F-35 Cancelled, then what ? [Archive] - Page 19

tartare

27th May 2014, 22:58

I can't believe people are complaining about the sound of freedom.
I grew up in a cheaply built house in the southern suburbs of Christchurch NZ.
My childhood memories are of hunkering down in bed on frosty still nights so cold you could see your breath in the room, being lulled to sleep by the earsplitting sounds of RNZAF pilot trainees doing night-time circuits from nearby Wigram in Harvards and CT4 Airtrainers.
What a noise.
Even now when I hear an old Harvard at an airshow, I'm instantly transported back to childhood.
I read with envy that due to runway work at Amberley down here in Oz, the Super Hornets will be re-routed over different parts of Brisbane on approach and take off... and the RAAF is apologising to people in advance.
Gentlemen, feel free to come down to Sydney anytime you want - and look out for a wannabe knucklehead kiwi who's eyesight and maths wasn't quite good enough down on the ground raising his hand in salute.
Full military power please.

TBM-Legend

28th May 2014, 09:27

Opinion: F-35B Vertical Landings In Doubt For U.K. | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://app.info.aviationweek.com/e/er?s=1076&lid=6049&elq=845c79516061418492803407c0c7e474)

Engines

28th May 2014, 10:31

To everyone,

I think it's a little unfortunate when forum protagonists (from whatever point of view) resort to personal observations. Honestly, it undoes the value of these forums, where interested people should exchange opinions (and if possible, a few facts) to mutual advantage. I'm not trying to be a moderator, just an observation.

Here are a few facts around F-35B ops from various surfaces. make of them what you will. (i've also read the AW article linked to by TBM-legend - thanks for that). I hope they help.

The potential impact of F-35B jet blast on all operating surfaces was recognised right from the start of the programme. As a result, it included a substantial R&D effort to build on the largely empirical data the team had from Harrier operations. This effort included modelling and testing of the environment (pressure, velocity, temperature) under the aircraft and on the surfaces. It also included special testing of the surfaces themselves, which included AM-2, concrete (various grades) and asphalt, on a dedicated rig at Warton. Oh, and it included flight deck steels with various coatings.

The basic drivers were and remain the temperature, pressure and velocity of the jet as it hits the surface, coupled with the heat transfer and mechanical characteristics of the surface itself. The main destructive effects were differential thermal expansion, strength reduction through heat, and in extreme cases melting, aided by dynamic blast effects.

The results from this effort were fed into the flight test programme, which will be validating the earlier data. From my recollection, there were actually few basic surprises. The tar in asphalt has a very low melting point (ever encountered a sticky road in summer?) and any static jet blast simply tears ip up quite quickly. Concrete is better, but the spalling effect (due to thermal expansion, not boiling water) has to be watched for. AM-2 is vulnerable due once again to a relatively low yield/melt temperature.

So, the F-35 programme does know about jet effects on surfaces, yes, it has thought about the issue, and yes, it has some ways forward. Those later.

Requirements - I can't go into so much detail, as I'm not current on the programme. But what I can say with some certainty is that the USMC, like the RN, realised some years ago that doing VLs to an unprepared surface in any STOVL jet was not a good idea. Moreover, for the forward basing concept, which was built into the detailed requirements set at the outset, the USMC did not require the aircraft to carry out VLs at the forward base, but a short landing within a given distance, with a given load of fuel and weapons. In fact, the landing weight specified for the 'FOB' was well above the VLBB requirement.

I'll just repeat that for clarity. The USMC did not intend to carry out VLs at forward bases, but planned to exploit the powered lift capability of the aircraft to carry out short runway ops.

Once you assume that, the situation changes quite a bit. You are no longer looking at a steady hot jet working directly on the surface at one location for the whole landing, but a short duration hot 'wash' across the surface. The thermodynamics of heat transfer aren't simple (to me at least) but I can say with some certainty that it's a very much less severe test for any surface.

Of course, for the shipboard VL, the surface does have to take the jet blast, which is why it was tested so extensively, and why new coatings are going to be adopted.

I suppose what I'm trying to point out, using facts, is that the F-35 programme is not being surprised by the challenges of handling jet effects on operating surfaces. They were thought about at the requirements stage. They have been modelled, investigated and tested, and are now being validated in flight test.

Jet powered lift is not easy. No one, least of all me, claims that is is. But it is doable, and (admittedly in my view) can be extremely operationally effective. The Harrier and Sea Harrier showed just how effective, coupled with RN, RAF and USMC innovation in basing and tactics.

I hope this helps a little.

Engines

LowObservable

28th May 2014, 13:02

Very helpful. (And why nobody can say this officially now, or could have said it four years ago, I have no idea.)

So in fact what you have here is two requirement levels. STOL for expeditionary operations from an extant runway (the length I have seen most often is 3,000 feet, set by a C-130 for support), and STOVL for ship ops.

There are alternatives for a 3,000-foot runway capability, including giving the Marines the A-10 and (or so I am told) an 800 m-runway supersonic multi-role fighter that is half the size and cost of the F-35B.

For the USMC, the strategic value of VL is limited by ship capacity. The long-term goal is still 11 LHA/LHD decks, each with six F-35s under normal circumstances (although the current number is nine, and the fleet will not reach 11 before 2024).

R&D and the design penalties imposed on the F-35A/C are sunk costs. The future acquisition of the most expensive combat aircraft in current production, and its operating costs, are not. How much are those (theoretical) 66 deck spots worth?

Engines

28th May 2014, 13:24

LO,

Thanks.

The runway lengths that were being looked at were, by memory, around 1200 to 1500 feet. C-130 resupply was not a factor, given the CONOPS, which I won't go into.

I understand the arguments you deploy about STOVL on small ships, but perhaps they don't cover all the angles. Firstly, 6 aircraft per deck is when the LHA is fully loaded with all its other RW/V-22 aircraft. The USMC are looking at other Air Group configurations involving more F-35s. The deck is large enough to take them. I personally studied options to put up to 15 on board.

Second, the whole point of ship basing is to get aircraft closer to where they are needed. If you can't afford to get a full up CVN there then STOVL is how you do it. And 6 F-35Bs 10 minutes away are a powerful force in many scenarios. No, it's not mass air power. It's not 'shock and awe'. It's using aircraft from the sea. And it's what the USMC are determined to do.

The A-10 is not a credible aircraft these days in anything other than total air superiority and a low threat environment. It's a goner and I suspect you know that. You mention an '800 m-runway supersonic multi-role fighter that is half the size and cost of the F-35B'. Could you elaborate on what that is. please? And is '800m' taking off with a meaningful operational load?

And it's not 66 deck spots, LO. It's whatever the USMC can wring out of their decks, plus the QECs, plus whatever the other customers going for the B end up doing with them. My guess is somewhere over 100 F-35Bs sea basing in the future. But that's just my guess.

Look, LO, I know we are coming at this from totally different angles. And I respect your opinions. I hope you respect mine (and the facts that go with them).

Best Regards really

Engines

LowObservable

28th May 2014, 17:20

As for the 800 m runway:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNlGgQ6VEbY

I count 5,000 lb of air-to-surface ordnance, two heaters, a centerline tank and a gun, which is probably meaningful, particularly if you are on the receiving end.

I don't know what the full support CONOPS is for the F-35B. I do know that some past AV-8B forward ops were supported by fleets of 8000 gal tanker trucks, which in a hybrid war scenario would make The Wages of Fear (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046268/) look like driving a milk float in Wimbledon.

I respect your views and experience and regard your facts as objective and reliable.

I'm just coming at this from a strategic perspective - and believe that the US has over-invested both in this particular capability, and, more generally, in the notion of amphibious assault against a defended coast.

tdracer

28th May 2014, 20:52

The A-10 is not a credible aircraft these days in anything other than total air superiority

Problem is, if you don't have air superiority (or at least close to it), the life span of an LHA in a contested area will be measured in hours, perhaps even minutes. Unless the F-35B is a whole lot better in the air superiority role than the critics are claiming, it won't be able to protect it's own ships, never mind go after the bad guys on the ground.

LowObservable

28th May 2014, 21:30

Precisely. And even if you grant the claims for the F-35, you still don't have AEW&C unless there is a CV present, in which case you didn't need the F-35B.

Engines

28th May 2014, 22:17

LO (and others),

I'm an engineer. I'm not a strategist, not even a tactician. I just try to get the technical facts out there to help keep some of the opinioneering from going too far off piste, especially when it veers into disrespecting the good engineers working the F-35, who, yes, DO have a scooby what they are doing.

Yes, the Gripen is a very capable aircraft. I don't think it would operate off an L class though. (sorry, probably a cheap shot, but we were taking about going somewhere where there's no host nation support). I seriously doubt that it would get off the ground fully loaded in 800 meters, but I'd be happy to be surprised. But if you are seriously suggesting Gripen as a practical option for the USMC, well, I don't think we've got much to discuss. All I'd suggest is make your mind up - A-10 or Gripen? Or both?

But look, we are in some danger here of having one of those 'bike shed' type discussions kids have. You know, the 'yes, but the X400 super bike has a bigger engine and...' type discussions. The points I addressed were about the technicalities of whether a STOVL aircraft like F-35 could operate from a forward strip.

You want to move on to strategy and the operational aspects, and I will happily leave any responses to that to others. If the basis of your argument is that the USMC's plans and strategy are all wrong, then please, by all means, have at them. Free countries and all that.

As to F-35 air to air capability, I'll respectfully take the assessments (not opinions) of the RAF and RN pilots I know who are developing the tactics for the aircraft, over opinions expressed on this thread. It's their abilities and imaginations that will swing the balance.

I think it's time for me to draw my role in this exchange to an end. Hope I've helped clarify a few things along the way.

Best regards to all those willing to try something new, somewhere new.

Engines

GreenKnight121

29th May 2014, 07:19

Well, I can see that 1,200-1,500 foot runway including resupply by MV-22 Osprey and CH-53K, not C-130J.

As for the matter of AEW - the USMC has been looking into that, with several options (such as TOSS) - again using the MV-22.

And they are also preparing to extend the operational range of the F-35B - Osprey again, curiously enough.

This would allow additional F-35bs beyond what arrived in-theatre with the LHA/D to stage in from elsewhere to the flat deck, and to the newly-established FOB.

A A Gruntpuddock

29th May 2014, 10:21

Some of the pilots testing it tend to be show-offs!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aZLUERkcFoY

Rhino power

29th May 2014, 14:51

It's coming to something when it takes CGI to actually make the F-35B look impressive in flight! :E

-RP

LowObservable

29th May 2014, 17:44

GK -

Whatever its merits, the V-22's 10,000 lb max payload is not tailored for mass logistics transport.

Also, I don't think the Marines have given a TOSS about TOSS, maybe because of TOSS's TOS, which will make sustaining 24 hr coverage burdensome aboard the amphib.

Yes, you can tanker-drag more F-35Bs into the FOL, but you still need the support equipment and personnel.

Engines - I don't think Gripen is a politically practical option for the USMC. However, it does seem able to handle an 800 m strip (a lot of today's fighters will STO - the harder part is always SL), and together with being designed for very light organic support, and needing around half as much gas as almost anything else, it's an interesting option for expeditionary airpower.

It underscores the general point that you don't need a lot of runway to make your aircraft design much easier. (Which is also the reason why VTOL airliners have never gone anywhere.)

Lonewolf_50

29th May 2014, 18:32

I'm just coming at this from a strategic perspective - and believe that the US has over-invested both in this particular capability, and, more generally, in the notion of amphibious assault against a defended coast. Where did you come up with this, LO?

USMC doctrine 20 years ago was evolving away from this very limited concept of amphibious ops. The USMC aren't assaulting Tarawa anymore. Their operation concept (as of about 9 years ago when I left the Navy) was a lot more nuanced than that, and used as a basic principle the matter of using their tools to assault behind the coast, as well as coming in over the beach ... but the beach is not necessarily what is being assaulted.

Been a bit out of touch of late, so I don't know for sure if they have regressed, but I think your concern is a bit dated. The one thing I found consistent in the USMC warfighting method was their combined arms approach to pretty much everything.

Engines

29th May 2014, 18:45

LO,

As you responded, I'll do likewise.

I continue to be slightly sceptical about a Gripen getting off an 800m strip with a full op load. Especially anywhere hot, high or both. (Actually, I've always been a huge fan of the Swedish aircraft industry and think they produce great designs - they just haven't done a STOVL).

To your point about fighters and short runways. As you take off with more weight than you land with and you have the same wing area to do the lifting, its the takeoff (at full load) that's the crippler. Not the landing.

Yes, today's fighters will do a 'STO'. Big wings and lots of thrust will allow them to take off in a short distance. But not at MGTOW. Or anything much near it. Or when it's hot. It's physic, not opinion.. To do a proper 'STO' you need an aircraft that is designed to do one. That means either powered lift of some sort, or aggressive high lift devices.

Sorry, but I will go into your slightly 'conops' point. The USMC are not trying to do 'mass logistics transport'. That's not what they do. If they want really heavy loads they will use CH-53K. That's what they are buying them for. If they want stuff moved fast they'll use MV-22. That's what they bought them for. They have actually thought this stuff through, and they are not idiots. However, they could be wrong, and any of us can disagree with them.

Anyway, have a good one,

Out

Engines

Courtney Mil

29th May 2014, 21:30

Maus92

29th May 2014, 21:48

USMC Hornets use portable arresting engines at the FOBs that have shorter runways. But they pretty much extend the runways at the more "permanent" bases to handle C-17s, so...

SpazSinbad

29th May 2014, 22:13

Back on the thread about V-22s for UK being used as refuellers ground/air as mentioned by the USMC at the time has a lot of info. Yes the USMC change/evolve and have re-iterated many times they are not the '2nd land army' and that they will operate from a sea base going ashore as need be in places they choose. Recently a new doctrine for USMC was released - I'll look for it meanwhile to harsh some mellows about the above discussion - looks like F-35C HOOK testing is underway. Yay!

Break De Fence 29 May 2014
"The F-35C passed landing at max sink speed of 21.4 feet per second [1,284 feet per minute] to test landing gear, airframe arrestment system"
https://twitter.com/BreakingDefense/status/472118211589439489/photo/1

F-35 Achieves Three Major Flight Test Milestones On Same Day 29 May 2014
“...The F-35C, designed for aircraft carrier operations, completed a landing at its maximum sink speed to test the aircraft’s landing gear, airframe and arrestment system at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. “Five sorties were conducted, building up the maximum sink rate test condition of 21.4 feet per second, which represents the maximum sink speed planned for this test,” McFarlan said. During the tests, the F-35C did three arrestments, several touch and goes and one bolter. The landings were to demonstrate structural readiness for arrested landings on an aircraft carrier at sea.

Fleet-wide, the F-35 has, to date, amassed more than 17,000 flight hours, with all three variant aircraft at the F-35 Integrated Training Center at Eglin AFB, Florida, surpassing the 5,000 sorties milestone this week....”
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2014/may/150529ae_f-35-achieves-three-milestones-on-same-day.html (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2014/may/150529ae_f-35-achieves-three-milestones-on-same-day.html)

STRIKE TEST NEWS Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 23 Newsletter 2011 Issue
"...“Shake, Rattle and Roll” testing... Arrested landings include high sink rates up to 20 feet per second (which translates to 1,200 feet per minute or about a 5° flight path angle)...”
http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.download&id=769

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bo1NAvkCIAAxSW4.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bo1NAvkCIAAxSW4.jpg

Lonewolf_50

29th May 2014, 23:13

Hmm .... is this evidence that they have the hook SNAFU all sorted out?

SpazSinbad

29th May 2014, 23:24

What evidence do you require? I'll guess when 'Shake, Rattle & Roll' finished there will be some kind of report.

