards as ever to those working the issues and making the hardware work for real

Engines

[melmothtw]

A view from a camera looking along the wire at the point of touchdown would be useful.

Hope this helps...

http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag380/garethjennings1/f351_zps242d0e81.jpg (http://s1373.photobucket.com/user/garethjennings1/media/f351_zps242d0e81.jpg.html)


http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag380/garethjennings1/f352_zpsbe915b80.jpg (http://s1373.photobucket.com/user/garethjennings1/media/f352_zpsbe915b80.jpg.html)

[Not_a_boffin]

Strangely that camera appears to be in line with wire 2, when the aircraft in the videos appears to have caught a three-wire (happy days), in which case wheels contact the deck before the wire prior to the hook engaging.

As Engines suggests, reassuring the internet ain't the priority here.

[con-pilot]

Maybe they just need to make the hook shaft longer.

[Mechta]

Con-pilot, We went round that loop on here a couple of years ago. As far as I recall it would upset the stealth properties, and/or make it a lot more complicated if the hook were telescopic.

[RetiredF4]

That's a pic from the wire it should have hit,but missed?

[SpazSinbad]

Thanks as always 'Engines' and as 'Not_a_boffin' suggests it looks like the main wheels are a tad below the hook point at Optimum Angle of Attack approach attitude. The two aircraft did not catapult because of aircraft test sensor issues according to a Break Dat Fence report ( F-35C To Navy: Note My Lovely USS Nimitz Landings « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary (http://breakingdefense.com/2014/11/f-35c-to-navy-note-my-perfect-uss-nimitz-landings/) ) so that would indicate that the hook up touch and goes (with a wave off for whatever reason) seen in the video here: http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-268.html#post8726985 were performed before the actual arrests of the two test aircraft.

From the same video again posted below we can see the aircraft filmed from a 'looking up the flight path' viewpoint. Steady orange (at Opt AoA) for first arrest with the second chap having a millisecond or two green for slow but back to orange ASAP.

How the hook is designed is up to the aircraft designers. If that design is a good wire catcher then end of story. One day we will perhaps have some statistics from the comprehensive initial 'Shake Rattle and Roll' testing (mostly at PaxRiver). These are multiple arrests simulating all kinds of challenging approach and ship movement (by having the aircraft in odd situations) for multiple arrests - all most likely successful. As mentioned - the aircraft would not go to sea if they were not likely to arrest.

For 'RetiredF4' both aircraft had no. 3 (target) wire arrests from all reports (from the 4 available). IF the camera is at no.2 wire then all is good. No?

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/F-35CCompletesFirstArrestedLandingaboardAircraftCarrier22forum .jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-35CCompletesFirstArrestedLandingaboardAircraftCarrier22forum .jpg.html)

F-35C Completes First Arrested Landing aboard Aircraft Carrier #2 - YouTube

[MSOCS]

That's a pic from the wire it should have hit,but missed?

LSO has the details on their traps, i'm sure!

Regardless, a great milestone now proving that the new hook can take a wire and arrest the F-35C from a carrier approach. Many sincere congratulations to the team that worked tirelessly to make this happen.

[Not_a_boffin]

That's a pic from the wire it should have hit,but missed?

Nope. That looks like the two-wire, the object is always to try and catch number three.

[Mechta]

If you look at SpazSinbad's other video, at 0:04 you can see that the second wire is tickled but not trapped.

eyv3idknYNg

[orca]

When you say 'always' do you actually mean 'always' and with all aircraft?

I only ask because I've seen plenty of occasions where that's not the case.

[PhilipG]

Is this thread about 'Aircraft designed to land on carrier actually manages to do so?'

[Lima Juliet]

Royal Navy - instead of F35B look what you could have won!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Jimbowen.jpg/345px-Jimbowen.jpg

[SpazSinbad]

Grama &/or spelin' has never been my forte but NICE catch 'Mechta'. One can never not ever study movies or photos enough. In the one/eighth slow motion video below we can see the No.2 wire being tickled as noted by 'Mechta' but as others suggest: so wot. What that is likely to mean is that the aircraft was a tad below glideslope at that point. There are four 'cross deck pedants' (yep it should be pendants but my spellin' you know) on NIMITZ with no.3 being the target wire as per SOP. Over the life of the F-35C there will be all kinds of arrests onboard CVNs with some not being as benign as those two so far.

Now there is a second slo SLO mo video which has been hobbled again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYe4ATILwYE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F445i4fuJYM

[MSOCS]

Is this thread about 'Aircraft designed to land on carrier actually manages to do so?'

Yes, and like the 'other' thread, cue 230+ pages of it actually landing on a carrier but people surmising it won't when it really has to.....

[SpazSinbad]

NavAir Thumbnail photo of the first arrest by CF-03 (grey tail) red tail is CF-05, the second aircraft to arrest) - zoom view to follow:
http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploads/thumb_14P00546_007_1.jpg

From NavAir story: http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.NAVAIRNewsStory&id=5766

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/thumb_14P00546_007_1.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/thumb_14P00546_007_1.jpg.html)

LARGE PIC: http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploads/14P00546_007_1.jpg

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/FirstArrestOverNo2WirebutArrestNo3F-35CZOOMFORUM.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/FirstArrestOverNo2WirebutArrestNo3F-35CZOOMFORUM.jpg.html)

[SpazSinbad]

The woid is more deck landings today so catapulting is ongoing? Meanwhile:

BIG PIC: http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploads/14P00547__17_1.jpg

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/14P00547__17_1forum.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/14P00547__17_1forum.jpg.html)

[SpazSinbad]

Some sporty horny arrests :}

kF-9LK73GPU

[Typhoon93]

The main reason why being a fighter pilot in the USN is appealing!

[SpazSinbad]

This is why it was really appealing to be in the RAN FAA all those years ago going down the 100 or 110 foot (upgraded) catapult on HMAS Melbourne. Six Gs (OK maybe 5 Gs) in under two seconds (maybe one) was the claim, depended on tropics and windspeed.

F-35C Lightning II Conducts Developmental Testing aboard USS Nimitz - YouTube

[Typhoon93]

I wonder if the RN will ever "get with the programme" and add this technology?

The new Carriers are surely big enough?

[orca]

Which technology? Where have you been and how much (or how little) have you read about the subject?

[Courtney Mil]

There are a couple of hundred pages to wade through on "the other F-35 thread". There are loads of technical issues - steam generation, lack of funding for EMALS, cost of modification and political embarrassment to name but four. More to point, the UK ain't going to switch horses again and try to go back to the C model. One of the most successful, and despicable, aspects of the F-35 program was locking folks into the program through concurrent development/production. You already own F-35B.

[Typhoon93]

Orca: Arrestor cables and catapults.

I've read that these new carriers are certainly capable of being converted for CTOL aircraft, but will they be?

I understand UAV's are a possible reason for conversion, however I mean for manned fast jets.

Courtney, I'm not suggesting that the RN should replace the current F-35B's for this technology to the C variant, that would be a complete waste of time and money. However, and I speak purely for fast jets, what other aircraft could the Navy use if they implemented this technology in to the new carriers? F/A-18E/F? EA-18G?

It would be nice to think so, although I suspect by the time arrestor cables and catapults are fully operational on the ships (assuming they are even converted to operate CTOL aircraft), the production of those two aircraft would have ceased long ago.

I believe the new generation of U.S Navy carriers will have electromagnetic catapults. So would they be an option for the RN?

[Mechta]

SpazSinbad, That's a nice photo, but a few milliseconds too soon. Neither the wheels or the hook have reached the wire, so it really doesn't show what is needed.

I take it the new hook is optimized for trapping the wire rather than minimising damage to the pendant. From what I have read, a flat bottom gives a good trap, but the sharp edge is prone to cutting the wire (or pendant), so a rounded lower edge was normal on most recent carrier aircraft to reduce the likelihood of the hook wearing to a sharp cutting edge .

[sandiego89]

Orca: Arrestor cables and catapults.

I've read that these new carriers are certainly capable of being converted for CTOL aircraft, but will they be?

I understand UAV's are a possible reason for conversion, however I mean for manned fast jets.

Courtney, I'm not suggesting that the RN should replace the current F-35B's for this technology to the C variant, that would be a complete waste of time and money. However, and I speak purely for fast jets, what other aircraft could the Navy use if they implemented this technology in to the new carriers? F/A-18E/F? EA-18G?

It would be nice to think so, although I suspect by the time arrestor cables and catapults are fully operational on the ships (assuming they are even converted to operate CTOL aircraft), the production of those two aircraft would have ceased long ago.

I believe the new generation of U.S Navy carriers will have electromagnetic catapults. So would they be an option for the RN?


Typhoon, a quick recap on the two new carriers for the UK and their air arm:
UK was not fully decided on whether the new carriers would be v/stol or catobar carrriers, ie handling v/stol aircraft or cat and trap equipped aircraft. So the carriers were designed to have one or the other, with weight and space allowance for the heavier and space consuming launch and recovery gear. This allowed design of the carrier to proceed while the debate and study of what aircraft would be ordered. It was not a done deal that it would be what we know now as the F-35. Other aircraft were under consideration besides the JSF: F-18, Rafale, Carrier capable eurofighter/typhoon or Grippen, new development, son of sea harrier, etc.

It was later decided that the JSF would be the aircraft. Now to decide which version? V/stol or catobar? F-35 won the JSF award and had 3 versions, with the vstol B and carrier C.

There were pros and cons for each variant. The UK chose catobar and proceedeed down this track for a few years as the F-35C. Later the choice was reversed, and it was decided that the uk would go with the v/stol F-35B. The ships were not fully built at that time, so no major alteration was required. A main reason for reverting to the B was citing training requirements of air crew as carrier arrested landings require much higher levels of initial and recertification training. A smart man once said "easier to stop, then land..." The costs and crew requirements on the carrier are also lesss with a vstol carrier.

So it has been decided that the new carriers will be v/stol carriers. Ski jump and no arresting system. I do not believe this will change unless the B entirely fails for some reason or is cancelled. Changing the ships and version of the F-35 now would be disasterous politically and financially.

The ships COULD be changed to answer your thoughts, remember space and weight were reserved, but would be a major change now that the ships are well along in their build. The airwing could include all the aircraft originally considered above: hook equipped F-35C, F-18E/F, Rafale, Sea Typhoon or Grippen, or very unlikely a new design. Could also now consider E-2 and F-18G and new arrested UAV's.

US indicated that electomagnetic catapult would be available to the UK, but there was and is still some risk with that. Conventional steam catapults were favored in most uk studies if the new carriers were to have catapults.

I see adding catapults and arresting gear at this point to expand the options of the airwing as a non-starter. The choice has been made, and it is v/stol. Hope this helps.

[GreenKnight121]

There were pros and cons for each variant. The UK chose catobar and proceedeed down this track for a few years as the F-35C. Later the choice was reversed, and it was decided that the uk would go with the v/stol F-35B. The ships were not fully built at that time, so no major alteration was required. A main reason for reverting to the B was citing training requirements of air crew as carrier arrested landings require much higher levels of initial and recertification training. A smart man once said "easier to stop, then land..." The costs and crew requirements on the carrier are also lesss with a vstol carrier.

So it has been decided that the new carriers will be v/stol carriers. Ski jump and no arresting system. I do not believe this will change unless the B entirely fails for some reason or is cancelled. Changing the ships and version of the F-35 now would be disasterous politically and financially.

The ships COULD be changed to answer your thoughts, remember space and weight were reserved, but would be a major change now that the ships are well along in their build. The airwing could include all the aircraft originally considered above: hook equipped F-35C, F-18E/F, Rafale, Sea Typhoon or Grippen, or very unlikely a new design. Could also now consider E-2 and F-18G and new arrested UAV's.

US indicated that electomagnetic catapult would be available to the UK, but there was and is still some risk with that. Conventional steam catapults were favored in most uk studies if the new carriers were to have catapults.

The above needs significant correction.

There were pros and cons for each variant. The UK chose ^STOVL. On 30 September 2002 the MoD announced that the Royal Navy and RAF will operate the STOVL F-35B variant. At the same time it was announced that the carriers would take the form of large, conventional carriers, which will be adapted for STOVL operations. The carriers, expected to remain in service for 50 years, will be convertible to CATOBAR operations for the generation of aircraft after the F-35 JCA.

In 2007, the Ministry of Defence confirmed its order for two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers, expected to enter front line service with the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy from 2018.



Then, in the 19 October 2010 Strategic Defense and Security Review*, the UK decided to switch to^ catobar and proceedeed down this track for a few years ^less than two^ as the F-35C. Later ^on 10 May 2012^ the choice was reversed, and it was decided that the uk would go ^back to^ with the v/stol F-35B. The ships were not fully built at that time, so no major alteration was required. A main reason for reverting to the B was citing training requirements of air crew as carrier arrested landings require much higher levels of initial and recertification training. A smart man once said "easier to stop, then land..." The costs and crew requirements on the carrier are also lesss with a vstol carrier.


Also, the total costs of redesigning not only the bow, but also the electrical distribution systems as well as physical compartments (many of which had been supposed to have been "reserved for possible catapult & arresting gear installation", but which had slowly been allocated for other uses) while the major sections of the ship were already well into build.



Therefore the first (HMS QE) was to be delivered with the ski ramp and no catapults or arresting gear, and the second (HMS POW) would be delivered with catapults and arresting gear. Modification of QE was left "to be determined later" - meaning only one carrier would be fully operationally with F-35C for a long time - if ever!


Then there was the cost of other aspects to the switch - it has been stated that UK law required the formal estimates of the cost to include all related costs as well - including personnel costs for the extra crew needed to operate & maintain the catapults and arresting gear, the added maintenance costs of the new equipment, the added training costs for "cat & trap" operations, providing ship-based airborne refueling capability (recovery tanker) as required by "cat & trap" operations (either buying tanker-capable carrier-compatible aircraft or paying for development and certification of "buddy-tanker" capability for the F-35C - the USN uses F/A-18s for that job), etc. The overall cost increase was considered excessive and unacceptable.


So it has been decided that the new carriers will be v/stol carriers. Ski jump and no arresting system. I do not believe this will change unless the B entirely fails for some reason or is cancelled. Changing the ships and version of the F-35 now would be disasterous politically and financially.

The ships COULD be changed to answer your thoughts, remember space and weight were reserved, but would be a major change now that the ships are well along in their build. The airwing could include all the aircraft originally considered above: hook equipped F-35C, F-18E/F, Rafale, Sea Typhoon or Grippen, or very unlikely a new design. Could also now consider E-2 and F-18G and new arrested UAV's.

US indicated that electomagnetic catapult would be available to the UK ^in fact, the UK had been allocated slots in the EMALS production line, with the second "ship-set" to be delivered for POW (the first "ship-set" had already been committed to USS Ford CVN-78)^, but there was and is still some risk with that. Conventional steam catapults were favored in most uk studies if the new carriers were to have catapults ^but, as mentioned above, EMALS had been selected in the 2010 SDSR^.



* https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/62482/strategic-defence-security-review.pdf

[orca]

Typhoon,

I'm sorry about my reply, it was based on the fact that you asked a question that has been answered not only in these forums inhabited only by us sad 'used to fly jets' types - but also absolutely done to death and beyond in the national press. The Lightning II will contribute a quarter, at least, of RAF combat air - so for someone someone even vaguely interested in mil aviation to have missed the most significant debate in recent fast air history is startling.

I viewed your question to be something akin to 'You know what, shouldn't we have an under sea rail link to France by now?'

Then again, only a few weeks ago you were asking about the variants as if working out the difference between A, B and C models was as troublesome as the Breguet Range Equation.

Lastly, I was being slightly pointed about 'technology' as the steam powered cats are somewhat legacy now and a main spar in the cats and traps argument was the cost and availability of EMALS.

Incidentally the true story of the carriers is that the Aircraft Carrier Alliance inflated the price of conversion to cats and traps until it was out of the MoD's price range - because they weren't able to meet the task. But it'll be a generation or two before they admit it.

[Finnpog]

Top post GreenKnight.

It is important to remember this piece of political buffoonary / ****wittery in the immediate nuclear winter-esque aftermath of the 2010 UK General Election.

Tax pounds 'wasted'? Maybe
Nudge pressure from lobbyists? Maybe

I look back and wonder how much more pressure the B model would have come under - and therefore pressure on USMC fast air post-Harrier - had the UK stayed with the -C.

The Sea Dave certainly looks a belle, both on the cat and when trapping (can I recall the 'Cats and Flaps' line of yesteryear as well?).

It lacks the Doorman's neck and shoulders of -B, and with the wingspan has much more grace. Not knocking the technology / technologies - just the aesthetics.

The F Off nose gear structure is mighty meaty too.

[PhilipG]

The first flight of the CF1, the first F35C, was over 4 years ago on 6th June 2010, this was it was said a "Very Historic Day" in the sweep of naval history by Tom Burbage.

I can only assume that the landing must also be construed to be a Historic Day, has there ever been so long a gap between the first flight and first carrier landing of a fighter?

I notice that the F14 first flew in December 1970 and was being deployed less than 4 years later in September 74.

No doubt people would be very happy if the USN was declaring IOC with a squadron or so of F35Cs now, instead of it being pencilled in for about another 4 years, (8/2018 -2/2019).

[Davef68]

The F/A-18E/F was two years from first flight to first carrier landing, and it didn't have the issues with it's arrestor hook location that the F-35C had.

The interesting question re future UCAVs is (a) if the QE class could be fitted with arrestor gear at a practical cost, and (b) if a UCAV could operated on a ski-ramp take off and arrested landing basis ...

[LowObservable]

T93 - search for not-a-boffin's posts.

The important development in my view took place after the 1998 defense review confirmed the need for a carrier capable of defending itself and sustaining offensive air ops (and from a Labour government at that). That was when MoD/RN/BAE looked at the size of the aircraft, the sortie generation rates required (and therefore number of aircraft) and support assets (AEW &c) and realized that the resulting ship was big enough for CATOBAR deck ops.

This was all being discussed by 2003, after the first couple of ship-design iterations, and did open up the possibility of a CATOBAR carrier. Also, the late 2001 selection of LM confirmed that there would be a big range difference between the CV and STOVL airplanes (in Boeing's design both had about the same fuel capacity). But at the same time, the original US plan for 680 Marine F-35Bs was being cut back and there were concerns that the STOVL version would come under attack, particularly if the Brits dumped it.* And STOVL was a big part of the UK contribution to the program.

So there was a lot of political pressure to stick with STOVL, as well as practical concerns about training and CONOPS, since a key advantage of STOVL was that the CV aircrew would need to spend less time training. (As it is, JPALS/Magic Carpet may change that equation on the flying side, and naval ops are more than just flying. And nobody was ready to commit to EMALS at the time, which meant providing space for steam generators.

*Some people may have known at the time that the STOVL version was deep in the weeds and needed a major redesign, too, but the public story was still that STOVL had lift to spare.

[Lonewolf_50]

Orca, the objective is to hit the 3 wire.
There are 4 wires to account for the fact that a not quite perfect approach can often provide a satisfactory landing, particularly when the deck moves about in bad weather.

If you get "OK 3 wire" from the LSO all is sweetness and light. If you hit the 4 wire, the 2, or the 1, you are still on board, but the LSO will probably discuss some of the fine points of technique with you in the debrief.

As stated: the objective of each approach is the OK 3 wire.

[Typhoon93]

Orca, not a problem. No need to apologise. :) I understand that some questions may seem obvious to those who are serving or have served, but for those not in the loop, it can be pretty damned complicated. I'm trying to learn as much about aircraft as I possibly can from the professionals who operate the machines and the experts who maintain them, trying to mentally prepare myself for the dreaded selection process at OASC, assuming I meet the health requirements at that time.

Thank you to everyone for your very helpful input, as always. :)

T.

[orca]

Lone wolf,

I asked the question because I have had a number of traps when the target wasn't the three. I was questioning the use of the word always. I have even managed to be graded a Fair One, because the three and four weren't there. I have also had an OK four wire.

In fact in LSO NATOPs (from memory) it gave a very in depth account of how the roll angle of the fresnel lens could be adjusted to affect hook impact point wrt the target wire but never actually stated what the target wire was.

