F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two things:-
One. Nice to see the adaptive paint in operation.
Two. Not so nicely FOD'ded puntero on the steps in that second picture, how much do these cabs come in at again?
Nice to see they are re-inventing the wheel : How many Harriers survived a FOD'ded engine compared to, say, a type with a second unFOD'ed engine?
For those who should know better....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_object_damage
Best wished to those who pick up the pieces...
One. Nice to see the adaptive paint in operation.
Two. Not so nicely FOD'ded puntero on the steps in that second picture, how much do these cabs come in at again?
Nice to see they are re-inventing the wheel : How many Harriers survived a FOD'ded engine compared to, say, a type with a second unFOD'ed engine?
For those who should know better....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_object_damage
Best wished to those who pick up the pieces...
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Nothing major, and only half a pound, but every time the weight goes up.
Heard a story, not sure if it's true, that the Tornado F3s long series of FI extension programmes terminated when the test airframe "spontaneously disassembled" in the rig. Which kinda set a fixed limit on the service life.
Crack Discovered on F-35C Test Plane Wing Spar
WASHINGTON — Inspectors found a small crack in one of the wing spars of an F-35C carrier variant test plane, according to the Joint Program Office. The discovery does not impact current F-35 flying operations, and will not affect the Navy’s ability to meet its planned initial operating capability date in August 2018, JPO spokesman Joe DellaVedova told Defense News Monday.
The test plane is being used in what’s called “durability ground testing,” a normal test program in which testers apply cyclic loads to the airframe to simulate operational flying and identify any potential problems. Such discoveries are expected during a developmental test program, DellaVedova stressed. “The purpose of durability testing is to intentionally stress the aircraft to its structural limits so we can identify any issues and corrective actions needed to fix them,” he said.
This type of testing will ensure the F-35’s requirement for 8,000 flight hours, DellaVedova noted. During durability tests, the plane is tested to two lifetimes, or 16,000 flight hours, he explained. The test plane with the crack had more than 13,700 test hours, which equates to 6,850 flight hours — or more than 20 years of operational flying, DellaVedova emphasized.
The government and industry teams are working to find an engineering solution, he noted. One potential fix includes a modification of approximately a half pound to the aircraft. The fix will be incorporated to the rest of the fleet.
The plane has 13 wing “spars,” which are the main structural members of the wing.
Heard a story, not sure if it's true, that the Tornado F3s long series of FI extension programmes terminated when the test airframe "spontaneously disassembled" in the rig. Which kinda set a fixed limit on the service life.
Crack Discovered on F-35C Test Plane Wing Spar
WASHINGTON — Inspectors found a small crack in one of the wing spars of an F-35C carrier variant test plane, according to the Joint Program Office. The discovery does not impact current F-35 flying operations, and will not affect the Navy’s ability to meet its planned initial operating capability date in August 2018, JPO spokesman Joe DellaVedova told Defense News Monday.
The test plane is being used in what’s called “durability ground testing,” a normal test program in which testers apply cyclic loads to the airframe to simulate operational flying and identify any potential problems. Such discoveries are expected during a developmental test program, DellaVedova stressed. “The purpose of durability testing is to intentionally stress the aircraft to its structural limits so we can identify any issues and corrective actions needed to fix them,” he said.
This type of testing will ensure the F-35’s requirement for 8,000 flight hours, DellaVedova noted. During durability tests, the plane is tested to two lifetimes, or 16,000 flight hours, he explained. The test plane with the crack had more than 13,700 test hours, which equates to 6,850 flight hours — or more than 20 years of operational flying, DellaVedova emphasized.
The government and industry teams are working to find an engineering solution, he noted. One potential fix includes a modification of approximately a half pound to the aircraft. The fix will be incorporated to the rest of the fleet.
The plane has 13 wing “spars,” which are the main structural members of the wing.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F35 B Bulkhead Cracks
I recall that a number of cracks have in the past been found on F35B bulkheads. These cracks appeared in ground-based testing at beyond the first 8,000 hours of use.
It was stated that all F35Bs would have to be strengthened and an improved design for bulkhead 496 would have to be developed.
Does anyone know if these/this new bulkhead(s) have been engineered and how much did this add to the weight?
It was stated that all F35Bs would have to be strengthened and an improved design for bulkhead 496 would have to be developed.
Does anyone know if these/this new bulkhead(s) have been engineered and how much did this add to the weight?