SpazSinbad

30th May 2014, 04:58

Both Oz PM and DefMin have expressed interest in finding out about F-35Bs on our LHDs with the PM directing that the next Defence White Paper consider this possibility. Still a lot to work out however the DefMin revealed that this has been an option 'since day one'. But in the bottom drawer mostly. Anyhoo here is the inevitable cartoonie from:

Cartoon from:
The Cost of Defence ASPI Defence Budget Brief 2014–2015
“...No doubt the situation will become obvious in the development of the 2015 Defence White Paper. When it does, we should expect to see two things. First, the size of the force will grow. An extra battalion or two to crew the new LHD amphibious vessels would help bring things into balance, as would a squadron of jump jet variants of the F-35 to reinstate the fleet air arm aboard the LHD. Such possibilities aren’t to be discounted. Back in 2008 Andrew Davies and I modelled the sorts of defence forces we could have if we spent around 2% of GDP in the 2020s (see the ASPI paper Strategic Choices: Defending Australia in the 21st Century) and we were surprised by just how much capability could be afforded....” (page 141)
https://www.aspi.org.au/publications/the-cost-of-defence-aspi-defence-budget-brief-2014-2015/CostofDefence2014.pdf (6.4Mb)

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/CartoonQuoteF-35BsLHDsASPIforum2014.gif~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/CartoonQuoteF-35BsLHDsASPIforum2014.gif.html)

GreenKnight121

30th May 2014, 07:41

Well, unless we're talking cable, it's not landing that's the problem, it's stopping. Point taken about AUW, but massive thrust is often a lot more 1/2 MV^2 than little brakes. If you see what I mean.

Well, Gripen does have that neat trick where they rotate their canards to near vertical so as to act as a massive air brake - and which also pushes the nose-wheel down, increasing its gripping/braking force.

SpazSinbad

30th May 2014, 07:48

I wonder if the chaps mentioned below do it at night on a wet deck and not just in a sim.

The SAAB JAS 39 Gripen 01 jun 14 greg goebel
"...Gripen does not have a thrust reverser. The canard foreplanes can be tilted almost 90 degrees to act as airbrakes on landing. There are carbon brakes on all the wheels of the tricycle landing gear to reduce landing roll. Interestingly, pilots using the Gripen flight simulators have performed simulated carrier landings, without an arresting hook; it seems a bit unlikely that this will ever be done in practice, though no doubt some Gripen pilots would give it a shot if they got the chance. The landing gear has an antiskid system...."
The SAAB JAS 39 Gripen (http://www.airvectors.net/avgripen.html)

LowObservable

30th May 2014, 11:11

CM - Was about to say that. Back when the F-22 spec (ATF) was going to include a 1500-foot field length, there were two factors involved: the perceived g-limits of practical wheelbrakes (consider what a 3500 pound Lambo uses to stop and compare it with any 10x-heavier fighter) and consistent, accurate landings given the momentum and low-speed control response of fighters/engines.

The result was the F-15 SMTD with huge canards and inflight, 2D thrust reversers:eek::eek::eek::eek:.

Better flight controls, autothrottles and HUD landing guidance help with the scatter problem today. Typhoon has fan-cooled brakes, too (it's not just stopping - do you then have to wait for the brakes to cool?).

The Gripen E/F advertised landing distance is 600 m vs 500 m for the C/D. The real-world road bases were 800 m long and I don't think that there were any load restrictions - the A-model in the video linked above is, as noted, carrying 5000 lbs of weapons and a tank. After all, road bases were not a PR thing or a contingency operation - it was what the entire AF was going to do when the balloon went up. The only caveat is that it was probably a Swedish summer day rather than 95 F.

SpazSinbad

30th May 2014, 18:44

I wonder where the 'grass & dirt' idea came from? But a n y w a y. . . .
F-35B Will Fly, Hover, Not Land Vertically At RIAT, Farnborough 30 May 2014 Colin Clark
"Will the F-35B land vertically at the Royal International Air Tattoo or the Farnborough Air Show? No. Will it hover? Yes.
F-35 program spokesman Joe DellaVedova told me that the Marine version of the Joint Strike Fighter will perform short takeoffs and landings and perform hovers at both shows. I’m betting you can expect the same at the July 4 christening of the HMS Queen Elizabeth....

...A source familiar with the plane’s testing tells me the aircraft could easily and safely perform several vertical landings on an up-to-date military grade runway....

...So, the question remains, why not land vertically at the shows? ”We want to showcase how we will operate this plane during combat operations,” Capt. Richard Ulsh, a spokesman for the Marine deputy commandant for aviation, told me today. During a combat operation or for expeditionary use the plane would perform rolling or short takeoffs and landings on land to conserve fuel, Ulsh said. The plane is undergoing testing for landings on concrete and grass and dirt. The tests for concrete are finished, Ulsh said, but those for grass and dirt takeoffs and landings are not complete...."
F-35B Will Fly, Hover, Not Land Vertically At RIAT, Farnborough « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary (http://breakingdefense.com/2014/05/f-35b-will-fly-hover-not-land-vertically-at-riat-farnborough/)

WhiteOvies

30th May 2014, 19:51

A bit of expectation management going on here. The fact that the aircraft is coming over at all is a big leap for the US and shows how much the UK involvement is valued.

LowObservable

30th May 2014, 20:16

He added that vertical landings consume a great deal of fuel and claimed the Marines made their decision in part because they are “trying to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars.”

After blowing >$20 billion in R&D on the world's slowest, shortest-range, lowest-payload and most expensive fighter, that is a larf and a half, it is.

Courtney Mil

30th May 2014, 20:58

Expectation management indeed, WO! That is a rather obvious bit of early alibi stating. Not their best bit of PR to date. Could have done better.

WhiteOvies

30th May 2014, 21:29

LO,

That is indeed an odd comment to sign off on, better media briefings required or better still get a Brit to make the comments!

Maus92

30th May 2014, 21:40

So it seems that the F-35B is no longer the STOVL version - it's the STOSL (or pick your own acronym) version. Lots of Powerpoints to update...

WhiteOvies

30th May 2014, 22:30

F-35B can be called a V/STOL jet actually; just because it can doesn't mean it has to!

Joe does a good job usually, the poor wording comes from the USMC Captain...

SpazSinbad

30th May 2014, 23:12

Will the F-35B have this problem during 'on the grass testing'?

Harrier makes final appearance at Dunsfold 50 Years After First Vertical Take-Off 17 Nov 2010 Tom Hart
"...Asked for a particular positive memory, Jim recollected this comic-strip-esque tale:
“One of the funniest things I’ve ever seen. During the airshow in 2006, as the Harrier was transversing sideways down the runway, it happened to fly over an area with lots of rabbit holes and watching the down draft blowing the rabbits out of the hole and up into the air was incredibly funny!”..."
Harrier makes final appearance at Dunsfold 50 Years After First Vertical Take-Off | Surrey Heath Residents Blog (http://surreyheath-residents.co.uk/2010/11/17/harrier-makes-final-appearance-at-dunsfold-50-years-after-first-vertical-take-off/)

MSOCS

31st May 2014, 14:42

Just to join in on the prevalent "apples-to-oranges" comparisons that are going on in this thread of late, the Harrier never did a VL at any air shows. It did a STO to begin the show, burnt off some gas by way of a few minutes of conventional manoeuvres, a quick RVL 'bounce' or two, and then some hovering which culminated in a final RVL. Why? So the jet didn't trash the asphalt.

F-35B shouldn't be any different. Yes it kicks out more thrust but don't believe all the hyperbole being spread. It won't cause the earth to combust, dislodge planets from orbit and certainly won't cause sea levels to rise anywhere near as much as the hot air coming from Sweetman will. :8

I think it's great that we'll see JSF fly in UK skies. I am, however, standing by for the inevitable, "it can't do a Super Cobra so it can't be any good"-type commentary that will follow its debut.

LowObservable

31st May 2014, 18:36

MSOCS - Great to see your courage in speaking the truth to the power of the media, except it took ten seconds on Google to prove that you're talking rubbish.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qtt-H1eITfk

Rockford AirFest 2010, see 4:20. Plus, many of us here have seen VLs done in public, dozens of times.

By the way, a Super Cobra is a helicopter, and the F-35B probably could do one of those if it had the gun pod attached.

FA - If you exercise your reading skills in this thread and elsewhere, the relevance or otherwise of your comment will be clear to you.

bricklane

31st May 2014, 19:26

Interesting piece here from US site Jalopnik on the importance of making the most of the F-35B. Much relevance to the UK of course ...

7 Things The Marines Have To Do To Make The F-35B Worth The Huge Cost (http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/7-things-the-marines-have-to-do-to-make-the-f-35b-worth-1560672069)

Rhino power

31st May 2014, 21:29

Good article, bricklane.

-RP

LowObservable

1st Jun 2014, 00:43

The piece is interesting but undermined by a lack of perspective. You can talk of adding all sorts of F-35B/KV-22/EV-22 functions to the ESG, but in the end you can fit only so much stuff into a five-pound bag. The Swiss Army knife is useful but don't expect it to include a saw that can cut a two-by-four or a power drill.

Author should also know that LHD-8 and later get the well deck back, and that there is no VTO capability with any range at all.

SpazSinbad

1st Jun 2014, 06:02

‘GREEN KNIGHTS’ The F-35B in service with VMFA-121 May 2014 Gary Wetzel www.combataircraft.net (http://www.combataircraft.net)
Combat Aircraft Monthly May 2014 Vol 15, No 5
"Since the first F-35B arrived at MCAS Yuma, Arizona on November 16, 2012, VMFA-121 has made tremendous gains as it proceeds toward an initial operating capability (IOC) target of July 2015. Every step forward, no matter how minute, is part of a carefully-crafted plan designed to move the Marine Corps firmly into the leading edge of F-35 operations....

...One of the biggest reasons for the delay in proceeding at full rate with STOVL qualifications was completion of the new auxiliary landing field (ALF). This is replacing Aux 2, which had been the Harrier fleet’s lone facility for conducting vertical landing and take-offs and short-take offs for decades. The new ALF will more realistically replicate landings on the LHA/LHD assault ships that will deploy with F-35s as the central part of their strike force. It will have two different ‘decks’ to choose from, one each basically pointing north and south to take advantage of the prevailing winds around MCAS Yuma. Better training for F-35 operations, as well as the Harrier and rotary-wing platforms, will thus be provided.

STOVL operations
Lt Col Gillette also spoke about the ease of STOVL flight in the F-35 and what that means to his squadron and future USMC F-35 units. ‘I was an F/A-18 guy, so landing a jet vertically was something completely new to me. What I will tell you, from the experience of going through STOVL training and then going out and executing the shortened take-off, or slow landing, and then the vertical landing, is that this is something the engineers at Lockheed Martin got 100 per cent correct. It is amazingly easy to be extremely precise in the Mode 4, which is what we call VL. The beauty of the flight control logic is that it never changes regardless of the flight control mode you are in. So, imagine I am flying conventionally: if I want to go up, I pull back on the stick, and if I want to go down I push forward. Same for left or right. If I want to go forward I push ahead on the throttle and if I want to slow down I pull the throttle aft. That is also the basic control law the F-35 flies in what we call ‘up and away’, which is just normal conventional flight. When you transition to Mode 4, or STOVL, the flight control logic does not change as I decelerate and come to a hover.

‘Additionally, just through the advances in technology, when I tell the jet to hover over this point on earth it can do it hands-free. The F-35 will wind-correct, lean its wing into the wind and sit right over that point. When you think about that from a training continuum, and compare that to the Harrier fleet and their STOVL efforts, they [have to] spend so much time getting a pilot proficient at landing and maintaining that proficiency. Whether through simulators, practice flights here at Yuma or going out to the ship for periods at sea, the time spent in STOVL is extensive. I think with the F-35, in terms of time, money, flights, simulators, and so on, there will be a reduced amount of resources required to retain the same level of proficiency the Harrier units do now. Now, like anything it is cosmic until you go out and do it. But once you do and see it, you are like, ‘This wasn’t hard!’ And that was my big take-away from my first STOVL landing, which was on November 13, 2013. I don’t want to say it was mindlessly easy, but pretty close to that.’...

...Marines on the move
Marine air power is expeditionary in its very nature, able to pack up and move with little support, and the USMC F-35 squadrons will be no different. So far the F-35 community, and especially VMFA-121, has enjoyed the comfort of operating from state-of-the-art hangars and new buildings. However, an important lesson the squadron must learn is how to re-locate to somewhere where the established architecture is absent. During 2014, VMFA-121 will move twice. First, during late spring or early summer, it will simply move hangars, taking the first step necessary before going off-site to another location in the fall.

Prior to the delivery of the 2B software, the 16 F-35Bs the ‘Green Knights’ own will be shuffled off for airframe modifications. Throughout 2014, the squadron will have to manage the flow of airframes combined with the goal of meeting operational objectives...."

MSOCS

1st Jun 2014, 11:08

LO, the Harrier never did a VL at any UK air show to an asphalt surface. Sorry I wasn't specific enough in my previous post but it was kinda rushed.

I thought the hoo ha being generated was about the F-35B doing VLs during its UK debut.

Nice pun on the helicopter too btw. Random of course.

Keep blogging though. Modern social media and the human condition to seize upon any scuttlebutt and champion it as the truth is getting your blog some wide distribution.

SpazSinbad

1st Jun 2014, 11:31

Harrier Trainer VL Farnborough 1976

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Her-1j3qORA

LowObservable

1st Jun 2014, 13:06

MSOC: "Sorry I wasn't specific enough" = "I tried to make something up and got called on it".

Also, the UK air show is not in itself a big deal. The question of whether an austere-base/FOL capability for the F-35B is a practical, usable capability, that will be exploited more than three or four times in 40 years, is a big deal.

MSOCS

1st Jun 2014, 16:59

LO, are you saying it won't or can't VL on the ships where necessity dictates either an RVL or VL? It will, of course. For the UK and Marines the VL really is only required for the ship, regardless of how one reads the requirements. Austere base would require only a 50-80kt groundspeed landing on a c.1500' strip at best. In terms of damage to surfaces I'd be more concerned about the effects of a max-weight STO than a slow landing at just above diversion fuel. All surfaces have to be of sufficient quality to VL onto, even for a Harrier. You're not just worried about the damage you could cause as high pressure jet blast enters cracks, you're also worried about ingesting FOD if it isn't swept.

I remain firmly with White Ovies on this. Just because F-35B can VL doesn't mean it has to. When it does have to, it will. That's the design.

orca

1st Jun 2014, 19:03

MSOCS,

Good job keeping the level head mate. A life in VSTOL and a pivotal job within the programme are actually seen as an obstacle to a valid opinion round these parts as you well know. No big deal at all this air show nonsense. Almost all the aircraft I can think of got their weapon separation trials squared then did a translant the year before IOC.;)

MSOCS

1st Jun 2014, 20:44

;) indeed chap! Standing by for the, "but that IOC is already later than was originally planned" banter squad.

LowObservable

1st Jun 2014, 22:03

Facts rather than banter, surely? But not relevant to the current discussion.

Clearly it can VL on to ships, and some day we will, one assumes, see SL demonstrated on typical FOL strips.

But then you say: "In terms of damage to surfaces I'd be more concerned about the effects of a max-weight STO than a slow landing at just above diversion fuel" which is an interesting thought that the Navy Facilities engineers had not anticipated. And of course with a stealth aircraft, ingesting FOD loosened by the last aircraft is not the only FOD challenge.

And obviously this is a matter of lack of operational experience, but there's something about sweeping the runway between T/O operations that appears inconsistent with the quick-reaction over-the-fight response that is the point of a FOL in the first place.

And then you say that "All surfaces have to be of sufficient quality to VL onto, even for a Harrier" which appears to be the point I was making. Are you suggesting that you may need to make a vertical recovery for some reason?