Just to enhance the debate further I had my first trap on a three wire boat.

[KenV]

When you say 'always' do you actually mean 'always' and with all aircraft?

I only ask because I've seen plenty of occasions where that's not the case.


The answer is "Yes". ALL aircraft that trap (so obviously rotorcraft and VSTOL aircraft are exempted) aim for the 3-wire. The meatball (optical landing system) results in the same glidepath for EVERY aircraft and that glidepath takes them to the 3-wire. If the glidepath were different for different aircraft, both the meatball and the LSO's eyes would have to be recalibrated for every aircraft. It's difficult enough to keep up with changing the arresting gear engine's calibration for different trap weights. (When they roll final, the pilot of every aircraft calls the ball and states their type of aircraft and fuel state so the arrestor engine can be properly set.) It would be nightmarish to have to recalibrate the meatball and the LSO for every different aircraft. If you land long (or the carrier deck drops down during heavy weather) you have one extra wire. If you miss that one, you go around and try again. Landing short risks a ramp strike (hitting the edge of the deck) which is generally fatal, so the 3-wire is much preferred over the 2-wire.

BTW, I heard but cannot confirm that CVN-77 and later will have only 3 cross deck pendants (arrestor wires). Can anyone confirm?

[KenV]

I asked the question because I have had a number of traps when the target wasn't the three. I was questioning the use of the word always. I have even managed to be graded a Fair One, because the three and four weren't there. I have also had an OK four wire.

Just to enhance the debate further I had my first trap on a three wire boat.

WOW! When did you first carrier qual? Was it on the Lex?

The only exception to the 3-wire target I've ever heard of is when the 3-wire had failed and the meatball was adjusted to another wire.

And you got a Fair One? I've never heard of that. The LSOs I've had experience with would have called a 1-wire trap Unsat. Interesting. But then again, I've never experienced a trap with only a 1 and 2 wire available. When was this and which boat?

[Lonewolf_50]

Orca, thanks. I now understand your point.

If during a recovery the three snaps (which can happen) or is for any other reason out of service, then another wire will have to do.

Cheers.

[Not_a_boffin]

As the originator of the "always" - that was obviously based on a fully functioning system with the 3-wire being the target. Clearly if the engine is knackered or the pendant isn't rigged then the "target" will change. AIUI the default setting on the Fresnel is for touchdown just aft of 3 wire (2' or so if memory serves), which goes to show the precision involved. As Orca says you can adjust the alignment to vary the touchdown point if required by circumstance (defective system, recovery case).

Three wire systems are going to be the norm (four Mk7 engines - one for the barrier) from CVN76 onwards, but all CVN prior to that still have the 4 wire system. Charles de Gaulle is a three wire system as well I think. You just change the position relative to the rounddown / fantail based on glideslope and desired hook - ramp clearance.

[orca]

Ken,

Believe me I have plenty of No Grade Ones to my name. The boat was the Carl Vinson on Valentines of last year somewhere off San Diego. One of those nights when you hear loads of guys coming back into the bolter/ wave off pattern and realise that flying the crester isn't going to cut it. Plenty of 'Easy with it's' on the R/T. The two jets in front of me ended up at North Island - so I guess I was the stupid one!

[david parry]

Oh for the halcyon days, onboard the old Strike carriers , when the old and bolds had 4 greens to land , and always took the number two wire;). Or a visit to Commander Air !!! :rolleyes:

[KenV]

You're definitely way after my time. I started out in Scooters (AKA Heineman's hot rod, Skyhawk, A-4) . Haven't lined up on a meatball since the latter 90s, so it's going on two decades. Sounds like some things have changed a bit.

Anyone else out there an old school Scooter driver?

[Not_a_boffin]

You're about to meet Mr Sinbad.....

[OK4Wire]

I agree!

(Long live the Scooter)

[GreenKnight121]

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Carriers/catapult%20and%20arresting%20gear%20systems/3or4wireCarrierConfigUSN_zpsc0d7162a.gif (http://s22.photobucket.com/user/Bager1968/media/Carriers/catapult%20and%20arresting%20gear%20systems/3or4wireCarrierConfigUSN_zpsc0d7162a.gif.html)

[david parry]

http://www.navy.mil/ah_online/ftrStory.asp?issue=3&id=84312

[KenV]

I'm especially intrigued by this statement from the linked article:

"The digital backbone, the way it integrates the sensor information and weapons information is very important to the high-end battle space that the Navy and Marine Corps will operate in the future," said Vice Adm. David H. Buss, Commander, Naval Air Forces.

Current Navy plans are to have considerably more F/A-18E/Fs than F-35Cs in their future air wings. It sounds to me that ALL these "very important" features could be included in those F/A-18s without excessive effort. I wonder if there are plans to do that.

[GreenKnight121]

It sounds to me that ALL these "very important" features could be included in those F/A-18s without excessive effort.

Only by ripping out the entire avionics suite - including the radar and computers as well as the entire non-flight-control wiring set - and replacing it with the systems from the F-35.

That would involve considerable effort and cost.

[orca]

It depends what the Admiral means and how the USN intends to use the aircraft in mutually supporting roles.

The Super Hornet already has one of, if not the best radars in the world and a fantastic MIDS fit. It also has a very good EW suite. If your 'rank and file' is that good then you don't necessarily need everyone to have the 'exquisite' fit that the F-35 has.

The Super Hornet has about as much to do with the classic as the F15 does to the P51.

[SpazSinbad]

Aw shucks 'GK121' posted the graphic already. I think 'mechta' asked about the new hook? I'll get back to that later. Meanwhile back at the ranchero....

I doubt anyone here will ever meet me but here is the latest news....

F-35C Initial At-Sea Testing Progressing Aboard USS Nimitz 08 Nov 2014 USN PR
"SAN DIEGO (NNS) -- The F-35C Lightning II, the carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter, continues initial sea trials aboard the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68) off the coast of Southern California.

Through Nov. 6, the fourth day of at-sea testing, two test F-35C aircraft have completed 12 flights. During those 12 flights, the aircraft flew a combined 12.7 flight hours and accomplished 203 test points.

The Navy's newest fixed-wing fighter performed 55 catapult launches, 84 planned touch-and-go landings and 57 arrested landings. Through four days of at-sea testing, the test team successfully landed during every attempt, with zero bolters, or failures to catch an arresting cable on the flight deck.

With the last of the four test pilots completing carrier qualifications Nov. 6, all aircrew members are now carrier-qualified and able to fly the aircraft in test events.

During the first stage of developmental testing, the test team conducts a series of events designed to gradually expand the aircraft-operating envelope at sea. Events scheduled for Nov. 7 center on crosswind catapult launches and crosswind approaches to test the aircraft's ability to perform in both nominal and off-nominal conditions.

At-sea test delivers the opportunity to conduct operations in preparation for Navy F-35C initial operational capability scheduled for 2018."
The United States Navy (via noodls) / F-35C Initial At-Sea Testing Progressing Aboard USS Nimitz (http://www.noodls.com/view/B897F88AD410EBE824A86D7EFF67A516C780BB35?6527xxx1415467656)

[SpazSinbad]

'KenV' asked:
"Anyone else out there an old school Scooter driver?"

For what it is worth - now some forty years ago - from 1970 until mid 1974 with RAN basic training from 1966 then RAAF basic/advanced training from more or less 1968 then on to NAS Nowra from 1969. Was early years of the A4G in the RAN FAA so things were slow for new pilots. Sadly the RAAF did not have a carrier to qualify upon (nor the aircraft) so it was not until late 1971 that I earnt my wings (yes it was or still is Navy tradition not to have wings confirmed until at least first arrest/cat - hence significance of such events for aircrew and aircraft). Not unsurprisingly either in those early years with MELBOURNE being hammered and tickled for the new aircraft and not so readily available, that my first 'deck landing' was only a series of four touch and goes on the venerable HMS Eagle on a farewell tour in the antipodes at the time. A month or so later was my first arrest/cat. Mind boggling stuff on the shortish/thinnish MELBOURNE. :}

Hook to ramp clearance was 6 foot with NATOPS guidelines stating min. was 6.5 so we were a bit under. NAS Nowra runways were just over 6,000 feet with also min. NATOPS saying similar. Sporty landings ashore on wet runways for sure - especially if returning from carrier with carrier tyre pressures [and don't forget to ARM the SPOILERS!]. At least we had nosewheel steering and spoilers so we were spoilt in that regard but nowt else (except for four underwing AIM-9Bs).

Oh and MELBOURNE had FIVE wires in the A4G/S2E-G era when in earlier times for Sea Venoms/Gannets she had SIX wires. With all five set target wire was usually no.4 but often not all wires set as explained by others. The worst I had were three which was likely the minimum and briefly NONE when circling overhead with nowhere else to go for an hour and no tanker south of Hawaii. Thank goodness promises were kept and wires back up for my best ever deck landing - as I recall. :-)

[SpazSinbad]

'Mechta' said on page two:
"...I take it the new hook is optimized for trapping the wire rather than minimising damage to the pendant. From what I have read, a flat bottom gives a good trap, but the sharp edge is prone to cutting the wire (or pendant), so a rounded lower edge was normal on most recent carrier aircraft to reduce the likelihood of the hook wearing to a sharp cutting edge."

That would be the situation with the new F-35C hook design. What that translates to during carrier ops is being quantified now. To my eye the new F-35C hook mouth looks like an A-4 hook design. Which was sharpened by the deck and had to be unsharpened at regular intervals with a BIG FILE - by one account - to stop it from unnecessarily damaging the wires/pendants.

There is a classic VF-805 line book photo/page entry about one chap taking no.5 wire which had been or was damaged and hanging by a thread.

We lost one A4G from a wire break (under the deck from faulty maintenance). Thankfully the USN exchange pilot ejected in time safely without injury. Gotta like zero/zero rocket seats.

[Courtney Mil]

Anyone know anything about the hook on the A model? Testing results, effectiveness, etc?

[SpazSinbad]

The F-35A emergency hook was tested very early on with AA-1 before it was destroyed by live fire testing some years ago now. There will be some info on this forum about the emergency hook. I'll post more soon. This very long link (could be shortened but life too short) will download a 12.5Mb PDF with this info in it:

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=16&cad=rja&ved=0CGIQFjAFOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmilitaryrussia.ru%2Fforum%2Fdownload%2Ffile .php%3Fid%3D28256&ei=wR6HUq3GIYmMiQfenIGQAw&usg=AFQjCNGgKFKsgFDRGbgl-2SDXKzJdUi-Rg&sig2=b5M85z7aH1Q-OF9clMz5Nw&bvm=bv.56643336,d.aGc

“...AA-1 also completed a series of cable engagements to verify the design of the tail hook before its retirement after 90 flights....” Flight Testing the F-35 — Mark Ayton spoke with Jon Beesley, Lockheed Martin's Chief Test Pilot, before his retirement."

A now unavailable PDF from ESCO had the info and pics about this testing: http://esco.zodiac.com/downloads/documents/BrakingNews_summer10.pdf

This PDF may be elsewhere now under a different URL.

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/F-35AemergencyHookTestAA-1c2010forum.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-35AemergencyHookTestAA-1c2010forum.jpg.html)
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/F-35AhookEmergencyForum.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-35AhookEmergencyForum.jpg.html)

[SpazSinbad]

Stroll to this forum thread for more info: http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/528880-video-15-min-history-land-arrest-systems-go-whoa.html

OLD F-35C Hook Design (AHS) Arrest Hook System

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

[SpazSinbad]

The original of this photo was rotated 42 degrees hence the odd top right corner. It is useful because it shows the 4 sheaves on port side of USS Nimitz for the four cross deck pendants/wires with the vacant sheave between No.3 & No.4 for the Barricade (when required). This is the first arrest of CF-03 on 03 Nov 2014.


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



Original Pic below here: http://www.navy.mil/view_image.asp?id=187317
BIG PIC: http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/141105-O-ZZ999-037.JPG (1Mb)
"141105-O-ZZ999-037 PACIFIC OCEAN (Nov. 6, 2014) An F-35C Lightning II carrier variant joint strike fighter makes an arrested landing aboard the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68). The F-35 Lightning II Pax River Integrated Test Force from Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23 is currently conducting initial at-sea trials aboard Nimitz. (U.S. Navy photo courtesy of Lockheed Martin by Andy Wolfe/Released)"

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/CF-05RAMPLSOForum.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/CF-05RAMPLSOForum.jpg.html)

[Courtney Mil]

OK, so the answer is that it's been tested and it works? That's really all I was asking for. Thank you and forgive me for wading through all the links and pretty diagrams.

So, the C model hook issues won't apply to the A model hook with any land-based cables. Is that right? And before you say it, yes I understand the difference - I flew plenty of airframes with hooks too.

[Rhino power]

Good to see the 'C' finally aboard the boat, lets hope the testing continues smoothly and swiftly! :ok:

-RP

[Rhino power]

I assume the hook on the 'A' has a less arduous task than that of the 'C', with the hook of the 'A' being designed for emergency use only? Assuming the less demanding nature of a RHAG engagement as opposed to a deck landing, I also assume the hook has to meet significantly lower loads and stresses?

-RP

[Courtney Mil]

Yeah, RP. Different hook, different cables. But emergency use often means "last chance" doesn't it? Sometimes no bolt option so it needs to be solid. That's why I was asking the question.

[SpazSinbad]

I have never seen any issues with the F-35A emergency hook. The design was tested and verified with AA-1 (what is left out is that AA-1 went to Edwards for wet runway/brake testing so 'emergency hook function' was needed). If there were any I'll imagine we would know about it (as we seem to be aware of most negative things). Meanwhile a slideshow of good pics is here:

F-35C Carrier Tests | SLDInfo (http://www.sldinfo.com/f-35c-carrier-tests/)



http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/CF-05nimitzF-35Ctouchdown84forum.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/CF-05nimitzF-35Ctouchdown84forum.jpg.html)


http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/F-35CCF-05RAMPhookdown104FORUM.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-35CCF-05RAMPhookdown104FORUM.jpg.html)

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/LSOsunderCF-0566.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/LSOsunderCF-0566.jpg.html)


http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/WingsFoldedF-35C1231.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/WingsFoldedF-35C1231.jpg.html)

[Rhino power]

I agree, CM, emergency use certainly would have to include the 'last chance' scenario. I was thinking more along the lines of the extra length a runway allows for slowing the aircraft, rather than the short, abrupt stop that a deck landing entails. I guess when that is factored into the hook design, whilst it still has to be suitably robust, it allows a less demanding set of design requirements?

-RP

[SpazSinbad]

Recent F-15C at a FOB: [no pics this time :-( ] http://www.usafe.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/2014/04/140422-F-XB934-315.JPG


http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/F-15ChookarrestFOBforum.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-15ChookarrestFOBforum.jpg.html)


48th AEG takes critical step to validate NATO FOB 25 Apr 2014
Airman 1st Class Dana J. Butler 48th Fighter Wing Public Affairs


“4/25/2014 - SIAULIAI AIR BASE, Lithuania -- Airmen from the 48th Air Expeditionary Group recently took a trip to Amari Air Base, Estonia, to engage and certify the aircraft arresting system, taking a critical step toward validating the new NATO Forward Operating Base....


Two F-15C Eagles... staged at each end of the runway took turns engaging the barrier by taxiing at about 130 miles per hour with their tail hook lowered so as to hook onto the cable, which gradually slowed the aircraft to a safe, complete stop,...


According to Nicholson, the Air Force requires barrier engagement tests every 12 months if not engaged by a plane in a one-year time span. "The initial certification of the aircraft arresting system involves taking an active aircraft and approaching the cable at a designated speed based on the weight of the aircraft; it engages the cable, which will stop the aircraft in around 1,000 feet," said Nicholson....”http://www.usafe.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123408579


Old BAK-9 gear used to stop A4Gs in about 1,000-1,200 feet in short field arrest at NAS Nowra [usually one was part of OFS Operational Flying School] (except when on empty drops - no wheels - it was a bit shorter).

[SpazSinbad]

Dingle Dangle Dongle F-16 hook looks similar to F-35A emergency hook:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/tailhook/f16-tailhook-1.jpg


http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/tailhook/f16-tailhook-1.jpg

[SpazSinbad]

CF-05 at Optimum Angle of Attack (orange light - nosewheel): http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/47.gif


F-35C Opt AoA: VX-23 'Salty Dogs' F-35C Update - LCDR Ken “Stubby” Sterbenz
VX-23 Ship Suitability Department Head - Paddles Monthly - Sept 2010
"...[The F-35C] will fly an on-speed AOA of 12.3° at 135-140 KCAS [Optimum AofA or Donut]. Due to the fact that flap scheduling is completely automatic, the cockpit was designed without a flaps switch...."
http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesMonthlySeptember2010.pdf (1.3Mb PDF)

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/CF-05F-35CoptAoAspaghettiEDforum-1.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/CF-05F-35CoptAoAspaghettiEDforum-1.jpg.html)

[Courtney Mil]

Isn't the F-15 a handsome jet? Nice picture.

[ColdCollation]

Courtney,

My thoughts exactly.

Stealth has made a habit of making earlier-gen aircraft look dated (there's something 'VW Corrado' about the Tornado F.3, for instance...) but the Eagle remains a fine-looking bird.

C_C

[Courtney Mil]

The most honest aircraft I ever flew, CC.

[West Coast]

On the presumption it's a recent pic, I'd say I'm getting my money's worth out of that particular jet given its BUNO of 1984.

[Typhoon93]

Can you ever see yourself being at the controls of another fast jet in the future, CM?

How big is the market for test pilots of military hardware?

[SpazSinbad]

I'll have a look up on the F-15 hook - pity about the gas bags though. Meanwhile on a thread about F-35C catting & flappin' as one newshound wag put it.... here are some nice outside helo views (SAR?) of current NIMITZ F-35C ops.

F-35C Lightning II Launch and Land, Part 1 - YouTube

[TBM-Legend]

Don't forget this hook and cable gig...

RAAF F111 Belly Landing Amberley QLD Australia - YouTube (http://www.google.com.au/url?q=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DRzU7aANAXck&sa=U&ei=kkVgVJm_DYfGmQWp6ILICg&ved=0CBoQtwIwAQ&sig2=aEC98s6wzlmSKeW6JgylbQ&usg=AFQjCNGbiWyGJu2SKS_R6Ws7IsoAIrpTAw)

[SpazSinbad]

Alternate without the yabba - just soothing crab music - click on the lower right rectangle to go to full screen:

https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAIHr8pClao

[SpazSinbad]

"Taken on November 4, 2014 F-35C Sea Trials

The F-35C completes catapults and arrestments aboard the USS Nimitz during Developmental Testing I (DT-I), which is the first of three at-sea test phases planned for the U.S. Navy's F-35C carrier variant.


https://www.flickr.com/photos/lockheedmartin/15720532726/


https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7516/15720532726_24bc7d3ac8_o_d.jpg



http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/LookMaBothHandsF-35CCatNov2014NIMITZforum.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/LookMaBothHandsF-35CCatNov2014NIMITZforum.jpg.html)


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

[Evalu8ter]

Spaz, that picture shows that the -35C has a whole lotta wing....assuming the extra legs it must have, it seems a better GR4 replacement than the B...

Courtney, the F15 has aged remarkably well (have you done as well???) - but the USAF came close to having the F14 forced on it. If you believe Boyd's acolytes, swing-wing was all the rage in the 70's (B1, F111, MRCA, MiG-23 as well as the F14..) and he was instrumental in driving the FX towards the big wing and hence away from 'buy F14...' political solution.

And I had two VR6 Corrados - I resent any comparison to the F3!!

[orca]

Ah, but don't forget that whilst the C does indeed have more fuel and goes further than the other variants - we couldn't possibly buy it because we tried to buy it once so a re-attack would make us look stupid and we would have to admit that wheel equipped naval jets were able to operate from surfaces other than boats. And in any case the A model is the Air Force variant so we need to buy that because we're an Air Force. Also it doesn't have a probe so we could spend more money fitting one, or fitting a boom to Voyager - whichever works out more expensive.

[Courtney Mil]

Courtney, the F15 has aged remarkably well (have you done as well???)

I have no fatigue cracks yet, but I missed out on the MSIP updates. Other than that I hope to make through the next couple of battles. I note the Eagle appears not to have put on any weight.

