F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,581
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
1st Slow Landing External Stores F-35B + Photo
F-35 Flight Test Update 10 By Eric Hehs Posted 11 May 2013 [Eric Hehs is the editor of Code One.]
Code One Magazine: F-35 Flight Test Update 10
"...23 March 2013: BAE test pilot Peter Wilson performed the first slow landing in an F-35B with external stores. The flight— BF-1 loaded with a centerline gun pod and six wing pylons, including two pylons loaded with AIM-9X missiles —occurred at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland...."
BIG PHOTO: (just before touchdown?) Photo by Andy Wolfe
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/image...28237_8310.jpg
Click Thumbnail (for cropped version):
Code One Magazine: F-35 Flight Test Update 10
"...23 March 2013: BAE test pilot Peter Wilson performed the first slow landing in an F-35B with external stores. The flight— BF-1 loaded with a centerline gun pod and six wing pylons, including two pylons loaded with AIM-9X missiles —occurred at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland...."
BIG PHOTO: (just before touchdown?) Photo by Andy Wolfe
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/image...28237_8310.jpg
Click Thumbnail (for cropped version):
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,581
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
F-35C 'A-4 like' New Hook Shape about to catch wire?
From ELP PDF F-35 Korean Brief mentioned below.... F-35C 'A-4 like' New Hook Shape about to catch wire? Youse be the judge.
F-16.net (2Mb PDF) [usual 'blagspat' hoohaa substitution required]
OR
http://elpdefensenews.********.com.a...-spin-for.html
Click thumbnail:
F-16.net (2Mb PDF) [usual 'blagspat' hoohaa substitution required]
OR
http://elpdefensenews.********.com.a...-spin-for.html
Click thumbnail:
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 12th May 2013 at 07:42. Reason: Add PDF URLs
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So after millions of bucks they have "almost but not quite" copied an older design??
I guess you can only reinvent the wheel so many times...
I guess you can only reinvent the wheel so many times...
Last edited by glad rag; 12th May 2013 at 09:56.
Spaz,
I think your graphic may have come from the PR machine, SLD. Nothing wrong with that as long as we understand the caveats. But I don't think the representation of 600 hours of flight time is ready yet to demonstrate the required 8,000 hrs requirement without return to depot or manufacturer. A long way to go yet.
Scratches an damaged seals happen a lot on all airframes - these are the common, minor injuries that must be maintainable at first line. Larger impact injuries (say, hail stones, debris kicked up from the deck, cable breaks or even lesser battle damage) that get deeper into the structure MAY be a different matter and that's what I was interested in discussing. If such damage were to be repairable on board, in structural terms, my interest is whether those repairs would also be able to maintain the overall RCS.
As an aside, the business of repairing, for example, bird strike damage involves significantly different challenges for all composite structures, not just those belonging to the F-35. The need to maintain the LO qualities simply add an additional dimension.
Again, though, what is impressive is the aircraft's tollerance of minor damage and routine wear and tear. It certainly makes for a very tough surface.
Incidentally, it looks more like it's just missed the wire than about to engage it. But it's only one frame, I'll grant you.
I think your graphic may have come from the PR machine, SLD. Nothing wrong with that as long as we understand the caveats. But I don't think the representation of 600 hours of flight time is ready yet to demonstrate the required 8,000 hrs requirement without return to depot or manufacturer. A long way to go yet.
Scratches an damaged seals happen a lot on all airframes - these are the common, minor injuries that must be maintainable at first line. Larger impact injuries (say, hail stones, debris kicked up from the deck, cable breaks or even lesser battle damage) that get deeper into the structure MAY be a different matter and that's what I was interested in discussing. If such damage were to be repairable on board, in structural terms, my interest is whether those repairs would also be able to maintain the overall RCS.
As an aside, the business of repairing, for example, bird strike damage involves significantly different challenges for all composite structures, not just those belonging to the F-35. The need to maintain the LO qualities simply add an additional dimension.
Again, though, what is impressive is the aircraft's tollerance of minor damage and routine wear and tear. It certainly makes for a very tough surface.
Incidentally, it looks more like it's just missed the wire than about to engage it. But it's only one frame, I'll grant you.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 12th May 2013 at 09:48.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,581
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Stealth Damage Graphic PDF URL
'Courntney Mil' said: "I think your graphic may have come from the PR machine, SLD..."