MSOCS

1st Jun 2014, 23:33

LO, I don't believe there will be a need to sweep between take offs unless the jet in front overtly trashes the surface during a take off roll and STO. Believe me when I say that this will be very evident to the pilot about to take off but it is rare. There are many advantages to the STOVL design over AV-8 that significantly reduce the chances of any type of re-ingestion - both hot gas and FOD. I'm sure you're well-read on them but the design actually mitigates rather well IMHO.

Even for UK Harrier Ops the VL pads were scrupulously cleaned and regularly health checked because that is a sensible and pragmatic thing to do. A Land Rover with an Air Traffic Control person driving it would inspect the pad immediately after any VL because it was the sensible and pragmatic thing to do in the rare case that damage occurred when operating at home base; it wasn't essential by any means. Talking austere, the UK Harrier Force used to regularly deploy to Norway and operate off frozen runways. One can only imagine the horrendous effects of 820deg C thrust on ice, yet, such deployments rarely had FOD or damage issues because STO and SL did surprisingly little damage to ice, even with that thrust. We would never VL on such a surface unless it was an emergency; my point being that just because we elected not to VL did not mean one couldn't and (in the case above) absolutely did not render the AV-8 non-austere capable as a result. F-35B will be able to operate austere in much the same way so STO and SL will be par for the course if a typical runway length is unavailable with VL being reserved mostly for ship ops and some emergency conditions. VTO is not a requirement.

SpazSinbad

2nd Jun 2014, 01:12

Short Video Clip from 60 Minutes TV Show - Auto STO 450 feet on LHA and VL - all in sim with Chief Test Pilot LM. Pushing the stick forward to go down vertically still makes me skin crawl. :}

AUTO STO 450 feet & VL in Simulator - 60 Mins TV

Is the F-35 worth it? - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/f-35-60-minutes-david-martin/)

Engines

2nd Jun 2014, 08:45

Spaz,

Great link and thank you. I'd suggest that anyone following that link also looks at the short video segment with Frank Kendall on the acquisition strategy and problems they have had with the programme.

I've said this before, but this clip underlines my point. The F-35 programme is being carried out with a level of visibility and disclosure that is, in my experience, unprecedented anywhere. I would be surprised if the MoD allowed a UK military procurement programme to be examined in this amount of detail. Too often, in my direct experience, 'security' is used by the MoD to avoid embarrassment and justified criticism by the taxpayers.

Moreover, Kendall's quite accurate description of 'fads' in acquisition, and the problems with the idea that 'more should be left to the contractor' should be made required viewing (preferably with their heads strapped into a seat so they can't look away, and yes, with their eyelids clamped open) for all MoD procurement managers.

This level of information is, at least in my view, a good thing. Yes, it will feed the programme's critics. That's fine. More importantly, it gives those paying for it all (the taxpayers) a better idea of where their dollars are going and why.

Best regards as ever to all those doing the job for real

Engines

Turbine D

2nd Jun 2014, 18:03

Engines,

What you point out in Kendall's "fads" in acquisition is more or less what Dwight Eisenhower warned in his nationally televised speech in 1961. Part of what he said was this:
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

The F-35 program is getting the public attention it requires, being the single largest DoD acquisition program. Besides that, the cost of the program is way over budget, the resulting aircraft is less capable than what Lockheed-Martin advertised and promised the DoD to win the contract and is years late in actual production and deployment.
The F-35 program is symptomatic of larger DoD acquisition problems, an aircraft carrier that was to cost $8-9 Billion is now going to cost ~$16 Billion and is running 4 years late, the DDG-1000 ship which has been basically deemed a failure as it now stands and various required advance electronic defensive systems that have not been developed on time or fail to work as promised. The United States spends more on defense programs alone than the combination of the next dozen highest defense spending countries in the world. How much of this spending is the result of incompetence, promises not kept and continued "fix it" programs lumped often with follow on "upgrades"?
You bet I object to the F-35 program and not because we don't need a capable aircraft as it once was advertised to be, I object because of the complacency that now exists in the military-industrial complex that has run amok abetted by the United States Congress who holds no one responsible except the taxpayers that are footing the bill.

TD

glad rag

2nd Jun 2014, 18:21

LO, I don't believe there will be a need to sweep between take offs unless the jet in front overtly trashes the surface during a take off roll and STO. Believe me when I say that this will be very evident to the pilot about to take off but it is rare. There are many advantages to the STOVL design over AV-8 that significantly reduce the chances of any type of re-ingestion - both hot gas and FOD. I'm sure you're well-read on them but the design actually mitigates rather well IMHO.

There was a well documented case at a Scottish air defence base where the detached puffer jets destroyed the tarmac at the lazy runway intersection doing their slow land thing.

Co-incidentally, the northern squadron had instigated a program where rechargeable "wolfe" light were available in their HAS management cabins for intake and engine inspections, however the vastly improved inspection conditions [ie a squillion times better that a right angled torch] had the knock on effect of a massive rise in ECU rejections eventually leading to suspicion of sabotage on the unit by the highly intelligent grown ups....

It was only when the southern squadron rolled out their take on the "wolfe" light that a similar situation was found over there, this was a massive issue for the station.

All this occurred over the space of a fortnight.

So, anyone who decries the cause of FODed engines with the root cause being toy plastic aircraft and their specific landing techniques had better hope they are never south of Iceland when their only hope of survival suddenly goes quiet. IMHO 'natch.

AtomKraft

2nd Jun 2014, 18:25

Let's not forget that a vertical landing on a moving ship, is not a true, still air V/L.

It's more like a V/L with a 30 Kt headwind.

Lockheeds are a brilliant company, but this JSF stuff is really pushing it.

Still, that's what they do.......:)

AtomKraft

2nd Jun 2014, 18:30

Glad rag
And I remember well the time a GR.3 hovered over the runway at Detmold.

The disrupted runway fodded the engine, the a/c fell to earth, and the whole plot got written off in the end.

This is the sort of thing that can poison VTOL a/c......and there's sweet FA that even Lockheed Martin, bless them, can do about it.

rh200

2nd Jun 2014, 21:21

Besides that, the cost of the program is way over budget, the resulting aircraft is less capable than what Lockheed-Martin advertised and promised the DoD to win the contract and is years late in actual production and deployment.
The F-35 program is symptomatic of larger DoD acquisition problems, an aircraft carrier that was to cost $8-9 Billion is now going to cost ~$16 Billion and is running 4 years late

Seems to be no different to the civilian counter parts projects. There has been a few studies revolve around how large projects are seemingly always way over budget and time in the western world.

I'm gathering its starting to be standard practice and the multinationals figure it in their project costs.

LowObservable

3rd Jun 2014, 11:21

rh200

Oh please. I'm not sure which "multinationals" you are talking about, but the closest parallel industry, commercial aerospace, has indeed had a couple of black eyes lately in terms of the late delivery of the A380 and 787 - neither of which were delayed or overrun to anything like the same degree as the JSF. Otherwise, commercial has a remarkable track record of pushing major new programs out the door on schedule and on cost, and with far higher standards for reliability at service entry.

Maybe you could cite some relevant examples.

Turbine D - You did hit on the one DoD program (DDG-1000) that is as screwed up as JSF - a stealthy battlecruiser armed for shore bombardment.

rh200

3rd Jun 2014, 11:49

Actually I wasn't talking about aviation in that context. More along the lines of complex mega engineering projects. Whilst I was doing my PhD, another guy was doing his in regards to the SKA. It was in regards to how mega projects fall of the rails.

I'm not sure how all the latest and greatest designs from airbus or Boeing have gone, but if the 787 is anything to go by then its not all rosy.

SpazSinbad

3rd Jun 2014, 16:48

Good ole boy shake rattle and roll - no mention of hook arresting issues. Go you good thing....

Navy Joint Strike Fighter Set for October Tests at Sea 03 Jun 2014 Dave Majumdar
"The Lockheed Martin F-35C carrier-based version of the Joint Strike Fighter is making steady progress towards sea-trials onboard USS Nimitz (CVN-68) in October according to a company official.

“We are working very hard to get the airplane ready for sea trials, DT-1 sea trials, starting in mid-October,” Eric Van Camp, Lockheed’s domestic F-35 business development director, told USNI News on May 30. “The at-sea period I believe extends from roughly the 12th of October to the third of November.”

However, there are still many tasks that the F-35 integrated test force must complete before the C-model jet can make its first carrier launches and arrested recoveries onboard Nimitz.

One of the biggest remaining hurdles is a structural survey of the jet’s landing gear and airframe. “When we say structural survey it sounds like what we’re doing is parking it some place and doing some inspections, but actually what we are doing is we doing a specific set of flight test points that are designed to understand how the airplane reacts both aerodynamically and structurally when we put it in off-nominal conditions,” Van Camp said.

Those off-nominal conditions could include very high excessive sink rates, different aircraft attitudes in all axes or a combination thereof when the jet touches down on the carrier flight deck. The Navy has to test any carrier-based aircraft in those kinds of conditions because of the harsh environment at sea—which could include a pitching flight deck due to weather or other factors including human-induced errors.

“We’re trying to emulate the range of conditions that an airplane might be forced to recover onboard the ship,” Van Camp said.

Those tests are currently underway at Naval Air Station Patuxent River in southern Maryland with shore-based catapults and arresting gear, but Van Camp notes that its not the same as landing on a real carrier. F-35C test pilots will have to check-off 44 separate test points to ensure the JSF is safe to trap onboard a carrier using a specifically instrumented test airframe.

Recently, on May 29, the F-35C demonstrated its ability to land safely at its maximum allowable sink-rate of 21.4 feet per second, Van Camp said. Once the testing is complete, the aircraft would be cleared to make unmonitored carrier landings. “We’ll be pretty close to the point where we’re confident that when we take it to the ship it will be cleared for unmonitored loads,” Van Camp said. “In other words an uninstrumented aircraft.”

The point of DT-1, Van Camp said, is to create an aircraft launch and recovery bulletin for the fleet operators who will fly the jet during routine air wing operations...."
Navy Joint Strike Fighter Set for October Tests at Sea | USNI News (http://news.usni.org/2014/06/03/navy-joint-strike-fighter-set-october-tests-sea)

Bannock

9th Jun 2014, 19:09

A Canadian report is published entitled "One Dead pilot"
Subtle !

F-35's single engine too dangerous for Canadian military, report says - News - MSN CA (http://news.ca.msn.com/canada/f-35s-single-engine-too-dangerous-for-canadian-military-report-says-1)

Courtney Mil

9th Jun 2014, 21:57

Well, it's one of the issues that was discussed at length many years ago. Unfortunately, the requirements lobby were over-ruled by the cost and design lobby. Sad, but true.

Incidentally, there was also an issue with the VTOL (as it was referred to in those days) being twin engined. Assymetric VTOL/VSTOL/STOVL/etc is a bit of an issue, as you might guess. As all the models had to be roughly the same with only the differences necessary to cope with CTOL, VSTOL and real Carrier, single engine became the mantra. Oh, and it made the company bids cheaper and their claims of reliability won faint hearts.

orca

9th Jun 2014, 22:58

These people are 100% correct. How you could ever hope to be safe on 1 engine Lord only knows.

GreenKnight121

9th Jun 2014, 23:23

Yes - the F-80/T-33, F-84, F-86, F-100, F-102/106, F-8 Crusader, A-4 Skyhawk, A-7 Corsair II, Mirage III/V/2000/F1, AMX, Sea Hawk, Hunter, Gnat, G91, Draken, Viggen, Gripen, F-16, etc all show the folly of relying on a single engine.

:rolleyes:

rh200

9th Jun 2014, 23:36

F#$k me, not another multi versus single snow job. Its all a cost, benefit analysis, simple.

We can keep moaning about it, but the F35 is what we are going to get, its the only thing with any advanced capability on offer. I personally don't like it, and the whole "all your eggs in one basket" scenario, but thats the cards we have.

And to be perfectly honest, no matter what people may think of the idea, all our countries are basically modeling our defense around being in bed with the US.

Another words, we most likely won't be going up against any significant adversary without uncle Sam being there. Hence our force structure is mainly set up to integrate or complement that scenario. There are some obvious local differences, but from the big picture, thats it.

TBM-Legend

10th Jun 2014, 03:26

Things moving forwards:

The first USAF JSF squadron has received its 26th and final F-35A following the delivery of aircraft AF-45.
The 58th Fighter Squadron (FS) at Eglin AFB in Florida is the USAF element of the 33rd Fighter Wing’s F-35 integrated training center, and is tasked for training USAF instructor pilots and maintainers on the aircraft.
“We’ve been in a growth mindset for the last few years,” 58th FS commander, LtCol Matt Renbarger said in a statement. “We’ve been focused on adapting our training levels to the availability of aircraft as a growing squadron. It’s been exciting to see this mission develop, but we’re more excited to dial-in all of our attention to training our team. We are focusing now on refining our processes and training, improving our tactics, and really optimising our overall program to meet the needs of the Air Force as our Airmen move out to other F-35 missions.”
The RAAF’s first F-35A pilot, SQNLDR Andrew Jackson will begin training on the F-35A with the 58th FS at the end of this year.

Willard Whyte

10th Jun 2014, 14:41

Ah, F-35A.

That's the one that works, isn't it?

Courtney Mil

10th Jun 2014, 14:47

BEagle

10th Jun 2014, 15:04

A bit of a bugger that the F-35A cannot refuel from the RCAF's tankers though..... Whereas the -B and/or -C could. The Lockheed snake oil salesmen would no doubt charge a fortune to fit a 'CF-35A' with a probe rather than a hole.

That said, I gather that the RCAF are very impressed by the Rafale. Which would surely meet their northern needs.

Bannock

10th Jun 2014, 15:33

GK121 , No one has issues with single engine Zoomy things but If the US deem it unsafe to deploy them to Alaska why should it be so different for Canada ?

The author goes on to state

"The need for a twin-engine fighter jet is very clear, and purchasing a single-engine fighter jet would be a serious mistake," he said.

The government is expected to make a final decision on the replacement for the CF-18 as early as this week.

Although Byers says the F-35 is not the plane for Canada, he has no issues with other countries opting for the strike-fighter.

As an example, he notes the U.S. has a much higher density of airports on its territory — providing greater options for emergency landing in the event of engine failure.

Hedging bets

Byers also says the U.S. has "hedged its bets," by having in its air force fleet the twin-engine F-22.

"The United States bases many of its F-22s in Alaska," he adds. "The F-35s will not be based in Alaska because a single-engine plane is inappropriate for the Arctic — the United States Air Force has decided that."

Byers says the Royal Canadian Air Force has studied the F-35 carefully, and may very well have examined the issue of single-engine versus twin — but the RCAF isn’t making its report public.

Fox3WheresMyBanana

10th Jun 2014, 15:38

and fit the tankers, and get Canada back into the fighter manufacturing business, and ...........

what's your source for the RCAF opinion of the Rafale, Beags? and is this just shags or top brass ?

BEagle

10th Jun 2014, 16:06

Fitting the CC-150T with a boom, re-modelling the FRS station and training/re-qualifying the FRS for boom AAR would involve substantial cost.

RCAF experience during OP SERVAL changed their earlier opinion of the Rafale; it was reliable, effective and flexible. It also refuels very quickly indeed, unlike the Typhoon.

See: French Aircraft Manufacturers Say Rafale Fighter Can Provide Canada With Lower Long-Term Support Costs | Ottawa Citizen (http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/french-aircraft-manufacturers-say-rafale-fighter-can-provide-canada-with-lower-long-term-support-costs) which is a reasonable summary, eh?

SpazSinbad

10th Jun 2014, 18:41

Lockheed Outlines Small Surface Combatant Option
10 Jun 2014 OTTO KREISHER, Special Correspondent
"...At Lockheed’s annual media day,...