...oh. And asking questions will simply trigger another onslaught on pretty pictures and newspaper articles.

[Turbine D]

Spaz,

Your barrage of F-35 photos, landings and taking-offs from the carrier is becoming about as inflated as the cost to manufacture one F-35. To put things in perspective, the first real US Navy fighter to have a successful career onboard an aircraft carrier was this one:

http://i1166.photobucket.com/albums/q609/DaveK72/f6f-hellcat-enterprise_zps52e61b6c.jpg (http://s1166.photobucket.com/user/DaveK72/media/f6f-hellcat-enterprise_zps52e61b6c.jpg.html)

Since that time, the US Navy has ordered many other fighters, nearly all of which have had the ability to both land and be catapulted into the air without great photographic fanfare. One that didn't make the Navy from the get-go was McNamara's folly, the combined service F-111. So, there is nothing special about the recent achievement of the F-35, it was required, expected, but late in demonstration as has been the whole F-35 program in general. For what the American taxpayers are paying for this airplane, and associated partners will pay, the road ahead will become much more interesting than today's Lockheed-Martin propaganda photos of landings and take-offs. Exactly how does the US Navy intend to use the F-35? It is over weight, lacking design speed, unable to take on G forces of fighters that have been in service for 25 years and doesn't have the range that it was supposedly designed to have. Is it a stand alone fighter or does it need continued support from the F-18 SuperHornet and/or the next generation Hornet to protect it from adversaries? Will the Navy need a special refueling transport to assist the F-35 on its way and return to the carrier given its less than optimal range? How will all the razzle dazzle electronic systems hold up in the salt water environment? What will be the flight readiness capability of the onboard fleet of F-35s? Maybe Lockheed-Martin will be able to address these questions once they are able to contain the cost to produce the F-35 which keeps going up and up and up…

[Engines]

TurbineD and others,

Perhaps I can help here with a few items on F-35C and getting aircraft on and off the deck.

Getting a aircraft to operate successfully from a flight deck is damned hard. There are plenty of examples of aircraft designs (as well as F-111) that never made it to deck operations. These include proposals for 'marinised' UK Lightnings, F-15 and even F-22 (amazingly, the USAF originally assumed a buy of over 200 'deck adapted' Raptors to bring the programme to 1000 aircraft). There are very few examples of a land based conventional jet operating successfully from a deck, the only one I can offer is the T-45 Goshawk, and that had plenty of challenges. Many well regarded carrier aircraft had fairly fraught initial deck trials and problems in their early careers.

Operating aircraft from a cat and trap carrier imposes a whole set of unique and very large loads into the airframe. The major ones are launch (aircraft rapidly accelerated to flying speed by loads applied to the bottom of the nose leg) and recovery (aircraft brought to halt by loads applied to the lower aft fuselage, with very large landing gear loads). These load cases generate massive internal structure - the F-35C carries round about two and a half tons of additional metal to handle these. The landing gear set on the C weights around two and a half times that on the A.

There are other driving requirements. The aircraft has to be able to land with very good control response at very low speeds (around 130 to 140 knots - driven by the capability of the CVN arresting gear). It's not surprising that the F-35C's main Key Performance Parameter (KPP) was its approach speed to the arresting wire. It also has to fly away safely after launch at a similar speed. This drives a larger wing and also larger control surfaces, plus uprated control actuators, and a special set of flight control laws.

There are many, many other ship specific requirements including pilot visibility, more stringent EEE, ground handling and taxying, anti-corrosion, weapon loading, etc. Oh, and finding space for a massive arresting hook system. (This is different to the emergency hook system on the A in almost every aspect, apart from general location of the airframe).

When you add all this lot together, you find that the available 'solution space' for a successful carrier aircraft is very, very small, and hard to get right. That's why the F-35 programme identified the successful ability to launch and recover an F-35C as a major technical risk early on in the programme.

And that's why the F-35 programme and the USN (who are releasing most of the material) are making a big deal about these sea trials. They are a major event, carry plenty of risk, and are being conducted in a glare of political interest. It's certainly something special. It only looks routine if you don't fully grasp just how hard it is. The USN do, and that's why they've got to this point.

Couple of points about the C - yes, that large wing (and the large wing tanks) delivers range, but the aircraft is the heaviest, the slowest accelerating of the three variants, with the worst sustained turn rate. It's also the least common of the three variants, and is the most expensive. In my view, a really good option for a GR4 replacement would be a 'big winged A' - all the advantage of the wing with less of the carrier weight. Replacing the A model boom receptacle with a probe and drogue would also, in my view, be a good move. I would bet a few pints that somewhere in LM a similar option is being looked at.

Final points for Turbine D -

1. The first really successful USN monoplane fighter aboard a carrier was (in my view) the Wildcat, which was instrumental in winning some of the early WW2 carrier battles. The Hellcat was a phenomenal USN fighter (and the most successful Allied fighter, land or sea based, of WW2), but not, in my view the first 'real' one.

2. All F-35 electronics are designed to operate in salt laden environments. Basic requirement, extensively tested with much USN input.

3. The F-35 will tank from whatever tankers are around, including F/A-18E/F

4. No, it can fight for itself without F/A-18 assistance.

5. The aircraft is within its weight targets, has the 'g' capability set out in the original requirement, and also meets original range and speed requirements. Sorry if this doesn't fit the usual perception, but there it is.

Hope this lot helps a little, of course others may and will disagree.

Best regards as ever to the people on flight decks making it happen,

Engines

PS: Thanks to Spaz for the excellent stuff you're posting.

[Typhoon93]

Engines, roughly how many Gs can the F-35 pull?

Is it different for each variant?

T93.

[KenV]

Only by ripping out the entire avionics suite - including the radar and computers as well as the entire non-flight-control wiring set - and replacing it with the systems from the F-35.


I hafta wonder about that. 90% of the sensor fusion capability is in the software and the advanced processors. The Super Hornet currently has close to the processing power of the F-35 and the Advanced Super Hornet already exceeds the F-35's processing power. Same with the radar and most other sensors. It seems to me that the sensor fusion could be added to the Advanced Super Hornet package without resorting to "ripping out" much of anything.

[Engines]

T93,

Yes, the figures vary between variants. Best figures I can find (2012 DOT&E report) give the following for sustained G:

F-35A - 4.6
F-35B - 4.5
F-35C - 5

Note that the F-35C figure may be achieved at a lower speed than for the B and the A. (My error on sustained g in earlier post - sincere apologies).

KenV, I'd be a little surprised if the Advanced Super Hornet has more processing power (installed and operating) than the F-35. I was under the impression that the single company funded prototype focussed on the conformal tanks and weapons pod - I'm not aware that they've built a new avionics system as well. If you have any more info on this, please share it, I'd be really interested.

F-35 avionics architecture is quite radical and is designed to allow downstream upgrades in processors - but we will have to see how that pans out.

Best regards

Engines

[SpazSinbad]

Again many thanks 'Engines'. Here is a historical perspective on Carrier Aircraft (in USN) and their trials: youse can work out where it came from.... and my fave deck landing feat of all time (so far) would be the venerable Sea Vampire flown by the venerable Eric 'Winkle' Brown. Anyone who has flown the Vamp would know perhaps (if they later were deck landers) what an achievement that was at that time. And a factoid about the TOOM....


F4H carrier suitability McDonnell Aircraft c. Feb 1960
"...The fleet [F4H Phantom] airplanes - #48 and up - will have greater structural strength, a new and stronger hook, and a correspondingly lower W.O.D...."
http://aviationarchives.net/F-4H%20Carrier%20Suitability.pdf


http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/HistoryofNavalAircraftConductingInitialSeaTrialsFORUM.gif~or iginal (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/HistoryofNavalAircraftConductingInitialSeaTrialsFORUM.gif.ht ml)


Eric 'Winkle' Brown 1st Sea Vampire Deck Landing 03 Dec 1945 HMS Ocean - YouTube

[KenV]

I thought I'd add a few points related to an emergency field arrestment hook vs a carrier arresting hook.

In a carrier arrestment, the trap is made with the aircraft essentially still flying and the engine(s) brought to MIL power during arrestment. In an emergency field arrestment the airplane has already landed and has usually slowed considerably with the engine(s) at idle. The forces and dynamics involved in each case are very different. The design is therefore necessarily very different.

With regard to F-35 Sustainability (which includes reliability, maintainability, supportability, and some other factors). The F-35 will be very expensive to sustain. The reliability numbers are not good, with the plane needing LOTS of maintenance, much more than the Hornet. Maintainability is also not as good. Relative to the Hornet the F-35 will require much more maintenance and that maintenance will be significantly more difficult to perform. That's at least partly the price of stealth. Supportability is problematic and the Navy is still struggling with how to resolve that. For example, the F-35's F-135 engine cannot be brought aboard the carrier by the COD bird. So at-sea engine replenishment is going to be a problem. Below decks storage and engine cradles/carts cannot handle the F-135 engine. It's the price the Navy pays for the airplane having one really big engine vs two smaller engines. And its no wonder that USN is planning on having many more Super Hornets in its future air wings than Lightnings

[KenV]

KenV, I'd be a little surprised if the Advanced Super Hornet has more processing power (installed and operating) than the F-35. I was under the impression that the single company funded prototype focussed on the conformal tanks and weapons pod - I'm not aware that they've built a new avionics system as well. If you have any more info on this, please share it, I'd be really interested.

These are the primary areas of improvement in the Advanced Super Hornet over the Super Hornet:

Conformal fuel tanks
Enclosed weapons pod
Next-generation cockpit
Enhanced engine
Internal Infrared Search and Track

The "Next Generation Cockpit" includes new more powerful processors, 11x19 touch screen displays (similar to the F-35), an advanced helmet cueing system, and more. I'll look for some technical details.

[SpazSinbad]

Amazing how off track a thread can become but anyway for those willing to read or able to read [for those I post pictures] here is an item about F-35B engine change plans aboard L class ships - I'll guess the USN have been on to this for some time also:


Carrier Analysis Lab Plots Jet Engine Change on L-Class Ships
11 Jan 2011 NAWCAD Lakehurst Public Affairs
Carrier Analysis Lab Plots Jet Engine Change on L-Class Ships | NAVAIR - U.S. Navy Naval Air Systems Command - Navy and Marine Corps Aviation Research, Development, Acquisition, Test and Evaluation (http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.NAVAIRNewsStory&id=4478)

[KenV]

On the subject of deck landing feats, you gotta respect the guy (James Flately) that put a C-130 on the Forrestal's deck and the guys who did it with U-2s (from the Ranger?).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar-poc38C84

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8HMPMYL19E

[SpazSinbad]

Any deck lander has my respect, especially the USN crew with the HerkyBird "Look Ma Ho Hook" and the U-2 pilots back in the 1960s - there is a long list of course - including any RAFieChapies who have carried out deck landings. Here is the 'six degrees of freedom' cleared flat deck for dem trials and tribs.


http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/NIMITZoverheadNov2014catF-35CsFORUM.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/NIMITZoverheadNov2014catF-35CsFORUM.jpg.html)

[Engines]

KenV,

Good points on the differences between an emergency land based hook and one designed for carrier landings. All those higher loads drive tons (and I mean tons) of extra metal into the rear end of the airframe.

Engine sustainability - as early as 2001, it was understood (and accepted by all including the USN) that the F135 would not be transportable to sea as a single unit. As a result, P&W came up with a concept whereby the engine would be handled as separate modules, and assembled on board using special handling equipment. (By the way, the F135 is a piece of Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) for the F-35 programme).

Below decks storage on both CVNs and LHDs can handle the modules, and the engine assembly and change procedures have already been demonstrated within the required 'maintenance box' specified by the users.

Reliability figures - I would be absolutely astonished if the F-35's reliability figures at this state in its development were anything like the Hornet's, or the Super Hornet's. Maintainability was an area I was involved in with many very experienced people at Fort Worth, with massive input from the USAF, USMC and USN, as well as the RN. It's certainly a challenge on a stealth aircraft, but the team have worked hard to make sure that the normal line operations are all carried out using as few panels and special tools as possible. Is it perfect? Heck, no. Is is operable on board? Yes. It's miles and miles better than an AV-8B, and better in some regards than the F-16.

The point I'm trying to get over here is that the F-35 team have worked damned hard to deliver the best aircraft possible within the requirements set by the customer. In many areas, it is nowhere near as bad as some are trying to make out. They care hugely about sustainability (the KPPs show that) and they know what they are doing when they make their design choices.

I know that's not the perceived wisdom on this thread, but there it is. As always, happy if and when others disagree.

Best Regards to those making supersonic stealth STOVL at sea work,

Engines

[KenV]

Sorry if I made it appear that sustainability took a back seat during the F-35's development. That was most certainly not the case. The contractor teams worked mightily and inventively to maximize sustainability within the constraints they were given. Stealth was one such constraint. A large airframe with only one engine was another. A single airframe/engine package for CTOL, CATOBAR, and STOVL operations was another. And given all those constraints, the contractors and government came up with some amazing solutions. But the fact remains, all those constraints have a price. And not just in terms of dollars

Putting a "first day of the war" airplane on our carrier decks was important and a huge breakthrough. But USN seems to recognize that a "first day of the war" capability is not required in all their strike assets and has chosen (I believe wisely) to keep lots of non-stealth aircraft in their future strike fleet. And has retained the option of making those non-stealth aircraft more stealthy to make them more "first day of the war" capable. I'm not sure if USAF is doing the same. USAF seems to be totally enamored with stealth and if the airplane does not have stealth, it won't be considered by USAF in the future. I think such reliance on stealth is first off too expensive and second off too risky. It's a matter of when, not a matter of if an adversary will develop a counter to stealth. I think USN's approach of stealth and non stealth with electronc jamming is a better and less risky approach. Again, just my opinion.

[KenV]

Engines,

You seem to be familiar with some of the customer requirements and design trades done on the F-35. I've got a question. The F-35, like the F-16 and F-22 (all Lockheed products) has a one-piece canopy. This resulted in no canopy bow on the F-16 and F-22. But for some reason, the F-35's canopy has a canopy bow. Do you know why? Is it related to the fact that the F-35 canopy hinges at the front when the others hinge at the rear? Or is it for something else?

[SpazSinbad]

I believe 'Engines' has answered the canopy question in this other thread answer about canopies here (and answers also around this particular one): http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-251.html#post8597570

F35 Windscreen Birdstrike Test - YouTube

[melmothtw]

Ah, but don't forget that whilst the C does indeed have more fuel and goes further than the other variants - we couldn't possibly buy it because we tried to buy it once so a re-attack would make us look stupid and we would have to admit that wheel equipped naval jets were able to operate from surfaces other than boats. And in any case the A model is the Air Force variant so we need to buy that because we're an Air Force. Also it doesn't have a probe so we could spend more money fitting one, or fitting a boom to Voyager - whichever works out more expensive.

An attribute of the C that we didn't mention last time we touched on this subject Orca is that it can carry significantly more ordnance than the A or B on its underwing hardpoints, which would likely be the configuration that the UK would fly most often.

All things considered, I do now think a mixed fleet of Bs and Cs is probably the best suited to our requirements (the lack of a probe being the A's biggest handicap), but as has been said I don't see how the government could perform the double U-turn necessary to get it.

[KenV]

I believe 'Engines' has answered the canopy question here:


I'm unclear how this bird strike test video answers why the F-35 has a canopy bow while the F-16 and F-22 do not.

[melmothtw]

KenV,

It's down to canopy strength, and the F-35 requiring a greater level of bird-strike protection than either the F-16 or F-22. Don't forget, the F-35 has no HUD to protect the pilot's face....

[KenV]

Yes, the figures vary between variants. Best figures I can find (2012 DOT&E report) give the following for sustained G:

F-35A - 4.6
F-35B - 4.5
F-35C - 5

Note that the F-35C figure may be achieved at a lower speed than for the B and the A. (My error on sustained g in earlier post - sincere apologies).

Yowza. I did not realize the F-35 was so G limited. I knew it was not a 9G airplane, but not being able to pull even 6 or 7 G seems awfully restrictive. With such a limited G envelope, the fly by wire control laws must provide really hard over G protection because an aggressive pilot would surely exceed those limits without it.

[KenV]

It's down to canopy strength, and the F-35 requiring a greater level of bird-strike protection than either the F-16 or F-22. Don't forget, the F-35 has no HUD to protect the pilot's face....


OK.

And I had no idea that the HUD counted toward bird strike protection. The HUD seems like an awfully flimsy piece of hardware to provide bird strike protection. If anything I would have thought a HUD would makes things worse. Thanks for the clarification.

[melmothtw]

That's what I've been told by others KenV. Unlike yourself, I'm not (former) aircrew, and so would be interested to hear your take on why you feel the F-35 needs the rail whereas the F-16 and F-22 don't. It is a subject that has cropped up on several F-35 discussions.

[ftrplt]

KenV - sustained G is different to max G; its sustained G thats being quoted.

[SpazSinbad]

There is probably a November FAST Facts meanwhile here is Oct 2014 for amongst other things the G in it:


https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/downloads/13567/f-35_fast_facts_(october_2014).pdf (62Kb)


Max g-rating
A 9.0
B 7.0
C 7.5

[Engines]

Spaz,

Good post. Thanks - I was quoting sustained G as I felt that it was the more relevant parameter.

Melmoth - F-35C underwing stores capacity is the same as the A model. The outboard folding panels have the 'AIM-9X/AMRAAM only' hard point, which is mounted furthest outboard on the fixed wing A and B.

Yes, I've posted before on the canopy, the key reason for the bow is to achieve much more demanding birdstrike requirements than this applied to F-16 and F-22. The outer shell of the canopy is actually a one piece item, with an internal second piece fitted under the front. The bow supports the aft end of this inner piece.

The location of the bow was reviewed a number of times, with many pilots from all the customer nations taking part in examinations of mock ups, simulator sessions, etc. I do remember that there was a lot of work done to check that the pilot had a good view of the extended probe, as well as special checks for canopy view during carrier landings and STOVL recoveries. All in all, it was a very demanding job for the team, but the customers all went away satisfied.

The front hinged canopy design was driven by a number of issues, including the close location of the F-35B lift fan, signature management, and also the use of MDC to clear the canopy away from the ejection seat (another US first) to meet STOVL ejection times.

Hope this sort of stuff helps

Engines

[SpazSinbad]

A better view of the fore wired four armed deck NIMITZ mit F-35Cs x 2.

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/VX-23F-35CLightningIIonboardUSSNimitzCVN-68Nov_20143FORUMwires.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/VX-23F-35CLightningIIonboardUSSNimitzCVN-68Nov_20143FORUMwires.jpg.html)

[GreenKnight121]

In respect to the G-ratings of the F-35, it would do well to remember the lesson of the F-16: the LWF program called for a structural life of 4,000 flight hours, capable of achieving 7.33 g with 80% internal fuel; GD's engineers decided to design the F-16's airframe life for 8,000 hours and for 9-g maneuvers on full internal fuel.

The F/A-18A/B/C/D, as well as the F/A-18E/F are designed to a 7.5G limit - almost identical to the F-35C. The AV-8B is also a 7.5G limit aircraft.

So the F-35C slightly exceeds the USAF specification for the F-16, the F-35B is just about the same or just a hair worse (I seem to remember the F-35 specification is with full fuel, though I might not remember correctly), and the F-35A matches the "excessive" rating that GD decided to build the F-16 to.

The F-35 is designed for a 8,000 hour airframe life - the recent flap over cracks in test F-35B bulkheads occurred in the "second life" portion of the tests, at 9,480 hours - the bulkhead was to be redesigned because the services want a +100% design reserve (16,000 hours before airframe failure).

[SpazSinbad]

BEFORE the NIMITZ there was SHAKE RATTLE & ROLL and STRUCTURAL SURVEY (for new aircraft) for the F-35C at NAS Patuxent River (all of which are ongoing, as the need arises, for various weapons and any changes). This video is from the recent Sept HOOK14 series.

MAGIC CARPET is mentioned (for the Super Hornet Family) with connections to the IDLC on the F-35C. Look for that Magic video on the same Youtube page.


