F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[SpazSinbad]

'Low Observable' said: "I don't think that anyone can sanely argue that a system with a failure mode that requires auto-eject is some great advance in flight safety...."

I blame the Russians.

Quote from the previous page of this thread 'Low Observable' URL where Tomlinson describes his F-35B experiences thusly:

"...The F-35B fly-by-wire system gives angle-of-attack and sideslip control, and departure protection. Further pilot workload reduction is given by performance deficit protection, conversion speed window protection and FOD protection warning; and flight test has a watching brief on the requirement for possible tail strike protection during slow landings (currently not considered necessary). Pilot cognitive errors (of trying to control thrust with the throttle) have been mitigated in the design. In the unlikely event of the lift fan failing catastrophically the aircraft would pitch inverted in 0.6 seconds, and the pilot is protected by auto-ejection signalled by pitch rate and attitude (derived from the YAK 38 & 141 systems)...."

Test Flying The Joint Strike Fighter

[LowObservable]

Same problem, same solution.

[SpazSinbad]

Solution of Auto Eject Found to be Acceptable to Both

Then the auto eject function must be acceptable, or have been acceptable, to both countries.

[Mach Two]

Not just acceptable, necessary. Same issue in the development stage of Eurofighter. A flight control failure in a dynamically unstable aircraft (canards) could cause a catastophic departure leading to airframe destruction in well under a second and it was thought that auto eject might be required - early days, of course.

It's a bit gloomy to think that the fan failure resulting from battle (or any other) damage will occur over the deck rather than when the transition to fan lift is initiated. More likely that pilot survival will be the issue more than the aircraft crashing on the deck; the latter can happen with any carrier aircraft.

[Killface]

It may be true that the auto-eject system would take the pilot clear, but if it happened over the deck it would still be incredibly dangerous. Would you like to be on deck when when an F-35B did a back flip 50ft up?

I also wouldn't want to be on deck when a wire snaps or when an aircraft crashes by more conventional hook and wire methods (as they do on occasion) most dangerous 4 and 1/2 acres in the world on a CVN. naval aviation is inherently more dangerous and expensive and yet we retain naval aviation.

F18 Hornet Accident while landing on aircraft carrier - YouTube

I don't think that anyone can sanely argue that a system with a failure mode that requires auto-eject is some great advance in flight safety.

by this logic I don't think that anyone can sanely argue that an aircraft with a failure mode that requires ejection seats (a pyrotechnically activated rocket chair) is some great advance in flight safety.

all aircraft with ejection seats require manual ejection with a system failure, depending on the circumstances of course, or even within certain envelopes. for example, 100ft off the deck is no time to try and restart the engine, however 10,000 ft might be a different story.

the difference here is that it would be done automatically. Not surprisingly the closer the aircraft is to the ground the more the manual advocates ejection. a vast amount of simulator time is dedicated to training pilots when to eject and why and ingraining the habits so they can make a split second decision with their life on the line.

personally I like the idea of an aircraft that would auto eject you in circumstances where no human could possibly assess and react to the situation in the time it would take to save a life or more than one:

You Tube

Most ejection seats are loaded with "automatic features" throughout, for example the deployment of the parachute being automatic in case of blackout, the automatic restraint of joints and limbs, or even the automatic deployment of the survival vests flotation devices.

so is the problem really the auto eject? or the fact that a system failure could result in the need for ejection at all? I need to know what I should be manufacturing my discontent toward.

I second what Mach 2 has said (he beat me to the punch on this one)

One of the local yahoos wanted to buy a retired OV-1, but the insurance company shot him down because the procedure for an engine out during take off according to the manual was "eject"

[SpazSinbad]

Having flown in old jet aircraft without zero zero ejection capability (Vampire, Sea Venom and Macchi MB326H) it was certainly of some 'comfort' to know the A4G Skyhawk rocket powered zero zero seat was available. For two A4G pilots aboard HMAS Melbourne the seat worked well during a cold cat and an arrestor wire failure resulting in successful ejections. Another pilot ejected OK not far from the ship still at deck height after the engine failed just after catapulting.

"IF IN DOUBT - PUNCH OUT" was burnt into our brains with "out of control below 10,000 feet - EJECT" another mantra. However this last one had many provisos - according to what 'out of control' meant at the time.

As the other posters state above, the auto eject function seems to me to be a good function in the circumstances described, with the STOVL function actuated some distance from the ship usually; BUT engine failure can occur anywhere at any time.