...Starting the briefings for defense reporters at Lockheed’s Crystal City offices, chairman [LM] Marillyn A. Hewson ...

...She said the F-35C carrier variant being built for the Navy successfully completed shore-based testing for arrested landings and catapult launches and will be tested on a carrier in October.

The 2B software program that is the minimum needed for the Marines to declare initial operational capability (IOC) of the short-takeoff, vertical-landing F-35B version in 2015 is “tracking to be complete by year end,” she said.

The 3i software that the Air Force needs for IOC of its F-35A model started flight test two weeks ago, Hewson said...."

SEAPOWER Magazine Online (http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20140610-LM.html)

PhilipG

10th Jun 2014, 18:59

I think I am slightly confused, 2B to be complete by year end Dec 14 I assume, 2B must be an enabling version of the software for 3i so how is this version in flight test or is this more concurrent development?

SpazSinbad

10th Jun 2014, 19:06

When 2b (or not tobe) is hosted on new hardware (fitted to some new aircraft for the moment) then it becomes 3i (in the eye of the beholder).

MSOCS

10th Jun 2014, 20:01

BEags,

The Lockheed snake oil salesmen would no doubt charge a fortune to fit a 'CF-35A' with a probe rather than a hole.

Not as large a fortune that you might imagine. Seriously. When you've an order like the Canadian one, possibly pending on a such a requirement, there's no sense in swinging through the fence on it.

Courtney Mil

10th Jun 2014, 21:46

No, Spaz. As the new hardware becomes available, the new version can be installed and THAT is 3i. 3i is still in airborne testing and is not the same as 2b. Nice puns, though.

PhilipG, I concur with your thinking.

Courtney Mil

10th Jun 2014, 21:50

As to the Canadians, they have the sense to question They know what they want from their aircraft and remember they were badly bitten by the US with classified material with the CF18. They are a liberal country that demand compliance with their requirements. Think EU and then some.

Before you jump on that, it's not my view, just my understanding.

Courtney Mil

10th Jun 2014, 21:57

Beags, Typhoon's fuel uptake rate is a legacy of the other aircraft that begins with "T" from which much of its fuel system is inherited.

I can confirm your comments about Rafale.

SpazSinbad

10th Jun 2014, 22:20

Straight from the horses ass:
"...Flying from Edwards Air Force Base, an F-35A flew a 1.9 hour mission with the first-ever load of Block 3i hardware and software. Block 3i is the next level of capability and is planned to support U.S. Air Force F-35A IOC in 2016...."
F-35 Achieves Three Major Flight Test Milestones On Same Day · Lockheed Martin (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2014/may/150529ae_f-35-achieves-three-milestones-on-same-day.html)

Courtney Mil

10th Jun 2014, 22:26

Indeed, yes. It's flying, just like I said. But it's not 2b.

Fox3WheresMyBanana

10th Jun 2014, 22:33

Courtney - unfortunately, the current Canadian Government has a fine track record of ignoring the professionals in every field - and muzzling them. Basically, the PM does what the heck he likes as long as it won't lose him the next election, and he luuurves big business. The problem of senior military men going along with whatever the poli's want is a worldwide problem, and Canada is not immune. I don't know whether the current top brass agree with the PM, or disagree and will speak their minds, or will shut up and change the threat to meet the capability. This is why I wondered about Beag's source.

Personally, I'd take the Rafale offer. It fits what Canada needs in almost every respect, and I think we can live without 5th gen.

Courtney Mil

10th Jun 2014, 22:59

Fox3, yeah, I get that entirely. Hence my remark about another reason. I hadn't really thought about Rafale as a replacement for the CF18, but I'm starting to see the sense of it.

I understand the PM thing, but I don't think it's a new phenomenon in Canada. Not a terrible thing, mind you. An interresting issue to follow, I think.

Fox3WheresMyBanana

10th Jun 2014, 23:11

Not terrible, hence the reason he keeps getting elected. After all, we've all still got jobs and the budget goes into surplus sometime later this year. I can think of a lot worse places to be...in fact, I can't think of a better place to be :ok:

FoxtrotAlpha18

10th Jun 2014, 23:13

For Canada, IF you're going to discount single engined ops and go down the twin route instead, the surely Super Hornet makes more sense.

It's cheaper than a Rafale for a start, the RCAF already has support arrangements and relationships with Boeing, US Navy (PMA-265), GE, Raytheon etc for its CF-18 systems, and the jet would be much easier for CF-18 flight and maintenance folks to convert to.

Further, it already has AESA and a near fully-defined spiral upgrade path, plus other notional enhancements coming down the line.

No brainer really...

Fox3WheresMyBanana

10th Jun 2014, 23:16

Super Hornet has got a lot going for it - I just like the manufacturing deal with Rafale. Gives Canada a better 'in' to build its own UAVs in 20 years time.

rh200

10th Jun 2014, 23:49

rh200, I don't disagree with your point at all, the discussion was mearly about the Candian position. It has long been their feeling that they would rather have two engines for the northern areas where survival can be be a real challenge.

Courtney Mil

Agreed, we went down this road with the F16, F18 acquisition if I remember correctly, and also when the RFDS acquired the PC12, and we had the sky was going to fall in argument.

Whilst each country can be different, they will all have to apply weightings to all the pro's and cons. So I suppose it will come down to the statistical projections of what the failures and outcomes will be against the others.

The United States bases many of its F-22s in Alaska," he adds. "The F-35s will not be based in Alaska because a single-engine plane is inappropriate for the Arctic — the United States Air Force has decided that

The F-22 and F-35 are two very different beasts, apart from the F35 still being in development, I would think that the F-22's being in Alaska would be to defend against the most likely threat.

SpazSinbad

11th Jun 2014, 00:20

I guess I'll have to dig out a reference for the hardware?

DOTE FY 2011 Annual Report | Page 28:
“...Block 2 and Block 3 Software Development Progress
-- The program intends to provide Block 2 capability for production lot 4 and lot 5 aircraft; lot 4 aircraft should begin to deliver in mid-2012. In the new plan, the program intends Block 2 to contain the first mission systems combat capability – including weapons employment, electronic attack, & interoperability.

-- Concurrent with Block 1 development and integration, the program began integration of initial Block 2A software using the Cooperative Avionics Test Bed (CATB) in early October 2011. The development team augmented the mission systems integration lab, which was busy supporting Block 1 tasks, with the CATB as an integration resource. The new plan calls for the beginning of Block 2A flight test on F-35 mission systems aircraft before the end of November 2011. However, initial Block 2 integration task execution has fallen behind the new plan, having completed approximately half of the planned schedule, and leaving approximately 70 percent of integration tasks to go.

-- Block 3 development is slightly behind the new plan with only 30 percent of initial Block 3 having completed the development phase. In the new plan, the program simplified Block 3 to two production releases instead of three in prior planning and schedules. The program plans the first release, Block 3i, to contain no substantive increase in functions or capability. It will re-host the final Block 2 capability on the upgraded “Technical Refresh 2” processor hardware set. The program intends Block 3i capability for production lot 6 and lot 7 aircraft.

Block 3f, the final increment, includes new capability. The program in-tends to deliver Block 3f for IOT&E & the final lots of low-rate production...."
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2011/pdf/other/2011DOTEAnnualReport.pdf (42Mb)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/76973783/August-2011-JSF-brief

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/F-35blockTransitionPlan2011.gif~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-35blockTransitionPlan2011.gif.html)

SpazSinbad

11th Jun 2014, 01:46

Lockheed: Marine Joint Strike Fighter on Final Approach to Initial Operational Capability
10 Jun 2014 Dave Majumdar
"...Meanwhile, the government-company integrated test force has flown five sorties with the Block 3i software–which is the configuration the U.S. Air Force requires for its August 2016 IOC date. Block 3i, with the exception of a new third generation helmet-mounted display, offers the same capability as Block 2B other than the fact it runs on newer, faster computer hardware. The new helmet fixes issues with night vision found on the older version of the hardware.

“We did have some integration issues with the hardware itself,” Martin said.

“Once we ported the software over, we made no software changes to the application software. It ported clean, but we did have some integration issues that are now behind us.”

She said that the hardware and software are performing extremely well thus far.

The Marines do not need the new hardware for their IOC, but eventually their aircraft will be retrofitted with the new processors...."
Lockheed: Marine Joint Strike Fighter on Final Approach to Initial Operational Capability | USNI News (http://news.usni.org/2014/06/10/lockheed-marine-joint-strike-fighter-final-approach-initial-operational-capability)

GreenKnight121

11th Jun 2014, 04:14

The author goes on to state
.....
As an example, he notes the U.S. has a much higher density of airports on its territory — providing greater options for emergency landing in the event of engine failure.

Oh, yes - there are so many airports near the &*&^%^$$# aircraft carriers in the middle of the ocean, so the USN doesn't need to worry about its constantly-failing single engine on the F-35C.

That author has his head up his arse, and is completely lacking in credibility, as far as I'm concerned.

SpazSinbad

11th Jun 2014, 05:17

'GK121': From same sauce (unprofread) we have this unpooread guffaws: :}
"...10. F-35 Fleet Will Require Much-Improved Search and Rescue

"...Lockheed Martin argues that F-35s are appropriate for the Arctic because Norway flies F-16s in the Arctic, while the United States flies F-16s off aircraft carriers.[82]...

...The United States uses F-16s in Alaska and off aircraft carriers for one purpose only, namely, to use as mock enemy aircraft during training exercises. Significantly, a large portion of the United States’ F-22 fleet is based in Alaska, providing twin-engine safety to fighter pilots operating in the American Arctic. The F-16s, in contrast, are kept relatively close to the airports and aircraft carriers, where search and rescue is readily available....
I frikin' hope so.

Courtney Mil

11th Jun 2014, 08:24

Yes, Spaz, I get that 3i offers no increase in capability. My point is that it's not idendical code and it is currently in testing with the new hardware that it's designed for. Simple as that. But thanks for the slide.

PhilipG

11th Jun 2014, 09:04

To sum up the software and hardware situation, 2B it would seem is possibly nearly as per specification, 3i is meant to do the same as 2B on a different hardware platform. Having an aircraft that has flown with 3I does not mean it is tested, implicitly it cannot be signed off till 2B is fully signed off, as it is meant to mimick it. 3I was meant to be a stepping stone to 3F that all users were planned initially to declare IOC with.
Neither version is ready for fleet release.

Courtney Mil

11th Jun 2014, 09:39

Exactly, Philip.

CoffmanStarter

11th Jun 2014, 13:00

Whack in MS DOS 5 and it'll go like a rocket :E

As an aside ... it would appear PDA has now been granted for our man to display at Farnborough and RIAT this year. :D

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VERMAh6Moc0

SpazSinbad

11th Jun 2014, 13:47

Well then, apart from assertion, any proof what you say CM is the case? I can assert a bunch of stuff. Your assertions are becoming less believable as they are asserted.

PhilipG

11th Jun 2014, 14:30

Spaz, do you have an issue with the post that I put up about 2B and 3i's progress? It seemed to me to be a summation of a number of your posts with a little thought linking them together.
Or do you have irrefutable evidence that 3i is working as well as 2B on new hardware and it has all been proven in under 10 test flights?

SpazSinbad

11th Jun 2014, 14:46

'PhilipG' if you need validation then I have no problem with your post. My issue is with 'CM' assertions without any proof. I actually admire the way you are able to provide "...a summation of a number of your posts with a little thought linking them together...." Excellent Outstanding BZ Bravo Zulu Well Read Sir. Got it?

SpazSinbad

11th Jun 2014, 17:18

F-35 Mini Deployment 11 Jun 2014 John A. Tirpak
"...said Lockheed Martin F-35 Vice President Lorraine Martin. This marks the first time an F-35 of any variant has participated in an international airshow.... The aircraft will likely make the trip from MCAS Beaufort, S.C., refueled en route by KC-10 tankers. The team deploying will have to take spare parts, enough pilots and maintainers, and elements of the ALIS maintenance system to turn the aircraft for a combined eight flying demonstrations. The show routine is expected to be quite similar to that flown by the AV-8B Harrier, with a high- and low-speed pass, slowdown to hover and land, vertical takeoff, then rapid acceleration and flyaway...."
F-35 Mini Deployment (http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2014/June%202014/June%2011%202014/F-35-Mini-Deployment.aspx)

Vzlet

11th Jun 2014, 17:53

The landings during last month's Cherry Point demos were all low speed, whether touch & go or full stop.
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3813/14245162916_1559960b69_c.jpg

RAFEngO74to09

11th Jun 2014, 19:02

As I have already posted on another thread, this was the first public display of a F-35B flown at the MCAS Yuma 2014 Air Show:

F-35B Lightning II Demo @ 2014 MCAS Yuma Air Show - YouTube

Courtney Mil

11th Jun 2014, 21:50

Whack in MS DOS 5 and it'll go like a rocket

Except that it will decide to reboot just before weapons release and you'll have to press "START" at the same time as squeezing the trigger and holding down the jettison button to shut it down. :E MS DOS, bless 'em.

Courtney Mil

11th Jun 2014, 21:53

Spaz, sorry, Mate. Lost interest in your rant now. I think you don't get my point that 2B and 3I are not the same software release. They have the same capability but are coded to run on different hardware. 2B is close to being tested and accepted, 3I is in flight testing. That is all I'm saying. Good night.

Willard Whyte

11th Jun 2014, 22:09

Oh ****!

I hate missing birthdays. Did we all wish the Joint Strike Fighter program a happy 20th?

Would it be more appropriate to wish CALF a happy 21st? Or is that less a significant birthday these days with everything else being legal at 18.

Courtney Mil

11th Jun 2014, 22:22

I'm sure I was getting low flying chart amendments more than 21 years ago?

Willard Whyte

11th Jun 2014, 22:42

Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter.

Perhaps the greatest misnomer ever. No wonder they changed it after a year.

SpazSinbad

12th Jun 2014, 01:14

'CM' I lost interest in your inability to prove this somehow:
"...you don't get my point that 2B and 3I are not the same software release...."
Have a read again at what has been provided earlier - or where you at pub again.

NITRO104

12th Jun 2014, 01:43

Spazsinbad, the point CM is making is valid.
2B and 3I run on different hardware, hence are different software regardless of what end service they provide.
It's like having Word text processor for MAC and PC, or Linux or whatever.
All have the same interface, function and produce compatible material.
However, all have different code since they operate on different OS/hardware.
It's the same case with JSF and I'm not sure what is to be 'proved' there.
Elementary knowledge of computers and software should be enough to make this obvious.

Courtney Mil

12th Jun 2014, 07:56

Thank you Nitro. I must have been speaking the wrong language. :ok:

Lonewolf_50

12th Jun 2014, 14:42

Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter.
C.A.L.F

Are you saying that the chefs have made a meal of this?

It is now V.E.A.L.

Very Expensive Aircraft, Lockheed :=

Courtney Mil

12th Jun 2014, 21:25

It's B.A.C.O.N Bugger all capability only nuisance. Not true, only a joke. I hope.

MSOCS

12th Jun 2014, 21:54

S.T.E.A.K

Stealth Technology Earns Another Kill

Rhino power

12th Jun 2014, 22:33

Then it's going to cost "tens of millions" of dollars! Also of note is that the Pentangle is looking at ways to 'bind' overseas customers to their order numbers by offering incentives, whatever they might be...