Structural Survey Pax River F-35C VX-23 Carrier Suitability Hook14 + S,R&R - YouTube

[KenV]

That's what I've been told by others KenV. Unlike yourself, I'm not (former) aircrew, and so would be interested to hear your take on why you feel the F-35 needs the rail whereas the F-16 and F-22 don't. It is a subject that has cropped up on several F-35 discussions


That's just it, I have no idea.

I've had a number of discussions with F-16 drivers and many of them really like the lack of a canopy bow. They say the unobstructed canopy gives them greater visibility, especially in the pattern. But folks with experience in fighters with canopy bows like the fact that the canopy bow provides a place to install rear view mirrors. They argue that under heavy G maneuvering it's hard to physically turn around to "check six" and the mirrors provide better situational awareness. My only experience is with aircraft with canopy bows.

The F-35 canopy seems odd to me. It is a one-piece canopy, yet it has a canopy bow. The other aircraft that have a canopy bow have two-piece canopies and the bow provides the interface/connection between the two pieces.

Another thing about the F-35 canopy that I think is odd is that it does not seem to bulge outward above the canopy side rails. The Eagle, Falcon, and Hornet canopies bulge out above the rails which gives the flight crew great downward visibility with wings level. The fuselage shape aft of the canopy also seems to restrict rearward visibility on the F-35. For whatever reason, they went away from a "bubble" canopy. Pilot visibility requirements must have been very different for the F-35 than the Eagle, Falcon, and Hornet and even the Typhoon, and Rafale. The guys who drew up those requirements must have a LOT of faith in the F-35's sensors and helmet displays and so reduced what the Mark 1 Mod 0 eyeball can see. It's an interesting trade.

[Courtney Mil]

Sadly, the Daily Mail style headlines kind of detract from the objectivity of your FAST Facts article, Spaz.

The F-35 is the MOST capable

It's ON TRACK

And it's COST EFFECTIVE

How about a source that discusses the solutions, the current issues and the state of play as well as the manufacturer's bullet points? You know, stuff we would like to read about to get a feel for what is actually happening in the program. I don't think it takes a genius to see the obvious flaws in those headlines from October.

And I'm not seeing their statement of g limits or sustained g.

[Lonewolf_50]

Are we now to have two F-35 bashing threads?
PS: no, it's not cancelled, yes, it's still expensive, yes, it's not IOC yet.

We return you now to our regularly scheduled programming.
Green Knight: thanks for that tidbit on reserve fatigue life requirements.

[KenV]

The outer shell of the canopy is actually a one piece item, with an internal second piece fitted under the front. The bow supports the aft end of this inner piece.



Engines, thanks for all the info on the canopy bow. That's really interesting that there's two canopies forward of the bow, one inside the other. I gotta wonder what that will do vis-a-vis reflections and scattering. And I gotta REALLY wonder how the maintainers are going to keep the space between the two clean? Or is there no space between? Is the forward section of the canopy really thicker than the rest of the canopy with the bow providing additional support for the thicker section?

Secondarily, is there any talk about eventually mounting mirrors on the bow? The videos seem to show no mirrors there now.

[Courtney Mil]

LoneWolf,

If directed at me, I am not "bashing". As I have said many times before, I very much want this to work. But I ask questions and I criticise where I see an issue. But sometimes, doing so in the face of acolytes can earn one the lable of a basher.

In the main, I think the "anti" crowd here are not too bad. The well informed here are good. The fanatics have calmed down or departed. We are left with a reasonably interesting debate - polarised though it may be.

[Engines]

KenV,

Thanks for coming back - perhaps I can help a bit more.

1. No space between the canopy sections. The two bits are effectively fused - I don 't know how.
2. Reflections/scattering - all extensively tested before the design was ever approved. No issues as far as I know.
3. Yes, that's the idea - thicker section provides the protection, aft section thinner to save weight and facilitate ejection.
4. Haven't seen mirrors yet - quite probably the aircrew will rely on the DAS system which provides a 360 bubble view in the HUD.

On the shape of the canopy, a key driver on F-35 is signature. The canopy effectively continues the shape of the fuselage, and from a signature standpoint, is effectively 'one with the aircraft'. The shaping of the fuselage and the canopy is similar in cross section to the design used by the F-22.

Extensive field of view diagrams were provided to all users early on, and checked on several occasions, all the way from early sim sessions through mockups to actual build. One thing I would say is that the cockpit is very wide, and the cockpit sill is very low. Both of these help with visibility. It's not an F-16 canopy, nor a Typhoon - but pilots I know who have flown the F-35 have told me that the view is Ok.

By the way, 'bubble' canopies provide a great view, but they do add drag. The AV-8B took the concept to what I consider to be an extreme, with a very large 'overhang' and a high canopy, that took around 50 knots off the max speed.

Like you say, all designs involve trades, and the F-35's are complicated by signature and other factors. They're always interesting.

Best regards as ever to those making the choices for real,

Engines

[jindabyne]

Courtney,

Elsewhere, you have commented on Typhoon's lengthy gestation which I don't dispute. However, in a much earlier life, along with Ned, we had to contend with F35 colleagues who were spouting forth several outlandish (at the time) claims about their product's availability timescale and costs. So to be comparatively fair, in both respects, I would contend that the aircraft has, as you claim, never been either ON TRACK or COST EFFECTIVE.

[Bevo]

I’ve been involved with a canopy birdstrike test and it was interesting that although the bird may not penetrate the canopy, the “shock wave” can still be a major issue. See the video below. Also note the HUD’s interaction with the impact.

ibJ3aXrvaCs


The link below is a briefing given on the F-35 birdstrike tests on both canopy and inlet.

LINK (http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=13106)

[Lonewolf_50]

jinda:
Schedule slips to right aren't unusual, what makes the F-35's so annoying is how many and how far to the right.

Courtney:
I don't disagree that the advocacy groups, to include my own dearly beloved United States Navy, have been making selectively positive utterances for about half a decade on this program, as it slips right yet again. :mad:

Maybe we need this thread to supplant the other one, since it does not look to be cancelled any time soon, but still looks to be blood expensive if it ever goes IOC.

G limits: a performance metric. Not surprised that the C, being heavier/beefier for carrier ops, has different G limits than A.

I seem to recall F-15 had more G allowance than F-14, but it's been a few years and my memory may not be what it once was.

[Courtney Mil]

Jindabyne,

Not my claims, Sir. Au contraire.

Lone Wolf,

Folk will post wherever their interest is. It's been clear for a very long time that "cancel" isn't in the vocabulary. But that's what the thread was called, for the original question.



Anyway, I recall having the argument about energy manoeuvrability here a long time ago, when JSFfan was here. Do we need to revisit the impact that a 7g limit has on missile kinematics? Let alone the sustained g capability.

[SpazSinbad]

The other very long thread mentioned has many pages as I recall about 'stealth maintainability' and 'how it is measured after repair' onboard.


CM needs to download the indicated with URL [ https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/downloads/13567/f-35_fast_facts_(october_2014).pdf ] 'LM Fast Facts PDF'. And I agree the otherwise 'FACTS' web page is less than useful in a lot of respects.

On page 5 of this thread 'KenV' made statements about maintainability with reference to the engine, with a response from 'Engines'.

Here is a story from print media - not available online I guess:

GRIM REAPERS July 2014 Mark Ayton; AIR International F-35 Special Edition
“...Changing and Handling an F135 Engine
To date, the squadron’s maintenance department has changed one F135 engine on F-35C BuNo 168733/ ‘NJ101’ – the first one delivered from Fort Worth. According to CDR Lookabaugh the process was “much slower” compared to a Hornet or Super Hornet, but not because the maintainers were unfamiliar with the procedure. “Changing an engine [on the F-35C] requires a quite different mindset,” he said. “That’s why you don’t want to do it unless you absolutely need to, because it’s going to take more time than on the legacy platforms.”

Physically, it involves a different way of doing things. “You pull it straight out rather than drop it,” said Lookabaugh. “You have to take panels off to get at the many connections, and you have to remove the tail hook truss. So there are lot of parts that have to come off before you can take the engine out. All you do with a legacy platform is drop the doors and its engine comes straight out.”

The size of the F135 engine, compared to the F404 and F414 power plants used by Hornets and Super Hornets, is “not going to affect us much” according to CDR Luke Kremer, VFA-101’s Safety Officer. He added: “It’s going to make the handler mad, though. He’s the guy who has to park up the jets. Because the F135 is not dropped down, he’s going to have to make more room behind the aircraft to allow for the motor to be pulled out. That means he will have fewer spots to park jets in the hangar bay.”

CDR Lookabaugh explained: “Certain spots are considered dead spots: those where we wouldn’t move the aircraft after we’d started working on it. They will probably be the spots where we will position an aircraft that requires the engine to be removed. This will not impede the flow of traffic moving through the hangar bay. Typically, the handlers do a whole dance of moving aircraft around at night to get the right one down-stairs and others upstairs. Any aircraft stuck in a certain position will impede movement. It will be a challenge, but nothing that hasn’t been overcome before.”

Also, because of its size, handling an F135 engine between the hangar bay and the Aircraft Intermediate Maintenance Department will eventually be helped by an engine removal and installation trailer specifically designed [by MARAND, Australia] for the Pratt & Whitney power plant, although engine handling testing has not happened yet....”

[Engines]

Bevo,

Thanks for posting the link - updates and corrects my fading recollections. Yes, the transparency shock wave and the way it interacts with the canopy structure are critical to survival of the whole structure.

It's a tough challenge to meet, and many aircraft have experienced real problems in meeting it. As some of do our best to drive home, advanced aircraft programmes are invariably tough and full of risk. They don't often go to plan, not because people are dim, but because the teams are working to do really hard stuff.

Best Regards as ever

Engines

[Courtney Mil]

Spaz,

Thank you. Your link still returns a 404 error, which means the page does not exist or cannot be found. Same as the first time you posted it.

[jindabyne]

CM,

Aah - a total misread on my part. Apologies.

[SpazSinbad]

Tis a pity that LM do not archive the 'Facts of much Fastness' PDFs - so as to avoid this issue. However I can attest (as indicated earlier) that the old has been replaced with the new Nov ed. Probably best to always go here first to see the new edition (top left): https://www.f35.com/media-kit


https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/downloads/13567/f-35fast_factsnovember2014.pdf

[Mechta]

Regarding the canopy bow; in comparison to the F-16 and F-22 which are bowless, and also land based, could the forces on the F-35 canopy in the event of the aircraft go off the deck and into the water inverted have been a consideration? One would hope the pilot would be able to eject beforehand, but if not, a canopy distorting inwards could make things a lot worse.

[SpazSinbad]

Perhaps this is an 'on glideslope' indication of 'hook to ramp' clearance however we do not know this as the approach may just be a 'test' approach with different parameters used.

F-35C Sea Trials 2014 SET
https://www.flickr.com/photos/lockheedmartin/sets/72157648734761507/

This one from 06 Nov 2014 in largest size: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7534/15749597556_c6f0f7d07c_o_d.jpg

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

[SpazSinbad]

For that one other A-4 person earlier.... Here is the Slo Mo Fillum of A4G catapults with the new Stroppy Catcher c.1971. I hope we can see some relevant slomo for the F-35Cs - an arrest perchance? We see slo mo arrests of 886 - lost overboard later during a storm. The brakeman had a miraculous escape to be picked up by nearby destroyer with minor injuries. 889 was lost earlier - during the first cold catapult with the pilot staying with the aircraft for various reasons - to then stay inside the cockpit (with water pressure equalisation working as designed - because he was able to jettison the canopy before going off the deep end - while he breathed emergency oxygen) and after the propellers passed by, to escape to the surface with inflated Mae West to be picked up by Pedro SAR Helo - OK.

Slo-mo deck ops, HMAS Melbourne - YouTube

[Courtney Mil]

Thank you, Spaz. That one works.

[SpazSinbad]

Top of page 5 of this thread shows the first photo of the two hands on the canopy handles catapult method.


http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/550589-f35-c-first-deck-landing-5.html#post8736212


Looks like that method is confirmed with this second photo.


http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/CF-03catapulting2handsZOOMforum.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/CF-03catapulting2handsZOOMforum.jpg.html)

[Lonewolf_50]

Anyway, I recall having the argument about energy manoeuvrability here a long time ago, when JSFfan was here. Do we need to revisit the impact that a 7g limit has on missile kinematics? Let alone the sustained g capability.
As I don't think physics has changed in the interim, not needed.
Point taken.

One more data point on why the "one size fits all MUST be better" attitudes that led to JSF via our Congress leads to results that can get the teeth to grind. :ugh:

[KenV]

For that one other A-4 person earlier.... Here is the Slo Mo Fillum of A4G catapults with the new Stroppy Catcher c.1971


As can be seen in the linked movies, the A-4 (the F-4 also) used the old-school launch bridle on the cat, which puts the cat loads into the wing root area of the jet. Very efficient structurally. All modern USN jets use the launch bar integral to the nose gear, which puts the launch loads into the nose gear/nose structure of the jet. Much less efficent structurally with lotsa weight added to the jet. But the launch bar made launch operations much easier and more consistent. And the launch bridle went overboard with each shot, so the boat needed to store LOTS of them onboard. If the boat ever ran out of them, the boat could not launch its jets. So the launch bar made lots of sense, but it was not free. It came at a price.

[KenV]

Top of page 5 of this thread shows the first photo of the two hands on the canopy handles catapult method.

That's fastenating. In the Hornet we put our left hand behind the throttles to make sure the throttles don't inadvertantly slide back during the cat stroke. The throttles must be really different on the F-35.

Engines, can you put some light on this?

[Just This Once...]

Bridle catcher.

[Engines]

Ken,

No, I'm afraid I can't. I know that the idea was to have the right hand off the right hand 'control inceptor', and that the assumption was that the same would go for the left had - but I know about the Hornet rule, and don't know why the F-35C can go 'two hands off'.

(By the way, the photo (thanks Spaz) shows how wide the canopy arch is)

I can say that the F-35 requirements set called for fully automatic takeoffs from land, cat launch and also ski jump, so that may have had something to do with it.

It's a good illustration of just how fundamentally different a cat launch is from normal land based operations - the pilot is really a passenger from the time he completes his checks and signals 'ready' to the flight deck crew until quite some distance off the end of the cat - that places some significant requirements on the aircraft's flight control systems and flight characteristics, more so when you consider the wide range of conditions and launch weights (and catapult power - varies with age) that the aircraft has to accommodate.

Tricky stuff, this naval aviation

Best Regards

Engines

[SpazSinbad]

'KenV' the USN also much earlier than the RAN had strop/bridle catchers. No one ever caught me being stroppy. :-)

[SpazSinbad]

This is the rumour network? No? Rumour has it that in over 100 arrest/cats so far - no bolters. I'll imagine there will be test points for 'unhinged'? if that is the word they use for 'bad passes/approaches'- but - whatever. Here is the wire muncher.


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

[Rhino power]

Spaz, do we really need eleventy nine thousand images of the fact that the F-35C has finally conducted carrier arrests/overshoots/launches? We get it, it's finally been to the boat, relax...

-RP

[SpazSinbad]

'RP' my little secret? I do not read any crab offerings in other threads except the ones about the RN FAA and of course the greatest of them all 'ERIC'. Perhaps you can skip this thread. Given that earlier there was interest from some (Mechta for example here). 'Mechta' on page one of this thread:


http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/550589-f35-c-first-deck-landing.html#post8727799
"A view from a camera looking along the wire at the point of touchdown would be useful.


Given that the original problem appeared to be the wheels squashing the arrester wire flat on the deck, so the hook passed over before the wire could be lifted back into position again by the springs in the deck for a reliable trap, I would like more reassurance that a reliable solution has been found."
And the following contribution is interesting - from 'Mechta': http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/550589-f35-c-first-deck-landing-2.html#post8728378


Perhaps there is only room now for the BAD NEWS BEARS and there might be - such as 'NIGHT FLYING CANCELLED' with sighs of relief from all concerned. :-)

[SpazSinbad]

Go read for yourselfs - if youse can... Eat plenty of carrots. :-)

U.S. Navy F-35 jet makes first night flight as sea tests near end 13 Nov

U.S. Navy F-35 jet makes first night flight as sea tests near end (http://www.cnbc.com/id/102184693)
______________________

From elsewhere... (use your carrots luke)
"...Of 102 tail hook landings through Wednesday, the majority had hit the third of four wires stretched across the Nimitz flight deck, according to several Navy representatives. Known in Navy flying circles as the “three wire,” it is considered the bulls-eye for carrier pilots. “We are beating up the three wire,” Wilson told reporters.

None of the landings has used the first wire, which would mean the pilot tried to land too close to the beginning of the flight deck, officials said. They wouldn't disclose raw data on the landings, saying that a full report is forthcoming.

There was one “bolter” – a term for when a pilot hits the deck in the wrong place and has to slam on the gas to quickly takeoff again. The plane didn't have its tailhook extended, so the pilot hadn't intended to land, but he still struck the deck far long of a landing position, according to people familiar with the incident. Officials attributed that one to high winds across the deck at 40 knots and deck officers still learning how to work with the F-35...."

[Mechta]

SpazSinbad, Keep 'em coming! If Rhinopower doesn't want to see he can turn away.

For those of us who are interested, the videos and stills you have posted are essential for understanding the dynamics of the F35C arrestor landing. Unless LM can get the arrester hook to work repeatedly without fail, in all conditions within the spec requirement, the F35C is a pointless aeroplane.

The F35C evidently poses challenges on deck landing not faced by any current or recent carrier aircraft, so ensuring these can be overcome without compromising the aircraft's unique selling points is vital to the programme.

I should think any arrester landing data from the Sea Vampire you mentioned earlier, and possibly the F7U Cutlass as well, would have been of interest to the F35C team.

[FODPlod]

Someone upset because someone else is posting too much about F-35C deck landings in a thread dedicated to F-35C deck landings? How peculiar.

Thank you Spaz and keep it up.

[sandiego89]

From the ariticle spaz quoted in the post a few above:

"By midday Thursday, the jets had carried out over 101 catapult launches from the carrier, 214 planned "touch and go" landings, and 104 arrested landings...."

If find that pretty impressive for a week or so of work. Just the 2 airframes and 4 pilots correct? I'm sure they have a bevy of support staff and spares aboard, but seems to indicate no major down time.

[Not_a_boffin]

Suspect it's like a Carquals serial but with only two cabs. May not even have shut down between bunches of recoveries and shots, so less opportunity for the gremlins to work.....

[Heathrow Harry]

only 8 years since first flight................ :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[PhilipG]

Are they still having to check out the engine for excessive wear every three hours, or is the USN doing this testing at risk?
Does anyone know if the ALICE system has gone out to the Nimitz as well?

[FODPlod]

"only 8 years since first flight................"

??? Four and a half years according to this: F-35C first flight and the audacity of naval aviation (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/06/f-35c-first-flight-and-the-aud/)
...The 55-minute flight on 6 June by CF-1 — the first carrier variant — may seem a minor event in the history of the F-35 program.. But, in the sweep of naval history, CF-1′s airborne debut will be remembered as a “very historic day”, Burbage says.

Designing and flying an aircraft that must takeoff and land from a postage-stamp, moving runway in open water and possibly under attack has never been easy. It was hard enough in the era of straight-wing aircraft powered by turboprop engines. Adding swept-wings and jet engines in the 1950s inserted a new level of complexity.

Last year’s discovery that the F-35C requires a keel redesign to survive repeated carrier landings may indicate the scale of the learning curve, even though the company is no stranger to carrier-based aviation with the S-3 Viking...

[Courtney Mil]

only 4.5 years since first flight................ :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

Only joking! :E

[SpazSinbad]

I'm not likely to start a thread about F-35C catapults so here is some info:

Navy's F-35C Takes Historic Step Forward Following Budgetary Turmoil 14 Nov 2014 Kris Osborn
"...The testing is also assessing how the F-35C catapults off the deck. The steam catapult on board the Nimitz is thrusting the aircraft off the deck at a range of speeds in order to test the slowest and fastest potential takeoff speeds, said Lt. Eric Ryziu, catapult arresting gear officer.