[GreenKnight121]

Modern ejection seats automatically steer the seat upward... even if the aircraft is inverted when the ejection occurs.

Is this a sign of bad design?

[SpazSinbad]

A4G 888 Wire Break Pilot Ejects OK video

LCDR Kevin Finan exchange USN pilot had the successful ejection from A4G 888 after wire break during a normal arrest - HMAS Melbourne 23 May 1979

888 A-4G Pilot Ejects - Arrestor Wire Break HMAS Melbourne

888 A-4G Pilot Ejects - Arrestor Wire Break HMAS Melbourne - YouTube

A4G 875 Engine Failure After Catapult

LCDR Clive Blennerhassett CO VF-805 Ejects after engine failure off catapult HMAS Melbourne 02 Oct 1980

You Tube

A4G 885 Cold Catapult Ejection OK Compilation

You Tube

[Mk 1]

yet we don't seem to be worried that a computer handles deployment of the airbags and other pyrotechnic safety devices (seat belt tighteners etc) automatically in our cars do we? Haven't heard many instances of airbags going off in any other circumstance than a severe impact in a car - why does the automatic deployment of a different sort of safety device (seat) worry others? It's not as though the pilot can respond quickly enough to save himself with a manual response.

[ORAC]

My worry wasn't about the seat, but the mind boggling fact that such a FS critical system wasn't built into the monitoring system from day 1.

If it's monitored and damage detected then there's time for a diversion (if in range) to a land base for a conventional landing; risk mitigation by reducing weight and anbRVL to a pre-warned deck with straps tight and SAR on standby or, at worst, a pre-planned ejection.

At the moment you have no warning or preparation and either an unpleasant shock during deployment or a failure at a critical stage in the hover.

How did that get through the system and when is due to be fixed?

[John Farley]

Green Knight

Which seats are those?

[ORAC]

ACES II: The minimal ejection altitude for ACES II seat in inverted flight is about 140 feet (43 m) above ground level at 150 KIAS. The seat performance is in accordance with MIL-S-9479

[LowObservable]

I'm not aware of any self-righting ejection seat such as GK describes. You'd need thrust vectoring. It was considered under CREST in the 80s, IIRC.

[Rhino power]

ORAC, if you eject inverted 140ft above the ground, no (current) seat in the world is going to save you, that includes the ACES II...

-RP

[eaglemmoomin]

Hold on. I'm missing what the issue is here this sounds like fairly typical stuff? I must admit to not having ploughed through several pages of various posters arguing though, so I should sort that out I guess.

From a snapshot view though any development like this has staged drops of various bits of capability/function. Ultimately it'll be the customer that agrees and signs off those drops. Any variances or non qualifications would also have to signed off. It's only an issue when it never happens or an alternative solution is not acheivable. BIT/CBIT and IBIT is one of those things that always seems to happen near the end anyway.

As for the whole 'oh noes my engine has gone' there's FOD up it, its really dangerous' I don't see how any naval jet aircraft is exempt from this sort of problem. Is this not a basic issue with trying to get an aircraft on a tiny strip of metal in the sea? Though on an aircraft carrier/LHA/LHD would'nt there be FOD checks etc. Or have I missed some additional bit of hysteria somewhere?

[eaglemmoomin]

Hi Spaz,
I am in the corner that very much believes we are getting this aircraft, I might not agree with the choice but we are getting it.. However do we seriously believe that ANY pilot currently flying this amazing piece of technology is going to criticise it? Yes they might tactfully highlight certain issues but they will always take the party line and say the sun is shining in the middle of a monsoon.

I need to know how our carriers will be used, will they always rely on land based aircraft to act as tankers, land based aircraft to supply air early warning? Or will these carriers be able to operate without this type of support?