Pentagon Looks to Lower Costs of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program - WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/articles/pentagon-looks-to-lower-costs-of-f-35-joint-strike-fighter-program-1402610449?mod=WSJ_LatestHeadlines)

-RP

Rhino power

12th Jun 2014, 23:18

41(R) have been busy, stateside...http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_167681/f-35-and-typhoon-fly-together-for-the-first-time?_afrLoop=545959866598000&_afrWindowMode=0&_afrWindowId=null&baeSessionId=kvhxTh0R9lGjZlDv2M3yR1PdMjSy3wtRrj6Xm22QL1psTGv CxspN!-1454332091#%40%3F_afrWindowId%3Dnull%26baeSessionId%3DkvhxTh 0R9lGjZlDv2M3yR1PdMjSy3wtRrj6Xm22QL1psTGvCxspN%2521-1454332091%26_afrLoop%3D545959866598000%26_afrWindowMode%3D0 %26_adf.ctrl-state%3D1csypaf3c4_4

-RP

NITRO104

13th Jun 2014, 03:22

Thank you Nitro. I must have been speaking the wrong language. :ok:
No problem Courtney, since I have a ton of experience in speaking 'wrong language' too :}, persistently misjudging interlocutors' foreknowledge.

glad rag

13th Jun 2014, 08:37

Can't wait to witness the F 35 display at Farnborough this year, albeit remotely :eek:

Heathrow Harry

13th Jun 2014, 13:52

its normally remote at Farnborough - you're stuck in traffic for hours..................

CoffmanStarter

15th Jun 2014, 09:37

Rumoured that an oil leak has caused the grounding ...

NAVAIR has grounded entire F-35B/C fleet due to an in-flight emergency which occurred on an F-35B near MCAS Yuma on 10 June.

Wander00

15th Jun 2014, 10:07

Oh, well, an ill-wind - will give them more time to finish the carriers...hat, coat...............

GreenKnight121

15th Jun 2014, 22:16

A very short-lived "precautionary inspection grounding".

From another board, but a familiar name:
Nope - an incident was real as reported here. I can only vouch for what I can see at the URL for WSJ and as I'm not a WSJ subscriber I take it on faith that the rest is accurate? I guess other news outlets will have their versions soon enough? Most of the text below came from this page: The trouble with the basement dwellers - General F-35 Forum (http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=25623&p=273437#p273437)

F-35 Fighter Jets Temporarily Grounded by Engine Problems 15 Jun 2014 Doug Cameron

"Oil Leak on One Plane Leads to Inspection of 104-Jet Fleet.

The Pentagon temporarily grounded the entire F-35 Joint Strike Fighter fleet at the start of the weekend after one of the advanced jets suffered an engine oil leak and declared an in-flight emergency.

While the suspension of flight and ground testing on Friday was described by F-35 program officials as a precautionary move, it is the second time in 16 months that engine problems have grounded the entire fleet. It comes just two weeks before the plane is due to make its first international appearance.

Engine maker Pratt Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp., said most of the 104-jet fleet had been cleared to resume flying by late Saturday following the safety inspections mandated by the F-35 managers on Friday. The F-35 program office said these revealed potential problems on two more jets.

The incident on June 10 involved an F-35B jet, which can take off and land vertically. The pilot declared an in-flight emergency after being alerted to an engine oil problem, and landed safely back at base at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma in Arizona.

Pentagon officials on Friday ordered engines on all three models of the F-35 to be inspected before they could resume flights.

Pratt Whitney said in a statement that it was working to identify the cause of last week's problem, with jet-by-jet inspections taking around 90 minutes each. Program officials have pointed to problems with an oil-flow-management valve.

The F-35B is one of three variants of the jet built by Lockheed Martin Corp., and scheduled to be the first to be declared combat ready. Program officials last week expressed confidence that it will be ready for the Marine Corps as scheduled in July 2015."

F-35 Fighter Jets Temporarily Grounded by Engine Problems - WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/articles/f-35-fighter-jets-temporarily-grounded-by-engine-problems-1402854181) &
U.S. orders mandatory inspections for F-35s after engine issue 15 Jun 2014 (Reporting by Andrea Shalal; Editing by Sandra Maler)"...DellaVedova said the source of that F135 engine oil leak appeared to be a supply line to engine bearings and a fitting that separated from the body of the valve in question. It was not clear if the issue was maintenance-related."
U.S. orders mandatory inspections for F-35s after engine issue | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/15/lockheed-fighter-idUSL2N0OW0EJ20140615)
&
Business: Washington Post Business Page, Business News (http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?docId=1376-N785R56KLVRG01-48CPHHHJ1377UC52PLIJGOG0R9)
[/INDENT]

CoffmanStarter

16th Jun 2014, 17:54

Most of the 104 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft delivered to date have been inspected and returned to flight operations following an earlier grounding order that stemmed from an in-flight emergency.

Three F-35Bs are scheduled to fly to the United Kingdom next month for the type's debut outside of the United States. On 4 July one or all of the aircraft is expected to perform a fly-past at the floating of the Royal Navy's new Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier, to be followed from 11 to 13 July with displays at the Royal International Air Tattoo, the following week at the Farnborough International Airshow. It is not thought that these plans will be affected by the grounding order.

More here ...

Jane's : F-35 Flight Ops Resumed (http://www.janes.com/article/39269/most-grounded-f-35s-cleared-to-resume-flight-ops)

SpazSinbad

16th Jun 2014, 18:40

The F-35B Is Vertically Challenged 16 Jun 2014 Chris Pocock, AINonline
"The F-35B V/STOL version of the Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter will not perform vertical landings during its international debut in the UK next month. The maneuver cannot be performed without risk of damage to runway surfaces, unless they have been constructed with high-temperature-resistant concrete....

...An official of the Royal International Air Tattoo (RIAT), where the F-35B will debut on July 11, told AIN that the concrete runway at RAF Fairford is covered with an inch-thick layer of permeable asphalt, to aid in runoff of rainfall. This layer would be at risk from the F-35B’s exhaust during a vertical landing or takeoff, he continued. The F-35B would still be able to demonstrate short landings and takeoffs, he noted.

The MoD said last week that the runways at the UK’s dwindling number of operational air bases are of asphaltic concrete construction. This type of surface could also prove susceptible to damage by the heat generated by F-35B vertical operations, it is believed....

...The UK has ordered four F-35Bs to date. A contract for 14 more has been negotiated, but the signature has been delayed until the Farnborough Air Show next month for publicity reasons. The UK is planning to acquire a total of 48 F-35s over the next 10 years. The MoD’s target of eventually buying 138 F-35s is certain to be dropped in the UK’s next defense review in 2015."
The F-35B Is Vertically Challenged | Aviation International News (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2014-06-16/f-35b-vertically-challenged)

MSOCS

16th Jun 2014, 20:42

When will people understand that even the venerable Harrier did not carry out VLs or VTOs on asphalt as it too would trash the runway. It is a combination of heat, high-pressure air and their combined duration which first melts and then subsequently "distributes" the asphalt to various corners of the airfield that's the issue here - it was no failing of the Harrier that this was the case for 40 years, and is no failing of the F-35 that Physics hasn't change since.

It is for this reason that we built concrete VL/VTOpads (or used the concrete sections of runways thresholds in certain emergencies) to VTO or VL onto. Moreover, the effect of STOVL jet thrust on asphalt was also a reason that you wouldn't see a Harrier VL or VTO at UK air shows, primarily because the routine was set for an asphalt surface and few UK runways were still concrete halfway down at 'crowd centre'. Yes, as LO has been keen to point out, VL and VTO have occurred in the USA but they were invariably made to concrete surfaces - concrete runways are much more commonplace in the USA and in many eastern european countries, especially ex-Soviet Bloc ones.

Anyway, this whole issue should not be such a difficult concept for non-STOVL types to grasp; the situation was ever thus. F-35B can [and will] hover with ease; it can [and will] VL when required to do so; and it won't need to VTO because why would you when you've a short strip, carrier deck or runway available most of the time?!

Fox3WheresMyBanana

16th Jun 2014, 21:52

No fighter jet replacement contract before 2018: government guide - Politics - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/no-fighter-jet-replacement-contract-before-2018-government-guide-1.2677290)

This isn't the Government decision, just a recommendation. There seems to be an undercurrent to push all sorts of decisions till after the 2015 Canadian General Election. There has been talk recently of the possibility this election will be called earlier in 2015 than the mandated date. This would still allow funds to be put down late in 2015 for a 2018 delivery date for F-35. Or the decision could be thrown open. The Conservatives seem quietly confident of winning the election if the timing's right and nothing goes pear-shaped in the meantime. It is likely F-35 would be canceled if any other party wins the election.

In short, who knows?

John Farley

16th Jun 2014, 22:08

MSOCS

Well said sir.

But this is PPRuNe. Plus the world out there has quite a lot of people who feed their families by getting their editors to print stuff. So we just have to relax and let it all flow by, because such reports do not actually change what happens. Fortunately.

LowObservable

17th Jun 2014, 05:30

If what MSOCS says is the case, and the F-35B was never intended to land vertically away from the ship, then all the negative publicity could easily have been avoided by a single marketing/comms strategy.

Telling the truth.

After all, the heating issue was clearly defined in the now-infamous Navy spec document four years ago. It would still have been late to need, but a response to the effect that "RVLs are routine in Harrier ops and we believe that an RVL at a speed of >XX knots will avoid any problems" would have ended the controversy.

Instead, the JPO and LockMart insisted that the Navy report was all wrong (it wasn't) and that the ground environment was not different enough from a Harrier to require any changes.

John Farley

17th Jun 2014, 07:39

Sorry to keep repeating myself but well said sir applies again.

With the Harrier an accurate VL was a bit harder to do than an RVL or SL done any old place on a runway. So there were good training and real currency issues in the Harrier days. On land and at sea.

Given the flight control system in the B I don't believe there will be Harrier type currency issues so why bother to do a true careful and accurate VL unless you are looking at a ship? Rolling it on at any old motor car speed will see you get your coffee at least 40-50 secs earlier.

I suspect a lot of people dealing with the B prog in many different capacities over the years (but without personal experience of the reasons behind Harrier ops) sort of drifted into a "its another Harrier and so it will do whatever a Harrier did" mindset, therefore the complete solution that Low mentions just never happened.

Still it has given a lot of people a lot to talk about!

Throw in the need for VL test facilities at Pax (over and over on the same spot) and we can see the concrete teams marching to the meetings with real interest on their faces as after all this bird has now made them the men - "it was never this good with runways eh - where are you off to next week?"

SpazSinbad

18th Jun 2014, 04:58

F-35B Engine Exhausts 16 Jun 2014 Defence in the Media (Source: UK Ministry of Defence)
"The Sunday Times yesterday reported that the engine exhausts on F-35B jets can become so hot that the tarmac on RAF runways could melt and potentially put the aircraft at risk. The article goes on to report that as a result the Ministry of Defence will be installing three heat-resistant concrete landing pads at RAF Marham in Norfolk where the F-35B will be based at a cost of £7.5 million.

The article failed to recognise that specialist landing surfaces to sustain the downward heat during vertical landings have always been factored into our planning and budget for this project. All F35-B jets, including those used by the US Marine Corps, require this.

The Lightning II F-35B is only required to conduct vertical landings onto the deck of our new aircraft carriers and for training purposes at their main operating base at RAF Marham. We are not aware of any other requirement for vertical landings elsewhere. Naturally the aircraft will also be able to land in the same way as other aircraft at other land bases."

Defence News (http://www.blogs.mod.uk/)

RAF?s new fighter gets so hot it melts runways | The Sunday Times (http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/article1422839.ece)

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/F-35BcartoonClearedForBakeOffSunTeleUK15jun2014forum.gif~origi nal (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-35BcartoonClearedForBakeOffSunTeleUK15jun2014forum.gif.html)

ORAC

18th Jun 2014, 08:34

The designer of the F-16 explains why the F-35 is such a crappy plane (http://sploid.gizmodo.com/the-designer-of-the-f-16-explains-why-the-f-35-is-such-1591828468/+matthardigree)

According to the Pierre Sprey, co-designer of the F-16, the F35 is a turkey. Inherently, a terrible airplane. An airplane built for a dumb idea. A kludge that will fail time and time again. Just impossibly hopeless. And judging from the bajillion times the F-35 fleet has been grounded, well, he's probably not wrong. It's a trillion dollar failure. Watch Sprey eviscerate the F-35 in the video below.

mxDSiwqM2nw

MSOCS

18th Jun 2014, 14:22

Regarding Pierre sprey's claims about BVR and F-35 - F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics (http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=24031)

This link discusses Sprey's history, agendas and personality. Seems like he also hated the F-15 and aspects of his own design in the F-16, especially with radar. Whether the opinions here are totally accurate or not, he doesn't seem to have the credence or kudos he purports to have. By the way, the F-15 still enjoys a 100-0 kill/loss ratio and most would consider the F-16 the most effective lightweight fighter ever produced.

ORAC

18th Jun 2014, 15:32

....he doesn't seem to have the credence or kudos he purports to have. By the way.....most would consider the F-16 the most effective lightweight fighter ever produced. According to the Pierre Sprey, co-designer of the F-16..........

Ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)....

Rhino power

18th Jun 2014, 16:24

Sprey also declared the F-4 to be "...a total turkey", amongst other unflattering comments! :suspect:

Go figure...

-RP

MSOCS

18th Jun 2014, 16:30

His rather polarised view of what is and isn't a good fighter seems very much out of touch.

glad rag

18th Jun 2014, 17:19

"Turn port onto heading 230"

Courtney Mil

18th Jun 2014, 21:54

MSOCS, I didn't enjoy the picture he gave us, but his views about the characteristics of fighter aircraft are not out of touch. He raises some very valid points; as it happens, points that have been discussed here months ago, before the thread became a "cut-'n'-paste" website for F-35 test progress reports. Not everyone that states a view is necessarily polarised - myself included, before you assume.

rh200

18th Jun 2014, 23:47

His rather polarised view of what is and isn't a good fighter seems very much out of touch.

The world is full of extremely talented people that have narrow viewpoints and can't see the woods for the trees.

The fact is, diversity of capability is a good thing. In a way we have tried to make the F35 all things to all people with accompanied compromises and the inevitable pitfalls.

Time will tell if it turns out to be a good thing, so whoever is still here in 20 years will have a better idea.

LowObservable

19th Jun 2014, 05:20

First off, MSOCS, you do this forum a disservice by linking to a useless shower of kiddies, mentally ill people, and silly old f**ts posting links to LockMart-supported shill organizations.

Generally: Was Sprey wrong about the F-15? Well, when did the USAF stop buying F-15s that were not primarily bombers? Quite early in the Eagle's career, I think.

Sprey takes a lot of fire for his advocacy of a cold-nose fighter. However, well into the 1980s there was much to be said for the idea that the most lethal air-to-air weapon was still the AIM-9L and equivalents - and today we see the steady rise in the capability of IRST.

RH200 - the F-35 is not "all things to all people" and nor does it offer "diversity of capability". It's dominated by (1) the specific and ill founded requirements of "the navy's army's air force" and (2) the USAF's desire for a stealth deep-strike aircraft, which has meant sacrificing affordability and capability in most of the other missions that fighters are used for.

MSOCS

19th Jun 2014, 07:01

CM, the point I wished to make (and I stress that it is my own) is that Sprey's mantra of what made a good fighter back in his day is/was valid but it doesn't wholly apply today in the modern arena and, most importantly, for the future. From where I sit, technology advances have changed the game considerably since Gulf War 1; superior SA (combat ID, EW) missile range & lethality and Electronic Attack to name but a few. In the linked piece Sprey uses a number of old-world-of-fighters (no radar, eye-watering manoeuvrability) arguments which I consider invalid to apply directly to the F-35 in the way he has in the video.

LO, many of the points to counter Sprey's arguments are contained in the link I attached - I linked it because, regardless of whether you believe them to be kiddies, devoid of good sense or silly old f**ts, many of the points raised on Sprey's views are valid. Entirely valid, and I say that as a fast jet aviator with 20 years experience flying combat aircraft.