Aircraft are able to reach speeds up to 160 knots in about 2.5 seconds as a result of being thrust forward by the steam catapult, which stretches about 300 feet. The steam catapult generates 520 PSI (pounds per square inch) of pressure pushing pistons forward. The pistons push cylinders connected to a shuttle attached to a launch bar, which pulls the aircraft forward, Ryziu explained."
Navy's F-35C Takes Historic Step Forward Following Budgetary Turmoil | Military.com (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/11/14/navy-f35c-takes-historic-step-forward-after-budgetary-turmoil.html)

[SpazSinbad]

:-) For those interested - for those others - LOOK AWAY - NOW! SECRET NavAv Bidness :-)

Amid a Year of Challenges, F-35C Sea Trials Progressing Well 14 Nov 2014 Valerie Insinna
"...Another positive finding was the performance of the F-35C’s new tail hook. During the original hook’s initial tests at Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst in New Jersey, service officials found the hook did not engage with the cable, said Thomas Briggs, head of the air vehicle engineering department at Patuxent River.

Lockheed Martin then redesigned the tail hook with the input of Atlantic Test Range personnel, he said.[?]

It passed structural demonstrations earlier this year at Patuxent River, but critics like Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon’s director of test and evaluation, cautioned that the increased weight and sharpness of the new equipment could cause damage to the flight deck.

However, the gear has been catching the wires on the carrier deck without gouging or otherwise damaging the surface, Wilson said...." Amid a Year of Challenges, F-35C Sea Trials Progressing Well - Blog (http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?List=7c996cd7%2Dcbb4%2D4018%2Dbaf8%2D8825eada7aa2&ID=1667)

[SpazSinbad]

Over page 'PhilipG' asked: http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/550589-f35-c-first-deck-landing-8.html#post8742518
"Are they still having to check out the engine for excessive wear every three hours, or is the USN doing this testing at risk?..."I cannot speak for the USN however from my experience your inference that the USN would carry out testing with known 'risk' is ludicrous [& of course there is risk in any undertaking]. There are a series of videos from TAILHOOK 2014 'HOOK14' that adequately demonstrate to what lengths the USN will go to test their aircraft before going to sea. Links to follow - some portions of video segments are repeated for the context. Meanwhile during the long gestation of the many mooted fixes for the Engine Problem it became clear that the test aircraft were a priority to 'get fixed'. And they have been according to this:
"...By December, all 19 test airplanes will have undergone either the “rub in” or “pre-trenching” method and can return to normal testing under their full flight envelope, he [Gen.Bogdan] said...."
F-35 Engine Problems Could Impact Marine Corps IOC (UPDATED) - Blog (http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1658)

One may imagine that CF-03 and CF-05 were first inline for the engine fix.
Structural Survey Pax River F-35C VX-23 Carrier Suitability Hook14 + S,R&R - YouTube
Carrier Suitability F-35C SR&R Hook14 - YouTube
Shake Rattle & Roll VX-23 Hook14 - YouTube
WHO Introduces VX-23 Hook14 - YouTube

[GreenKnight121]

Actually, it is more the case that the specific serial# engines installed in those aircraft are ones that have already been run the prerequisite hours to be properly "rubed-in".

It is not the aircraft but the engine - the one that failed was nearly new - ones with higher hours have already "worn-in" sufficiently to be safe to fly in all regimes.

The flight restrictions are for the "rub-in" period only - I suspect that they might just start running them a lot more hours at P&W before they are shipped to be installed in aircraft.

[SpazSinbad]

'GK121' it is complicated. I recall Gen. Bogdan bewailing that the CF aircraft may not have been ready in time; however I concede that may have been NOT connected to engine trubs. Whatever. The info is out there. Meanwhile (no pic because it was dark) here is some news:
"SAN DIEGO (NNS) -- The F-35C Lightning II carrier variant Joint Strike Fighter conducted its first carrier-based night flight operations aboard an aircraft carrier off the coast of San Diego Nov. 13.

Navy test pilot Lt. Cmdr. Ted "Dutch" Dyckman piloted F-35C test aircraft CF-03 for the inaugural night flight, taking off from USS Nimitz (CVN 68). At 6:01 p.m. Dyckman conducted a series of planned touch and goes before making an arrested landing at 6:40 pm....

...Through Nov. 13, two test F-35C aircraft have completed 28 flights for a combined 34.5 flight hours and accomplished more than 75 percent of threshold test requirements. The aircraft also performed 108 catapult launches, 215 planned touch-and-go landings, two long touch and go landings, 110 arrested landings and zero bolters....

...The F-35C has proven its ability to operate in the carrier environment and has consistently caught the optimal three-wire during arrested landings. The test team successfully landed during every attempt, with zero hook-down bolters, or failures to catch an arresting cable on the flight deck...."http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=84456

[SpazSinbad]

Feet Wet 17 Nov 2014 Amy Butler Fort Worth and Guy Norris aboard the USS Nimitz
"...This flight control system mode, called Delta Path, is unique to the F-35 though it is nearly identical in functionality to the Magic Carpet system recently flight tested by F/A-18E/F pilots, says Eric Van Camp, director of domestic F-35 business development for Lockheed Martin. "The way we used to do it was this choreography between your right and left hand. Delta Path and Magic Carpet eliminate that." Magic Carpet is due to be tested at sea on the Super Hornet in early 2015...."Aviation Week and Space Technology 17 November 2014

Best to view the 'Magic' HOOK14 videos in order shown but YMMV
Magic Carpet DLC Super Hornet Explained Hook14 - YouTube
Magic Carpet F/A-18EnF&G EMALS AAG X-47B Hook14 - YouTube

[PhilipG]

Thanks for the explanation GreenKnight121, what you say makes sense assuming of course that the engines in these test vehicles have not been swapped out for whatever appropriate reasons.
Keeping slightly on the engines theme, there seems to have been some silence recently about new aircraft leaving Fort Worth, am I correct in thinking that with the Titanium sourcing problems and new design being worked on that no new engines are being shipped to the Fort Worth Assembly lines? A simple answer would suffice.

[SpazSinbad]

"A close-up of the open bay containing the modified tail hook. Credit: Guy Norris/AW&ST"http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/imagecache/galleryformatter_slide_penton/gallery_images/Nike15.jpg

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/HookDoorsOpenF-35CnimitzNov2014edForum.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/HookDoorsOpenF-35CnimitzNov2014edForum.jpg.html)

[SpazSinbad]

TGI Wasn't F: - See the variable A/B in action in the real colour segment off the catapult.

F-35C Lightning II Conducts First Night Flight Ops During Developmental Testing aboard USS Nimitz - YouTube

[Courtney Mil]

I like the way they lose interest in the burning on the deck. Maybe that's why we don't build ships out of wood anymore!

[SpazSinbad]

Yes - I noticed that when making a clip of the variable A/B. Is it a fuel fire fart? Dunno. I will attempt to find out more - being restricted to 'public media only' makes that problematic.

Video clip of it: http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=19735 (1Mb .WMV)

Oh - BTW did you see the fireworks when Ol' Sparky the Hookie Muncher hits the deck? Gee Gosh Golly.

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

[Courtney Mil]

Looks like burning fuel to me.

BTW, if you use .wmv you won't reach anyone that uses iPad, iPhone, etc. Apple don't do Windows stuff.

[SpazSinbad]

Not concerned about video format meself as I make PDFs and videos for WINDOWS - the great bleedin' silent majority. I did upload an .MP4 format originally at F-16.net and although the file showed the movie did not run as the .WMV does. So the .MP4 was tooken down again. I'll put it back and post a link here; however my main message is this: Windows ROCKS (the microphone - straight from the top of my dome). Here ya go....

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=19739 (1Mb)

[SpazSinbad]

The HOOK without the Line and Sinker as you've never seen it before (is that a rusty hinge?) from the big pic here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/lockheedmartin/15609543298/sizes/o/

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


And here: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7573/15534112259_8ae7c6f232_o.jpg (3.4Mb)


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

Forgot about this old Magoo Car Pet video: Would there not be an utility to enable Windows Wideos to run on Rotten Apples?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0KZimZ8WDY

[SpazSinbad]

A credible explanation for 'the fire': two deck lights plus swirling steam of various densities producing 'lighting effects'.


F-35C 1st Night Catapult & Arrest + Slow Motion
F-35C 1st Night Catapult & Arrest + Slow Motion - YouTube

[Courtney Mil]

Hmm. I see what you mean, Spaz. Half the time it looks like fire, half the time it looks like your theory. As no one on the deck seems too worried about it, apart from bloke walking to it then walking away, I suspect your idea is the right one.

[Engines]

Spaz,

Thanks for the slomo - I think you've nailed it. Looks very much like steam plus lights.

The clincher for me is the lack of reaction of the flight deck crew - any fire on a flight deck would have resulted in immediate action from everyone in the vicinity.

Nice work, mate

Engines

[SpazSinbad]

Not my idea but having made the slomo I can better see what is happening. One screenshot could show just the two lights, which I suspect are for the crew connecting the aircraft nosewheel via the hold back to the catapult shuttle. Another screenshot would show the chap on the left who goes over to pick up what is left of that holdback fitting (highlighted in the light) whilst two others on the right start to go over to do what they do. Others not concerned because there is no fire - just an illusion.

'Engines' replied as I typed.... Yes - with fast action the chaps going over - particularly the first one - had me fooled but now I think the evidence is clear.

There is a slo mo of a day catapult here: (one can see the big hunk 0'change wot is left behind)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bFrlkAy8LM

[SpazSinbad]

A reliable knowledgeable source informs me these are the lights at ordinary speed then slow motion - clip from original video - as they all have been.

F-35C Catapult Lights + Steam Night Viz Slo Mo - YouTube

[SpazSinbad]

To me the 'holdback' arrangements these days are similar so here is the X-47B sucking back (in the holdback) - watch out - no bridal snatch-er....


X-47B Catapult Hold Back Break Slow Motion
X-47B Catapult Hold Back Break Slow Motion - YouTube

[SpazSinbad]

At first blush this was the mooted new shape for the NEW F-35C Hook (side profile) design. Change from Hornet Family shape to what appears to me to be an A-4 style design. YMMV. OLD on left with NEW somewhere there.... One must remember that the wire/pendant is raised above the deck by inches [for USN the 'wire support can be a max. of 5.5 inches] but also can be flat when trampled. The complex dance for hook/wire engagement seems to have been solved.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/navy/nrtc/14310.pdf (for getting arrested stuff)

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

[Courtney Mil]

The new shape certainly looks like it makes more sense. And it seems to work, which is the main thing.

[Engines]

Perhaps I can help a little here.

The new hook shape was first shown very soon after the initial arresting trials revealed the problem. My feeling is that the LM team originally went for a proven and reliable hook tip shape (Hornet), and it's highly probable that this design was approved by the USN Navair team at a very early stage. The Hornet hook offered reliable traps with low probability of arresting gear pendant damage.

As I'be posted before, the original F-35C arresting gear design complied with all the standards and specifications required. The 'hook to main gear' distance was not specified.

My guess (and thats all it is) is that as soon as the problem appeared, an LM/Navair team decided to try another type of hook shape that had worked in the past, accepting the increased possibility of arresting gear damage from the sharper hook point. It appears to have worked, as the aircraft would not have been allowed anywhere near the deck unless it had passed a fairly stringent series of tests.

What this illustrates is that the USN and Navair tend to operate in a fairly empirical fashion (if it's worked before, it will work this time). Many of their standards and specifications do little more than codify previous successful design solutions. (Large chunks of Def Stan 00-970 did the same thing for many years, and continue to do so today). Given the complexities and uncertainties involved in trying to accurately model a whipping arresting wire, it's an understandable approach.

Hope this helps

Engines

[SpazSinbad]

The HORNET family shape works with their geometry. The story is that someone gave someone else some dud data - misplaced decimal point wise. The text stories are out there whilst this is the word from the VADM responsible at HOOK13. Talk about FeyDecoyDunawayNavSysCom.... WOOPS - thanks 'Engines' (seems as if I was typing whilst you were posting....).
https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=0molUKZnUqI

[SpazSinbad]

Carrier Trials Wrap Up 16 Nov 2014
"....wrapped up on 14 November. The trials ended with pilots in F35C test aircraft CF-3 and CF-5 performing 124 arrested landings; 222 touch-and-goes; two bolters, both intentional for test purposes; and 124 catapult launches on thirty-two flights covering 38.6 flight hours."Carrier Trials Wrap Up | Code One Magazine (http://www.codeonemagazine.com/f35_news_item.html?item_id=1369) [Pic: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/media/2014_F35C_Nimitz_02_15724081722_1a9030977b_o_1267828237_5479 .jpg ]

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/CF-03catOFF2handsZoomZoom.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/CF-03catOFF2handsZoomZoom.jpg.html)

[Courtney Mil]

Spaz, thanks for the video link. A very engaging panel of speakers. I have to say that it's encouraging to hear most of what they say, I still find two things there very worrying.

Whilst I get their points about the C hook, it still seems somewhat sloppy to get that far into the program with so little knowledge of the problem. "Who'd have thought it?" He said. Well you're paid to think of things like that. I can see the arguments coming on that one.

As for the misplaced decimal point, words fail me.

[SpazSinbad]

Humans eh. And they respond well to 'wire brushing'. Meanwhile just a quick add to the stats above:
"...two F-35 jets used for the tests completed 32 flights and achieved 458 unique test points...
F-35 Completes First Round Of Tests On U.S. Navy Ship - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/r-f-35-completes-first-round-of-tests-on-us-navy-ship-2014-11)

[Mechta]

One can imagine how much pressure was put on the F-35C hook design team in the early days to use the same shoe as the F-18 to keep consumable inventory to a minimum and give the DOD quantity of scale savings on ordering.

For the guys in the video to ridicule the team that did the hook design strikes me as 'knocking the little guy', as I wouldn't mind betting that the warnings of a forthcoming problem had been coming up the chain for a long time before the guys at the top took their fingers out of their ears.

[SpazSinbad]

Must have good legs according to this quote, and I think the 'cross deck pendant' is replaced after 100 uses or otherwise if damage noted - earlier. There will be references to this SOP out there.

F-35C shines in first carrier trials aboard carrier Nimitz 17 Nov 2014 Joshua Stewart
"...The F-35C test pilots have made approximately 100 traps on the Nimitz, and the three wire was caught so many times that the metal cable had to be replaced. The one wire, the cable furthest aft on the flight deck, hadn't been used at all, Wilson said.

"We've been beating up the three wire," he said.

When it snags that wire, pilots have a softer landing in the F-35C than what they're used to in legacy aircraft, Wilson said...."F-35C shines in first carrier trials aboard carrier Nimitz (http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/tech/2014/11/15/f-35c-navy-carrier-nimitz-sea-trials-trap/19019879/)

[busdriver02]

CM, While I'm not a real engineer I did get a degree in said topic. One of the things that struck me then and now is that a lot of engineering is based on rules of thumb derived from empirical data. The public tends to think of engineering in the computer age as knowing and accurately modeling things based on physics alone when there is still a large part played by rules of thumb.

One example: on a tail rotor helo, it works better if the forward blade is traveling up, I've heard all sorts of theories as to why and yet Ray Prouty wrote once that know one really knows why. It's enough to know that this setup works better, so there's no reason to delve into it further and another rule of thumb is born.

[SpazSinbad]

Reference to replacement cycle is here: page 8
"...The cross-deck pendants are disposable and are replaced after 100 hits or sooner if damaged...."http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA419423 (PDF 2Mb)
&
GO Here for some previously unknown to me [FWIW] details:

F-35C Completes Initial Sea Trials aboard Aircraft Carrier Story Number: NNS141117-13 Release Date: 11/17/2014
"..."We had such confidence in how the plane is flying that we lowered the weather minimums to what the fleet is actually using, knowing that when I lower my hook and come into the groove I'm going to trap," said Lt. Cmdr. Ted Dyckman, Navy test pilot. "That says a lot for the airplane. So, when it came time for night traps, we said the plane is ready and we launched it. It flew very well behind the ship. Even on the darkest night - pretty much as dark as you can get behind the boat. Two hook-down passes and two traps and that says it all right there. It's unheard of to conduct night ops on the first det."

"The engineers responsible for the aircraft's control laws at Pax (Patuxent) River and Fort Worth have done a phenomenal job designing a carefree aircraft from the pilot's perspective," said Cmdr. Tony Wilson, DT I Team Lead. "The F-35C's performance on the ball was revolutionary, providing carefree handling on approach. The Integrated Direct Lift Control (IDLC) allows ball control like no other aircraft. The control schemes of the F-35C provide a tool for the below average ball flyer to compete for top hook. And, Delta Flight Path is an innovative leap in aircraft flight controls - this command enables the F-35 to capture and maintain a glideslope, greatly reducing pilot workload, increasing safety margins during carrier approaches and reducing touchdown dispersion."

The cadre of DT-I test pilots logged a total of 39.2 flight hours as they conducted 33 flights featuring 124 catapults, 222 touch-and-go landings, and 124 arrestments. There were zero unintentional hook-down bolters, or missed attempts to catch an arresting wire on the flight deck. (Two hook-down, intentional bolters were conducted as part of the DT-I test plan.)

Successful carrier landings of the F-35C also point to an effective re-design of the once-troubled tailhook. Initial testing shore-based testing pointed toward tailhook design issues and the Atlantic Test Range (ATR) at NAS Patuxent River captured critical measurement data with their precision photogrammetric technology and modeling capabilities. The re-design collaboration between Lockheed Martin and Fokker Technologies of the Netherlands - with insight and participation by Navy airworthiness engineers - has yielded a preponderance of three-wire landings during DT-I and firmly established the success of the redesign...."http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=84481

[GreenKnight121]

As I'be posted before, the original F-35C arresting gear design complied with all the standards and specifications required. The 'hook to main gear' distance was not specified.
The HORNET family shape works with their geometry. The story is that someone gave someone else some dud data - misplaced decimal point wise. The text stories are out there whilst this is the word from the VADM responsible at HOOK13. Talk about FeyDecoyDunawayNavSysCom.... WOOPS - thanks 'Engines' (seems as if I was typing whilst you were posting....).

Yes - for some time now the Navy has admitted the data-set concerning wire/hook/wheel interaction that they gave both the LM F-35C team and the NG X-47B team was "faulty".

And NG has said that they had to redesign their hook as well - as they had also made the main wheels>hook distance too short, and the hook was bouncing over the wire.
http://www.pprune.org/7932438-post2990.html

The reasons they were allowed to just "get on with it" without a huge uproar in the media were:

1. Not a man-rated aircraft, therefore fewer hoops to jump through

2. Lack of an organized rabid body of frothing-at-the-mouth opponents, grabbing every hint of bad news and screaming with everything they have that "this proves the F-35 is fatally-flawed, and is nothing more than L/M's way to steal from the people". Sound familiar?

[david parry]

Pioneering A New Frontier: The Men Behind The F-35C | Nimitz News Online (http://nimitznews.wordpress.com/2014/11/17/pioneering-a-new-frontier-the-men-behind-the-f-35c/)

[Snafu351]

GK121

How much has been spent to date on the X47?
How much has been spent to date on the F35?
How many times has the X47 been presented as the only, all fulfilling, solution?

Your summary of the opposition to the F35, such as it is, is overly simplistic and self serving given your clear liking for the beasty.

[david parry]

http://www.cpf.navy.mil/news.aspx/010332

[SpazSinbad]

From the 'david parry' link above - below: [and good to see the team success acknowledged by USN in the last 'david parry' link]

Pioneering A New Frontier: The Men Behind The F-35C | Nimitz News Online (http://nimitznews.wordpress.com/2014/11/17/pioneering-a-new-frontier-the-men-behind-the-f-35c/)

https://nimitznews.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/14p00625_31.jpg

De Last Hook pic and "Ya Gotta Land Here Son 'Cause This is Where the Food is" LSO Funnie Call Photie.