My apologies - URL for the PDF omitted inadvertantly in the earlier post.
navyleague2008PDF.pdf (3.2Mb) Created by (ELP) Eric Palmer 18 Jan 2012 FREE download
LINK for the PDF - whence came graphic: http://www.box.com/shared/3uo7o5qt25e2x6ylc294
My apologies - URL for the PDF omitted inadvertantly in the earlier post.
navyleague2008PDF.pdf (3.2Mb) Created by (ELP) Eric Palmer 18 Jan 2012 FREE download
LINK for the PDF - whence came graphic: http://www.box.com/shared/3uo7o5qt25e2x6ylc294
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 12th May 2013 at 18:02. Reason: Postal Apology
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,581
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Potential Future F-35C Test Environment VX-23 Pax River
This wonderful weird world awaits the F-35C at some stage (with some earlier rollin tests with redesigned F-35C hook specific info [already posted via another report on this thread AFAIK])....
STRIKE TEST NEWS Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 23 Newsletter 2012 Issue
http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/in...ownload&id=670 (2Mb PDF)
[F-35C] MISSION SYSTEMS AIRCRAFT (page 24)
"...CF-3 [F-35C] returned to Patuxent River after completing final finishes in Fort Worth in early March [2012] and continues to perform F-35C mission systems testing, as well as ship suitability events.... ...A tailhook dynamics evaluation was conducted while performing cable roll-overs and roll-in arrestments at NAS Patuxent River and NAES Lakehurst. A new hook point design was validated at speeds up to 100 knots, trapping on each attempt...."
SHAKE, RATTLE, AND ROLL TESTING (page 20) LT Matthew "Brasso" Davin
VX-23 Ship Suitability performs Shake, Rattle, and Roll (SRR) loads testing on aircraft, systems, and ordnance to ensure that items under test are able to withstand the high demands of shipboard flight operations. A standard "shake" includes both catapult and arresting gear tests at our unique shore based test facility. On the catapult, we build up to the maximum longitudinal acceleration and maximum off center launch bar engagement. Arrested landing tests are more challenging, and require much more difficult flying techniques.
At the arresting gear test site a shake typically begins with buildup to a high sink landing. Using a MK-8 Fresnel Lens Optical Landing System (FLOLS), the glideslope is gradually increased from 3.5 degrees up to 5.5 degrees or beyond, until greater than 20 feet per second (1200 fpm!) is obtained on touchdown. A "free flight" arrestment is performed such that the hook picks up the wire before the main gear hit the deck, requiring a very shallow and precise approach. A "roll/yaw" test point is performed with greater than 5 degrees wing down and up to full opposite rudder pedal on touchdown. Maximum deceleration test points are achieved by targeting a specific ground speed, which depending on wind requires pilots to fly a non-standard angle of attack anywhere between 6 and 12 degrees. Finally, off-center test points require the pilot to target an 18 ft off-center engagement, hopefully without exceeding 20 ft off-center and downing the arresting gear...."
STRIKE TEST NEWS Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 23 Newsletter 2012 Issue
http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/in...ownload&id=670 (2Mb PDF)
[F-35C] MISSION SYSTEMS AIRCRAFT (page 24)
"...CF-3 [F-35C] returned to Patuxent River after completing final finishes in Fort Worth in early March [2012] and continues to perform F-35C mission systems testing, as well as ship suitability events.... ...A tailhook dynamics evaluation was conducted while performing cable roll-overs and roll-in arrestments at NAS Patuxent River and NAES Lakehurst. A new hook point design was validated at speeds up to 100 knots, trapping on each attempt...."
SHAKE, RATTLE, AND ROLL TESTING (page 20) LT Matthew "Brasso" Davin
VX-23 Ship Suitability performs Shake, Rattle, and Roll (SRR) loads testing on aircraft, systems, and ordnance to ensure that items under test are able to withstand the high demands of shipboard flight operations. A standard "shake" includes both catapult and arresting gear tests at our unique shore based test facility. On the catapult, we build up to the maximum longitudinal acceleration and maximum off center launch bar engagement. Arrested landing tests are more challenging, and require much more difficult flying techniques.
At the arresting gear test site a shake typically begins with buildup to a high sink landing. Using a MK-8 Fresnel Lens Optical Landing System (FLOLS), the glideslope is gradually increased from 3.5 degrees up to 5.5 degrees or beyond, until greater than 20 feet per second (1200 fpm!) is obtained on touchdown. A "free flight" arrestment is performed such that the hook picks up the wire before the main gear hit the deck, requiring a very shallow and precise approach. A "roll/yaw" test point is performed with greater than 5 degrees wing down and up to full opposite rudder pedal on touchdown. Maximum deceleration test points are achieved by targeting a specific ground speed, which depending on wind requires pilots to fly a non-standard angle of attack anywhere between 6 and 12 degrees. Finally, off-center test points require the pilot to target an 18 ft off-center engagement, hopefully without exceeding 20 ft off-center and downing the arresting gear...."