NITRO104

19th Jun 2014, 07:52

Entirely valid, and I say that as a fast jet aviator with 20 years experience flying combat aircraft.
Can you give a brief version of what would those valid points be, to avoid reading the entire thread?

Willard Whyte

19th Jun 2014, 08:26

Hard to imagine BVR engagements being authorised - certainly by the UK at least - unless during 'all-out war'.

ORAC

19th Jun 2014, 11:03

AW&ST: 5th-To-4th Gen Fighter Comms Competition Eyed In Fiscal 2015 (http://aviationweek.com/defense/5th-4th-gen-fighter-comms-competition-eyed-fiscal-2015)

The U.S. Air Force is planning to request proposals from industry to finally provide needed communications connectivity between fifth- and fourth-generation fighters.

The service has long projected a need for so-called "5th to 4th" capability. This need is made even more urgent as the timeline for fielding the stealthy, fifth-generation F-35 has stretched out due to technical challenges in development and funding limitations at Air Force headquarters. And the service acquired far fewer stealthy F-22s from Lockheed Martin than originally planned, making the ability to connect each one to larger networks critical for campaign planning in future operations. Though called "5th to 4th," a major long-term issue is how to allow for the F-22 and F-35 to communicate without using Link 16 alone, which would compromise their stealthy operations............

The service has proposed a program, the Multi-Domain Adaptable Processing System (MAPS), to address this need with what will likely be a pod to act as a gateway between the two stealthy fighters. It is likely this will be placed on fourth-generation fighters such as the F-16 and F-15 families, thus putting a reliance on the involvement in these older systems to support communications requirements.

The operational concept would be for the stealthy fighters to penetrate behind the "bubble," or threat zone, of air defenses, and communicate with one another by transmitting data through the MAPS system. Though it enhances the communications among combat air forces, this operational concept is dependent upon the availability not only of the stealthy platforms to penetrate forward in a fight, but also on the presence of a fourth-generation fighter orbiting within range to support communications; this will likely add cost to execute certain campaign plans........... :hmm::hmm:

Courtney Mil

19th Jun 2014, 21:05

MSOCS,

I see where you're coming from. I would also say that the laws of physics haven't changed, despite airborne technology, and the Rules of Engagement don't get any less restrictive. But, most importantly, I think what the guy is saying, goes back to the stuff that others have discussed here: the value of stealth, the true 360 signature, the effectiveness of DASS vs cockpit visibility, the compromises in performance required to meet the so called requirements.

I guess the point is that he is saying all the stuff that lots of thinking people are asking about. The responses are, largely, good news broadcasts about how well the latest VL trials went.

I think there are two distinct issues here. One is the cost/delay thing, that prompts lots of posts about the positive reports about programme progress. The other is capability, g restrictions, lack of manoeuvrability (energy as well as turn), etc. this guy has just talked about the the issues that have been pushed to the rear on this thread.

He understands fighter/bomber capabilities as well or better than any of us. I'm sure there are plenty here that would be happy to discredit him. They are welcome try, but this is the guy that helped design one of the most successful a/c of this era.

A man with no clue? You tell me.

Sorry to go on, but the interview covered a lot of ground.

Just concerns...

ORAC

19th Jun 2014, 21:38

http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/VnV1m10N8iIBoPjsiLxA_A--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTE4NztweW9mZj0wO3E9NzU7dz02MDA-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ucomics.com/dt140619.gif

oldmansquipper

19th Jun 2014, 22:29

Cant be ars*d to check if this has been on this forum before...If it has I apologise. Corporate hype, yes... but some nice pics and (IMHO) quite an achievement to get an ejectee out with that lift fan door open.

...but then I could be considered biased! ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUZ6SMmTKns&feature=youtu.be&sf3368855=1

SpazSinbad

20th Jun 2014, 02:16

High Performance Airfield Pavements (HPAP) Dec 2013 NAVFAC NavAir Facilities Command
"...Economics of the Technology: ROI or Payback
The ROI for a single JSF high temperature concrete VL pad was calculated to be 8.15. Expanding value to the ten vertical landing pads that have already been built increases the ROI to 49.96. These numbers take into account the extra initial investment to build and maintain the pads for 30 years compared to having to constantly replace the pads if conventional concrete is used. The ROI for the ASR [Alkali-Silica Reactivity] part of the project is 36 based on the extension of an airfield pavement life from 12 years to more than 60 years....

...Site Implementation and Specific Applications
Thus far a total of ten high temperature VL pads have been built at Eglin AFB, Duke Field, MCAS Yuma, and MCAS Beaufort with another being planned at MCAS Iwakuni. Simulated carrier decks have been built at Duke Field and MCAS Yuma with another being planned at MCAS Beaufort. ASR mitigation techniques are being implemented on all Navy concrete jobs.

As of now the concrete mixes have performed well under laboratory testing. A limited number of vertical landings have occurred on some of the high temperature concrete VL pads and there still has not been damage caused by the JSF...."
https://www.navfac.navy.mil/content/dam/navfac/Specialty Centers/Engineering and Expeditionary Warfare Center/PDFs/ci_tech_data_sheets/TDS-NAVFAC-EXWC-CI-1402.pdf (83Kb)

Cows getting bigger

20th Jun 2014, 05:34

I guess the answer is hidden in a couple of hundred pages of posts, but can some quickly explain why a fan with a few barn doors is a better solution than a Pegasus (as per Harrier) as far as vertical thrust is concerned? To a non- engineer, the latter seems to be a far smarter solution.

Engines

20th Jun 2014, 06:34

CGB,

Perhaps I can help.

A key issue with STOVL aircraft is combining an effective vertical lift system with a militarily effective up and away airframe. There are plenty of examples of the former being achieved at the expense of the latter, and also the 't'other way round.

The Pegasus concept is brilliant and effective. It's one of the only two STOVL concepts to get into service so far (Harrier and V-22). But it has drawbacks. The main one is that it forces the engine to be located at the centre of mass of the aircraft, which, if you have requirement to go supersonic, isn't a great location. In fact, for any fighter/bomber, it's not optimal. The Boeing X-32 illustrated the drawbacks.

Second, the Pegasus concept leads to a very fat engine, which again makes going supersonic a lot harder.

Finally, the Pegasus idea seems to 'top out' at around 25,000 to 28,000 pounds thrust. JSF needed more than that. UK and the US spent years trying to get Plenum Chamber Burning (PCB) to work and eventually had to give it up.

The F-35 shaft driven lift fan concept concept requires a lot of doors and isn't as simple as the Pegasus. But it's delivered a viable supersonic seagoing STOVL fighter bomber with internal weapons bays and reduced signature. Which was the requirement. It also allowed a reasonably common airframe layout to be used to address a number of other requirements, which was what the US DoD decided to go for in the early 90s.

If you'd like to learn more, do a Google on 'Bevilaqua', and you'll find some good videos of Paul Bevilaqua explaining the physics behind the idea.

Hopefully, JF will tell me if I've gone wrong in this brief explanation

Hope this helps

Engines

LowObservable

20th Jun 2014, 08:06

Going supersonic is, as Engines says, one of the problems of a four-poster Pegasus layout. PCB (afterburning on the front nozzles) was proposed in the early 1960s for the P1154, but was needed for vertical landing - which was probably a non-starter because of hot gas ingestion.

The shaft-driven fan was a great idea in theory but has fallen down a bit on execution and weight control. Maybe lift-plus-lift/cruise would have worked out better, but it is hard to say.

Fundamentally, stealth+STOVL+supersonic is incredibly difficult: STOVL+supersonic, or stealth+supersonic, are tough enough as it is.

Unfortunately, the decision to attempt that solution - further complicated by CV and CTOL versions - was based on very optimistic assessments of performance (driven by weight) and cost (development, production and operation).

The OEW of the F-35B is one-third higher than was hoped for at the start of the program (1996), and we all know about the costs. If that had been known, I don't think the program would have started.

ORAC

20th Jun 2014, 08:47

The Pegasus concept is brilliant and effective. It's one of the only two STOVL concepts to get into service so far (Harrier and V-22). Very provincial.....

Yak-38 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-38)

PDXonrsMMR8

Engines

20th Jun 2014, 08:55

ORAC,

Good catch and my bad. I should have said, 'one of the only two STOVL concepts to go into service and be operationally effective'.

My apologies.

Yak-38 could certainly do STOVLs, VLs, VTOs et al, but its operational payload was extremely limited as was its avionics suite. As far as I remember, it was withdrawn from service after only a few years. It also showed the issues a lift plus lift/cruise layout has to cope with, in particular the hot gases from a lift engine just aft of the intakes. The solution the Russians used was to extend the intakes a long way forward - works, but there is a serious weight penalty.

That's not to say that this concept can't work - but like all powered lift aircraft, the trade offs are complex and the concepts carry quite a lot of risk late into development and test. Sometimes into service.

Hope this helps and thanks for pointing out my omission,

Engines

Hempy

20th Jun 2014, 11:54

'Jump jets' aside. Can someone please tell me (forgive my addled brain..) what advantage the F-35 has in all regimes over the 'adversaries'?

I've been looking at wing area,

F-35A: 460 ft² (42.7 m²) mtow: 70,000 lb

F-22: 840 ft² (78.04 m²) mtow : 83,500 lb
PAK FA: 848.1 ft² (78.8 m²) mtow: 77,160 lb
J-20: 790 ft² (73 m²) mtow: 80,001 lb

and I'm wondering what the outcome would be if the 'see first shoot first' strategy failed at first attempt?

I'm not being cynical, just curious. With that wing area, how the F35 is going to be maneuverable enough to be anything more than a bvr aam/gbu delivery system is beyond me.

John Farley

20th Jun 2014, 14:51

CGB

Engines has as usual covered your query well.

If I could mention one more issue - dunno if you have come across the term Propulsive Efficiency? Essentially the lower the velocity of any propulsive air stream the less will be the losses of that system and so the greater the efficiency.

The Pegasus uses an exhaust velocity that is high compared to that produced by a typical propeller which is itself high compared to a large heli rotor.

So to utilise a given amount of horsepower in the form of a pure jet in order to give you thrust will be less good than using that same horsepower to drive a fan (as in the B).

The X32 used Harrier principles of pure jet thrust but managed to hover a weight some 8000lb less than the X35 using a fan and the same basic engine. This was just down to the propulsive efficiency effect.

Of course in the case of the B the greater propulsive efficiency is only achieved at the expense of much complexity and potential unreliability, cost and weight . However it was still judged by our betters to be the solution of choice.

I am afraid I am not a big fan of the B for the USMC because I think a spec that calls for supersonics and stealth in the CAS role is wrong , especially if you throw in austere sites. But that is a whole different topic.

I completely agree that should a customer insist on having a supersonic vertical lander then the B has the best configuration to achieve this that we know of today. If the guys currently working on anti-gravity paint get a breakthough then that may of course change.

glad rag

20th Jun 2014, 16:44

The correct answer is that "they" will never see it [coming].

Now if you believe the hype......:}

NITRO104

20th Jun 2014, 17:21

Gen.Hostage dispelled that hype in his last interview (http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen-mike-hostage-on-the-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/)...
Both F-22s and F-35s will be spotted at range by low frequency radar.

glad rag

21st Jun 2014, 17:59

SpazSinbad

23rd Jun 2014, 20:14

BREAKING: Fire Breaks Out on F-35 at Eglin Air Force Base, Pilot Safe
23 Jun 2014 Dave Majumdar and Sam LaGrone
"This is a breaking news event. This post will be updated with additional information as it becomes available.

A Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was severely damaged — possibly destroyed — in a Monday morning fire on the runway at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., USNI News learned.

No injuries were reported and officials have begun an investigation into the incident, defense officials told USNI News on Monday.

“The aircraft was preparing to conduct a continuation training mission at the time of the incident, but aborted during takeoff at Eglin Air Force Base due to a fire in the back end of the aircraft,” according to a Monday statement provided to USNI News from the Air Force.

“Emergency responders extinguished the fire with foam.”

The aircraft was a F-35A — the Air Force variant of the fighter — assigned to the 33rd “Nomads.”...

...This is the first incident this severe for the JSF during the life of the tri-service program...."
http://news.usni.org/2014/06/23/breaking-f...base-pilot-safe (http://news.usni.org/2014/06/23/breaking-fire-breaks-f-35-eglin-air-force-base-pilot-safe)

rh200

23rd Jun 2014, 23:45

And not forgetting..Chinese Air Chief Tells Lockheed ?I Love? The F-35 « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary (http://breakingdefense.com/2014/05/chinese-air-chief-tells-lockheed-i-love-the-f-35/)

Actually I just wondered if they just want to give the Chinese a license to manufacture, we can then just by the cheap Chinese models:E Presuming the Chinese honey pots did a complete job of course in getting the plans.:p.

On a serious note.

Has anyone done any sort of statistics on historical fighter R&D and roll outs, accidents, cost overruns, time over runs. Would be a good comparison. As long as its done on a relative term. Its all well and good to pull headlines out of newspapers to support a positive or negative viewpoint, but that can be misleading.

dat581

24th Jun 2014, 05:40

Just to add a question leading from the post above, have any F-35s been lost as yet? I'm pretty sure no FSD aircraft were lost and will do a google check when I get the chance. Thinking back to other fighters over the last forty or so years I think only the F-15 and F-22 lost no FSD aircraft. One YF-22 was lost though.

WhiteOvies

24th Jun 2014, 05:46

Dat - no there haven't been. Just saving you a Google ;-)

Hempy

24th Jun 2014, 05:48

Has anyone done any sort of statistics on historical fighter R&D and roll outs, accidents, cost overruns, time over runs. Would be a good comparison. As long as its done on a relative term.

To be fair I don't think it would be possible 'relatively'. The multi-role, multi-service demands on this contract would make it impossible to compare it with any other programs. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't fare well regardless though...

CoffmanStarter

24th Jun 2014, 19:22

Update on Post #4661 above ...

WASHINGTON — The fire that broke out on an F-35A model Monday will not ground the fleet or alter plans to bring the Joint Strike Fighter to the UK, service officials said today.

More here ...

DefenseNews F-35 Fire Update (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140624/DEFREG02/306240030/USAF-F-35-Fire-Will-Not-Ground-Fleet)

Heathrow Harry

24th Jun 2014, 21:22

To be fair there are a large number of US studies on how things go wrong on major programs (but very few UK ones :(:()

The bigger the program the more likely it will get out of control - the F-35 is just one of the worst in long series of awful events

Lonewolf_50

24th Jun 2014, 21:35

HH, theres considerable truth in that post of yours.

The F-18A is a benchmark in taking the "all things to all people" idea to a curious conclusion, what with the "high/low" mix originally envisioned between it and the Tomcat. When the F-18E/F became the final follow on, no small criticism was levied in it keeping the same basic Type/Model/Series designation given the magnitude of the upgrade.

Osprey is of course legendary in that regard (much covered on the Rotorhead forums), as is that "littoral combat ship" thing.

F-111 may have set the trend in the gross flaws in the "joint, one size fits all" acquisition theory, though over time it turned into a very useful platform.

I won't go into the Seawolf and other programs by our submerged friends, nor DIVAD etc that our Army brothers went for.

rh200

25th Jun 2014, 00:33

To be fair there are a large number of US studies on how things go wrong on major programs (but very few UK ones :(:()

Yea I mentioned that sort of thing in regards to major industrial projects and there over runs. Functionally from a project management theory side of things It would have some sort of root cause.

The F-18A is a benchmark in taking the "all things to all people" idea to a curious conclusion, what with the "high/low" mix originally envisioned between it and the Tomcat. When the F-18E/F became the final follow on, no small criticism was levied in it keeping the same basic Type/Model/Series designation given the magnitude of the upgrade.