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uh, oh - USAF exploring new F-15 / F-16 / F/A-18(!) buy:
"LONDON — The U.S. Air Force may solicit bids for 72 new Boeing F-15s, Lockheed Martin F-16s or even Boeing F/A-18E/Fs as budget issues put planned production rates for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter out of reach, according to senior service and industry officials at the Defense IQ International Fighter Conference here."
US Air Force Considers New Boeing F-15s or Lockheed Martin F-16s | Defense content from Aviation Week
"LONDON — The U.S. Air Force may solicit bids for 72 new Boeing F-15s, Lockheed Martin F-16s or even Boeing F/A-18E/Fs as budget issues put planned production rates for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter out of reach, according to senior service and industry officials at the Defense IQ International Fighter Conference here."
US Air Force Considers New Boeing F-15s or Lockheed Martin F-16s | Defense content from Aviation Week
The F-35B, The Naval Services, and Modern American Seapower
The F-35 program has been justifiably maligned, in the press, on Capitol Hill, and in the think-tank community. It has taken forever to field, it is expensive, and it has had its technical challenges. Its Air Force variant—the F-35A, has been criticized as not being up to the job currently carried out by the A-10, and its Navy version—the F-35C—has been criticized for not adequately addressing the most pressing issue of Navy power projection, the reduction in striking range of the carrier air wing. Yet hidden among these programs is the F-35B, the VSTOL variant built for the Marine Corps, which will deploy from U.S. Navy amphibious assault ships of the LHD and LHA classes. It replaces the AV-8B Harrier, and even the harshest critics of the F-35 program have a hard time not acknowledging the significant performance upgrades it brings to the Marine Air Wing, as it brings both considerably more range and ordnance carrying capacity. Yet if these performance increases were all the F-35B fielded, there would be little to support the argument for increased integration. What drives it, and what offers the truly revolutionary opportunity for closer integration, is its radar and electronic warfare system, the APG-81 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar system. This radar is capable of air-to air operations, air to surface operations, and a wide range of mostly classified electronic warfare and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions. Simply put, if this airplane is—as was the case for the AV-8B’s—primarily reserved for the support of Marines ashore—it will be represent a colossal lost opportunity to dramatically increase the reach and effectiveness of modern American Seapower.
From the decks of eleven Navy amphibious assault ships, the Marine Corps will operate fifth generation fighters nearly as capable as those that will operate from (eventually) eleven Navy aircraft carriers (range is the main deficit, as the VSTOL F-35B must “bring its runway with it”). And while some suggest that this fact means the distinctions between amphibious assault ships and aircraft carriers is blurring, the fact that the amphibious assault ships cannot accommodate a long duration airborne early warning capability and are dramatically less capable of independent operations (fuel and ordnance storage being the primary culprits) limits the utility of this view. Rather than focusing on the “how can the LHD replace the CVN” question, planners should be considering how to more closely integrate the operations of these platforms so that the highly capable aircraft on the amphibious assault ships are used as weapons in the broader maritime fight, rather than simply as expensive close air support. And here—as Hamlet would say—is the rub.
The F-35 program has been justifiably maligned, in the press, on Capitol Hill, and in the think-tank community. It has taken forever to field, it is expensive, and it has had its technical challenges. Its Air Force variant—the F-35A, has been criticized as not being up to the job currently carried out by the A-10, and its Navy version—the F-35C—has been criticized for not adequately addressing the most pressing issue of Navy power projection, the reduction in striking range of the carrier air wing. Yet hidden among these programs is the F-35B, the VSTOL variant built for the Marine Corps, which will deploy from U.S. Navy amphibious assault ships of the LHD and LHA classes. It replaces the AV-8B Harrier, and even the harshest critics of the F-35 program have a hard time not acknowledging the significant performance upgrades it brings to the Marine Air Wing, as it brings both considerably more range and ordnance carrying capacity. Yet if these performance increases were all the F-35B fielded, there would be little to support the argument for increased integration. What drives it, and what offers the truly revolutionary opportunity for closer integration, is its radar and electronic warfare system, the APG-81 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar system. This radar is capable of air-to air operations, air to surface operations, and a wide range of mostly classified electronic warfare and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions. Simply put, if this airplane is—as was the case for the AV-8B’s—primarily reserved for the support of Marines ashore—it will be represent a colossal lost opportunity to dramatically increase the reach and effectiveness of modern American Seapower.