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/F-35cCF-05hoookBreakZOOMnimitzNov2014ZOOMforum.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-35cCF-05hoookBreakZOOMnimitzNov2014ZOOMforum.jpg.html)
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/2testF-35CsBreak14p00625_31PDFforum.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/2testF-35CsBreak14p00625_31PDFforum.jpg.html)

[SpazSinbad]

Just so's youse blokesses and blokes wot are going to be flying the RN F-35Bs (the one with the waggerly tail) news about dem is included. :-)

VX-23 Strike Test News 2010 - 14 INDEX:
Welcome to the Naval Air Warfare Center - Aircraft Division | www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad (http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.content_detail&key=7DABC751-98E2-4709-B704-F34E8876769E)

VX-23 Strike Test News 2014 [02 Sep 2014]:
"SHORT TAKEOFF AND VERTICAL LANDING (STOVL)
The F-35B continued sea trials last summer aboard the USS Wasp (LHD 1). Lessons learned from the previous ship trials in 2011 were incorporated and evaluated. Centerline tracking during short takeoffs (STOs) was drastically improved with the combination of an improved NWS schedule and the use of the Three-Bearing Swivel Nozzle (3BSN) for yaw control. BF-1 and BF-5 were utilized for the sea trials to further expand the wind and performance envelope for F-35B STOVL operations on L-class ships. Mission systems testing, to include the Night Vision Camera (NVC) and Distributed Aperture System (DAS) was accomplished by BF-4.

The F-35B STOVL envelope expansion continued last year. The Rolling Vertical Landing (RVL), Creeping Vertical Landing (CVL), Vertical Landing (VL), Slow Landing (SL), Short Take Off (STO) and Vertical Takeoff (VTO) envelopes were all expanded. RVL testing included main runway testing with some crosswind testing. CVL testing began and was completed on both the main runway and the Expeditionary Airfield (EAF). The VL wind envelope was further expanded, with up to 10 knots of tail wind and 15 knots of crosswind. SL and STO testing included crosswind expansion out to 20 knots, completed primarily at Edwards Air Force Base and NAWS China Lake during a wet runway and crosswind detachment. STOVL formation testing began this year, which included formation STOs and SLs. VTO expansion occurred concurrently with AM2 soft soil pad certification....
&
...F-35C CARRIER SUITABILITY
This is a very exciting time for F-35C Carrier Suitability team. We have been busy testing the F-35C at our unique shore-based catapult and arresting gear test facility to ensure it can withstand the punishing forces associated with shipboard flight operations. The TC-7 catapult and Mk-7 arresting gear sites at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland and Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD) - Lakehurst located aboard Joint Base Mcguire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey, are fleet representative and almost identical to the equipment aboard today's CVNs. In addition to arrested landings, the team has been hard at work validating the current control laws in preparation for initial sea trials, as well as developing a new set of control laws to increase safety margins and boarding rates.

The road to initial sea trials began in December 2013 with the return to flight of CF-3 — the third F-35C aircraft to roll off of the production floor — after receiving a redesigned hook during a major modification period. The first order of business was to ensure the new hook worked. The team traveled to sunny Lakehurst in January to conduct arresting gear roll-ins. During this phase of testing, we targeted an engaging speed and validated loads on the arresting hook. After achieving the maximum engaging speed, we executed off-center engagements to a maximum of 20 feet off-centerline. The team successfully completed more than 35 roll-in engagements with no hook skips. We used the data from the roll-ins to create an interim Aircraft Recovery Bulletin (ARB) for use at the Patuxent River Mk-7 site and during initial sea trials. Having gained confidence in the new hook system, the team returned to Patuxent River to conduct the next phase of testing — structural survey — in which we evaluate the aircraft structural strength to ensure that it is sufficient for shipboard operations. This is accomplished by conducting several series of arrested landings outside of a normal touchdown envelope. The landing series consist of high sink landings, rolled-yawed landings, maximum engaging speed landings and free flight landings. The free flight landing is similar to an in-flight engagement since the hook engages the cross deck pendant prior to the main wheels touching down; however, the aircraft still has a downward vector. The ultimate goal of this testing is to ensure the aircraft can handle the harsh forces it will experience while a nugget is safely executing night CQ.

The F-35C team as a whole is busy developing the next generation of control laws that aim to increase boarding rates and safety margins while operating around the aircraft carrier. A new control scheme called Delta Flight Path (DFP) is featured on the F-35C. DFP is a form of autopilot in which a flight path is commanded, nominally 3 degrees. The pilot is then free to make lineup corrections with lateral stick without the need to compensate for lost lift with power or longitudinal stick inputs. If the pilot requires a glideslope correction, the sink rate can be increased or decreased using forward or aft stick until a center ball is achieved and then release the stick input. The control laws will then return the aircraft to the commanded flight path. The pilot will have the ability to change the desired glideslope as required by the environmental conditions for any given day. DFP’s goal of increasing boarding rate and safety margin has shown promise during field testing. But, as all good naval aviators know, the boat is the great equalizer and we are eagerly awaiting the opportunity to test DFP during initial sea trials...."http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.download&id=820 (PDF 2.8Mb)

[SpazSinbad]

Youse crabs get no respect from nasal radiators - but NOT IN A BAD WAY - just a funny way... BE WARNed in this early PDF edition the pages are for printing and NOT in order one may expect (look top left or right).

STRIKE TEST NEWS Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 23 Newsletter Spring/Summer 2010
"Sqn Ldr Steve “Schlong” Long"page 18 (mit photo): http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.download&id=824 (2.8Mb PDF)

[GreenKnight121]

GK121

How much has been spent to date on the X47?
How much has been spent to date on the F35?
How many times has the X47 been presented as the only, all fulfilling, solution?

Your summary of the opposition to the F35, such as it is, is overly simplistic and self serving given your clear liking for the beasty.

OK, lets be clear here.

1. I don't know, I haven't seen that info.


2. A lot more, but that is because the F-35 is a nearly-complete program which has created a highly-sophisticated combat aircraft.

The X-47 is still just a technology demonstrator - it is at exactly the same stage of development as the X-35 was in ~2002 (hint - X = experimental aircraft to test and develop technologies, F = developed combat aircraft).


3. Far too many times, mainly by people who don't know what they are talking about - and that statement does not match up with reality.

The X-47 has NO combat capability in its current form, to catch up with the F-35 it will need a major redesign to add combat capability to the airframe, which will cost a lot more than what has been spent to date.

There are a lot of other possible solutions for a combat UCAV to operate from carriers, depending on desired range/payload/capability, as demonstrated by the disagreement between the USN and Congress over the desired capabilities of the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) program.
The USN wants a low-combat recon platform (with strike capabilities similar to current UCAVs, with the addition of A-A missiles to be controlled by F/A-18s or F-35s), as they are seeing UCLASS as a technology development program to properly mature the technology without overspending.
Congress wants the USN to go straight to a high-end strike fighter version - despite the USN believing the technology isn't mature enough for that - and despite the much higher costs that program objective would bring.


Your post appears to be on the opposite side of me, and lacks something of reality.

You seem to believe that anyone who does not oppose the F-35 must automatically be rabidly and uncritically supportive of it - this is not true.
As hard as it may be for you to believe, there are many, like myself, who support the aircraft while ALSO both recognizing and being annoyed by the errors, flaws, and mismanagement that has plagued the program - just as there are those who disagree with the continuance of the program but base that on reason and undistorted facts, and who also accept when the program has successes.

I was speaking only of the rabid unreasoning haters, and it appears you believe I am one of the blind unreasoning supporters. You are wrong about me.

[LowObservable]

Well, GK, if you must insist despite all evidence on the existence of "an organized body of rabid frothing-at-the-mouth opponents", please don't act all upset when someone thinks you might just be a leetle extreme in your own views.

By the way, interesting note from the Navy link cited above:

"The engineers responsible for the aircraft's control laws at Pax (Patuxent) River and Fort Worth have done a phenomenal job designing a carefree aircraft from the pilot's perspective," said Cmdr. Tony Wilson, DT I Team Lead. "The F-35C's performance on the ball was revolutionary, providing carefree handling on approach. The Integrated Direct Lift Control (IDLC) allows ball control like no other aircraft.... And, Delta Flight Path is an innovative leap in aircraft flight controls - this command enables the F-35 to capture and maintain a glideslope, greatly reducing pilot workload, increasing safety margins during carrier approaches and reducing touchdown dispersion."

Delta Flight Path, aka Magic Carpet, is a recent innovation in addition to DLC (which the Super Hornet already has). So changes to the control laws are a big reason for the success of the tests (so far) and even if the hook had not been a problem, the jet would not have been ready for CV tests back in 2010.

[SpazSinbad]

Any evidence for your claim 'LO'? In the same way the Hornet Family flies the ball without 'Magic Carpet' or IDLC - the F-35C could do the same - yet without the obvious pinpoint accuracy of today perhaps. Auto throttle was standard in the early F-35C with whatever else available at the time. Sheesh. Meatball / Line Up and Airspeed (Opt AoA) is always the basic method - then throw in whatever 'magic' is available in any particular aircraft at the time. Simple. The article quoted below is no longer at old URL but is likely somewhere out there along with the X-35C graphic in the PDF mentioned at second URL.

Naval joint strike fighter: A glimpse into the future of naval aviation
Steve Weatherspoon 2002
"...The larger wing enables an approach speed of less than 140 knots with nearly 9,000 lbs of bringback. Just as importantly, the addition of ailerons, larger horizontal tails and rudders, and an innovative integrated direct lift control (IDLC) assure precise ball flying. The designers recognized early on that a relatively slick (due to stealth) configuration combined with a powerful, high rotational mass engine, could cause glide slope control problems. By integrating direct lift control (using drooped ailerons) with the throttle, the pilot is able to make near instantaneous glide slope corrections, using throttle only to precisely fly the ball. Full autothrottle & Mode I capabilities are also available. Outstanding results were demonstrated in 250 field carrier landing practice (FCLP) landings with contractor and Navy pilots in the X-35C Navy JSF test aircraft in the winter of 2001....”X-35C Handling Qualities
“IDLC Performance was Excellent.”(Throttle Modes)
“Crosswind Landing was Easily Controlled.”
“Airplane is Solid Through The Pattern. AOA Control is Solid. Good Control of Glideslope.”(Manual FCLPs)
“Use of APC Reduced Workload Significantly Throughout the Pattern.”http://sstc-online.org/proceedings/2002/SpkrPDFS/ThrTracs/p1417.pdf (2002)

F-35C IDLC started to be mentioned from 2012 in media stories and videos.

[david parry]

Might be of interest, on this thread??? China unveils new stealth fighter at air show- Nikkei Asian Review (http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/China-unveils-new-stealth-fighter-at-air-show)

[SpazSinbad]

A lot of the old USN lags will have flown the TA-4J to their first jet arrest and catapult most likely. Single engine with manual hydraulic controls and WOW electric trim AND designed to carrier deck land - which it did very nicely along with all the other A-4 family. For sure carrier aircraft have come a long way baby. Some A-4s from about C/F onwards had APC (which could be deselected - like most 'auto throttles' I believe) whilst the A4G did not. BTW the first F-35C CF-01 had first flight 06 June 2010.

F-35 New Flight Control Software NAVAIRSYSCOM Published on Jul 24, 2012
"A F-35 Joint Strike Fighter test pilot discusses new flight control software to aid in carrier approaches. Video courtesy of Lockheed Martin."
F-35 New Flight Control Software - YouTube

[SpazSinbad]

CHECK out the SuperHorny or just Horneto pilot control movements during a carrier landing. We could guess he ain't on auto throttle. Yee Hah... The Nov 2013 video does not have the follow up mentioned in it. Quotable Quote perhaps gives an indication to those familiar with the Hornet Family.

Grim Reapers July 2014 Mark Ayton; AIR International F-35 Special Edition
"...Flying the F-35C...
...“Based on the way it handles in the landing pattern I would say it [F-35C] certainly wouldn’t be any more difficult to land on the ship than a Super Hornet. The F/A-18C Hornet is one of the most enjoyable aeroplanes to land on the boat, because you can put it exactly where you want it to be. Based on what the engineers and test pilots say about the F-35C, with flight control law upgrades, it should also attain pilot-friendly landing pattern handling characteristics that resemble those of an F-18C – that’s good for a single-engine aeroplane...."F-35C LM Nov 2013 Seminar Arresting Hook Test Progress
F-35C LM Nov 2013 Seminar Arresting Hook Test Progress - YouTube

Super Hornet FA-18E Control Movements Carrier Landing
Super Hornet FA-18E Control Movements Carrier Landing - YouTube

USN Deck Landings Control Movements
USN Deck Landings Control Movements - YouTube

Sea Legs Pt2 Arrest Structure Test Pax & Lake
Sea Legs Pt2 Arrest Structure Test Pax & Lake - YouTube

[SpazSinbad]

A good (now old?) story about MAGIC CARPET development....

Project Magic Carpet A Breakthrough in Carrier Aircraft Landing
Mr. John Kinzer, Program Officer, Air - Vehicle Technology, Office of Naval Research; innovate Vol. 10 | Spring 2013
"...MAGIC CARPET technology development is continuing. Flight control augmentation for lineup is being developed and tested in the flight simulator, and HUD displays are being refined. Planning is underway to conduct testing of the control laws and displays in both the F/A–18E/F and the F-35C...."http://www.onr.navy.mil/Science-Technology/Directorates/office-innovation/~/media/Files/03I/News-Sept13-Vol10.ashx

Some more SALTY woids....

Shipboard Automated Landing Technology Innovation Program
John Kinzer Aircraft Technology Program Officer, ONR 351, 2 November 2011
[quote]"Shipboard Automated Landing Technology Innovation (SALTI) :-) VISION
All sea based naval aircraft, manned and unmanned, fixed wing and rotary wing, will utilize optimally automated ship launch and recovery to the operating limits of the ship / aircraft system...
... • Flight training
- reduction in training time / cost (decrease in ship landing initial training, qualification, and currency requirements)
- indirect benefits may include reduced environmental impact and public complaints due to FCLPs (noise), cost of equipping, maintaining, and manning outlaying landing fields, etc.
&
SALTI Technical Objectives
• Precise automated approach and glideslope control
- Reduced susceptibility to wind gusts and turbulence
- Accommodation of high sea states, higher winds from all directions, degraded visual environment
- Precise, predictable touchdown: reduced scatter in sink rate, sideloads, touchdown spot, hook-to-ramp distance, centerline deviations..."
http://www.defenseinnovationmarketplace.mil/resources/USN%202011%2011%202%20Shipboard%20Automated%20Landing%20Tech .pdf (0.7Mb)

My fav 'MagiiCarpet' by SteppinFetchitWolof Video: Magic F-18 Ride Uploaded on Jun 1, 2006
Magic F-18 Ride - YouTube

[SpazSinbad]

Lockheed Martin's Navy JSF Completes Historic Flight-Test Program. PATUXENT RIVER, Md., March 12 [2001] /PRNewswire/
"...I could tell from the first flight that the X-35C was going to be representative of a very good carrier plane. When we began aggressive FCLPs (field carrier landing practices) the aircraft really showed off its superb responsiveness and controllability," said test pilot Joe Sweeney, a former U.S. Navy carrier pilot. "We deliberately forced errors in the glide slope, speed and line-up, challenging the plane's ability to respond, and it performed exceedingly well. I can't say enough about this engineering and flight test team."

During an FCLP (FCLP = Field Carrier Landing Practice) the pilot shoots an approach exactly as he would on an aircraft carrier. The X-35C, which features a larger wing and control surfaces than the other JSF variants, completed 250 FCLPs during testing.

"We put the airplane through a battery of practice carrier approaches in a very short time. The airplane's performance was outstanding," said Lt. Cmdr. Greg Fenton, a U.S. Navy test pilot assigned to the X-35. "Several of Strike's Landing Signal Officers (LSOs) got an opportunity to observe the airplane 'on the ball', and were quite impressed with its ability to handle intentional deviations during the practice carrier landings...."Lockheed Martin's Navy JSF Completes Historic Flight-Test Program. - Free Online Library (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Lockheed+Martin's+Navy+JSF+Completes+Historic+Flight-Test+Program-a071562471)

[Heathrow Harry]

" F-35 is a nearly-complete program which has created a highly-sophisticated combat aircraft."

It ain't nearly complete and it's still really an aspiration rather than a reality

[SpazSinbad]

Delta Flight Path excerpt [3minsmax] from video (info below). Go there for other bits about the aircraft (one hour long).

Delta Flight Path F-35C JSF Roundtable 12 Feb 2014 - YouTube

Joint Strike Fighter Roundtable: What Do Pilots Who Are Flying It Today Have to Say? DoD News Published on Feb 12, 2014
"What Do Pilots Who Are Flying It Today Have to Say? at the WEST 2014 Conference.
Moderator:
Mr. Ward Carroll, Editor-in-Chief, Military.com
Panelists:
- LCDR Michael Burks, Senior Navy Test Pilot for F-35
- CDR Frederick Crecelius, Commanding Officer, VFA-101
- William Gigliotti, F-35 Lighting II, FW Site/Production Lead Test Pilot Lockheed Martin Corporation
- LtCol Steve Gillette, Commander Officer, VMFA-121. (1hr)"Resolution Bitrate Size
Download 486x274 300kbps 170 MB
Download 720x406 800kbps 380 MB
Download 720x406 1500kbps 675 MB
Download 1280x720 3000kbps 1 GB
Download 1280x720 7998kbps 3 GB

DVIDS offers video downloads in MP4 format. All videos are encoded with the h.264 video codec and AAC audio at a variety of sizes and qualities.
DVIDS - Video Download (http://www.dvidshub.net/download/popup/321590)
OR
Joint Strike Fighter Roundtable: What Do Pilots Who Are Flying It Today Have to Say? - YouTube

[SpazSinbad]

Perhaps one day we will see the F-35C version?

A Quick Lap Around the Boat Published on Aug 30, 2014
"Outstanding short video, by John Ivancic, of a quick lap around the USS Theodore Roosevelt in a T-45 Goshawk- under 2 minutes from catapult to trap. John is a pilot with the VT-9 Tigers, one of the two U.S. Navy strike jet training squadrons based at Naval Air Station Meridian in Mississippi."A Quick Lap Around the Boat - YouTube

[SpazSinbad]

Where IS the PET?

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/MAGICcartoon1376201842_pimp.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/MAGICcartoon1376201842_pimp.jpg.html)

[GreenKnight121]

It ain't nearly complete and it's still really an aspiration rather than a reality

107 "unreal aspirations" delivered by 31 December 2013, with another 36 by 31 December 2014.

[LowObservable]

Close to 150 non-operational airplanes was not, in my day, considered a brilliant achievement.

[Courtney Mil]

Blimey, Spaz. Eleven posts on one page. Is that a record?

[Just This Once...]

Starting to look more like a paid-for blog than a discussion forum.

[John Farley]

There is another point of view.

If I was buying F-35s and they worked, plus were on time and on original cost estimates, I would know that I had screwed up and not set the spec high enough.

By definition the real leading edge stuff is just out of reach today.

[melmothtw]

Hi John, isn't it that kind of thinking that eventually did for the Comanche helicopter - shooting for the always-just-out-of-reach 100% solution, when an 80% solution would have gotten the platform operational on time and on budget rather than canned?

[Courtney Mil]

Good philosophy, John, but the idea is to have a platform that meets a set of specs that meet a set of requirements. Not, "This will do what you need, but it will be able to do whole lot more stuff that your requirement doesn't state as long as you're happy to pay a lot more and to tear up your required IOC date."

The big problems seem to be the basics at the moment - we all know the list. Future technology growth can come later. As LO has said, lots of aircraft delivered with no capability isn't what we really wanted.

[Mr.Noritake]

If I was buying F-35s and they worked, plus were on time and on original cost estimates, I would know that I had screwed up and not set the spec high enough.


And if I was asked to summarise, in one sentence, the sort of thinking led to the failure of so many western military projects since the mid 1950's, that sentence would be it.

[John Farley]

melmothtw

I suspect The Comanche programme being so much smaller than the F-35 was always going to be easier to cancel – for whatever reason.

Courtney

I don’t know if you count the engine as a basic issue. But when I saw the diagram of the compressor sealing arrangements in Av Week a while back I thought “Golly (English for f..k me) that will give a step change in overall compressor efficiency compared to the engines we are used to” then a few moments later “But that is bold and going to be difficult”

[Lonewolf_50]

Harry/LO:
About 143 fighters already delivered, in whatever config ... is a larger fighter fleet than how many nations? ;)

LO, I see your point on IOC.
I had to deal with the effects of this program a decade ago and more, in terms of how it ate acquisition dollars and had impacts (negative) on a variety of programs to include the T-45 A to C conversion, T-45C being the trainer jet that feeds the F-35 pilot cadres.
I am not pleased with how long it is taking to get this bird IOC.
When one considers the expense of the aircraft, both per unit and the whole system. (Includes the simulators, training bases, maintenance training, etc.) the program has been attracting a lot of fair criticism. Also, some unfair.

