F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: London
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
7 Things the Marines Have to Do to Make F-35B Worth the Huge Cost
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
7 Things The Marines Have To Do To Make The F-35B Worth The Huge Cost
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,579
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
‘GREEN KNIGHTS’ The F-35B in service with VMFA-121
‘GREEN KNIGHTS’ The F-35B in service with VMFA-121 May 2014 Gary Wetzel www.combataircraft.net
Combat Aircraft Monthly May 2014 Vol 15, No 5
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...."
...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...."
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,579
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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?
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?
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,579
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
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
AUTO STO 450 feet & VL in Simulator - 60 Mins TV
Is the F-35 worth it? - CBS News
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.......
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.......
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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
I'm gathering its starting to be standard practice and the multinationals figure it in their project costs.