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 12th May 2013 at 20:03. Reason: Title
CM - Just to be clear: Any stealth surface treatment will have multiple layers and elements.
- conductive base level to avoid trips in the surface current
- surface absorber, possibly gradated, a dielectric absorber usually
- IR absorber, formulated to not **** up the RF characteristics
- Paint
- treatment (often a magnetic RAM) around door and control gaps
- joint sealants for joints that you don't open that much
- edge radar absorbent structure, comprising a radar-transparent skin and a gradated absorber
I have seen a B-2-related graphic showing how you have to remove seven layers of stuff in an inverse pyramid to conduct some Mx operations and then put them back and cure them, one by one. Aaargh!
I believe that the Fibermat built into the F-35 skin is the conductive bit and is separate from the absorber, which is a hard polyurethane, sprayed on by computer to very close tolerances and containing particles of Magic Disappearing Stuff.
The Fibermat may replace a layer that was sprayed on to the F-22 and had metallic content (silver?). Unfortunately, when it got wet it decided that it was a battery.
NB I have never had any kind of clearance so keep your black Omegas to yourself thank you very much
- conductive base level to avoid trips in the surface current
- surface absorber, possibly gradated, a dielectric absorber usually
- IR absorber, formulated to not **** up the RF characteristics
- Paint
- treatment (often a magnetic RAM) around door and control gaps
- joint sealants for joints that you don't open that much
- edge radar absorbent structure, comprising a radar-transparent skin and a gradated absorber
I have seen a B-2-related graphic showing how you have to remove seven layers of stuff in an inverse pyramid to conduct some Mx operations and then put them back and cure them, one by one. Aaargh!
I believe that the Fibermat built into the F-35 skin is the conductive bit and is separate from the absorber, which is a hard polyurethane, sprayed on by computer to very close tolerances and containing particles of Magic Disappearing Stuff.
The Fibermat may replace a layer that was sprayed on to the F-22 and had metallic content (silver?). Unfortunately, when it got wet it decided that it was a battery.
NB I have never had any kind of clearance so keep your black Omegas to yourself thank you very much
Last edited by LowObservable; 12th May 2013 at 20:29.
LO,
For the stealth structure you describe the difficulty in rebuilding those layers as a repair in the field is no simple undertaking, which is part of the point I was trying to raise for discussion, so I thank you. Although any attempt at discussion here seems to prompt a barrage of quotes from the internet rather than an exchange of informed views and opinions.
LM have gone a step further by incorporating the functions of those layers into fewer, structural elements. Their concept being that real stealth is built into the aircraft, not applied to it, or some such. And they are right.
So, my interest here goes deeper. It's no longer an applied surface treatment, it's a part of the airframe structure. So, if damaged you have to do ABDR on it. And you connot simply use the method of "bond or cure" (other terms are available), you now have to know what layer to repair with what material, in layers, as you say. So homogenous patches and epoxy resin don't work anymore, even if you just want to repair the structure without worrying about the LO characteristics.
The aircraft's resitance to, and tolerance of, gouges and damaged seals, etc. is really good. I have yet to see answers to the question of more significant damage. Balistic damage being a particular issue as it's so difficult with composites even to analyse what the damage is.
For the stealth structure you describe the difficulty in rebuilding those layers as a repair in the field is no simple undertaking, which is part of the point I was trying to raise for discussion, so I thank you. Although any attempt at discussion here seems to prompt a barrage of quotes from the internet rather than an exchange of informed views and opinions.
LM have gone a step further by incorporating the functions of those layers into fewer, structural elements. Their concept being that real stealth is built into the aircraft, not applied to it, or some such. And they are right.
So, my interest here goes deeper. It's no longer an applied surface treatment, it's a part of the airframe structure. So, if damaged you have to do ABDR on it. And you connot simply use the method of "bond or cure" (other terms are available), you now have to know what layer to repair with what material, in layers, as you say. So homogenous patches and epoxy resin don't work anymore, even if you just want to repair the structure without worrying about the LO characteristics.
The aircraft's resitance to, and tolerance of, gouges and damaged seals, etc. is really good. I have yet to see answers to the question of more significant damage. Balistic damage being a particular issue as it's so difficult with composites even to analyse what the damage is.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney,
Perhaps I can help here, as I can supply some informed views.
The B-2 repair scheme LO describes is precisely what the F-35 team are moving away from. To be clear, I was never 'read' into LO while on the F-35 team, but I can confirm that the technology they are using to achieve the required level of signature while meeting the required maintenance targets is several years on from F-22 and about 20 years on from B-2, as you'd expect. I do know that they had heavy involvement from USAF, USN and USMC maintainers from the very early days of the programme on signature maintenance. That's not a guarantee that they got it all right, but they sure as hell have worked the issue. Very hard. And with money.