Will our F35B's carry external ordinance, fuel tanks, bombs, missiles etc when operating from our carriers and what about this controversial 'Close Air Support' Will it be having fifth generation aircraft flying at high altitude dropping intelligent ordinance close to friendly troops or will it be close air support where the aircraft gets down and dirty, letting the grunts on the ground see them attacking the nearby enemy, having the opposition both seeing and hearing the aircraft that is coming to the aid of the troops that might be in a tight corner? I would ask if this latter option is a non starter for such a modern, complex aircraft but I would like to hear the thoughts of others, especially the US Marines who believe that all pilots are first and foremost a 'grunt with a gun!'

why are the US Marines so adamant that they want the 'B'? We are now reading how any ship that carries this aircraft has to be adapted for that role, the aircraft will not be seen cross decking to ships that have not had this extra work and in this age of sequestration would there be huge and very significant savings if the US Marines purchased more fast jets but did away with their STOVL type fleet? More fast jets, more rotor wing aircraft but scrap the STOVL fleet and let the Navy pay the bill for sea based fast jets. I fully accept every word I read from orac the knowledgeable and I am very interested to hear why he is slowly coming round to the idea of having the 'B' as the aircraft of choice.

I do accept though that we are at where we are at and our only option is this aircraft but I am still far from convinced it is the right choice. All the latest advanced UAV, large drones, call them what you want will need a conventional carrier to operate them and by burying our head in the sand and simply saying we will convert our carriers at a later date just seems wrong... For years we appear to have taken this stance and for years we have been building these two ships knowing full well the 'B' is going to 'b' the last aircraft of its type and once retired, those two ships are redundant. I cite the embarrassing use of the Illustrious with her pretty ski slope and no snow!!! (sorry, aircraft) Yes it has been renamed as a helicopter carrier but how much deck space is wasted and when we have seen her she was carrying a minimal number of aircraft

Is having a very small number of very advanced, very expensive aircraft a better option that having excellent, more adaptable aircraft? Having the much cheaper option would give us so much more versatility and adaptability. I am told our Challenger tanks are an amazing piece of kit but because of the limited numbers they are not considered a threat!!! Is this what the world will think of our very own Air Force? Excellent aircraft but too few to be a threat?

PLEASE, please read this as me asking questions and not saying the F35B is the wrong aircraft. It may well be the best aircraft we will ever own, the best aircraft we have ever operated and might indeed be the best choice.

Combat UAV's are decades off being actually useful. Anyone that honestly thinks otherwise is fooling themselves. Personally I think it'll be a long road full of cock ups and issues. Getting a 'simple' surveillance UAV that stays up for a few hours and flys defined racetracks with it's sensors being preset reliably and consistently is still a massive technical effort and the UK, France, Europe isn't really quite there yet. So CUAVs nah, simple demonstrator maybe. Something that will actually be able to replace a Tornado, Typhoon, F35 and the simplest tasks they are asked to do in the next 20 to 25 years hmmmmmm.

[SpazSinbad]

On previous page of this thread 'eaglemmoomin' rooominated thusly: "...Though on an aircraft carrier/LHA/LHD would'nt there be FOD checks etc...."

Yessirreebobsir, the FOD walkdown is a feature of USN flat deck life as far as I can tell from Ozland. It is amazing what can be found when one looks - especially of the tiny variety of bits that end up on a flight deck or aircraft line ashore. Most USN docos about CVN life will show the FOD walkdown.

[Literground]

Its common knowledge that I am forty years or so distant from my service, but I know enough folk,(including my own son), that drone software and integration is a lot more advanced than most seem to think.

[SpazSinbad]

BOOSTed BringBack With SRVL + 2,000/4,000 pounds

UK Will Try To Boost F-35B Landing Weight by Chris Pocock AIN Defense Perspective 05 July 2013

"Senior British military officials confirmed that the UK will conduct shipboard rolling vertical landing (SRVL) trials on the F-35B version of the Lockheed Martin Lightning II stealth combat jet. The SRVL technique would allow the aircraft to land at higher weights than is currently possible in the VTOL mode....

...The officials said they are satisfied that the F-35B could bring back the internal weapons load that is initially planned, comprising–in the UK case–two AMRAAM air-air missiles and two Paveway IV smart bombs weighing some 5,000 pounds. But, one added, when high temperature and/or low pressure conditions prevail–such as in the Gulf of Oman–it would be prudent to achieve another 2,000 to 4,000 pounds of bring-back weight, for either fuel or weapons, especially since the F-35 will be able to carry additional weapons on wing pylons, when stealth is not a requirement....

...the UK’s three T&E jets will embark on the new Queen Elizabeth II aircraft carrier for trials in the same year [2018]."

UK Will Try To Boost F-35B Landing Weight | Aviation International News

[glad rag]

So we[the UK] are right back at the ridiculous situation of dumping ££££££££'s worth of ordinance to match a land on weight IF the cab is in Non stealth mode.

How much does the lift fan set up weigh again??