JSF and A400M at risk?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
AW&ST (Ares): VIDEO: F-35C Carrier Variant First Flight
After a last-minute hitch with a wiring issue, the first F-35C carrier variant, aircraft CF-1, made its first flight from Fort Worth on June 6. At the controls for the 57min flight was Lockheed Martin test pilot Jeff Knowles.
Two more F-35C test aircraft are to fly this year, with a fourth to fly in 2012. The first three aircraft are scheduled to be delivered to the US Navy's NAS Patuxent River, Md., test center by year-end. The fourth F-35C was added as part of the JSF development program restructuring earlier this year.
The F-35C has a different, bulkier look compared to the two other versions. And it is the heaviest of the three variants, with a bigger wing, horizontal stabiliser and rudders to reduce approach speed for carrier landings. The wing folds, and gear is much beefier.
After a last-minute hitch with a wiring issue, the first F-35C carrier variant, aircraft CF-1, made its first flight from Fort Worth on June 6. At the controls for the 57min flight was Lockheed Martin test pilot Jeff Knowles.
Two more F-35C test aircraft are to fly this year, with a fourth to fly in 2012. The first three aircraft are scheduled to be delivered to the US Navy's NAS Patuxent River, Md., test center by year-end. The fourth F-35C was added as part of the JSF development program restructuring earlier this year.
The F-35C has a different, bulkier look compared to the two other versions. And it is the heaviest of the three variants, with a bigger wing, horizontal stabiliser and rudders to reduce approach speed for carrier landings. The wing folds, and gear is much beefier.
Grizz does the biz!
Meanwhile, over on the other side of the pond, the A400M is putting on a very impressive display at ILA Berlin:
YouTube Player
More information at ILA: VIDEO & PICTURES- A400M to showcase performance range, as flight testing passes 250h mark
(Did you spot the Me-262 replica?).
YouTube Player
More information at ILA: VIDEO & PICTURES- A400M to showcase performance range, as flight testing passes 250h mark
(Did you spot the Me-262 replica?).
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can a truckie explain to me the necessity for such manoeuvrability in A400M? Does it actually need it to come up to specification/ KUR and is there a cheaper or more readily available alternative?
Genuine question. I am assuming that the manoeuvrability is to be used in tesseral type manoeuvres, but surely other platfroms can manage those? Or could you just buy a better DAS?
Genuine question. I am assuming that the manoeuvrability is to be used in tesseral type manoeuvres, but surely other platfroms can manage those? Or could you just buy a better DAS?
Later on, the aircraft will be flown past at 260kt, 40kt below its maximum, before its crew responds to a simulated terrain collision advisory warning. This will see it pulled up by around 40°, and after gaining height rolled out at a bank angle of up to 120°. Previously demonstrated during stall testing, this is 30° greater than the contractually required limit for the transport as set in its seven-nation launch order for 180 aircraft.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by orca
Can a truckie explain to me the necessity for such manoeuvrability in A400M? Does it actually need it to come up to specification/ KUR and is there a cheaper or more readily available alternative?
To generate excitement, so as to increase public support and generate sales.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The World
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus Protection
I very much hope that the manoeuvrability being demonstrated in Berlin will NOT encourage less skilful pilots in the respective Air Forces
I have to admit that I don't care about the manoeuvrability of the aircraft - both C130 and C17 are capable of being manoeuvred outside the sensible limits of operation for an AT aircraft. What I really really wanted was the aircraft to be delivered ON TIME, NOT 4 YEARS LATE.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A controversial design change to the Joint Strike Fighter made by the F-35 Joint Program Office, intended to reduce weight and save money, will render the $382 billion centerpiece of the U.S. military's tactical aviation fleet vulnerable to a "leading cause of combat aircraft loss" -- catastrophic engine damage caused by light anti-aircraft artillery, according to the Pentagon's top weapons tester.