Osprey is of course legendary in that regard (much covered on the Rotorhead forums), as is that "littoral combat ship" thing.

I think this all touches on a well known problem, that we keep forgetting, or just choose to ignore. You could probably map your project with some risk variables. Things such as technology change gradient, or some other related various issues. These could all then result in the probability of a balls up.

In short trying to do huge jumps in capability, or technology in a single step is a bad thing. Trying to do to many things with one item dito. We know this from various previous examples, the space shuttle is a classic.

ORAC

25th Jun 2014, 03:36

A-12 Avenger II Program (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_A-12_Avenger_II)

Heathrow Harry

25th Jun 2014, 11:46

Bill Gunston has a chapter in his Jet Bombers book on the A-12

he points out that if they'd agreed to accept only 80% of the lunatic capabilities they wrote in the spec they'd have had quite a useful aeroplane

and it's not just recent aircraft - the Avro Manchester, the Swift, the original F-102/106.................. and lets not forget the Valkyrie

glad rag

25th Jun 2014, 16:44

I wonder if it was an electrical fire?:hmm:

sandiego89

25th Jun 2014, 17:00

I think only the F-15 and F-22 lost no FSD aircraft

I think the F/A-18 E/F went through devopment and fleet use before a loss. I'll leave it to others to debate whether the E/F is a "new" design. I say it essentially is.

SpazSinbad

25th Jun 2014, 22:57

MORE or less on the F-35A fire here:

Marine, Air Force JSF Flights Stalled; AETC Puts F-35A Under Lock, Key « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary (http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/marines-air-force-f-35-flights-stalled-fire-pause-lengthens/)
___________________

F-35B Stand-down Not Yet Affecting Air Show Timeline 25 Jun 2014 Amy Butler | AWIN First
"All U.S. Marine Corps F-35B operations remain dormant since a fire broke out in an F-35A preparing for takeoff this week, but this is not expected – at least for now – to affect the timing of the aircraft’s debut in the U.K. next month....

...Plans to transit four F-35Bs over the Atlantic Ocean for their international debut at the Royal International Air Tattoo and Farnborough International Air Show next month have not been changed, he [Capt. Rich Ulsh, a service spokesman] said. The first flight window for the single-engine, stealthy F-35s to cross is June 29. The four F-35Bs are expected to depart from NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, and fly directly with the help of two KC-10s to RAF Fairford, England.

What could be affected are internal timelines for the four aircraft to meet at Patuxent River in advance of the departure...."
http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35b-stand-down-not-yet-affecting-air-show-timeline

Heathrow Harry

26th Jun 2014, 09:56

"
Quote:
Originally Posted by rh200 http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-234.html#post8534636)
Has anyone done any sort of statistics on historical fighter R&D and roll outs, accidents, cost overruns, time over runs. Would be a good comparison. As long as its done on a relative term.

To be fair I don't think it would be possible 'relatively'. The multi-role, multi-service demands on this contract would make it impossible to compare it with any other programs. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't fare well regardless though..."

Try "The Cutting Edge" by Lorell & Levaux published by RAND in 1998

has data on 223 programs and 300+ aircraft versions

NutLoose

26th Jun 2014, 23:33

Handles well :p

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150113735642761

Rosevidney1

27th Jun 2014, 20:48

Not fair to criticise the Avro Manchester, Harry. It was a capable machine that would have fared much better had Rolls Royce been able to divert more effort on the Vulture engines. They were unable to as the RAF instructed the firm to concentrate most of its effort on the Merlin and the rest to the Griffon. The Vulture ended production prematurely ( although the quick increase in span and 4 of the Merlins created the sublime Lancaster). The Westland Whirlwind suffered by having no support for the Peregrine engines and consequently only 2 squadrons of them were formed. War is hell!

Heathrow Harry

28th Jun 2014, 08:18

unfortunately when rating the effectiveness of an aircraft you have to look at the whole package - the Manchester was a dog because of its engines - nothing wrong with the airframe - but still a dangerous dog to fly

Rhino power

28th Jun 2014, 09:52

There seem to be conflicting reports as to wether or not the F-35 is currently grounded due to the recent fire in an F-35A, can anyone clarify if all versions are grounded, or just the F-35A? Or are flights now continuing again?

-RP

ORAC

28th Jun 2014, 12:23

Rhino, As and Cs grounded, confusion over the Bs. See AW&ST

F-35Bs Flying But A, C Ops On Hold (http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35bs-flying-c-ops-hold)

Three U.S. Marine Corps F-35Bs have taken off from Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Arizona, en route to NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, ahead of their planned Atlantic Ocean crossing to the United Kingdom. Four F-35Bs are expected to be in country by the week of July 7 for flying displays at the Royal International Air Tattoo and Farnborough air show next month.

"The Marine Corps will resume F-35B flight operations today. We are continuing with our plans to deploy to the U.K. next month," said Capt. Rich Ulsh, a Marine Corps spokesman.

This signals at least a partial resumption of flight for the F-35 fleet; 95 F-35s have been down for a "safety pause" after the aft end of an F-35A, AF-27, erupted into fire on the runway at Eglin AFB, Florida, prior to takeoff June 23. The pilot safely egressed, and investigators are trying to find the root cause. F-35As operated by the Air Force and Cs operated by the Navy have not yet been cleared to fly, according to spokeswomen at the respective services.

Ulsh declined to say whether the resumption of flight operations signaled that the B was exonerated from concerns related to the fire. But the earlier stand down was conducted in the interest of flight safety. It is unclear whether the flight operations approved for the F-35B are exclusive only to the aircraft transiting to Patuxent River.

The first flight window for the Atlantic crossing is slated to be June 29. However, technically, the F-35Bs do not have to be in the United Kingdom until the week of July 7 when pilots must conduct their verification flights ahead of the show displays.

Davef68

28th Jun 2014, 14:36

Has been rumours that the MOD wanted one in country by the 4th, to do a flypast at the naming of Queen Elizabeth.

I noticed a plastic one is on deck when i drove past yesterday.

Rhino power

28th Jun 2014, 14:43

Thanks for the link, ORAC.

-RP

LowObservable

29th Jun 2014, 15:11

So, let's sum the situation up here.

The plan is to do a transatlantic drag with four single-engine jets, each with a fuel fraction equivalent to an F-16 or Typhoon with no external tanks, and higher wing and span loadings (indicative of cruise efficiency) than either. Hence the northern route and around 10 tankings per aircraft.

The aircraft has very seldom landed anywhere except Fort Worth, the flight-test and training centers and its main operating bases.

There have been two engine-related flight standdowns in the past month.

Given that there will be hordes of senior international air force officers at RIAT and that the U.K. may plan to announce its first large order at Farnborough, there's no pressure on anyone at all.

Heathrow Harry

29th Jun 2014, 16:59

Would they fit in an AN-225?

Much cheaper and easier.................

LowObservable

29th Jun 2014, 18:19

32klb empty... The B-52H was designed to lift >25klb on each side (two Skybolts and pylon) so maybe that would be the way to go. No GRB-36Js in flying condition, sadly.

BEagle

29th Jun 2014, 19:39

LowObservable wrote: Hence the northern route and around 10 tankings per aircraft.

Direct from Pax River to Fairford, routing up the Eastern seaboard to Bangor and thence across the Pond from DOTTY no further north than 57N is over 3000 nm, so around 7 hours flight time with a tanker.

My wet finger guess is that each F-35B (assuming they have 6300 kg / 133885 lb max fuel) would require a minimum of 6 refuelling brackets, with average wind conditions....

ORAC

29th Jun 2014, 20:38

SNAFU.......

Marine, Air Force JSF Flights Stalled; AETC Puts F-35A Under Lock, Key (http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/marines-air-force-f-35-flights-stalled-fire-pause-lengthens/?utm_source=Breaking+Defense&utm_campaign=3fe13d9702-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4368933672-3fe13d9702-407875481)

WASHINGTON: The F-35A struck by fire as it took off from Eglin Air Force Base has been secured and is under armed guard in a secure hanger and the Air Force and Marines are not flying their versions of the Joint Strike Fighter program until they know more about the fire’s causes.

“We will resume flying once we know more about the cause of the F-35A fire that occurred at Eglin AFB earlier this week,” Capt. Richard Ulsh, a spokesman for Marine aviation, said in an email.

The 33rd Fighter Wing, responsible for F-35 training at Eglin Air Force Base, said Wednesday morning that its “commander has decided to continue the temporarily (sic) suspension of F-35A flights at Eglin in the interest of safety as we continue to investigate the cause of the mishap.” First Lt. Hope Cronin said in an email to reporters that “We have no further information regarding the nature or extent of the damage” yet.

The fire-damaged plane, under the control of Air Education and Training Command, has been secured as if it were a production aircraft and this was a problem unlikely to affect the rest of the F-35 fleet. This is the first time all the commands and services have grappled with a potentially serious flight incident and it seems pretty clear from what I’ve heard that no one is sure what the protocols are for a plane that is both in the test phase and in low rate production — call it the curse of concurrency. The difficulty is that AETC’s conduct — which appears to be exactly by the book and is designed to ensure that no one else can influence the investigation — means that neither the other services nor the Joint Program Office know much about what has happened to the aircraft.

Compounding this is the fact the Frank Kendall, head of Pentagon acquisition and the one man who could untie this knot with a single memo, is on vacation. Meanwhile, the JPO and the Air Force’s 33rd Fighter Wing, the Marines and the Navy know almost nothing about what happened to the aircraft. It sounds as if someone at Kendall’s office of acquisition, technology and logistics (ATL) may need to ensure that data, photos and other information from the aircraft is shared by AETC so that if there is a systemic issue that may affect the fleet everyone can know it as quickly possible.

Readers who may be wondering why you haven’t seen the word grounded should know that grounding has a specific meaning for the military and these aircraft have not been grounded — yet. Grounded means the plane won’t fly until further notice or the specific conditions that led to the plane being banned from flight is found and fixed. So far they’re expecting to get the planes back in the sky as soon as they have some idea as to the fire’s cause.

A congressional aide who follows the program said today that Hill staffers had received little new information from the services or the Joint Program Office about the plane’s condition. The assumption is that a problem with the F135 engine, made by Pratt & Whitney, caused the fire (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/27/lockheed-fighter-engine-idUSL2N0P818G20140627). And the engine’s core is the likeliest place for such a problem.

The program does not yet have an initial damage assessment. My understanding is detailed photos of the aircraft have not yet been received by the authorities.

Authorities are choosing subject matter experts to staff the Safety Investigation (SIB) and Accident Investigation boards (AIB) to identify the accident’s causes and any measures need to protect the fleet and its pilots.

The SIB should convene “within days” and is expected to produce an assessment within 30 days.The AIB, said a program official, will begin “its investigation as soon as it can do so without interfering in the SIB investigation.” It should be done in 60 to 90 days. Unless there are classified or personnel issues most of the reports should be released.

WhiteOvies

30th Jun 2014, 06:03

A few points:

The breaking Defence article shows B's and C's at Pax River in 2011 rather than A's at Eglin. Am I being picky in wondering why they can't get the right aircraft and if the picture is representative of the rest of the article?

LO - to say the jet seldom lands anywhere but Fort Worth is plainly BS given the number of aircraft based at Eglin, Pax River, Nellis, Hill, Edwards and Yuma. I agree however that I am sure there is significant pressure on the program to get the aircraft to the UK.

The A and C have a different back end to the F-135 (obviously) so maybe that's a factor in what is flying and what isn't? I have no actual knowledge of the event but I'm sure it's being looked into appropriately.

LowObservable

30th Jun 2014, 07:09

WO -

The aircraft has very seldom landed anywhere except Fort Worth, the flight-test and training centers and its main operating bases.

I wasn't trying to say that it had only operated at FW.

Lordflasheart

30th Jun 2014, 08:52

According to AW&ST 23rd June, the four B'ees will be accompanied by two KC-10s and are "expected to refuel around 10-12 times each during their crossing." I assume this (perhaps rather large) number of tankings reflects a prudent requirement to top-off regularly to ensure they will always be within some kind of diversion range.

The party "will be joined by a C-17 and at least one Marine Corps KC-130J in support." I assume the KC-130Js will inter alia provide tactical tanking and airborne security detail during the UK flying.

LFH

dat581

30th Jun 2014, 09:07

I wonder if there will be any warships that just happen to have large enough decks in strategic spots in the Atlantic.

500N

30th Jun 2014, 09:11

Lord,

What do you mean by

"and airborne security detail during the UK flying."

Lordflasheart

30th Jun 2014, 09:37

500N

I imagine that if one had to drop in somewhere off-schedule, one might want some chaps to be able to drop in quick, to be able to look after it properly.

LFH

Skymong

30th Jun 2014, 09:47

BEagle....

10-12 tankings according to the Brit pilot in Aviationweek......

Priming JSFs For Transatlantic Trip | Farnborough 2014 content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/farnborough-2014/priming-jsfs-transatlantic-trip?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20140630_AW-05_327&YM_RID=%27email%27&YM_MID=%27mmid%27&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1)

500N

30th Jun 2014, 09:53

Lord,

Thanks, I should have thought of that.

LowObservable

30th Jun 2014, 12:40

On reflection: I think the operation is likely to go off as planned.

What we won't know for a long time, if ever, is to what extent this was the result of luck or planning. I'd have thought that before you did something like this, it would be good to perform (literally) a dry run over a Pax-Eglin-Fort Worth circuit, and I am not sure this has been done.

sandiego89

30th Jun 2014, 15:38

Looks like the "B" is flying and the 4 jets were at Pax River as of friday evening ready for the flight over the pond. Link below points to a "A" specific problem. Seems the A shed a few engine parts in the recent fire.

Agree there is a lot of pressure to get this deployment and display in the UK done properly. Imagine a whole host of engineers and spare parts on hand in that C-17.

Hope the show goes well! I've had the pleasure of seeing the B fly, and the sound on take off is most impresssive! Pretty normal sound when slow- can't hear the lift fan over the jet.

LO the "B's" have flown to and from Yuma a few times, and just did an over 8 hour flight to get ready for the UK deployment. So yes this is pushing the envelope, but they have dome some long cross countries.

UPDATE 3-U.S. Marines resume F-35B flights; F-35A engine parts found after fire | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/27/lockheed-martin-fighter-marines-idUSL2N0P819E20140627)

SpazSinbad

30th Jun 2014, 15:55

According to the mentioned article above:

Priming JSFs For Transatlantic Trip | Farnborough 2014 content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/farnborough-2014/priming-jsfs-transatlantic-trip?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20140630_AW-05_327)

The Brit pilot is not quoted as saying:
"...The F-35s are expected to refuel around 10-12 times each during their crossing, flying direct from NAS Patuxent River, Maryland to Fairford..."
that is a reporter (of three) claim.

Meanwhile there is a claim by a reporter that:
"...Until June 4, the longest flight in an F-35B was just 5.8 hr., so Marine Corps pilots from Yuma, Arizona, carried out a series of endurance sorties up to 8.5 hr. long in preparation for the overwater flight...."

cokecan

30th Jun 2014, 18:31

is there any chance that this abortion of a journey, requiring 45 refuellings to get 4 tactical fighters across the Atlantic, will spur on the development of external tanks for the F-35?

SpazSinbad

30th Jun 2014, 18:47

There are claims that external tanks will gain less than 10% extra mileage on top of what is there already. You should chide the Israelis as they have claimed to be intending to develop some form of external/conformal tanks for their F-35i variant. Have not seen anything about this though for a few years - I guess they like to keep things under wraps.

500N

30th Jun 2014, 18:52

Spaz

I suppose they might need them to get to Iran ;)

PhilipG

30th Jun 2014, 19:54

What would be better for the environment, tanking 4 F35s support from a C17 and a C130 etc or sending them over on the USS Wasp? At least if the Wasp was anchored somewhere there would be fewer complaints about the noise.....