From the decks of eleven Navy amphibious assault ships, the Marine Corps will operate fifth generation fighters nearly as capable as those that will operate from (eventually) eleven Navy aircraft carriers (range is the main deficit, as the VSTOL F-35B must “bring its runway with it”). And while some suggest that this fact means the distinctions between amphibious assault ships and aircraft carriers is blurring, the fact that the amphibious assault ships cannot accommodate a long duration airborne early warning capability and are dramatically less capable of independent operations (fuel and ordnance storage being the primary culprits) limits the utility of this view. Rather than focusing on the “how can the LHD replace the CVN” question, planners should be considering how to more closely integrate the operations of these platforms so that the highly capable aircraft on the amphibious assault ships are used as weapons in the broader maritime fight, rather than simply as expensive close air support. And here—as Hamlet would say—is the rub.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 20th Nov 2015 at 17:40.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bla, bla, bla.
How many AMRAAM's can the F35B carry and retain that so expensive stealth capability to enable fleet defence outside, say, a surface huggers launch window AND have fuel to return?
How many AMRAAM's can the F35B carry and retain that so expensive stealth capability to enable fleet defence outside, say, a surface huggers launch window AND have fuel to return?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spotted this on another forum, a Norwegian pilot's impression of flying the F-35. Written in Norwegian with the English translation further down the page.
I found his very specific comment about being a paid shill of LM or sticking to the 'official story', because of his positive comments about engine power, rather curious?
Another interesting comment is about a continuous 'weak high-frequency tremor' during flight which steadily increases as he begins 'maneuvering the aircraft more aggressively'...
Å fly F-35 ? erfaringer fra den første uka (Flying the F-35 ? English translation below) |
-RP
I found his very specific comment about being a paid shill of LM or sticking to the 'official story', because of his positive comments about engine power, rather curious?
Another interesting comment is about a continuous 'weak high-frequency tremor' during flight which steadily increases as he begins 'maneuvering the aircraft more aggressively'...
Å fly F-35 ? erfaringer fra den første uka (Flying the F-35 ? English translation below) |
-RP
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think he was just quantifying that the internet bloggers are wrong. The people who fly it says it has very good subsonic acceleration. It is ~= to the f-22 subsonic.
The tremor/buffet is a problem AISI. It may take some hours off the frame life, that the ground testing may not show. Are they working on fixing it?
The tremor/buffet is a problem AISI. It may take some hours off the frame life, that the ground testing may not show. Are they working on fixing it?
Aside from portraying the buffeting as a positive (I can't say I've ever heard anyone else talk like that about any airplane) the piece performs a nifty switcheroo between the actual issue - that, contrary to gigabytes of advertising out of LockMart and its useful idiots, the F-35 is inferior to almost anything in BFM - and talking about acceleration in level flight at low speeds, in one case with far less than full internal fuel ("with more fuel on board than the F-16 can carry").
Obviously, whoever was interviewing the pilot or editing the piece assumed correctly that said switcheroo would be trumpeted by halfwits as the final answer to the BFM story.
Obviously, whoever was interviewing the pilot or editing the piece assumed correctly that said switcheroo would be trumpeted by halfwits as the final answer to the BFM story.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wouldn't most people wait until they finish the flight control software. Listen to what the pilots are saying, before making a claim about the BFM. Or they could be called halfwits.
"Overall, flying the F-35 reminds me a bit of flying the F/A-18 Hornet, but with an important difference: It has been fitted with a turbo."
"Overall, flying the F-35 reminds me a bit of flying the F/A-18 Hornet, but with an important difference: It has been fitted with a turbo."
Last edited by a1bill; 21st Nov 2015 at 08:21.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the 'tremor/buffet' issue, since he flew the A, is the problem (likely to be) the same for the B and C as well? Is the fix, assuming one is is being worked on, likely to be FCS related or an aerodynamic 'bodge', has anything else been mentioned about this?
-RP
-RP
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turbo's are fitted to production vehicles today to squeeze the maximum performance from small emission limited engines.
This can lead to lifeing issues, but as these usually occur out of warranty it's good business for the manufacturers.
[sometimes they use even smaller engines both turbo and supercharged-they don't any more as they failed within warranty and were soon dropped]
Anyway, the turbo analogy; perhaps not the best for those of us who can think.
This can lead to lifeing issues, but as these usually occur out of warranty it's good business for the manufacturers.
[sometimes they use even smaller engines both turbo and supercharged-they don't any more as they failed within warranty and were soon dropped]
Anyway, the turbo analogy; perhaps not the best for those of us who can think.