F me, it's a money sink.

mel, reference Comanche:
Original buy target was over a thousand, which numbers got pared back twice (maybe thrice?) as program progressed. IIRC, it was below 1000 when the final axe fell.
The cost per unit went up a number of times by simply reducing buy numbers.
Yes, chasing some "close to the edge" performance numbers on that bird (won't further comment on the specs/requirements) didn't help its chances of surviving.

Sad to see it go the way of the plains buffalo. :uhoh:

John:
IMO, the Comanche's worst opponents were inside the US Army. Between the Apache mafia, and a lot of other acquisition/weapons systems that needed funding, making runs at Apache became fashionable by pretty much every other program.

Self inflicted wound by US Army, all the way around. I admit this may be an oversimplification. I don't think it is fair to call the Comanche a small acquisition program, given that the original aim was about 1000 aircraft. That's a substantial fleet.

All that comparison shows is how bloated F-35 is.

[SpazSinbad]

Always nice to read the encouragement from Willa Wonky and the One-Liner Laxettes. Meanwhile for those interested here (and to get back to this thread topic) is - oh no not - another hook profile pic:

ORIGINAL LARGE PIC:

http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/141103-N-AZ866-050.JPG

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/CF-05sideViewHOOKzoomEDforum.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/CF-05sideViewHOOKzoomEDforum.jpg.html)

[SpazSinbad]

Further to the 'look ma no hands F-35C VX-23 NIMITZ catapult' technique... learn something new every day (or perhaps this is a VX-23 exception?). I was always under impression that Hornet pilots had hand on throttle for catapulting, with other hand on the canopy grip. Maybe it is a VX-23 thing or perhaps optional? Whatever.... Pilot is going to fly the X-32 later.

F-18 Hornet Carrier Approach Explained + Catapult

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/HornetVX-23catapultTwoHandsForumX2.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/HornetVX-23catapultTwoHandsForumX2.jpg.html)

F-18 Hornet Carrier Approach Explained + Catapult - YouTube

[KenV]

Further to the 'look ma no hands F-35C VX-23 NIMITZ catapult' technique... learn something new every day (or perhaps this is a VX-23 exception?). I was always under impression that Hornet pilots had hand on throttle for catapulting, with other hand on the canopy grip.

See posts #134 and #136.

[SpazSinbad]

'KenV' yes thanks I have seen the posts and started the topic I guess, however if one watches the video posted then the screenshot 'top' is from that whilst the 'below' is me mirroring the same screenshot. So I'll guess the video makers made the 'mirror' error during their editing. Hornet NATOPS may say something also.

[orca]

There was no throttle lock or grip in the Super Hornet, you just had to brace your arm - but you most definitely had your hand on the throttle. In fact I'm not sure there was a towel rail on the port side to hold.

[SpazSinbad]

Tah 'orca' - good to know. The A-4 peeps will be familiar with the catapult hand grip, rotated sideways down (from UP position in flight) for grabbing on when throttle full forward for catapulting with throttle friction on full. This aid was an essential aid for the short A4G 100-110 foot cat on MELBOURNE at 5-6G.

One A4G sprog [not me] is reported as going down without the hand grip and no throttle friction. He recovered off the bow with - thankfully - the engine winding up again promptly. Extra cat energy was imparted for first A4G catapult, with aircraft at lightweight also from 'max. arrested landing weight only' fuel onboard.

[SpazSinbad]

Speakin' of Towels - here is one for the rack: http://www.post-gazette.com/image/2013/10/17/420x_q90_cMC_z/Navy-F-A-18-pilots.jpg


http://www.post-gazette.com/image/2013/10/17/420x_q90_cMC_z/Navy-F-A-18-pilots.jpg

[SpazSinbad]

Wot mite 'ave bin....

CVF F-35C Pilot Long HUD View BAE Simulator UK

CVF F-35C Pilot Long HUD View BAE Simulator UK - YouTube

[SpazSinbad]

History is always fun to learn - for me the broom and for others....? [+ additional quote should also be referenced to the TOOM experience earlier]

Clean Sweep: F-35 Fighter Confounds Critics With Perfect Performance In First Tests At Sea 21 Nov 2014 Loren Thompson
"There’s a tradition in the U.S. Navy that when missions are a complete success, a broom gets raised up the mast to signal a “clean sweep.” That’s what happened on November 14 when the F-35C Lightning II completed its first series of developmental tests on the U.S.S. Nimitz aircraft carrier. Sailors sent a broom up the mast below the flag to signal the tests had gone very well....

...As one Navy test pilot observed in an official news release, “It’s unheard of to conduct night ops on the first det,” meaning developmental test...."
&
"...One key feature on the naval variant that performed well in the recent tests was a system called Delta Flight Path that enables the F-35C to automatically capture and maintain the optimum glidepath on final approach to the carrier — reducing the pilot workload, increasing safety, and making F-35C, in the words of the Navy’s testing team leader, “a carefree aircraft from the pilot’s perspective.”

This may be the first time ever that the word ”carefree” has been used by a Navy tester to describe the performance of a new carrier-based aircraft. Adjectives like “arduous” and “challenging” are far more commonly used...."
Clean Sweep: F-35 Fighter Confounds Critics With Perfect Performance In First Tests At Sea - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2014/11/21/clean-sweep-f-35-fighter-confounds-critics-with-perfect-performance-in-first-tests-at-sea/)

F4H Carrier Suitability 15 Apr 1960 McDonnell Aircraft Report No. 7462
"...Trials at Sea, Feb 1960
Following extensive build-up landing arrestments and catapult shots at NATC Patuxent River, the F4H-1 went to sea for the first time on 15-18 February aboard the USS Independence. Cdr. Larry Flint and Lcdr. Paul Spencer together accomplished 17 arrested landings - one at a sink rate of 21.8 FPS - and 18 catapult launches. The F4H-1 displayed a highly satisfactory degree of stability and controllability in the approach, a high reserve of power for wave-offs or bolters, and relative ease in deck handling and catapulting. The day operations were carried out so smoothly that even one night catapult and arrested landing were made-an unprecedented accomplishment for a new aircraft's first trip to sea...."
&
"...Because of its relatively low approach speed and its rugged construction (which permits a high engaging speed) the F4H wind-over-deck requirement for landing is particularly low. The fleet airplanes - #48 and up-will have greater structural strength, a new and stronger hook, and a correspondingly lower W.O.D. requirement than the early airplanes..."http://aviationarchives.net/F-4H%20Carrier%20Suitability.pdf (5.3Mb)

[GreenKnight121]

Someone here on PPRuNe compared the F-35 to the F-4, intending the comparison to be unfavorable (he was claiming the F-4 was too unmaneuverable to be a good fighter and not very good as a strike aircraft - and that the F-35 would be the same way).

So we once again see the F-35 being compared to the F-4 - but in a good way, highlighting how good both were on their first carrier suitability trials.

[Courtney Mil]

He was (initially) also assuming that the F4 couldn't do off-bore site. It was always a bit of a strange comparison anyway.

[SpazSinbad]

From 1.5 YEARS ago - wot CNO finks of it all - I wonder wot he finks today?

CNO Testifies About Joint Strike Fighter Published on Jun 19, 2013
"Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Defense about the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35C) on June 19, 2013."CNO Testifies About Joint Strike Fighter - YouTube

[SpazSinbad]

Another OLDie but a GOLDie from 2011 and it flugged good.

F-35C First Navy Test Pilot Flight Uploaded on Feb 17, 2011 U.S. Navy
"Perspective on the first Navy flight of the CF-1, the first F-35C Joint Strike Fighter variant undergoing test and evaluation at Naval Air Station Patuxent River. The F-35C is designed to the be the first stealth strike fighter for the U.S. Navy. It has larger wing surfaces and reinforced landing systems for the demanding carrier environment. Flight footage courtesy Lockheed Martin."F-35C First Navy Test Pilot Flight - YouTube

[Courtney Mil]

I have a question for anyone involved with the program. I have often enjoyed listening to friends and colleagues with F-4, F-14 and F-18 (oh, and Sea Vixen) deck experience telling me about the rigours of doing deck landings, especially in weather and at night. I think we all here have a good feel for what a challenging event this is and what a perishable skill it must be.

So now F-35 has Delta Path, which has been shown to make this event so much easier and, albeit with a small dataset of landings in reasonable conditions, appears to offer a high success rate. This has to be excellent news.

But, all systems fail. ALL systems CAN fail. So my question is this. If the F-35C force have a cadre of pilots who's normal landing mode is the relatively benign Delta Path approach and trap, how much time will they need to spend conducting traditional, manual landings in order to achieve and maintain proficiency in a failure mode?

[SpazSinbad]

Does not make sense. Firstly the FMS is very good by every account so that sim FCLP can be conducted in 'failure' or good mode. What exactly is a 'manual' landing in your estimation? The aircraft is computer controlled. There is no flap handle - the flaps (for the cats - recall 'cats 'n flaps'?) are on auto as is the throttle. There is no manual IMHO. OMG even the F-35B has auto eject in STOVL mode.

[Mechta]

So what happens if you have battle damage which stops a control surface working? Will the automatic system adjust for this?

[SpazSinbad]

Yes. This has been proven in 'live fire' tests where such things were replicated in labs. I think this demo has been mentioned elsewhere (also some work done specifically for the F-35B and LiftFan). I'll look for info - if required. There would be limits to what can be done - an advantage of computer control of flying qualities is this flexibility (perhaps demo'ed by the Israeli F-15 high speed landing with one stub wing after a mid-air?). This could not be done on a carrier however because there are weight/airspeed limits for the arresting gear (amongst other issues - including not an F-15).

[Darren_P]

The Israeli F-15 wasn't fly by wire though was it?

[Courtney Mil]

No it isn't. The Saudis got FBW in the F-15SA. Otherwise the Eagle was designed with a pretty standard and simple mechanical control system coupled with electrical stick force sensors. Either system can fly the aircraft in the event of the other failing.

[dat581]

As far as combat damage is concerned the FBW takes care of it to keep the aircraft controllable but this would of course only work up to a certain amount of damage. Most of the ideas used for the F-35 have been long proven on the F/A-18 through millions of flight hours including taking damage in combat. A good story comes from early testing on the F-117. An FSD aircraft on test lost one of it's vertical fins and the pilot had no idea until the chase aircraft told him with the FBW compensating automatically.

[SpazSinbad]

Thanks 'dat581' must admit I lost interest in the F-15 + hook when I found out it was not carrier capable (or is it). Anyway I really had this mid-air in mind whilst the info is here: [F-35 LFT next post if anyone interested]

Pilots Thankful To Be Alive - Oceana Fliers Describe Collision, Landing Jets
April 25, 1996 WILLIAM H. MCMICHAEL Daily Press
"...Anderson remained aloft in part because the flight control computers compensated for the jet's losses. Stephenson said F/A-18s are equipped with two mission computers, a redundancy he said is reflected elsewhere in the jet - in the two rudders and two engines, for example - to increase its chances of survival in the event of a collision or missile strike...."Pilots Thankful To Be Alive - Daily Press (http://articles.dailypress.com/1996-04-25/news/9604250118_1_mid-air-collision-oceana-naval-air-station-million-jets)
&
2 Oceana Jets Collide - Daily Press (http://articles.dailypress.com/1996-04-24/news/9604240041_1_two-navy-jets-oceana-naval-air-station-kevin-wensing)

[dat581]

Funny you should say that about the F-15. A navalised version was looked at due to the high cost and complexity of the F-14 but not proceeded with. Adding naval features such as the added structure and landing gear sent the weight rapidly higher. Adding more complex high lift devices to the wings didn't help either. By the end of the design process it weighed and cost almost as much as the Tomcat.

[Courtney Mil]

Spaz, re your message 224. Yes I agree the FMS is proving to be excellent and I do understand the use of flap - no flap switch because IDLC makes stick input control flap, changing approach angle rather than changing pitch, hence the name delta flight path.

My interest was about discussing the possibility of failure(s) that may degrade either FMS or any part of the system. I'm guessing your oblique reference to auto-eject in the B was a throw away line - barring a complete or catastrophic flight control failure, I'm hoping the reversion are mode isn't a Martin Baker let-down!

There's not much open source material on flight controls (probably a good thing), so I wondered if anyone had any unclassified gen to share on it.

Perhaps my question wasn't complete enough. Let's try, are there reversionary modes and, if so, is it a big deal for pilots to use it? My experience of flying FBW (a much older system than this!!!) leads me to conclude that failures can happen and when they do they can really change the way your aircraft flies.

[John Farley]

CM

I have no personal experince of the latest mil FBW systems but those who do lead me to believe that they fail normal. In other words you just lose an element of redundancy.

Re the B's auto eject LM did not try and reinvent the wheel and went to the Forger people. There the system has never failed and been used some 30 times. The Forger trigger was attitude when in the hover mode (which rather limited airshows) dunno wot the B uses.

J

[Engines]

John,

Perhaps I can help here. Your assumption on F-35 FBW fail modes is spot on.

Regarding auto eject, I remember that it was driven by the possibility of a catastrophic lift fan failure leading to very rapid nose down pitch to an attitude outside the seat envelope. I think that it's triggered by high pitch rates when the aircraft is in the powered lift mode, below certain speeds.

Best regards as ever to all those trying to keep the aircrew safe,

Engines

[Courtney Mil]

JF and Engines. Thank you. Good answers. I was going to pursue some more "what-ifs" that I had in mind, but it's all getting too diff! It's a bit like learning quantum physics during my degree course. Just accept that it is! Ta.

[John Farley]

CM and E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz3S-W0J8ts

J

[SpazSinbad]

Previous posts on this thread - as I understand them - have indicated the X-35C had auto throttle and IDLC which carried over to the F-35C improved and improved again with 'Delta Flight Path' (aka 'Magic Carpet' for the Super Hornet). Here are the men at work - does not the old hook drop quick.

X-35C & F-35C FCLP & Arrests NIMITZ Nov 2014
X-35C & F-35C FCLP & Arrests NIMITZ Nov 2014 - YouTube

[SpazSinbad]

An answer (seen in complete PDFs) for 'Mechta' above asking:
So what happens if you have battle damage which stops a control surface working? Will the automatic system adjust for this?Aircraft Survivability Journal - Spring 2012 Issue Published by the Joint Aircraft Survivability Program Office
JSF FULL UP SYSTEM LEVEL TESTING F35 Flight Critical Systems Test By Chuck Frankenberger
"...CONCLUSIONS
The FUSL testing conducted on [F-35A first build] AA-1 was very successful meeting all defined test objectives and success criteria. Addressing synergistic effects, the electrical power and flight control systems successfully isolated failures and protected the redundancies built into these systems, allowing continued safe flight. The VSN architecture is robust, providing multiple paths to transfer data. Testing highlighted that fire is a significant threat to flight critical systems. The test team was able to verify that the actual ballistic damage response correlated very well to previous pilot in the loop simulator testing. Over the course of the test program, the LFT team witnessed firsthand the robustness of the F35 flight critical systems, no cheap system kills."http://www.bahdayton.com/surviac/asnews/ASJ_Spring2012_V9_web.pdf [no longer available there]
OR
http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=15817 (2Mb PDF)
&
AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY Journal - Spring 2014 Published by the Joint Aircraft Survivability Program Office
F135 PROPULSION SYSTEM LIVE FIRE TEST (LFT) by Charles Frankenberger
"...CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the test results were favorable and in many cases the propulsion system performed better than predicted. Damage to blades and vanes in both the lift fan and main engine did not result in the catastrophic corn-cobbing often seen when gas path components are damaged. The control system is very capable in accommodating damage and providing information to the pilot. The data collected is being used to update assumptions and methodologies used in the vulnerability assessment. These updates will be available for the final F-35 aircraft assessment."http://jaspo.csd.disa.mil/images/archive/pdf/2014_spring.pdf (1.53Mb)

[SpazSinbad]

ONLY some woids from this excellent 6 page PDF article from Dec 2014 edition of Air International are excerpted below.

Cats, Traps & a Rooster Tail December 2014 Mark Ayton Air International
"[F-35C Aircraft] “...CF-03/‘SD73’ and CF-05/‘SD75’...

...DEVELOPMENTAL TESTER TEST DIRECTOR
Cdr Shawn Kern is the Director of Test and Evaluation for F-35 Naval Variants and the senior military member within the F-35 Integrated Test Force (ITF) based at Patuxent River. He leads a diverse team comprising 920 members from the US Government, the military and contractors responsible for developmental test of the F-35B and F-35C aircraft during the System Development and Demonstration phase. During DT I, Cdr Kern led the F-35 ITF, provided government oversight of carrier suitability testing and co-ordinated with the USS Nimitz’s captain, executive officers and other F-35 stakeholders.

He told AIR International: “Launch testing included minimum catapult end speed determination as well as performance and handling during high and low energy catapult launches and crosswind conditions at representative aircraft gross weights. Approach and recovery testing focused on aircraft performance and handling qualities during off-nominal recoveries in low, medium, high and crosswind wind conditions. Data and analysis from DT I will support the development of initial aircraft launch and recovery bulletins for F-35C carrier operations and Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardisation (NATOPS) flight manual procedures. Test results from DT I will also influence follow-on developmental and operational testing required to achieve F-35C initial operational capability.”

Lt Cdr Ted Dyckman is a US Navy F-35 test pilot assigned to VX-23 based at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland: he made the second-ever arrested landing on a super carrier in aircraft CF-05 on November 3 and the first night-time landing on November 13 in CF-03. Speaking about the F-35C’s performance around the carrier, Lt Cdr Dyckman told AIR International: “Everything met expectations and there were no surprises. Going through the burble was a big unknown, but the airplane responded better than we thought it would.

“We saw that the aircraft could trap: the only true bolter was a power call by the Landing Signals Officer when the aircraft touched down long with the hook down but came around and made an arrested landing.

“When the weather started to deteriorate we had such confidence in how the aircraft was flying that we lowered the weather minimums to those used by the fleet. I knew that when I lowered the hook I was going to trap. That says a lot for the airplane.

“Because the autopilots and flying qualities are so good, the workload to fly the jet is reduced and we were confident enough to declare it ready for night-time traps. It flew very well behind the ship and I made two hook-down passes and two traps. It’s unheard of to conduct night ops on a type’s first period at sea.

“We accomplished everything we set out to do, which allows us to go to DT II and conduct maximum speed catapult shots and carry internal and external stores and asymmetric payloads.”...

...Flight testing was split into three phases: day carrier qualification (CQ) and flight deck crew familiarisation; the development of aircraft launch bulletins (ALB) and aircraft recovery bulletins (ARB). In addition DT I also included Logistical Test and Evaluation (LT&E). Subsets of each phase comprised:

Aircraft Launch Bulletins
• Military rated thrust catapult launches
• Minimum catapult launch end speeds
• Low, medium and high excess wind over deck (WOD) catapult launches
• Crosswind catapult launches
• Bow and waist catapult launches

Aircraft Recovery Bulletins
• Approach handling qualities (AHQ) of F-35C approach modes: delta flight path, approach power compensator (APC), and manual
• Low, medium and high excess WOD recoveries
• Crosswind recoveries
• Bolter performance Logistical Test and Evaluation
• Deck handling including taxiing, towing and tie-down
• Weapons loading
• Basic maintenance, including aircraft jacking and landing gear servicing
• Maintenance support

Preparations
Since the author’s previous visit to the F-35 ITF at Pax River in April the main test objectives completed over the summer were arrested landings, touch and goes (a training evolution also known as field carrier landing practice or FCLP) and a structural survey of CF-03. The latter was a methodical check of the aircraft to ensure it was structurally suitable to be flown aboard an aircraft carrier. The survey included testing engineering fixes made to the aircraft’s pitch pivot pin and nose wheel steering motor. Although precautionary, the survey was required because functionality problems had been discovered with each component during the F-35C’s developmental flight test programme. A subset of the structural testing performed on CF-03, known as a shake, was also completed on CF-05 to ensure it was also suitable for carrier trials. No issues were found.