Courtney Mil

30th Jun 2014, 21:48

“This won’t be a Typhoon display, we are showing the unique aspects of the airplane, but it is not going to be doing 50 Alphas [angle of attack maneuvers] and [pulling] 9gs, because we don’t have that flight clearance,” Nichols says.

“We are not going to do a vertical landing, because the surfaces that we need to have on the deck to conduct such a landing do not exist at Fairford or at Farnborough. Hovering is possible, however, so the role demo will include some maneuvers that show off the potential of the aircraft, along with some high-speed passes.”

Something to look forward to! Hopefully for most, it will just be enough to see the F-35. What "unique aspects" that the Harrier couldn't do?

Barn Doors

30th Jun 2014, 21:57

Perhaps a 600kt pass and a hover in the same display? Clutching at straws to answer your question CM.

Rhino power

30th Jun 2014, 22:10

I've said it before but, if it's the same 'demo' that was performed at MCAS Yuma a couple of months back, it's as dull as ditch water! Still, I imagine the majority will just be glad to see what the GOV/MOD is spunking away £billions on... :hmm:

-RP

Lordflasheart

1st Jul 2014, 20:01

Flypast for the naming ceremony 4th July for HMS Queen Elizabeth ?
A very fitting alternative.

British F-35B Not Yet Ready for Crossing | Farnborough 2014 content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/farnborough-2014/british-f-35b-not-yet-ready-transatlantic-crossing)

I remember when whatever MoD was called then, announced an order for 100 Sea Vixens for £20 million - Super-Priority Production it was called.

LFH

LowObservable

1st Jul 2014, 20:13

Maybe they can convince the audience that the radical-looking twin-boom jet overhead is the latest secret British stealth fighter.

Courtney Mil

1st Jul 2014, 21:05

This was always going to be either a great PR victory or, if even the slightest thing went wrong, a disaster. No middle ground here. It would not be good if the UK jet doesn't make it. I would guess they're pulling out all the stops.

One point about the article. How can it be a "historic" crossing if it hasn't happened yet?

500N

1st Jul 2014, 21:19

Would they not have been better off not saying anything and just saying
4 x F-35's would make the crossing and leave it at that and then if the British one made it, even better ?

No raised expectations and better PR if it came off.

LowObservable

1st Jul 2014, 22:45

Or forward-deploy a painting team to Fairford...

500N

1st Jul 2014, 22:47

An even better idea !

RAFEngO74to09

1st Jul 2014, 23:14

So the HMS QE naming ceremony will have a flypast from this nice old machine:

http://www.simplyplanes.co.uk/images/pages_images/naval_aircraft/sea_vixen/main_page_photo/sea_vixen_main_page_photo.jpg

Of course, one of these would have been even better !

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v281/headdancer/F-4K_filtered_zpscdef64e6.jpg

Back to the Future !

Willard Whyte

2nd Jul 2014, 00:58

Won't need to see the '35 display.

I'll hear it from home. 111.57 miles away.

lmgaylard

2nd Jul 2014, 05:31

The USMC F-35 pilot who flew on Monday at Yeovilton seemed to think they would make it over this week.

Courtney Mil

2nd Jul 2014, 08:15

I wonder what William Hills are offering.

CoffmanStarter

2nd Jul 2014, 08:29

Something to look forward to! Hopefully for most, it will just be enough to see the F-35. What "unique aspects" that the Harrier couldn't do?

There's me looking forward to an energetic QRA takeoff ... rotating at the end of the runway and departing vertical on a full AB plume ... levelling off at FL Nose Bleed ... then returning for a few very Fast Passes with plenty of G in the horizontal turns ... followed by some nice Inverted Flight down the runway CL. Forget car alarms ... I was hoping for plenty of local structural damage ... greenhouses getting airborne and enough noise to clear the earwax out of the anti-mil-low-flying NIMBY community.

So looking a bit disappointing then :(

You have to give "Godders" a thought though ... It must be difficult to be our F-35 Desk Officer and please everyone when undertaking a milestone event like this.

Courtney Mil

2nd Jul 2014, 09:56

To be honest, Coff, I'm just hoping they make it here and actually fly. It would be a disaster for Hugh if he didn't make it.

iansmith

2nd Jul 2014, 11:13

Maybe we will get a fly-off between the F-35 and the AV8-B :)

SpazSinbad

2nd Jul 2014, 21:43

Exclusive: U.S., UK officials prepare inspection order for all F-35s | Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/07/02/us-lockheed-fighter-inspections-idUKKBN0F72F020140702)

LowObservable

2nd Jul 2014, 23:04

I'm thinking of picking up a case of these and hand-delivering them to the JSFPO up on 12th Street....

http://images.costco.com/image/media/350-260486-847__1.jpg

Courtney Mil

2nd Jul 2014, 23:13

Oh. Thanks for the post, Spaz, but not what we needed to hear. Where are your good news posts when we need them?

rh200

2nd Jul 2014, 23:45

So what where saying is, it looks as if instead of being a fundamental problem with the aircraft, its a engine or component QA problem. Wouldn't be the first time, won't be the last.

LowObservable

3rd Jul 2014, 11:58

It's a bit late in the game to be discovering fundamental problems. (They are there, but known about, and at least don't inhibit flight.) On the other hand, reliability issues are a :mad: and it can take a long time and a lot of investment to sort them out and bring operating costs under control.

glad rag

3rd Jul 2014, 13:54

To be honest, Coff, I'm just hoping they make it here and actually fly. It would be a disaster for Hugh if he didn't make it.

:\ with it's turning radius I suppose you could probably hear it back in Lot!! :E

Turbine D

3rd Jul 2014, 16:07

rh200 Quote:So what where saying is, it looks as if instead of being a fundamental problem with the aircraft, its a engine or component QA problem. Wouldn't be the first time, won't be the last.
Very true. In fact, it happened on one of the first F-18s on its way to the Farnborough Air Show years ago. A turbine disk (disc) failed in one F404 engine that had been made using a newly developed powder metallurgy process. Contamination that entered the manufacturing process caused defects not detected during normal inspection processes. The problem was solved and both engine and airplane went on to become a success.:ok:

LowObservable

3rd Jul 2014, 16:47

For the record, that was in 9/80, less than two years after the first flight of the F/A-18 and the F404 engine and five years after program start.

SpazSinbad

3rd Jul 2014, 21:09

Engine Fire Delays F-35 Transatlantic Flight AIN Defense Perspective » July 4, 2014 Chris Pocock
"...the stealth jet will not be appearing in the flying display at Farnborough on two of the trade days there—Wednesday and Thursday, July 16 and 17... those days have been allocated for aircraft maintenance, he said...."
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2014-07-03/engine-fire-delays-f-35-transatlantic-flight

Lockheed Martin F-35 Fighter International Debut Preview - AINtv [Good VL WASP Views in Video]
Lockheed Martin F-35 Fighter International Debut Preview - AINtv - YouTube

Courtney Mil

3rd Jul 2014, 21:27

Nice video at that link. Gutted about missing the trade days. Let's hope they make the signing day; I can just imagine the outcry if he has to sign with the jet AWOL. Not that it can stop the signing.

Fox3WheresMyBanana

3rd Jul 2014, 21:33

I'm disappointed LM didn't try "It was there, you just didn't see it. It's that stealthy!"

Courtney Mil

3rd Jul 2014, 21:40

It hasn't happened yet, Fox3!

SpazSinbad

4th Jul 2014, 01:19

F-35 Fleet Grounded: Air Show Flights May Still Happen 03 Jul 2014 Colin Clark
"...UPDATE One decision has finally been made. Late Thursday evening the Office of Secretary of Defense announced that the F-35 fleet was officially grounded. That’s right. Both OSD and the Joint Program Office used the term grounded, meaning the fleet will not fly until further notice and the causes of the fire have been found and ameliorating actions recommended.

“The technical air worthiness authorities of the Department of the Air Force and Department of the Navy have issued a directive to ground the F-35 fleet based on initial findings from the runway fire incident that occurred at Eglin Air Force Base on Monday, June 23. The root cause of the incident remains under investigation. Additional inspections of F-35 engines have been ordered, and return to flight will be determined based on inspection results and analysis of engineering data,” the release says.

The Joint Program Office release says teams searching for a cause of the June 23 fire “have been unable to pinpoint the precise cause of the malfunction.” The head of the F-35 program. Air Force Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan release, said his people ”aim to do what is prudent for the Enterprise at large without compromising the ongoing mishap investigation.” That language about compromising the investigation is a clear sign of the political sensitivities of the investigation. UPDATE ENDS..."
F-35 Fleet Grounded: Air Show Flights May Still Happen « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary (http://breakingdefense.com/2014/07/crunch-time-looms-for-f-35bs-farnborough-or-bust/)

Brian Abraham

4th Jul 2014, 03:06

OK, so who here claims naming copyright?But with the apparent delay for the aircraft setting off from the U.S. East Coast, a handful of enthusiasts have taken to social media looking for any information, and the hashtag #davewatch has been adopted.

Why #davewatch? Well, Dave –- as in short for David -– has become something of an unofficial nickname for the F-35 in the U.K.

It was prompted by a 2006 topic thread on the well-known aviation forum PPRuNe. While there were variety of names suggested, including some that were rather distasteful, the name Dave just seemed to stick, perhaps alluding to the fact that David/Dave is a common name in the U.K. and that the aircraft is likely to be a common sight in the coming years.

U.K. Enthusiasts On F-35 #davewatch | Ares (http://aviationweek.com/blog/uk-enthusiasts-f-35-davewatch?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20140703_AW-05_732&YM_RID=%27email%27&YM_MID=%27mmid%27&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_4)

SpazSinbad

4th Jul 2014, 04:49

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

500N

4th Jul 2014, 04:53

I hope they have ambulances just outside Fairford, some of these dave spotters might hyperventilate when it actually arrives.

kbrockman

4th Jul 2014, 07:18

Likely no UK airshows after all it seems.

DoD Grounds Entire F-35 Fleet; Plane Might Not Make UK Debut | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140703/DEFREG02/307030026/DoD-Grounds-Entire-F-35-Fleet-Plane-Might-Not-Make-UK-Debut?odyssey=nav|head)

ORAC

4th Jul 2014, 07:42

DoD Grounds Entire F-35 Fleet; Plane Might Not Make UK Debut (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140703/DEFREG02/307030026/DoD-Grounds-Entire-F-35-Fleet-Plane-Might-Not-Make-UK-Debut)

WASHINGTON — The European debut of the Lockheed Martin F-35 joint strike fighter is now in question after the Pentagon grounded the entire fleet late Thursday based on the initial findings of an investigation into a fire that broke out on one of the jets last month. The US Defense Department says it is still making preparations to send the jet to the Farnborough International Airshow and Royal International Air Tattoo in the UK, but would not make a final decision until “early next week.”.........

“The root cause of the incident remains under investigation,” DoD said in emailed statement late Thursday. “Additional inspections of F-35 engines have been ordered, and return to flight will be determined based on inspection results and analysis of engineering data,” the statement reads. “Defense Department leadership supports this prudent approach.”

“We are working closely with the Air Force Safety Investigation Board to determine root cause and to inspect all engines in the fleet,” Pratt & Whitney spokesman Matthew Bates said in a company statement. “Safety is our top priority. Since the incident is the subject of an investigation it is inappropriate to comment further.”

A spokesman for Lockheed was not immediately available for comment.

glad rag

4th Jul 2014, 09:01

An awfully big ocean to navigate with a questionable donk[ey].....

LowObservable

4th Jul 2014, 12:52

There is a reasonable chance that, when this story is aired out, there will have been some frank and direct internal discussion leading up to last night's decision, which has been made above the levels of the JSFPO and the Commandant of the Corps.

It would seem now that the finding of a root cause, followed by the approval of an RTF procedure and any inspection/remediation, will have to precede any flight operations. The UK deployment is not impossible but grows increasingly less likely by the hour.

Flight safety > PR!

John Farley

4th Jul 2014, 14:05

It would seem now that the finding of a root cause, followed by the approval of an RTF procedure and any inspection/remediation, will have to precede any flight operations

Good. The aircraft is still in its development stage. Development programmes cannot be expected to swallow a fixed date event in any reliable way. Throw in a demanding set of sorties and a complex deployment and you really are pushing your engineering luck.

The incident that caused this current grounding is pure gold from an engineering and development point of view and will improve the eventual quality of the breed because all the evidence of what went wrong is sitting safely on the ground at a home base. Imagine if the same thing had happened en route to the UK and the aircraft had been lost at sea. Now what do you do?

Funnily enough I was involved with a rather similar exercise back in 1980. MacAir was developing the AV-8B to have twice the payload radius of the AV-8A. The only aircraft at that time was a single YAV-8B (an ex USMC A model now fitted with the big wing with large flaps and better intake as proposed for the B). MacAir wanted to ferry the aircraft to the UK then show at Farnborough how much better this aircraft was compared to the Harrier. Well I ask you how on earth could one do that? (all the normal Harrier VSTOL manoeuvres would look just the same to both the trade and the public).

However, despite my protestations, three weeks before Farnborough I found myself at Whiteman AFB with the Y model trying to work up a convincing display. I did have an idea that showed promise but whenever I tried to work on it the aircraft developed snag after snag. It was a one off airframe with related spares issues and I became convinced it would let us down in the UK. Of course nobody wanted to scrub the exercise.

Taxying out for yet another rehearsal attempt on 16 Aug the nose suddenly dropped as the nose oleo collapsed. Fortunately there was not another leg available in time so the aircraft and I had our way.

LowObservable

4th Jul 2014, 14:46

Good points, John....

Taxying out for yet another rehearsal attempt on 16 Aug the nose suddenly dropped as the nose oleo collapsed.

Honestly guv, I had no idea about that pothole :E.

melmothtw

4th Jul 2014, 14:53

Interesting points John, and you obviously know more about it than most. I think with the F-35 though the question has to be when does it cease to be a developmental aircraft and when can we expect it to stop going t#ts-up like this all the time?

After all, the JPO already claims to have stood up the first USMC operational squadron in 2012!

USMC stands-up first operational F-35B squadron; operational testing in 2015 - 11/21/2012 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usmc-stands-up-first-operational-f-35b-squadron-operational-testing-in-379271/)

and IOC for the marines is only a matter of months away.

500N

4th Jul 2014, 14:59

The grounding has hit the newspapers here in Aus big time with questions because we were supposed to take delivery of the first two within "a few weeks".

PhilipG

4th Jul 2014, 16:21

How long before someone in the US Congress suggests that the alternative General Electric & Rolls Royce F136 engine project is re funded?

John Farley

4th Jul 2014, 16:46

Melmothtw

the question has to be when does it cease to be a developmental aircraft

In my view the answer to that will depend on the job of the person giving the answer and also what guidance (personal pressures) they are under from their boss. Plus don't forget any answer may be taken out of context by the reporter - who could well have their own agenda.

Personaly I see this as a six decade programme that started for real say in 2000.

The first decade sees the start of flying.

The second decade covers most of the original development and flying machine clearances.

The third decade sees the military really getting to grips with what they can and cannot do with it. Plus the manufacturer is testing significant upgrades.

The forth decade it is the aircraft/system to beat plus upgrades are starting to reach the fleet.

The fifth decade ditto and all the fleet will have reached the final standard.

The sixth is where serious plans for its replacement have started.

Because of these views I am afraid I cannot get excited about which aircraft are doing wot this month. Although I realise a lot of people will not share my approach!

BTW if I were to guess about the fourth decade I would see the USAF A models having their tanks behind the cockpit removed and the space used for a generator to feed an enegy weapon using the now very well proven B power off take used for the fan.

Hey ho.