You are absolutely right that ABDR (as opposed to surface repairs) of an LO structure will probably present a real challenge. But, in truth, so would any 'ABDR' of a modern composite jet. In a service period of about 30 years, I saw ABDR grow massively and then fade away as the reality of trying to fix composites in the field dawned. If you have a big hole blown in an F-35, just like a Typhoon, it will be 'change the airframe part' time. If you have a small hole, my guess at the approach (and that's all it is, a guess) would be patch it, assess the signature degradation, and then allocate the aircraft to sorties that don't need the 'full monty' until you can get it back to a depot.
Courtney, you (or I) won't see any answers on details of LO signature maintenance any time soon. Sorry.
Different view of things - that shot of the F-35B slow landing looks great to me - mainly because I had the chance to work with some of the really clever Brits who have made that shot possible.
Best Regards as ever to those actually doing the work
Engines
Perhaps I can help here, as I can supply some informed views.
The B-2 repair scheme LO describes is precisely what the F-35 team are moving away from. To be clear, I was never 'read' into LO while on the F-35 team, but I can confirm that the technology they are using to achieve the required level of signature while meeting the required maintenance targets is several years on from F-22 and about 20 years on from B-2, as you'd expect. I do know that they had heavy involvement from USAF, USN and USMC maintainers from the very early days of the programme on signature maintenance. That's not a guarantee that they got it all right, but they sure as hell have worked the issue. Very hard. And with money.
You are absolutely right that ABDR (as opposed to surface repairs) of an LO structure will probably present a real challenge. But, in truth, so would any 'ABDR' of a modern composite jet. In a service period of about 30 years, I saw ABDR grow massively and then fade away as the reality of trying to fix composites in the field dawned. If you have a big hole blown in an F-35, just like a Typhoon, it will be 'change the airframe part' time. If you have a small hole, my guess at the approach (and that's all it is, a guess) would be patch it, assess the signature degradation, and then allocate the aircraft to sorties that don't need the 'full monty' until you can get it back to a depot.
Courtney, you (or I) won't see any answers on details of LO signature maintenance any time soon. Sorry.
Different view of things - that shot of the F-35B slow landing looks great to me - mainly because I had the chance to work with some of the really clever Brits who have made that shot possible.
Best Regards as ever to those actually doing the work
Engines
Thank you, Engines. You have hit the exact points I was raising. And, yes, we shared the same concerns for composite ABDR with the Harrier and Typhoon. There, of course, we didn't face the additional challenge of maintaining the RCS. And that is my interest here.
As you rightly say, we won't see anything open source about it, but I thought it an interesting idea to to discuss - within the obvious bounds.
As to the landing, I was remarking on the engagement picture, not the B's slow landing.
As you rightly say, we won't see anything open source about it, but I thought it an interesting idea to to discuss - within the obvious bounds.
As to the landing, I was remarking on the engagement picture, not the B's slow landing.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 12th May 2013 at 21:41.
This is a strange thing to post here, but it's a great illustration of what's involved in repairing a very simple composite aircraft structure. Try doing this whilst it's still part of the aircraft, with a much more complex stealth structure, on a ship?
This is why the question interests me..
Depot Repair - YouTube
This is why the question interests me..
Depot Repair - YouTube
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stuffy...a two month old media report of a 6-12 month old report based on 12-18 month old information...and already discussed in length... 
Last edited by FoxtrotAlpha18; 13th May 2013 at 03:43.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the Senate finance committee or whatever they call themselves will have the final say.
Whether Lockheed will continue the project with the Japanese and the Europeans should prove interesting.
Challenging for the UK government if there are no aircraft for the two new carriers.
Whether Lockheed will continue the project with the Japanese and the Europeans should prove interesting.
Challenging for the UK government if there are no aircraft for the two new carriers.
All the unbiased and objective reporting out of SLDInfo concerning a company that they advertise as their "Gold Sponsor"...
WhitePapers | SLDInfo
... would be far more convincing had we not heard exactly the same song and dance number about the F-22, fifteen years ago, including the bit about "effects of defects", the idea of reducing the number of frequent-access panels and systems mature, and stealth MMH/FH in the low single digits.
WhitePapers | SLDInfo
... would be far more convincing had we not heard exactly the same song and dance number about the F-22, fifteen years ago, including the bit about "effects of defects", the idea of reducing the number of frequent-access panels and systems mature, and stealth MMH/FH in the low single digits.