One other pre-deployment test evolution was electromagnetic environmental effects (E3). This required CF-03 to spend two weeks in the shielded hangar at Pax River, to ensure that electromagnetic interference from the ship’s emitters did not affect any of the aircraft’s vital systems and cause them to shut down. The official E3 test report was completed on October 16 which cleared the aircraft to embark onboard the carrier.

All requisite carrier suitability testing was concluded on October 17 and the final FCLPs were completed at Pax River four days later.

One interruption to the test programme over the summer was caused by the temporary grounding order resulting from an engine fire on F-35A AF-27, serial number 10-5015, at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida on June 23. Each engine underwent a rigorous inspection process and because of the priority given to DT I, CF-03 was the first to be inspected, analysed and cleared back to flight: CF-05 followed....

...No modifications were required to the flight deck, not even the Jet Blast Deflectors (JBDs): hydraulic-controlled panels designed to divert hot aircraft exhaust during launches. The panels are raised in preparation for takeoff, protecting the flight deck and aircraft behind from the hot aircraft exhaust. Modification of the JBDs will be required for subsequent DT evolutions, when afterburner will be required to launch aircraft with heavier all-up weights than those used during DT I. Any changes implemented will alter the cooling path of the F-35’s exhaust plume, which interacts with the carrier’s decking differently from that of the twin-engined members of the Hornet family....

...Support Onboard and from Ashore
DT I was supported by a pre-production, nonfleet representative version of the Autonomic Logistics Information System known as ALIS 1.03. According to the F-35 Joint Program Office: “Standard ALIS functions were in place and used to support F-35C operations and maintenance onboard USS Nimitz. The functions were accessible via approved Department of Defense network and cyber security policies and authorisations similar to ALIS support for F-35B STOVL deployments to the USS Wasp (LHD 1)....

...Increased robustness in the aircraft’s control laws refers to:
• Pro-rotation during a catapult and bolter.
• Integrated Direct Lift Control which integrates the control surfaces such that wing camber is altered to increase or decrease lift, thus allowing glide slope changes to be made without a large change in engine thrust.
• Delta Flight Path, which is an innovative leap in aircraft flight controls, that commands the aircraft to capture and maintain a glide slope. The system greatly reduces the pilot’s workload, increases the safety margins during carrier approaches and reduces touchdown dispersion.

Wind Effects
Aircraft carriers are unique in that they have different wind effects that the pilot and the aircraft’s flight control laws must take into account. The overall wind effect is called the burble,...

...“We are evaluating how the control law handles through the burble. Data collected during DT I will now be used by the control law engineers for analysis and to improve our simulator modelling. Because the burble is such a dynamic and integrated wind system there are challenges to modelling it accurately. Future F-35 pilot training will benefit from this work,” said Cdr Wilson....

...We started making intentional errors in our approaches [off-nominal]. This allowed us to see how the aircraft’s flight control laws react to corrections input by the pilot and the effect of the burble while trying to make the corrections. “The pilot intentionally lines up [on approach] on either side of the landing area…starting either high or low, or flying fast or slow to see if there is enough time to input the correction and get back on centreline, on glide slope and on speed [flying a proper approach speed] prior to touch down. “As we fly off nominal approaches, if the LSO [landing signals officer] doesn’t see a timely correction or doesn’t feel that the pilot is going to land safely, he or she will wave them off.

“The LSO [who is located on a platform positioned 120ft (36.6m) from the end of the ship and 40ft (12.2m) from the centreline on the port side] is a pilot trained to observe the aircraft as it flies down the approach watching for deviation in pitch attitude using a camera that shows whether the aircraft is on or off centreline. Listening to the aircraft, the LSO is trained to recognise changes in rates of vertical and horizontal movement to ensure the aircraft is going to clear the ramp at the aft of the ship and recover safely aboard. The LSO plays a vital role in the safe recovery of aircraft aboard the ship.

“Getting aircraft back to the boat is our first concern: our second is [preventing] what we call a long bolter. This occurs if the pilot fails to correct a big deviation and lands well beyond the four-wire [the last arrestment cable along the deck]. For safety purposes any time an aircraft touches down on the deck, the pilot needs sufficient deck to derotate, and get the throttle back to mil[itary] power to fly away. There’s not enough time for the plane to de-rotate with a long bolter, which means it could still have downward direction so when [the aircraft] rolls off the front end of the boat it’s going to sink....

...evaluated approaches with crosswinds behind the ship out to 7kts....

...“We also evaluated approach handling qualities in low and high wind conditions: low is 10 to 20kt, nominal is 20 to 30kt and high is in excess of 30kt. The team’s goal for DT I was to gain as much data with cross winds and various head winds to allow us to start writing our aircraft launch and recovery bulletins.”
What Next? Testing around the carrier gets more complicated with aircraft weight and asymmetry. On subsequent DT events the F-35 ITF will increase aircraft weight and asymmetry by loading stores on one side to create as much asymmetry as possible, which is the complicating factor. Cdr Wilson told AIR International that testing on subsequent DT events is going to look very similar but will evaluate heavier weights and asymmetric lateral weight differences.

OUTCOMES FROM DT I
• Flight test conducted in the operational environment.
• The F-35C demonstrated exceptional handling qualities throughout all launch and recovery conditions tested.
• All four test pilots rated the F-35C to be very easy to operate from the carrier. Arrested landings were consistent: the aircraft caught the optimal three-wire in the majority of the 102 traps. Pilot comments included: “I noticed the burble, but the aircraft just takes care of it”, “It makes flying the ball comfortable” and “This thing is a three-wire machine”....

......STATISTICS FROM DT I
Start date: November 3
Completion date: November 14
Flights: 33
Flight hours: 39.2
Catapult launches: 124
Touch-and-goes: 222
Arrested landings: 124
Bolters: 2 intentional with the hook down
Threshold test points completed: 100%” pp 42-47 Air International December 2014

[Courtney Mil]

Sorry to pick this up again. I may have completely misunderstood, but I got the impression that you guys were saying that the system fails "normal" and that a "manual" approach doesn't make sense...

Does not make sense. Firstly the FMS is very good by every account so that sim FCLP can be conducted in 'failure' or good mode. What exactly is a 'manual' landing in your estimation? The aircraft is computer controlled.


I have no personal experince of the latest mil FBW systems but those who do lead me to believe that they fail normal. In other words you just lose an element of redundancy.


John,

Perhaps I can help here. Your assumption on F-35 FBW fail modes is spot on.

Now you're quoting...

F-35C approach modes: delta flight path, approach power compensator (APC), and manual

That looks like there are three modes, the last being stick and throttle - or "manual" in my estimation.

[SpazSinbad]

From elsewhere (I'll have to look it up) and from memory, I recall that certain test aircraft have 'other switches' that allow certain functions to be switched off or changed in flight - for test purposes. Earlier I was referring to ordinary production aircraft in which I understand there is no option but to have auto throttle. Perhaps that can be switched off in production aircraft also? I'll stress again my sources are public only and it arrives in dribs and drabs. Do you get that? Go figure.

[Courtney Mil]

Do you get that? Go figure.

Nice. Thanks.

I wonder why they would have included manual landings in the acceptance trials if it's not an option in production aircraft. And if it is an option I wonder why it's there? Maybe to allow pilots to make landing more difficult just for fun.

Anyway, my original question was purely out of curiosity and it doesn't look like there's an answer here. Given the excellent handling characteristics reported thus far I would expect the sub-prime modes, if they exist, to be manageable.

[SpazSinbad]

Last night a heck of a lot of quotes about 'automatic' and manual (never well explained - only just those words) were interspersed in many quotes collected but now lost - probably a good thing because it was just confusing when test pilots talked about two modes; or ordinary non-test pilots talked about it. Anyway as mentioned 'auto-throttle' is standard. My brain hurts right now to even know what that means in practice. Also there is no direct connection between throttle and engine - all done by computer control laws. Here are some clues:

JSF Active Inceptor System (AIS) ACTIVE STICK & THROTTLE FOR F-35
Joseph Krumenacker NAVAIR Flight Controls / JSF Vehicle Systems 16 October 2008
"...Reconfiguration for AIS Degraded Modes...
...AIS Modes & Fault Accommodation
• Each Inceptor has three primary control modes:
– Active: sensed grip force is used to actively position the inceptor according to the programmed force vs. position characteristics
• Flight Control Laws use inceptor position as pilot command
– Passive: motor drives disengaged, stick springs provide fixed linear force gradient, throttle has fixed friction & no detents
• Used upon unrecoverable error with motor drives
• Flight Control Laws use stick forces and throttle position as pilot command
• Both stick axes will maintain like mode (if one axis downgrades passive mode, other axis will be place passive mode)
– Jammed: inceptor position is fixed
• automatically detected by software
• Flight Control Laws use inceptor force as pilot command
• jammed throttle requires some Control Law reconfiguration

Throttle:
– Variable aft & forward end-stops (e.g. STOVL mode is different from CTOL mode)
– AB gate (when STOVL system is not deployed)
– Launch gate (CV only)
– STOVL center detent (zero commanded acceleration)
– STOVL on-ground power braking force gradient
– Back-drive
• Auto-Throttle Approach (all variants)
• STOVL Decel-to-Hover..."http://www.csdy.umn.edu/acgsc/mtg102/SubcommitteD/F35 AIS Krumenacker SAE 081016.ppt (13.4MB)

Tailored to Trap 01 Dec 2012 Frank Colucci
"F-35C control laws give Navy pilots Integrated Direct Lift Control for easier carrier landings, and they open the door for future landing aids.
Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) test pilots in July [2012] began using an Integrated Direct Lift Control (IDLC) scheme meant to improve approach performance and reduce pilot workload in carrier landings. Tailored control responses in part differentiate the carrier-based F-35C from its runway and small-deck siblings. Lockheed Martin test pilot Dan Canin at Patuxent River Naval Air Test Center, Maryland, explained, “What IDLC does is improve the flight path response of the airplane, allowing the pilot to make almost instantaneous corrections to glideslope while maintaining a constant angle of attack.”

“The landing approach in the F-35C is flown with the stick only,” noted Canin. “The throttle is automatic.” IDLC may someday facilitate hands-off landings and other possible F-35 shipboard enhancements....

...“With IDLC, we change the symmetric deflection of the flaps and the ailerons in response to pitch and throttle commands by the pilot. The glideslope response is immediate, and doesn’t require a speed or alpha change. This is a tremendous advantage over a stiff-wing airplane.”....

...“It’s an integral part of the flight control system and responds to the pilot’s normal stick and throttle movements, without requiring a separate control.” The flight control system also compensates for the pitching moments induced by the lifting surface deflections — F-35C ailerons pitch the airplane on approach almost as much as the big horizontal stabilizers — to maintain the proper angle of attack.

IDLC is commanded by an Approach Mode Control button on the F-35 active inceptor stick. “You really could have done this with any other airplane,” acknowledged Canin, “but the implementation would have been more complicated.” He added, “It’s easier and cleaner to do this with a flight control system that’s naturally a pitch-rate-command system.

Flying With Feeling
The triplex-redundant flight control system of the F-35 has flight control laws embedded in three identical, independent Vehicle Management Computers (VMC) made by BAE Systems in Endicott, N.Y. Corin Beck, BAE product director for fixed-wing control systems, said typical quad-redundant legacy flight control systems route all interfaces back to a central Flight Control Computer. The F-35 VMCs are separated for survivability and work as network controllers. They interface with aircraft sensors, active inceptor controls, actuators, and utilities and subsystems, and they provide a bridge to the F-35 mission system network....

...BAE Systems Electronic Systems in Rochester, U.K., also makes the F-35 active inceptor system including the active throttle quadrant assembly, active side-stick control assembly, and an interface control unit. The motorized inceptors transmit pilot inputs to the F-35 fly-by-wire flight control system and give the pilot tactile cues with resistance ramps, gates and stops to provide aircraft “feel” and warnings. Unlike traditional springs, stick shakers and other mechanical force-feedback mechanisms, the motorized sidestick varies feedback forces with aircraft condition.

The throttle is likewise back-driven to give the pilot situational awareness about the energy state of the airplane and the corrections being made. If or when the pilot breaks out of Approach Mode, the throttle position is synchronized to the engine thrust request (ETR). “If the throttle is physically jammed, the approach mode will still work. One of the redundancy features of the airplane is that the physical throttle linkage is no longer required,” Canin said.

Engine thrust request is the driver for IDLC surface deflection. The Moog electro-hydrostatic actuators that move the F-35 control surfaces promise survivability and maintainability advantages over more conventional hydraulic actuators. They also provide slightly greater bandwidth than hydraulic actuators for IDLC. However, Canin observes, “We could have done this with hydraulic actuators. The magic is in the control laws.”...

...Unlike production F-35s, the JSF SDD aircraft have a Flight Test Aid (FTA) system that allows pilots to evaluate different control gains and mechanizations in flight. Using FTAs, for example, pilots were able to look at IDLC gains of 150 percent, 200 percent and 300 percent of the original baseline gain, eventually settling on 300 percent.

“We can do this safely, because if we ever see anything we don’t like, we can press a paddle switch on the stick to put us immediately back to the baseline control law,” said Canin. Since F-35 production software and test software are the same, LRIP aircraft will actually have the FTAs incorporated but no FTA switch with which to activate them.

All three variants of the F-35 provide some measure of IDLC. “Glideslope is always important,” observed Canin. “Anything you can do to improve flight path control on approach is a good thing. Wave-off performance is also improved with IDLC, since it can stop or reduce your rate of descent while you’re waiting for the engine to spool up.”

The IDLC function is not identical in all the three F-35 variants, however. “The IDLC gain is much higher in the C-model than the other two,” said Canin. “We only have one release of software for the three variants. It configures itself when it wakes up and discovers which type of F-35 it’s in.” The F-35B does not use IDLC at all in jet-borne (vertical landing) mode, when aerodynamic control surfaces are fixed.

Even with its innovative flight controls, the F-35C, from the pilot’s perspective, is relatively conventional coming aboard the carrier. “Determining where you are with respect to lineup and glideslope is all visual,” acknowledged Canin. “For lineup, you look at the ship and line up on centerline … easy enough if the ship’s heading is steady, but tricky if the ship is wallowing,” noted Canin. “As for glideslope, you have to watch the meatball and see small deviations. Then you have to put the ball back in the middle, with the right rate of descent so it stays there. None of that’s changed with this airplane, but what we’re giving the pilot is more responsiveness and bandwidth to do that.”

The F-35 uses a BAE Helmet Mounted Display (HMD) instead of a conventional Head-Up Display (HUD). Like a classic HUD, the HMD shows the pilot a flight path marker (or velocity vector), with a bracket to indicate if the aircraft is “on speed” or flying fast or slow. Meanwhile, a caret moves up or down in reference to the flight path marker to give an acceleration-deceleration cue.

Ashore, when the aircraft is on glideslope, the pilot simply puts the flight path marker by the meatball and the aircraft stays on that glideslope. “At the ship, since the landing area is moving through the water, the pilot needs to put the flight path marker out in front of it. He needs to put it where the landing area will be when he gets there, which again requires judgment. A better system would be put the velocity vector into the moving reference frame of the boat,” Canin said.

Though not currently part of the F-35 plan, implementing a “ship-referenced velocity vector” (SRVV) would allow the pilot to put the SRVV on the intended touchdown point to hold glideslope. “All we would need to know from the ship is its current velocity, so we can put the airplane symbology in that reference frame,” Canin said.

Readily rewritten control laws have other possibilities. “With the current flight control law, the pilot commands pitch rate with the stick, and uses that pitch rate to establish a glideslope,” noted Canin. “There’s no reason, though, why the flight control system couldn’t establish a baseline glideslope, and allow the pilot to apply control stick pressure to command tweaks around that glideslope in response to ball deviations.” A “glideslope command” mechanization of this sort is not in the baseline airplane now, but is an example of the type of changes that could relatively easily be incorporated in the F-35 control system...."Avionics Magazine :: Tailored to Trap (http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/military/Tailored-to-Trap_77964.html)

JSF Live Fire Test—Pilot-in the Loop Simulator Testing Jeffrey Andrus 2010 Spring
"...Test Conclusions...
...The use of MTL simulator testing at this stage in the test program has proved valuable as the JSF Live Fire Team starts a complex and thorough test program for the three F-35 variants. Simulator testing examines the response of the pilot and F-35 aircraft to failures that represent possible damage modes associated with encounters with ballistic threats...."http://www.bahdayton.com/surviac/asnews/JASPO_Spring10.pdf (no longer available)

3 page extract of above here: http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=19800 (PDF 0.5Mb)

[Courtney Mil]

Last night a heck of a lot of quotes about 'automatic' and manual (never well explained - only just those words) were interspersed in many quotes collected but now lost

No, just mine, Spaz. You have a problem with conversing directly?

All the rest of your post above, I understood already and has nothing to do with my question. For some reason I can't fathom, I doubt you're ever going to try to understand what I asked, let alone engage in any sort of reasoned dialogue about it, but rather just keep on quoting random internet stuff. It's not helping because it is not what what I asked about. But thanks for taking so much time to find something to post.

I suggest we move on to other, better understood aspects of the first deck landings.

[SpazSinbad]

Perhaps I was not clear about what was 'lost'. Because it was lost the collection of quotes about the topic did not seem relevant in retrospect. IF what I have posted is not relevant to you then so be it. I'm not here to answer your questions. What you like or do not like about my posts is irrelevant to me. However they do pertain to the thread topic - so get over yourself. If no one answers your questions perhaps you may consider rephrasing them, or re-asking them?

I could have said that the 'pilot in loop' testing was for 'Mechta' directly. And I do not have to explain myself to you in any way. Someone who things that flying an aircraft with a hook is somehow relevant to deck landing experience - with a hook - is beyond my comprehension. And Go Figure.

[SpazSinbad]

For 'Mechta': (F-35C would not be carrier landing in this config methinks)


A Look At The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter 31 May 2013 Tim Kern
"...Hydraulics are backed up by a “quad-redundant” fly-by-wire system, saving weight and complexity. For example, the F-35 can fly with one horizontal tail and one rudder missing...."
A Look At The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter | AviationPros.com (http://www.aviationpros.com/article/10952099/a-look-at-the-f-35-joint-strike-fighter)

[KenV]

That looks like there are three modes, the last being stick and throttle - or "manual" in my estimation.


Qourtney,

The F-35 (like the F-16) is fly by wire all the time. There is no back up mechanical flight control system. If the computers go away or the wiring goes away, flight control goes away. And in the case of the F-35 "flight control" includes the engine. The engine is integrated into the F-35's flight control system.

However, there are different FBW "normal" modes and different "degraded" modes. The "manual" degraded mode does NOT mean it reverts to some kind of mechanical sytem of control. "Manual" means that the feed-back motors in the stick and throttle are gone so the pilot flies wihout any tactile feedback. Only the pilot's eyes and "seat of the pants" provide feedback as to what the flight control computers are doing. Basically in "manual" mode the F-35 flies somewhat like an F-16. No stick feedback about what the computers are doing with the control surfaces. But unlike the F-16, the F-35 flight control computers also completely control the engine. When in "manual" mode the pilot gets no throttle feedback what the flight control conputers are doing with the engine. So the "manual" mode of the F-35 is sort of like all FBW Airbus aircraft in "normal" mode with the autothrottle engaged. It is completely computer controlled with no stick and no throttle feedback. Which means that if there is a massive computer failure in the F-35 , there is only one option: the ejection seat.

[Courtney Mil]

Good answer Ken, thank you. My use of the word "manual" was referring to flying losing the finer points of Delta Path. And, yes, as with many FBW, dynamically unstable ac, no flight control, no fly.

Again, thanks.

"Qourtney"

[KenV]

My use of the word "manual" was referring to flying losing the finer points of Delta Path.


Delta Path is always available, even in manual mode. Tactile feedback to the pilot is reduced in manual mode. If the flight control system has degraded to the point that Delta Path is lost, flight control is lost. A carrier landing is moot at that point because the pilot will be hanging from his parachute.

Super Hornet's "Magic Carpet" is the same.

[Courtney Mil]

Excellent, Ken. You have answered my question exactly. Thank you very much!