New details about decisions to trim 11 pounds and $1.4 million from each aircraft by removing shutoff valves for engine coolant and hydraulic lines and five of six dry bay fire-suppression systems are spelled out in a set of previously unreported communications to Congress from a senior Marine Corps general and the Defense Department's chief weapons tester.
Lt. Gen. George Trautman, deputy commandant for aviation, and Michael Gilmore, director of operational test and evaluation (DOT&E), last month provided answers to written questions about the JSF design change posed by Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS), chairman of the House Armed Services seapower and expeditionary forces subcommittee, following a March 24 hearing. “JSF live-fire ballistic testing has demonstrated that the JSF is vulnerable to threat-induced fires,” wrote Gilmore, who first raised concerns about these design changes in DOT&E's fiscal year 2009 annual report to Congress, delivered in January.
“DOT&E continues to recommend that these features be reinstated and does not view their removal as prudent,” the Defense Department's chief weapons tester wrote last month. “Historical combat data indicate that threat-induced fire is a leading cause (25 percent) of combat aircraft loss.”
New details about decisions to trim 11 pounds and $1.4 million from each aircraft by removing shutoff valves for engine coolant and hydraulic lines and five of six dry bay fire-suppression systems are spelled out in a set of previously unreported communications to Congress from a senior Marine Corps general and the Defense Department's chief weapons tester.
Lt. Gen. George Trautman, deputy commandant for aviation, and Michael Gilmore, director of operational test and evaluation (DOT&E), last month provided answers to written questions about the JSF design change posed by Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS), chairman of the House Armed Services seapower and expeditionary forces subcommittee, following a March 24 hearing. “JSF live-fire ballistic testing has demonstrated that the JSF is vulnerable to threat-induced fires,” wrote Gilmore, who first raised concerns about these design changes in DOT&E's fiscal year 2009 annual report to Congress, delivered in January.
“DOT&E continues to recommend that these features be reinstated and does not view their removal as prudent,” the Defense Department's chief weapons tester wrote last month. “Historical combat data indicate that threat-induced fire is a leading cause (25 percent) of combat aircraft loss.”
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@hello1
1) The A400's protections are similar to those on civil Airbuses, which are said to have ensured that the A320 so carelessly "demonstrated" at Habsheim at least crashed into the trees in a manner which saved most of the occupants' lives. But they couldn't prevent the accident itself. which was caused by an overconfident pilot making several basic airmanship errors (to say the least).
2) I'm sure that all of Airbus would have preferred not to have the delay in delivery of the A400M (see Yahoo report above), but after the trials and tribulations, the aircraft itself seems in good fettle.
3) Manoeuvres demonstrated at ILA Berlin (and coming soon to the RIAS Tattoo and Farnborought) are surely the sort of thing that the A400, in a tactical role, will be expected to perform ...
4) How long do you expect the RAF will have to wait beyond the JSF's "due date" ?
2) I'm sure that all of Airbus would have preferred not to have the delay in delivery of the A400M (see Yahoo report above), but after the trials and tribulations, the aircraft itself seems in good fettle.
3) Manoeuvres demonstrated at ILA Berlin (and coming soon to the RIAS Tattoo and Farnborought) are surely the sort of thing that the A400, in a tactical role, will be expected to perform ...
4) How long do you expect the RAF will have to wait beyond the JSF's "due date" ?
New details about decisions to trim 11 pounds and $1.4 million from each aircraft by removing shutoff valves for engine coolant and hydraulic lines and five of six dry bay fire-suppression systems are spelled out in a set of previously unreported communications to Congress from a senior Marine Corps general and the Defense Department's chief weapons tester.
What are the exterior noise levels like? I have head second-hand that it is very noisy.
It may not have been a design priority for current military use, but could it become an issue over the 20-30 year expected lifecycle of the aircraft?
It may not have been a design priority for current military use, but could it become an issue over the 20-30 year expected lifecycle of the aircraft?
F-35 or Grizz, Trim Stab?
As far as I'm aware, the A400M isn't particularly noisy. Rumours about the F-35B's noise levels have been proven to be.....utter bolleaux.
As far as I'm aware, the A400M isn't particularly noisy. Rumours about the F-35B's noise levels have been proven to be.....utter bolleaux.
Tuc:
Er...wouldn't it be non-compliant with the US Regs also? Anyway, given that the RAF has issued RTS's to such non compliant aircraft previously I see no reason why the F-35 should be any different in that respect, I mean what's changed? Oh, the MAA! Ah, of course, independent of and yet part of the MOD! That'll be all right then won't it...won't it?
If accurate, this will be an interesting test of the new Military Aviation Authority's resolve, as they will surely red card the design as non-compliant with our regs
F-35 or Grizz, Trim Stab?
As far as I'm aware, the A400M isn't particularly noisy. Rumours about the F-35B's noise levels have been proven to be.....utter bolleaux.
As far as I'm aware, the A400M isn't particularly noisy. Rumours about the F-35B's noise levels have been proven to be.....utter bolleaux.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Europe
Age: 55
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A400M noise
TS, Equivocator:
That's right, the 400M is markedly quieter than e.g. the Transall. A bit more noisy maybe than the A380. The sound itself is kind funny, all chaotic and out-of-tune when idle on ground, but in flight it's just a loud buzz. A very big, dark bumble bee!
(Or should that be the Airbus Tumbledore entry for the "name the A400M" thread?)
That's right, the 400M is markedly quieter than e.g. the Transall. A bit more noisy maybe than the A380. The sound itself is kind funny, all chaotic and out-of-tune when idle on ground, but in flight it's just a loud buzz. A very big, dark bumble bee!
(Or should that be the Airbus Tumbledore entry for the "name the A400M" thread?)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Show-boating or ???
Agreed, Equivocator, that 120° AOB + 40° nose-up is a bit OTT, though highly "cool", but Mr. Strongman did say it was a "demo terrain avoidance manoeuvre" (and also that his display would be "a bit different" from a standard Airbus flypast).
It's also notably quieter (subjectively) than the C-130s I see from time to time wending their way towards the Med at fairly low level.
After 15 great years with Airbus (nearly as much as my RAF time and as long as I've been retired), I'm very glad indeed to see that the "old spirit" is still around !
Look out for it at RIAT and Farnborough and judge for yourselves eh ?
It's also notably quieter (subjectively) than the C-130s I see from time to time wending their way towards the Med at fairly low level.
After 15 great years with Airbus (nearly as much as my RAF time and as long as I've been retired), I'm very glad indeed to see that the "old spirit" is still around !
Look out for it at RIAT and Farnborough and judge for yourselves eh ?
Last edited by Jig Peter; 11th Jun 2010 at 13:50. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Note - plural ...
Neat shot by Yannick Delamarre of two A400Ms over Toulouse on www.flightglobal.com today (blogs) - after ILA "grandstanding" (what's wrong with standing grand ?), perhaps there'll be a synchro pair at RIAT/Farnborough ???
On a more serious note, in these days of possible cuts, even after customers' agreements NOT to drop more than 10 from the agreed total, exposure to public admiration (as in Berlin) can only help to secure this badly-needed aircraft's future.
(Yes I do know the "Back Story", but the A400M is at last a "go-er", and showing (some) of its potential in the best possible way).
Note also that Lockheed is reported to have said recently that a combined A400M/C-130J fleet could make sense.
On a more serious note, in these days of possible cuts, even after customers' agreements NOT to drop more than 10 from the agreed total, exposure to public admiration (as in Berlin) can only help to secure this badly-needed aircraft's future.
(Yes I do know the "Back Story", but the A400M is at last a "go-er", and showing (some) of its potential in the best possible way).
Note also that Lockheed is reported to have said recently that a combined A400M/C-130J fleet could make sense.
Last edited by Jig Peter; 18th Jun 2010 at 14:15. Reason: Add further comment
